EQ5. I agree. I don't find my own life boring because foreshadowing rarely occurs. Besides, I do believe games could one day employ such techniques by observing player behavior and making predictions. Sure, things won't always pan out to fulfill the foreshadowing event(s), but as long as the narrative is consistent it won't break the story. In fact it could still help because the player might have been aware of the foreshadowing only to be surprised by an altogether different outcome (this happens in more traditional storytelling forms as well).
EQ6. Well put. I enjoy skillfully told stories so much that I actually prefer to watch football on TV rather than see a live game - the carefully orchestrated camera cuts and commentators (narrators?) make the experience more interesting to me.
EQ8. Again, very well put. This has been a constant challenge to game developers as they try to make their games feel more realistic without burdening them with the mundanities of everyday life.
EQ10. I was recently playing the new Prince of Persia while my girlfriend watched. She agreed it was pretty, but didn't understand why the characters didn't look more realistic. Her perception was that all 3D games were striving for photorealism. As I explained that the developers intentionally wanted that look, I thought it would be good to remember that myself because we as an industry tend to seek and admire realistic 3D representations above all others.
While it's valuable to keep track of cliche'd mechanics, I'd be interested in hearing people's grievances with cliche'd developer/publisher behavior.
For example, developers have a knack for believing that just because their game features characters taken from a revered literary or film source, that all of a sudden it becomes a mature work of artistic achievement. Case in point: EA is publishing a game based on Dante's Inferno, but we all know that the experience is going boil down to the player beating the crap out of demons and monsters (watch the trailer on the website if you need proof). What iritates is hearing the executive producer state, "The time is right for the world of interactive entertainment to adapt this literary masterpiece." Um, if all we can do with the subject matter is turn it into a gory brawler, then no, the time is not right. Sorry if that comes off as mean but I can't hold my tongue any more.
Another behavior that frustrates is hearing from developers about how they are taking great risks with their latest game, yet when it comes out it looks like every other game in the genre but with one or two minor twists. Case in point: as the game Dead Space was under construction, I kept reading developer accounts about how bold and daring a direction they were taking with it's sci-fi setting. Now, I like the game, I really do, but it's Resident Evil 4 in space. That's all. Yes, the limb-severing mechanic is unique and the HUD incorporation is clever, but there's nothing in there that felt like a huge risk (or even a small risk) in terms of gameplay innovation.
Anyway, I'd love to hear other people's pet peeves about the developer community. You know, for the good of developers. :)
I think after the glut of the Christmas season games wears off, Mirror's Edge will get a lot of rentals and used copy sales. Reviews have been all over the board for the game and I think people will be curious to try it but reticent to spend full price in case they find themselves in the camp of those who don't enjoy it. While the rentals/used sales won't help EA in the short term, it will build a fan base that will be more willing to commit to a purchase of a sequel in the future.
Okay, so what are numbers 1-4 used for? Do we need to discern between degrees of failure?
I know we grew up grading ourselves with this system, but this is a game review, not high school.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the scale goes like this:
10/10 = People complain about other great games that didn't get 10's.
9/10 = People complain about other good games that scored 7's or 8's.
8/10 = People complain.....a little less, but will argue both directions.
7/10 = People complain about other games that were rated higher but weren't as good.
6/10 = People complain that the score is unreasonably low.
1-5/10 = People finally stop complaining because they universally agree that the game is terrible.
Network now...
Jason_Seip's Comments
Good article. To comment on some of the topics:
EQ5. I agree. I don't find my own life boring because foreshadowing rarely occurs. Besides, I do believe games could one day employ such techniques by observing player behavior and making predictions. Sure, things won't always pan out to fulfill the foreshadowing event(s), but as long as the narrative is consistent it won't break the story. In fact it could still help because the player might have been aware of the foreshadowing only to be surprised by an altogether different outcome (this happens in more traditional storytelling forms as well).
EQ6. Well put. I enjoy skillfully told stories so much that I actually prefer to watch football on TV rather than see a live game - the carefully orchestrated camera cuts and commentators (narrators?) make the experience more interesting to me.
EQ8. Again, very well put. This has been a constant challenge to game developers as they try to make their games feel more realistic without burdening them with the mundanities of everyday life.
EQ10. I was recently playing the new Prince of Persia while my girlfriend watched. She agreed it was pretty, but didn't understand why the characters didn't look more realistic. Her perception was that all 3D games were striving for photorealism. As I explained that the developers intentionally wanted that look, I thought it would be good to remember that myself because we as an industry tend to seek and admire realistic 3D representations above all others.
While it's valuable to keep track of cliche'd mechanics, I'd be interested in hearing people's grievances with cliche'd developer/publisher behavior.
For example, developers have a knack for believing that just because their game features characters taken from a revered literary or film source, that all of a sudden it becomes a mature work of artistic achievement. Case in point: EA is publishing a game based on Dante's Inferno, but we all know that the experience is going boil down to the player beating the crap out of demons and monsters (watch the trailer on the website if you need proof). What iritates is hearing the executive producer state, "The time is right for the world of interactive entertainment to adapt this literary masterpiece." Um, if all we can do with the subject matter is turn it into a gory brawler, then no, the time is not right. Sorry if that comes off as mean but I can't hold my tongue any more.
Another behavior that frustrates is hearing from developers about how they are taking great risks with their latest game, yet when it comes out it looks like every other game in the genre but with one or two minor twists. Case in point: as the game Dead Space was under construction, I kept reading developer accounts about how bold and daring a direction they were taking with it's sci-fi setting. Now, I like the game, I really do, but it's Resident Evil 4 in space. That's all. Yes, the limb-severing mechanic is unique and the HUD incorporation is clever, but there's nothing in there that felt like a huge risk (or even a small risk) in terms of gameplay innovation.
Anyway, I'd love to hear other people's pet peeves about the developer community. You know, for the good of developers. :)
P.S. For more in-depth write-ups concerning the above topics, go here: http://blog.jasonseip.com
I think after the glut of the Christmas season games wears off, Mirror's Edge will get a lot of rentals and used copy sales. Reviews have been all over the board for the game and I think people will be curious to try it but reticent to spend full price in case they find themselves in the camp of those who don't enjoy it. While the rentals/used sales won't help EA in the short term, it will build a fan base that will be more willing to commit to a purchase of a sequel in the future.
Mario Kart with marketing (the game makes sure you get a clear view of the companies/products being advertised on the hoods of the cars).
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
Okay, so what are numbers 1-4 used for? Do we need to discern between degrees of failure?
I know we grew up grading ourselves with this system, but this is a game review, not high school.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the scale goes like this:
10/10 = People complain about other great games that didn't get 10's.
9/10 = People complain about other good games that scored 7's or 8's.
8/10 = People complain.....a little less, but will argue both directions.
7/10 = People complain about other games that were rated higher but weren't as good.
6/10 = People complain that the score is unreasonably low.
1-5/10 = People finally stop complaining because they universally agree that the game is terrible.
All Jason_Seip's Comments