Everything you wanted to know about gaming, and less.

by Jamison DeLorenzo

Every once in a while my friends over at The Guardian Games Blog manage to hit up on a topic that forces me to hunker down in my cave and take a lesson to heart about gaming. Not only does this get my creative juices flowing or allow me to have a good internal debate, which some people might think is a clear-cut sign of schizophrenia, but it also proves that there are sites out there that far more than just some reiterative drivel. Posting news about games is one thing, but getting people discussing a game or some gaming-related topic to me is a sign of a successful gaming publication.

Today’s topic in question comes from a non-archaeological dig about the most recent Devil May Cry game, a franchise that has been toiling in repetitiveness due to the overwhelming popularity of its original incarnation back in 2001. The core element of fun in this game stemmed from taking a standard hack and slash style of gameplay and throwing in the overdrive combos that propelled the 2-D fighter known as Killer Instinct back in the 90’s. Basically, if you like beating the ever living tar out of enemies and a dark story arc then the Devil May Cry games provide something you’ll enjoy. At iteration number four the core integrity of this franchise remains in tact.

Having gone through the first and third entries in the franchise, the question remains whether the fourth is going to be worth it. The game is getting fantastic reviews and people are scarfing it down, but I cannot help but wonder if this is game actually adds anything at all to the mystique of the franchise or if it is just the same old slop that gamers are expected to gobble up from the Troth of Formulaic Gaming (+1). It’s not that I don’t have an appreciation for hard work in the graphics department, but in games like this I wonder how much time can be spent admiring the architecture while a plethora of enemies rip me apart like a pack of lions. This, I would argue, is rather counter-productive when trying to complete the game.

I’d love to extol the virtues of the game to you here, but the main point I am driving at goes back to a question that was raised several days ago on the link given to you. The question in question (word games are fun) revolves around how much depth a game like this has. There are lots of combos that you can perform and a lot of enemies, but once you find a sequence of moves you like to unleash how much of the game is repetition versus new content? This hardly a new question for any game in the hack and slash genre, so in a sense it is a little asinine to bring up for this game. However, the question remains because there is this notion coming from critics that DMC4 is the best entry in the franchise because of its depth.

Assuming for a moment that people are not just fawning over the visuals, comments like these force me to ask why this game should be considered deep. For this style of game all you need are unique level design, interesting boss battles, intense battles, and good combo mechanics to make it succeed or just be a foray into mayhem and wholesome fun. I am unsure how a game of this type can be widely construed as deep. Is the battle system so flexible that you can go absolutely nuts delivering combos? Is the story RPG-level engrossing? Are there a ton of unlocks in the game that alter the gameplay drastically? Perhaps all of these are true to a point, but a counter question that is worth asking is at what point does a game cross the line from depth and become repetitive?

Puzzle Quest, as an example, is a unique game which molds a simple RPG with Bejeweled (together at last!) for a unique and compelling experience. The game is fun and interesting, but I hardly consider it to be deep. Leveling up is not quick by any stretch of the imagination, which is more than acceptable in an RPG, but the battles are beyond tedious because of their length. After 20 levels you gain abilities at such a slow rate that long-drawn out battles that tend to drag on much in the same way the movie Titanic does, only, somehow, much more painfully. I chose that image because both objects in question end in catastrophe and could have been great, but in reality lacked any meaningful depth.

At the end of the day I think gamers tend to see depth where they want to (which generally makes them lousy deep sea divers). Every genre tends to offer depth to some degree. Whether you gravitate towards RPG’s (story, abilities), MMO’s (PvP, abilities), FPS’s (PvP, weapons), fighters (combos, replay value), or any other genre you will find a certain level of depth to it. A game being particularly deep will not intrinsically interest any gamers if the genre does not line up with their interests. On top of that a game that lacks any form of depth will largely be very boring to many people because performing the same remedial task for hours on end for some unforeseen purpose suffers from what I like to call Office Space Syndrome (i.e. fun to watch, painful to endure). Games that suffer from this ailment in varying degrees include Assassin’s Creed, Halo, SimCity, Guitar Hero, and StarCraft.

Keep in mind that I told you that the repetitive nature of a game has nothing to do with how much fun you will have playing it. Most of those games I loved playing. I picked those games not just to inflame people like a loose dragon but also to show you that if you like those games, despite their repetitive nature, then it provides some perspective on what elements of gaming really make you happy.

I don’t know how much depth Devil May Cry 4 has. I may walk the Earth until the end of time like Kwai Chang Caine and never have the urge to give it a fair shake. It could be far deeper than any of the previous entries in the franchise thusly making it a game for the ages. It could be as deep as version 1 or 3 and still be very entertaining. In either case if you like this style of game I am betting it is time well spent. Whether you might appreciate the depth of the game I will leave up to you.

Post your comments in the Forum!