Perceived Value

A strange trend seems to be emerging within the review process for games. If something lacks a large quantity of content, the score goes down regardless of the quality. For example, Dirt: Showdown was given a lukewarm reception because it’s career mode is short.

I completely disagree with that assessment. I found the game to be extremely enjoyable and a decent attempt at a Burnout style game from a company known for realism. The physics felt wonderful and the damage modeling looked amazing.

For $60 though, I could maybe see the point. There isn’t a tremendous amount of stuff to do, but the included modes and cars are furiously entertaining. Then again, I got the game in a Steam sale for $5, so maybe my acceptance of it’s “lack of content” comes down to perceived value.

Gamers exist in a world where the generally accepted $60 price point is not the only way to buy a game. That may have never been the case, but every game launches at $60 at retail whether it should or not.

I know during the PS2/Xbox/GCN era, we saw a bunch of B-games come out at reduced rates. Those titles clearly knew they weren’t going to set the world ablaze and kept their MSRP low to garner more sales.

This led to titles like The Suffering and GUN becoming hits despite not being of the best quality. One of my favorite games from the era, Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy, was a huge failure due to launching at a full retail price point.

And possibly that “To Be Continued…” ending.

Without the expectation of “$60 thrills,” games like those are allowed to be rated fairly and given a chance to entertain. If Aliens: Colonial Marines didn’t have the audacity to launch at full price, it may have not been as negatively received.

A person’s own perception may shift that idea. Games like Dead Space and Max Payne are fairly short, but have been showered with praise from gamers and critics alike. Everyone seems to think that the general polish and feel of the games is worth their higher launch prices, even if you could get extensive experiences for less.

Bethesda had started talks about this when Skyrim was nearing launch. The director of Elder Scrolls 5, Todd Howard, stated, “I do think industry-wide we would benefit from more games out at $19 or $29. I would try more games. Because I’m not going to try a game for $60. It’s a tough decision.”

That does make sense. Without having a wide range of titles to enjoy, you begin to fall into a rut and give-up on gaming entirely. Without those fresh, different, unique games, one gets jaded to the whole practice.

Valve has done their best to remedy that situation. While Steam sales may not be the best answer, they show that any title can become popular and lucrative if given a better price.

I can even attest to it. While I wouldn’t recommend Dirt: Showdown to serious simulation racer enthusiasts, anyone looking for a rambunctious time slamming cars together will not find a better title.

Yeah, $60 is a bit much, but getting the game for $5 will give you weeks of enjoyment. That lower price lets you feel out whether the game is for you and how the online mode functions. FYI, smashing others online is a blast.

The year is 2015 and we’re still dealing with full retail price. $60 is not going to cut it anymore, especially not when disasters like Batman: Arkham Knight launch on PC and just assume $60 is correct.

I think reviewers should be looking beyond the dollar value when evaluating games. It may be easy to write in that something isn’t worth full price, but don’t let that negatively effect your perception of the game.

A lot of deserving titles will get slammed because their prices are insane. Just because the games market is a broken mess doesn’t mean the title is, too. And to developers; it doesn’t speak negatively of your game to price it at $40.

Advertisements

Reviewing One’s Experience

So Batman: Arkham Knight is a flaming pile of excrement, right? Well, only if you’re playing the PC version. Otherwise, the game runs fine and looks great. Should those negative review scores be revised, then? When WB and Iron Galaxy squash all the bugs, should we demand critics re-evaluate the game?

With this weeks latest controversy over a game release, I began thinking about an old idea of mine. When does objective criticism and personal experience become a factor in a game review? A game cannot cater to every specific customer at once, but we see fans demanding such a thing from writers.

The constant stream of, “No way this game is a 5,” and “Too much batmobile. 7/10,” are just pathetic. At the same time, maybe we should be seeing more objective takes on current games.

While I used to be all about leaving personal experience out of the equation, I’ve shifted my viewpoint in more recent times. Unless a game has actual game breaking bugs (Which Arkham Knight does on PC), you can’t truly call it a bad game. If it makes even one person happy, then it has not failed.

Even made me question humanity. I’d call that a win.

I’ve enjoyed a lot of critically panned games. Binary Domain is a brilliant shooter, but most reviewers couldn’t be assed with it. Long Live the Queen is a charming text-based adventure, but critics didn’t find a lot to love. Goat Simulator is also quite shat on, but I love how hilariously stupid it can be.

