The Gamer’s Quagmire #57: Learning to Enjoy a Playpen
Everything you wanted to know about gaming, and less.
by Jamison DeLorenzo
You need forgive the embedded juvenile humor for the lead-in question of the week: how do you know when it is okay to play in the sandbox? Several reviewers have felt the need to pound Assassin’s Creed for reasons that flew over my head. It is true that I am nowhere near an established or astute reviewer that many paid professionals are, but sometimes it takes the wit of a strung out English major (they’re always useful for needlessly comparing totally unassociated ideas) to critique design choices in a game that have no direct impact on the overall quality of a game.
It was not all that difficult to find several scathing reviews of Assassin’s Creed and to create a set of flaws that people had with the game. The universal opinion of the game seems to be that while it was drawn out and somewhat laborious the game was a lot of fun. Many reviews are more polarized than that, but I feel that this was a fairly common sentiment amongst most reviewers. There all always exceptions (and no, they never “prove” the rule… by definition), and in this case the most glaring are the ones that stipulate that it was a horrible design choice to make Assassin’s Creed a sandbox game.
What is that exactly? Sandbox games refer to games where the player is given overall objectives to complete but is given free reign on how to do it. GTA is a popular example when describing this style of game for obvious reasons. You’re almost never told what route to take to a specific place, which weapons to bring, which car to drive, what steps to take once you get there, or anything like that. The order in which you complete several objectives isn’t necessarily important either. Metal Gear is another game like that, only exercising stealth is encouraged.
Consider the popularity of these two franchises for a moment. There are contributing factors like story and graphics that makes these games what they are, but giving players free roaming capability is the highlight of the game. Combining that with the dark side of what you can do in GTA is what makes that franchise the powerhouse that it is right now. A free roaming environment is one of the many major draws of the larger RPG’s for many people. Giving gamers the ability to do what they want when they want in a game is, in my opinion, the best way to make games. The short version of this reads as follows: constraints are bad.
Upon reading multiple articles talking about the recent rash of games attempting to emulate a sandbox environment I began to wonder which games were being talked about besides Assassin’s Creed. Have there been any? I sure haven’t played any, and I don’t recall any popular ones that people have been talking about. Saint’s Row is the only other franchise that comes to mind, and that’s much more of a GTA clone than just another sandbox game.
I submit to you that Assassin’s Creed, if you look at it as a GTA clone, it, for the most part, succeeds. Grabbing all of the flags is basically just like grabbing all the hidden packages. Doing all of the extra missions (saving the citizens) is a lot like completing all of the now defunct rampages. Completing all basic mission objectives gives you free reign to recklessly roam the city, causing as much havoc as you deem appropriate, before completing them is a direct parallel. Whether I’m performing acrobatic face plants into alleyways or crashing a sports car into a pawn shop I’m having fun. That’s they key to a good game isn’t it? Fun?
The flaws that exist in Assassin’s Creed are the battle system (which is mindlessly repetitive) and the later missions not offering anything that new. Those are very gaping flaws that prevent the game from being as epic as Ubisoft wanted it to be. The only thing that prevents the game from being a total rinse and repeat is the moving story, but any good reviewer sees past that when discussing the game as a whole. Any competent critic, or common sense enthusiast, also figures out that a lack of mission variety and rewards has nothing to do with a gameplay mechanism.
Yes, a lot of the extras you get by exploring the world don’t provide you with a whole lot. However, I liked climbing insanely tall buildings and swan diving in conveniently placed haystacks. I loved finding perches and gazing on the horizons. Did exploring the ends of the Earth net me anything interesting in terms of rewards, story, or abilities? No, but that’s a problem that can be easily resolved without nuking the environment. I did expect a fuller story by finding all those extra flags and saving all of those citizens. My DNA sequence was more complete as a result- why didn’t that amount to anything? The lack of reward was frustrating, but it didn’t stop me from continuing to hunt for everything.
It’s basic logic- if you don’t enjoy exploring areas or already know it’s going to be tedious then don’t complain after you do it. It was painfully obvious going in that the size of the world Ubisoft created for the game was gigantic (even though all of the major cities were remarkably close to each other) and I knew I was going to hate saving all the citizens, hunting down all the flags, and killing and endless amount of guards. I did it anyway knowing that is largely unnecessary, and if it weren’t for a free-roaming environment I would have been in those annoying areas where the places the game developers didn’t want me to go were blocked with invisible walls. I would also have been forced down a path instead of running across rooftops while dodging arrows in whatever direction I felt like.
Call me insane, but I know what I prefer.
Post your comments in the Forum!
