[Gamer-rant mode ON]
For a few weeks this quarter, I would go down to our school lounge where an Xbox 360 is hooked up to a widescreen HD TV. Every day when I came in for class, either before or after, I would just go down to the lounge, pick up a controller, throw down a few rounds of Soul Calibur IV with friends or friends-in-progress and generally have a good time, enjoying the game with other people who enjoy the game.
Around the lounge, however, are smaller clusters of "more mature" American gamers, giggling to themselves and jeering at how silly the game is; how the characters are so wildly designed, how the combat and damage scaling is 'unrealistic', among other things.
These are the same gamers who play and idolize "realistic games" like Gears of War, Call of Duty, Rainbow Six, Resistance 2, Fallout 3, Farcry 2, just to name a few. There seems to be something in common... aren't they all either real-world war games or dusty gunmetal space-marine first person shooters? Okay, I'm generalizing, I know; GoW is a third-person shooter and Fallout 3 wants me to believe that it's an RPG, okay fine. But really, what's so wrong about Soul Calibur IV that makes it such a laughing stock to the casual observer?
Few things about what I hear are inches close to me letting loose this very rant through vocal medium. Mostly, the bit about the game being 'unrealistic'. Isn't that why we play video games? To experience something beyond reality? You've probably heard it as much as I've heard it; people who berate Soul Calibur for its gaudy character design and its needlessly over the top action. But what would you rather have? Soul Calibur is a pseudo-fantasy martial arts fighting game, it has to be flashy and exciting. Would you rather see Soul Calibur done with plain looking characters in plain looking armor, running into each others' shields and longswords swinging and poking at the other in a tactless attempt to not die?
And I'm not just vouching for Soul Calibur IV, I'm vouching for games that even REMOTELY try to touch the word 'fantasy' that get the same ridicule from gamers who have "grown up" from the idea of throwing fire with your hands or heaving around 20-ton swords. Why are modern gamers so obsessed with 'realism' in games? Call me ignorant (I very well may be), but it just seems like all the latest high-tech super-hyped games that are coming out are all starting to look the same; pseudo-modern post-apocalyptic setting, everything colored in ambiguous dirty rusted gunmetal colors, gritty buff main protagonist with a buzz cut and a big space marine suit (helmet optional). Somehow these games are being heralded as being the 'greatest games ever', even though they all just seem to be loyally following a formula that doesn't seem to be changing.
I can't really say any more than that, though. I've never played the games, for one, and I also don't spend my hours analyzing what makes each game different, what gameplay mechanics are in play that makes the game deep, and how those mechanics make competitive play a real sense of tactical multiplayer action. I'm more of a fighting game connoisseur, and with only an hour of a controller in my hands I can make a general assessment of everything I just stated above in a fighting game. Said that, I can't very well do this rant properly unless I play devil's advocate; if FPS games really all just look the same from a distance from the perspective of someone who doesn't play them, don't all fighting games look the same from someone who doesn't play them also? Wacky characters fighting on a 2D camera view, pressing buttons and thwacking each other until the other falls over, all the while screaming silly things at the top of their lungs. And though I ask the same question from that angle, the answer is also the same; it's a formula, and it works. What I don't understand is when the 'hardcore gamers' try to denounce the fighting game formula as not even being a formula at all.
The concern comes from gamers who don't understand a fighting game's "unrealistic damage scale" as a mechanic of gameplay. Siegfried leaps into the air with a six-foot long, hundred-pound Zweihander in two hands and swings it down on little Talim with a force that shatters pavement, and with just a small yelp to show for it, little Talim rolls off the floor and stands up, shrugging it off like it was nothing. Zasalamel grabs dainty little Xianghua by the hair and kicks her onto the pointy end of his scythe, impaling her quite deeply before swinging his scythe and sending her sprawling, only so she can stand up again like nothing really happened. "That totally should have killed her!" the 'hardcore gamer' screams. From a completely objective viewpoint, he may be right. The only thing the game does to try and meet his point of view is take a chunk off the green bar on top of the screen that we're supposed to believe is representative of the characters health and stamina, and while it might even be a large green chunk, it still doesn't appeal to standards of 'realism' if that strike didn't outright kill the opponent.
But wait... isn't that just a part of the game? Fighting games have used this formula for generations now, and for many, the formula still works. 'Life Bars' in fighting games are like dice in Dungeons & Dragons; they're essential to the mechanic of the game, and it's part of the overall competitive aspect of the game (and before you say so, yes I've played Squaresoft's Bushido Blade, both 1 and 2, and I thought it was excellent; such a shame they never decided to continue making games like that). Rules and mechanics are what makes a game a game; even if they don't appeal to a standard of "realism". There is depth to rules, tactics to explore within the game's boundaries and therefore gameplay matures from simply mashing buttons and 'hoping' to win, to actual competitive play.