My friend is also quite fond of WWE 2k15 on PS4. We both agree the game is a horrible, broken mess, but the glitches produce some of the most outrageous moments we’ve had in a long time. There isn’t another game out there where Sting can do a split in mid-air while Hogan gets stuck inside the ropes.

I’m getting tired of seeing people complain about review scores, as well. If someone personally feels that a game should be rated a 5, you don’t have any right to refute them. You don’t have to agree, but to shout that they are wrong is ludicrous.

The 10 point scale for reviewing has long been abused. Critics will give average games a 7 and that tilts the scale in a negative way. Now anything below a 7 isn’t worth looking at, which means that 7 is actually 5 and 5 then becomes something like a 3.

I believe that has more to do with how ingrained school grading has become in society, but it still leads to a misconception about the quality of a game. It also does nothing to inform a reader if the game is any fun.

I remember when GamePro still existed. They used to grade games in 4 different fields; Graphics, Sound, Control and Fun Factor. A game could get low marks in the first three, but Fun Factor was ultimately what most people were curious about.

Ah, memories.

Even if you end up hating a game after grinding away at it, the fun you had when you first popped it in should be worth it. If you live your life regretting the decisions you make and looking to strangers online for confirmation, you’re doing something wrong with your life.

What truly tipped in into this line of thinking was the end of 2011. I was eagerly waiting for games like Uncharted 3, Saints Row: The Third and Duke Nukem Forever. Those all quickly became my least favorite from their respective franchises, but it also taught me a thing about believing in reviews online.

At the end of the day, the only person who will know you best is yourself. You cannot rely on someone’s opinion when making a purchase. You should obviously reference a review to gauge any glaring errors in playability, but some person who has never met you is not a good indicator of something you may like.

Why should I care if some random jerk thinks my favorite game is trash? Unless he is threatening game developers or personally assaulting my family, I don’t know why his thoughts should impact mine. I like the damn game and that is that.

This may be a bit sidetracked, but I just wish people would learn to use reviews for what they are; opinionated viewpoints. They are one person’s account of how they saw the game. If you typically agree with that person, then the review might just be for you.

Yeah; this guy.

So at the end of the day, I believe personal experience should weigh more in a review score. Instead of trying to remove any trace of humanity from a piece, inject more of your own belief into it.

As indie game writer Rob Marrow told me, “Of course I’m bias. I don’t like this specific type of game.” You can’t always get what you want. Learn to deal with that.

A So Called Legacy

With Capcom’s announcement of the Mega Man: Legacy Collection for next-gen consoles, I feel a bit torn. On the one hand, we have at least some kind of confirmation that Capcom actually cares about the blue bomber. On the other hand, they don’t care enough to make an entire compendium.

In an effort to not rant like a maniac for the next few paragraphs, I’ve decided to break this into a Top 5 list. I will go over 5 different ways that Capcom could improve the Legacy Collection that won’t ruin the idea they are shooting for.

5. Bonus Features

While not everything is known about the downloadable collection, one thing that should be included are bonus, DVD style features. When going back to the past, it’s nice to get a viewpoint from developers on what their creative process was.

More importantly, adding bonus features gives old fans a reason to actually pay attention to what is possibly the 5th time these games have been re-released. Nothing is cooler than beating a game and immediately re-starting it with director’s commentary.

The interactive museum feature is a start and I won’t dismiss photo galleries, but I will state that I don’t believe they are enough. Concept art always looks better on paper, so just throwing a bunch of images into the collection won’t really matter.

4. Extra Modes

Capcom has at least confirmed there will be a challenge mode for each game in the collection, but I’d like to see them take this further. Mega Man 9 and 10 had bonus characters as DLC that would be perfect to include in the older games.

Along with that, why not go ahead and make a Master Quest style version of each game? Fans have beaten these games an innumerable amount of times over the years, so giving them what might be the closest thing to a new Mega Man as possible wouldn’t be bad.

3. Updated Graphics

Graphics may not be the most important part of a game, but charging an umpteenth time for a 28 year old game is a little crazy. Instead of just wholesale porting a ROM over, why not go the distance and re-create the sprites in HD?

Capcom hired Udon to do such a thing for Super Street Fighter II: Turbo, so why not Mega Man? Many people consider the blue bomber to be a defining character of their childhoods, so they would appreciate updated art assets that pay homage to the original style.

For the sake of purists, though, do not make updated graphics the only option. I cannot stand when HD remakes update the past, but fail to respect it. LucasArts did great with their re-releases of the Monkey Island games, so give us something along the lines of that.