February 19, 2007
The Gamer’s Quagmire #40: The Master Chief vs. Wikipedia
Everything you wanted to know about gaming, and less.
by Jamison DeLorenzo
If one theme has been consistent in these articles, aside from snide comments and sheer brilliance, it has been the purveyance of something that should be obvious by now: I am a hardcore gamer. I play games every day. I read about games every day. I discuss games every day. This has been the case since 1988. This may make you wonder why my job is not in the video game world, and for better or worse it mostly stems from a lack of effort. A story for another day for certain, but if I have proved anything over the course of my life it is that video games are what I know most about (with a possible exception of Simpsons trivia). I am a hardcore gamer.
Alas, I do not think it means what I think you think it means. I think.
In the never-ending battle of the console wars, something which is inescapable, people seem to be doing whatever they can to rationalize their thinking. You’ll recall that in my Console Sanity Check series I erupted with a series of rules that needed to be set in place for everyone’s safety. We are almost back at that point again. Gamers are labeling other games in a vain attempt to pat themselves on the back that they made the right choice. Much like the liberals of the 1980’s the hardcore gamer is now being thrown under the bus.
I, however, refuse to be run over. This is not just because I have a problem with skid marks. No, the problem lies much deeper than that. You see, despite my pacifist nature it is possible to provoke me. Hardcore gamers, some time during the past year, became a term that refers to people who play first person shooters and very violent games. In other words, games like GTA, Halo, Gears of War, and God of War. Someone who detests that particular genre of games labels it with a term they don’t want to be labeled as and then decries it. This is the classic straw man argument at work (it may only be a related strain, but either way this is a viral argument).
Every time I struggle with the definition of a word I turn to the most impartial and standard place one can turn: the dictionary. Surely we all can agree that this is the one place we can turn to for understanding of our language. Being that hardcore gamer is a concept more than a word, there is really only one other good place to turn: Wikipedia. Only this time the site talks about the rather uncertain definition of the term. Rather than spend a good deal of time thinking of a solid definition for the term I will instead propose an idea to you on what I feel the term really should mean.
The way I see it, a hardcore gamer is one who enjoys gaming- a lot. They play a multitude of games and they are exceedingly good at them. You ask them questions when you are stuck. You seek their opinions on what games they should buy. They can recall more about games from years past than you can remember about what you did last week. If playing video games was a job with good pay they would be some of the best people at their job in the world. I strongly believe that this is at the core of what it means to be a hardcore gamer.
This should explain why I consider myself to be a hardcore gamer. I eat, sleep, and breathe gaming. When people throw me into the lump of people whom they believe snack all day, live with their parents, trash talk on Halo all day long, wear the same clothing, and haven’t talked to a woman since 1997 I become offended, and with good cause. Not only because I have documented proof of socializing with a woman in 2004, but because stereotyping on any level is something I have a problem with.
As such, I hate it when people use the term hardcore gamer even when they feel the term refers to someone who plays FPS’ all day, only cares about shiny graphics, and jumps at every war game possible. The problem started, however, with people trying to label Nintendo fans as people who prefer the cutesy games. It’s as I said before- people feel better when they feel they have condescendingly labeled people who disagree with them (after all, every gamer is completely socially insecure). Sure, after playing a large share of Nintendo games I wanted to try some new things and move past the cartoon style Nintendo games. I still love cartoons, but the problem is that I’ve been watching the same Mario cartoon for 10 years now. Instead of just looking to try the latest style of gaming, people moving over to PS and Xbox camps started referring to Nintendo games as not just cartoony, but childish.
Now the war is (justly) coming back at the PS and Xbox fans. They initiated the battle and now Nintendo has a lot of ammo to fire back. I have my own web space, so now I feel I need to say something about this. Here is a message for every Nintendo fan out there- tread lightly. Yes, you have every right to be mad for being told you are playing kids’ games. You should feel free to mock everyone who hunkers down in front of a FPS that badmouths Nintendo’s graphics, makes fun of the controller when they are stuck on the outdated Dual Shock, or makes a snide Mario comment while they hold their breath for Halo 3. Still, you must tread lightly. I say this not just because I tend to avoid pouring kerosene on flame wars, but because name calling just doesn’t get you anywhere. He who yells the loudest only stands to gain a sore throat.
All this talk about the PS/Xbox crowd as the hardcore gamer camp and the Nintendo crowd as the cutesy gamer camp needs to stop. It needs to go away and be buried forever. If you want to whine about game titles then your only legitimate target is a console that’s been out for more than 2 months. If you want to whine about price then you have to acknowledge that the more expensive consoles provide a lot more than games (whether you want movie playback or not). If you insist on making gross generalizations (I’m very close to blowing up on people saying that all Nintendo games are fun) then you are simply on the other side of the coin to the argument you find so very annoying. To me, that only makes you one thing- annoying.
Not that I ever oversimplify things.
Post your comments in the Forum!
StillontheShelf.com - no frills, just content. Powered by WordPress
©2003-2008 Craig Reade and Mad Cow Disease