It seems then that newer releases that appeal to the 'mass audience' want to focus more on realism than on actual gameplay. Somehow the idea settled in that "if it's not realistic, it's not good; and therefore, not fun", but I motion to object. Why in the world would I want realism in a game? Not to sound pessimistic, but reality is boring. Why wouldn't I want to be immersed in interesting fantasy worlds (that AREN'T covered in dusty, rusted gray debris)? Why wouldn't I want to defy conventional science to achieve fantastic feats? What reason would I have to enter a virtual realm, just to be a regular, squishy human with nothing to going for him except a gun and a crosshair?
I have a few theories that come from wildly different angles. The first theory comes from a developers' point of view, the other comes from the gamers' point of view.
To the developer with the big wallet, nothing feels greater than shelling out your greens to produce a game that looks nothing less than fantastic. The PS2 era has shown us that it is graphically easier to create a game with stronger fantasy elements, but less realistic textures and shading. With more powerful machines, developers are letting their artists go wild with their stronger render software. And by principle, graphics that are closer to reality are harder to emulate, and thus demand stronger technology. Thus, the stronger the technology, the more 'realistic' games appear to be. That's why most 3D animated film companies choose to make 'talking animal' films, because they let them show off their fur rendering power. I theorize that most developers choose to make games in first person just to allow a player to view any angle of their expensive graphics and see detail that a third person perspective would have otherwise missed. From a production standpoint, one might understand that you wouldn't want to compromise the money you put out to have super-realistic graphics with gameplay elements that compromise the realistic quality of it.
Complimentary to that theory is the result of such big-budget spending on realistic graphics; real-time, fast-paced gameplay that puts you on the spot, all the time. Freedom of movement, freedom of camera angle, and the freedom to fire off your gun to whoever you damn well choose to. Gamers want to be entertained for every minute and every second they hold a controller in their hand. Between actual player commentary and common online gamer opinions, I feel that players have been spoiled with the pace of newer action titles. I've seen and heard players from here and there actually complain about basic dialogue sequences in RPGs; you know, those parts of the game where the game stops you from playing so you can read and hear some characters babble some nonsense you're supposed to care about when all you really want to do is continue running around killing things. These gamers grow impatient when they aren't running around freely in first person with a gun in their hands, and while I don't speak out to the entirety of the gamer population, I feel these kinds of gamers are disillusioned from any other kind of gameplay.
The result? A gamer so distanced from fantasy concepts that anything less than virtual realism is too unbelievable to ever be taken seriously.
Fantasy is dead; the space marine shot it.
Here's where I put contemplations I've had. Kinda like a "Penny for your Thoughts" section for my journal.
I think I'll go ahead and submit this rant to The Escapist [link]
STEAM JUNKET: My animation totally bombed. On the other hand, I just got a good bit of inspiration to work off of. Maybe this isn't as hopeless as I keep thinking it is.
MISC.: This, too. I gotta keep working on those character portfolios. I think having that much will definitely make my desk at the portfolio show stand out that much more.
~kura-x picked up Battle Fantasia not too long ago. It's a fun, simple, silly little game that likely flew under the radar of much more popular fighting game franchises. It's by Arc Systems, but it's a rather moderately-paced game that plays sort of like a cross between Mark of the Wolves and Darkstalkers with just a dash of Soul Calibur. The art style is easy to fall in love with: fun, interesting characters and a rough, sketchy style reminiscent of fairy tale books, simple fantasy music and an interface that emulates elements of a fantasy RPG that tie the game together in a neat, colorful little package.
I also got him Tales of Vesperia for his birthday. The game doesn't play much different from Tales of the Abyss, which is great because I liked Abyss. Story is MUCH easier to understand than Abyss (the latter of which seemed to overwhelm you with a lexicon of nonsensical fantasy-terms), Yuri is actually a likeable main character (not a dork like Lloyd and not a whiny bitch like Luke... just sort of a laid-back, chill guy), graphics are crisp and well-done, and all the new little gameplay tweaks they added make the game experience familiar and new at the same time. We're not that far into the game, but we're liking it.
Other than that, if you haven't read through my rant, I'm basically unimpressed with the latest batch of games that's being hyped up for 2008. I hope 2009 does better, I'm actually looking forward to Street Fighter IV, and if I don't pick that up immediately, it's probably because I picked up Persona 4 in December. Not to mention I can dust off my Wii once Castlevania Judgement and Muramasa: The Demon Blade come out.
_____________________