2. Release on “Legacy” Consoles

While the new generation of consoles is underway, there are people who have no interest in leaving their past consoles. For some, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are all they will ever need. Then there are the Nintendo faithful who have a Wii U and no possible way to experience this collection.

Instead of snuffing those customers, why not port the game to last-generation consoles? You can’t tell me that the collection wouldn’t run on previous gen hardware. Both PS3 and 360 have Mega Man 9 and 10, not to mention the Wii has a majority of the older Mega Man games on the eShop.

Wii U also has that, but when you’re charging $5 a pop, why are you going to leave Wii U owners out in the cold on this “Legacy” collection? Just having the games isn’t the only point of this re-release.

Sony has the perfect feature of “cross-buy” that would be great for their console family. Having Mega Man on PS3, PS4 and Vita would be enough to convince prospective players into dipping their toes.

1. Include Every Mega Man Game

This is probably the biggest concern of mine when it comes to the so called “Legacy” collection. You can’t claim something is a legacy if it doesn’t have every available game. Even though Konami has their heads firmly up their asses, their legacy collection of Metal Gear included every title (and the VR Missions!).

Capcom should take this chance to provide Mega Man 7, 8, 9 and 10 on next-gen hardware. Forget that some of those titles aren’t the best of Capcom’s classics (I actually think 9 is the best Mega Man game), but they are a crucial part of the blue bomber’s history.

The biggest disaster is that Mega Man 8 isn’t readily available on most consoles. While Sony recently released it as a PS1 classic, there isn’t a reason why this collection should be missing such a game.

Couple that with the fact that the previous Mega Man collection actually included 7 and 8, and I really don’t understand the reasoning to leave out the last four games in the Mega Man series. Hell, that same collection even had both arcade fighting games, so why not throw those in?

Even if it would move the relatively low price up a bit, I’d be willing to pay more for a collection that is complete. The NES era might be the best of our old friend, but he did have other ventures that most likely created some die-hard fans.

With this list, I really hope Capcom takes the time to notice some of my concerns. I do love Mega Man, but access to the back catalog of games isn’t the easiest thing to come by. You either have to own more than one console or be lucky and find the old Anniversary collection.

Capcom could even go out of their way and make a physical release that includes a Mega Man statue. That may be asking too much, but fans truly want some kind of acknowledgement that the blue bomber is worth a damn.

Either way, I probably will still end up with the Legacy collection. I love the little blue guy too much to withhold myself.

Walking Dead: Season Two – Quick Thoughts

I wasn’t one of the many that were blown away by the first season of Telltale’s Walking Dead. I thought that Telltale hit on to something great, but that their current technology didn’t match the vision they had for interactive storytelling. The season wasn’t always sublime, but Telltale showcased some great writing and retained enough gameplay elements to make a standout title in the 2012 landscape.

It was also quite a big bonus to have a game where female characters were written as actual characters. Clementine is also the first real example I can find of a child in a video game that isn’t a liability. So much social progression from a game about people killing each other over food and shelter. Now I get why Tool sounded so somber with their song, “Right in Two.”

Upon seeing the initial trailer for Season Two, I figured  Telltale was going to improve. The only vision I had was that Clementine would be alone, lost and sorrowful. That is pretty much how the season kicks off. Placing players in control of a character they tried desperately to save the first go around is genius. Now her safety relies squarely on you, instead of being a mediator with another human.

OH MY GOD! MEDIATE BETTER!

Depending on the choices you make during Season Two, Clementine can become the very epitomose of a selfless hero. She is courageous, observent, kind-hearted and always willing to help. Even when the adults cower in fear, Clementine can hold her own. All those lessons from Season One definitely paid off.

The story is much darker in Season Two. Every event is nearly like treking through the Valley of Death. That so much emotion can be wringed from a simple premise shows how well Clementine was written. Gamers are willing to see her tale to the end and would never wish anything bad on her. That is quite the accomplishment for a character who isn’t even real.

For all the strides that were made in making the narrative more dramatic, Telltale took a step back in gameplay. Focusing more on QTEs and action, Season Two pretty does away completely with puzzles. There is one instance where Clem has to turn off a turbine and it just stands as rather silly. How can adults not figure out to take the key and twist it?

There also aren’t any hub areas to redezvous at. Some gamers may enjoy the brisker pace, but I liked having centralized areas to gather my belongings. It was also nice to take a break every now and then and learn about the characters you were helping. You get stripped of that in Season Two, making most of your decisions based on logic rather than emotion.

