Technology
advances, so should your games
Videogames:
their growth has a positive correlation with the expansion of technology.
Obvious. As computer hardware becomes more advanced, games software becomes
more advanced, harnessing the technology to deliver an entertaining experience.
It works the other way too - as games become more complex, the hardware
has to be advanced to run the game effectively.
An example of this was when Nintendo created the N64 and produced Super
Mario 64 for it - this game could never have been done on the 64's predecessor
(which was the SNES, but you already knew that didn't you?), it was created
utilising the power of the N64. But it could be said that it was only
until hardware of the N64's nature was created that Miyamoto's vision
of Mario could be created in full 3D. It could be said that the N64's
controller was designed with Super Mario 64 as its primary counterpart.
On a similar note, Miyamoto said that it wasn't until the Gamecube that
they (Nintendo) could actually express "wind" in a game environment
(regarding Zelda: Wind Waker).
So
what goes around comes around. As technology advances, the games move
forward, as the games move forward the technology needs to move forward.
The point I'm getting to is why can only a few games developers and producers
actually make good use of game console's technical abilities?
The problem is not down to a lack of skill and competence when coding,
but usually it's the lack of good design of the game. A good design can
be recognised even if the implementation is a bit shoddy. An example of
this in my opinion is Body Harvest on the N64, iffy graphics and controls
still don't bring the quality of this game down as a lot of thought and
effort went into its design.
The problem stems from the games producer/publisher - all they want is
a product that is cheap to produce but makes a lot of money. Obvious,
again. This money-grabbing philosophy is the root of a huge sprawling
tree that is represents "bad" games. Each branch of the tree
is a different reason or cause to why games can be bad, and the profit
hungry-ness on the producer's behalf is the root that this tree thrives
on. Branches include such things as Movie tie-ins, sequels and clones
amongst others.
Of tie-ins, slapping the name of a popular film franchise on a game often
means good sales of a quickly (and cheaply) botched together piece of
tosh. People go see the film, want to relive it so buy the game. Rarely
has a tie-in been of worth, the recent Lord of the Rings games (The Two
Towers and soon-to-be released Return of the King) springs to mind as
an example of a good one. Goldeneye would be but came out long after the
movie so I don't regard it as a tie-in.
This tie-in idea usually involves so-called kid's films such as Disney
flicks. Finding Nemo is an example, an average to look at, simple to play
game released just as the kiddy winks a walking out of the cinema. For
some reason, developers feel children are so inept at playing games and
are stupid enough not to notice the crap graphics and game-play that they
can release a dodgy game (usually a platformer) and the kids will like
it. But the kids "liking" the game isn't what the developer/producer
is after, once the sale has been made by the unsuspecting parent of said
child then the developer and producer have got the cash the desire so
much.
Enter the Matrix, another example of a woefully average game that has
sold bucket loads of copies across all formats, solely on The Matrix license
and the release being so close to the release of ReLoaded.
Sequels aren't so bad - if the original was any good then fans of it will
want a sequel, look at Metal Gear Solid - great game, Sons of Liberty
becomes most awaited game ever*, then sells well, Snake Eater then becomes
most awaited game ever*. But it's the pumping out of "the same tired
game but different" that bugs me, 'COUGH, Tomb Raider, COUGH'. The
first one was good but for iffy controls, second a bit better, 3rd, 4th,
5th and now Angel of Darkness are all dull. EA's yearly updates can annoy
but that's only as, for example a new footie season starts, last seasons
game is out of date statistically, that people want to be up to date with
sports games.
'Clones' are real cuss-buckets, even if the end product turns out to be
great. Why? Well, because it's just copying someone else's idea and (usually)
jumping on the bandwagon of success that another game has created. As
an example, Metal Gear Solid sells well, every game after it involves
a stealth element. Examples?, How about The Hulk (a movie tie-in as well),
The Getaway, and Turok: Evolution, developers need to understand that
stealth only works when done right, such as In the MGS games and Splinter
Cell, even the Zelda games do it better than most.
Cel-shading is the new polygons - every game then uses it to create a
"unique graphical style" but the game turns out to be crap and
they all look the same anyway (except Wind Waker and Veiwtiful Joe, which
both look great).
Rushed games are also a problem, a low quality game is quickly bolted
together to jump on the bandwagon of another game's or a film's success.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said, "A delayed game will eventually be a
good game, a rushed game will always be a bad one", or something
like that.
Where
was I? Oh, technology, games, correlation, yeah, I remember. Most of these
cruddy games that are flooding the market make absolutely no use of the
hardware that's running them. Its only with experimenting with new and
original ideas on the hardware that the system can be pushed (Metroid
Prime and Pikmin are standout examples on the GC). But original idea's
in the games business is, well, risky business. For some reason everyone
barks on about the lack of originality but original games seem to sell
badly because everyone buys a game that that has a degree of familiarity
to it. As a result companies just keep releasing tried and tested formula's
that are exhausted as it will sell well.
If
games are to move forward (and thus technology) then originality is needed,
to inject new life in to the medium. God bless Capcom for this with their
batch of games that are GC exclusives these are P.N.03 - a 3rd person
action shooter with a REZ kind of rhythm element, Veiwtiful Joe - a 2.5
D scrolling beat-em up, Killer 7 - radically stylish graphics for an FPS,
OK, so ones a Resident Evil sequel but one that aims to push the series
along), investing money from top selling franchises into new one's that
may become top selling franchises in the future.
Anyway,
these are just a few grumbles with the games Industry, but come on developers
and producers, stop making crap and actually use the hardware you're making
games for to a decent extent, please. The technology's there and getting
better, your games should follow suit.
|
|
|