Logic dictates you return the bag. You’re also not a douchebag…

This leads to the game feeling more fomulaic than before. You do make snap decisions, but only get around 30 seconds to let anything sink in. Then you’re quickly running to the next area where you get a few minutes to breath and are thrust into more action. I suppose there is something to be said of Season Two not wasting any time, but people need time to ingest what they have done.

The big trade-off is that Season Two is far harder to put down than the first season. Since you can finish every episode in a little over an hour, you end up not wanting to stop. You’ll never hit a brick wall or get stuck and you can quickly bang this out in a day after work (or school).

But that also leads to the side characters getting little to no extra development. Clementine is the most well rounded of the cast and a returning character from Season One adds some truly difficult moral dilemmas to the mix. All of the new characters feel mostly forgettable and don’t offer much in terms of sympathy or weight.

I won’t say that a life is worth wasting, but if I only met you 20 minutes ago and I’m tasked with picking between two people, I’m going to go with the one who seems more beneficial. It would be the only way to protect my sanity in such dire straits.

The final episode’s conclusion definitely stands taller than the first season. Instead of having one set-up finale that everyone will play out, you now get to make some actions that will determine who you end up with (if anyone at all). They are all confined to that last scene (which seems to be an ugly trend in these types of games), but your actions are now more of a reflection of your inner concious more than your ability to follow a script.

Hasta luego, amigo.

As for the other individual episodes, none really stand out. Episode  Two is perhaps the most meaty and exciting, but everything just moves so fast that the events begin to blur together. With some more time dedicated to fleshing out the supporting cast or some tougher moral choices, I feel like Season Two could have surpassed the first in every conceivable way.

Hopefully with Season Three, Telltale will remember that human interaction is more important than drama. Even some puzzles would go a long way to making my actions feel more worthwhile. As in real life, everybody just wants to be heard. There are more stories and emotions to cover than simply death.

Instead of sticking strictly to inflated drama, maybe we can get an episode where nobody dies next time? How about a big puzzle that takes the entire episode to finish. I like the idea of that.

Something like this was perfect. More of these scenes.

GTA V: Why Go On?

Grand Theft Auto was a series that blew my mind back in middle school. It was so edgy and violent. It felt almost wrong to be fantasizing about the game, but I wanted to pull back the curtains and look inside at the scandalous nature of the game.

It also felt like something that needed to be played. This was mostly peer pressure rearing its ugly head, but when I was 13, I couldn’t be caught dead having not played Grand Theft Auto III. This was helped by the fact that the game was highly original in its approach to building a game world.

Gamers had never really seen a game set up a city that mimicked real life. You could forget the actual mission structure of the campaign and just go for a walk. Taking a slow, leisurely drive through the streets of Liberty City was a distinct possibility. Tackling objectives in whatever manner you saw fit was unprecedented.

Skip ahead to 2013, 12 years after Rockstar Games revolutionized the games industry, and I’m left feeling hollow. Having played Grand Theft Auto V to 100% completion, I have no idea why I was even really excited for the game. I was overcome with a sense of peer pressure from peers I don’t even possess.

Worse still, I’ve been tackling therapy to get a better grip on my own mental state and GTA V revels in the idea of, “Once a criminal, always a criminal.” There is no conceivable way to change the fates of the protagonists in GTA V. They have committed unspeakable acts against their fellow man and have to just continue the process. It makes me feel hopeless.

Other than a few mean spirited advertisements, nothing about GTA V is comical. The script is angry and unwilling to view things from a new angle. Missions appear steadily, but lack any variety. Some of the tasks are simply, “Steal this car.” There is nothing else to the mission and you can even kill the person whom the car belongs to with no consequence from the police.

There is no real challenge other than battling the awkward controls. The driving is markedly improved over its predecessor, Grand Theft Auto IV, but the cover system and gunplay feel clunky and outdated. Adopting a Call of Duty style lock-on system doesn’t mitigate the fact that I can’t aim at the guy to the left if I’m presently stuck on the person to the right.

Even the open world feels devoid of pieces. Random events are a neat way to provide pseudo-procedurally generated missions, but even these fail to mix up their objectives. GTA V does nothing that television and film hasn’t tackled better.

One should not compare this game to other mediums, but when hit TV show “Breaking Bad” has characters growing from their actions and even coming up with new situations to throw their leads into every week, why has Rockstar failed to provide new set pieces for their flagship series?

The overlooked Max Payne 3 took the titular hero to new horizons. It swapped the dark, dreary and slick streets of New York for settings in bustling Sao Paulo and drug cartel offices. Max was out of his league and skimming by the skin of his teeth. His anguish felt intense, visceral and utterly hopeless. Conquering a challenge made the player feel like a god.

In GTA V, all one needs to do is simply sit behind cover for a few seconds and wait for the AI to kill itself. Police have a terrible habit of flying their helicopters into wind turbines or driving their squad cars straight into explosive gas stations. You can even mask yourself from them in bushes, dismantling the otherwise clever mechanic of staying in the dark to escape police.

Worse, though, is that no character grows for their troubles. Franklin is the only character that begins the game in a classic GTA style. He is a gangbanger from the hood who is going nowhere and doesn’t have much to his name.

By the end, apart from the $70 million dollars, Franklin still has no one. He’s learned nothing from his adventure and will probably fall into obscurity for the rest of his life. His game stats barely even improve, though that feature of the game does virtually nothing.

Michael’s story has him bickering with old friend, Trevor, until the two are told to “Shut the fuck up,” by Franklin. After that, the plot kind of drops the setup to the game and tasks the player with just finishing their last heist. The “best” ending of the three possible even wraps everything up like the three characters are all best buddies, despite nearly killing each other a few times.

All of this and I haven’t even mentioned how polished the game is and how many extra side missions there are. For something so vapid and shallow, Rockstar definitely included a tremendous amount of meaningless bonus content.

Finding barrels of nuclear waste serves no purpose other than to give you a trophy/achievement. The extra guns and cars that used to come from finding hidden packages are just gone. Now if you collect all of the “letter scraps” and “UFO parts,” you get a pathetically simple side mission and a trophy/achievement.

Stunt jumps don’t even boost your stats or give you a shiny new car. They don’t even follow the physics of the game. My car often did backflips while attempting a few jumps or would kill me upon impact with the ground. Rockstar seems to have simply filled the game world with so much extra nonsense to make people believe their $60 wasn’t wasted.

Couple this with a soundtrack that evokes no sense of presence or indicates the quality of its era and you’re left with a rather peculiar triple A title. It’s highly polished, runs smoothly and features a vast amount of “things” to do, but feels empty.

It makes me realize that I’m probably not a true gamer. I’ve been playing all manner of games since I was 4 years old, yet now I feel like an old man screaming about the “good old days” and wishing for something new.

If you’re down with everything this game has to offer, then I could easily recommend it to you. The game may not be the finest example of an open-world game, but one will not finish this within a single sitting (or even weekend). There’s even an online component that hasn’t launched yet, which may change my attitude towards the whole affair.

As my thoughts stand right now, I think I really am finished with mainstream gaming. Gaming has changed so dramatically from the old school era that it’s silly to sit here and expect newer gamers to have the same expectations from a game that I do.

It’s also utterly pointless and insensitive to assume that games should be purely about “challenge.” The controversial “skip scene” feature of GTA V makes sense to people who purely want to witness a story unfold. It also highlights how not every minute of gameplay is actually worth seeing.

I just don’t see what else gaming can do. We’re entering a new generation which features launch titles that are also releasing on current generation hardware. The next few months sees the release of more shooters than any other time period I can remember.

I just don’t know how else to enjoy this hobby. When Rockstar Games can’t even provide me with escapism, then I truly believe that no one will ever be able to again. At least I can save myself money in the future, I suppose; silver Linings and all that jazz.

Fez: A Shift of Perspective

Gomez lives in a relatively flat world. The people he meets don’t utter more than a few words to him and everyone just moseys back and forth. Gomez is stuck in this same situation, too. When the village elder grants him the gift of the almighty fez, Gomez’s life takes a dramatic turn for the better.

Not only is he suddenly important, but he can finally witness the world in multiple dimensions. Different angles and new shades are all bewildering to him. That distant island in the sky from his house can suddenly be skipped over to with a quick twist of perspective.

Fez is an interesting allegory for life. Sometimes everything can seem blissful until you look at it from a different angle. The reverse is true as well. If you are frustrated and cannot solve a problem, simply getting a new angle might change all of that.

Many of the solutions to puzzles in Fez are completely improvised. Instead of looking up a walkthrough and taking a set route, players just need to tinker with the camera until they finally see something click. Improvisation for a non-linear platformer is something that really hasn’t occurred in gaming before.

The soundtrack sells a lot of the crazy worlds. Most of the graphics appear similar, even with perspective warping, so players can easily get lost without trying. A confusing map screen doesn’t help problems, but the music fits a mood completely different from the last.

A graveyard towards the end of the game has ominous and dreadful music while an infinite waterfall is given mysterious life with a theme that sounds almost like 2001. Walking down towards the lighthouse, watching the sunrise and tuning in to some heavenly chorus is just grand.

A scale of adventure not unlike a Zelda game; Fez really does know how to appeal to the nostalgic side of gaming. Gomez jumps a bit like Mario. He’s very floaty and can be controlled mid-air. He thankfully learned to grab ledges (unlike his NES counterparts), so at least Gomez isn’t a total numbskull.

Gomez can even climb. Fez literally takes the best parts of Mario’s control scheme from Super Mario 64 and adapts them into a 2D realm. Nintendo hasn’t even taken Mario that far in his New Super Mario Bros. games. It’s interesting to finally get a game that acknowledges that characters should be doing more than just running and jumping.

For all of the mind-bending that Fez throws at players, the game does lack difficulty. Gomez can easily twist his way out of a fall, but even death doesn’t stop the short little guy. Falling from a great ledge just plays a rather cute animation and Gomez is back.

This sort of signifies how life shouldn’t be quit. If Gomez were to quit, what would happen to his world? His family and friends would vanish and he will have failed everyone. A small thing like death isn’t going to prevent Gomez from accomplishing his task. Gomez likes to spit at the reaper.

Even if Fez isn’t the grand scale masterpiece that critics have been claiming, the game definitely mixes up enough genre conventions to feel wholly unique. It even provides a great space to just chill out and think about life.

Sometimes people create bigger problems than actually exist. If one simply turns his/her view of a problem into someone else’s mindset or re-evaluates the situation, any problem can be overcome. Surrendering to the burdens of life will get you nowhere and fast.

Even if I don’t agree with a lot of what Phil Fish says, he definitely knows how to craft a game. Let’s just hope his next title doesn’t take an additional five years to finish.

The Necessary Evil

Creative geniuses won’t strike gold each time. When you’re at the top of your game, you sometimes just mess up. Even Miyamoto recently admitted that, yet his works are still looked at with awe. Gamers don’t hold a grudge against him.

I attended the ScrewAttack Gaming Convention this past weekend and got a chance to ask the guys from Acclaim Entertainment about their past. I didn’t expect to get such a lively response, but I walked up and questioned, “Are there any games that you guys regret making?”

During their explanations, I began to understand a bit more about why publishers will license specific games. Ever wonder why so many sports games exist? Well, over half of Acclaim’s revenue came from its NFL Quarterback Club titles. Without those, we would have never seen Turok.

This just got me thinking about something like Call of Duty. In the hands of a better publisher, we would be seeing more creative titles coming from Activision instead of retreads or iterations of the same ideas. In a better industry, giants like EA and Ubisoft would be producing a more diverse range of titles.

Even so, something like Madden and Call of Duty are a necessary evil in the games industry. Without any money flowing in, how would we continue to play games? PC gaming is an exception, not a rule. For consoles, if we didn’t have cash cows to move hardware and fund publishers, we probably wouldn’t be getting anything.

ne_3

Even Nintendo is guilty of this. Mario has slowly become an annual franchise. Just last year, we were graced with two Mario titles, even if they were basically the same game. Nintendo uses the ludicrous sales from Mario to fund its other games and online services.

A Nintendo without Mario or Zelda to fall back on means a games industry without nostalgic games, platformers or local multiplayer. Ever ponder why Rayman: Origins had 4-player co-op? If Nintendo didn’t even attempt it with Mario, Ubisoft would have never thought of including it.

Gamers bemoan iterative and annual franchises, but we really should be thankful for their existence. We never have to purchase them and if there needs to be a change, we can clearly voice an opinion. Still, ridding the world of these titles would only lead to bad things.

I’d definitely like for more creativity in the industry, but we should never be so naïve as to think that Call of Duty is ruining gaming. The only thing that is hurting developers’ creativity is how bloated console game prices have become.

As MatPat from The Game Theorists put it, “Don’t buy a game if you don’t like it. Don’t like the new Call of Duty? Don’t like the new Battlefield? Don’t like the new Mario? Then don’t buy them.” Taking that advice to heart, we shouldn’t be angry about people who do.

ne_2

Everyone likes something for some reason or another. We may have grown tired of the repeated tricks and boring tropes of these games, but they serve a purpose. That purpose is to get new ideas and hardware rolling.

With the next-generation looming, I hope Call of Duty has enough steam to keep going. If Microsoft and Sony fail to keep their hardware moving, we really will be looking at another industry crash.

If that happens, we might not have anything new again.