Editor's note: The practice that Chris describes is on my mind lately — namely because of 2K's XCOM reboot mentioned below. While I'm open to new gameplay experiences, why mess with an already established series? I feel that developers exploit the nostalgia we hold when they do so. Why not just create an entirely new game? -Rob
Chances are if you're perusing Bitmob and reading this post that you're very much into your video games. Perhaps you cast your gaming-interest net widely, or maybe you focus on one genre. Does sir like his role-playing games? Driving sims? How about some stealth action or tactical shooting?
It may come as a surprise to you that whatever your genre of choice, you have poor taste and all your favorite games are shit.
That seems to be the view of the industry-at-large; at least, since the latest fashion in game design appears to be what hip, public-relation types call "streamlining" — the practice of removing some defining aspects in order to attract new audiences who were previously turned off. But at the same time, this risks alienating fans.
Coming up over the next few months, we have Fable 3, which Peter Molyneux claims will remove role-playing tropes — like leveling up — and integrate recharging health systems pilfered from modern shooters. Ghost Recon Future Soldier is — according to preview coverage — a punchier experience than its forebears that focuses more on action than the purer, tactical shooter feel of the previous entries.
Then we have the recently resurrected XCOM, which will attract gamers previously turned off by the X-Com series's hardcore, turn-based strategical nature by…erm…being a first-person shooter. Huh.
What is for some a beneficial process of fat cutting and for others homogenization of games designed to leave third-person action adventures as the only genre on store shelves (can't wait for Derby Stallion of War myself) for me truly kicked into high gear (a-ha!) with last year's Forza 3.
Always a series to include a decent level of customization, the latest entry added rewinds to use if you screw up — a feature cribbed from Codemasters' recent titles but taken to the next logical extreme by having them infinitely present rather than restricted.
Always a series to include a decent level of customization, the latest entry added rewinds to use if you screw up — a feature cribbed from Codemasters' recent titles but taken to the next logical extreme by having them infinitely present rather than restricted.
This was an admission by Turn 10 Studios, who developed Forza 3, of what sucks about racing games — driving diligently around in circles for half an hour only to screw up and lose everything in the last second. I think a copy of the N64's F1 World Grand Prix with teeth marks is still at my parents' home back in England .
Furthermore, it was a statement of intent to welcome in players frustrated by racing games in the past. It was a reasonably successful move; although the hardcore-driving-sim fans didn't like this sullying of their beloved genre, they could ignore the rewinds. It may have resulted in some new people interested in driving games, but I have my doubts.
Removing the threat of screwing up and losing everything merely leaves players with driving diligently in circles for half an hour, and that can be only so sexy. The racing game may be in need of a bigger overhaul down the road. (O-ho!)
In the same way, was Mass Effect 2 a big overhaul for the role-playing game, then? It should be noted that I loathe RPGs and their cumbersome, antiquated mechanics. Mass Effect 2 was the first in the genre — in a very, very long time — that I played all the way through and enjoyed, largely because I didn't play it like a RPG at all.
Through setting level progression, item management, and the like to automatic, all that was left was a solid, cover-based shooter with a well-written story. For my money, it was a great move — I could enjoy the character development and writing of an epic RPG without having to go through the rigmarole of actually playing one.
Still, while the more typical genre elements and stats may have lingered in the background for people to tinker with if they chose to turn them on, a fair few complained of dumbing down. Now, as much as I am wont to don my +5 cloak of indifference at role playing games, I can see the critics' point.
Probably the weakest part of playing Mass Effect 2 was the part where you actually played Mass Effect 2. It's not a bad shooter, but it's not fantastic, either. The game wins by combining its sturdy mechanics with great storytelling — not with brilliantly designed levels (especially not the side missions — at least four of them involved walking through an empty level and pressing a button at the end). If Bioware didn't have a knack for good characterization and dialogue, it would just be a generic third person action game.
Splinter Cell: Conviction is another to rewrite itself to appeal to new audiences while retaining previous fans, and it is a mixed bag. The game’s aggressive approach to stealth makes for a snappier pace and the kind of predatory glee Batman: Arkham Asylum offers. But while Sam Fisher is an underdeveloped character for one heading up his fifth game, you need only to mentally replace him with Jack Bauer and you can have plenty of fun in the role.
Something is still taken away from the player, though — the simpler A.I. designed to keep you in motion dulls the tension of previous entries, which provided punitive play encouraging a more cognitive approach.
The Fisher of 2010 may be older and now physically incapable of split-legged jumps between walls. But were he capable of such a feat, it's likely the maneuver would fall in with a lot of other, formally necessary stealth tools that now fall respectfully behind a silenced pistol with four mark and execute kills available.
If the hardcore-stealth fan is slightly disappointed but still finds the game’s early stages enjoyable, a mercifully brief trip to Iraq where the game becomes full-on, cover-based shooter mode may turn him off entirely — providing a potentially unsettling preview of the new Ghost Recon game or perhaps deliberately restricting player freedom in a bid to parody Modern Warfare and the like.
Conviction is an entertaining game, but not the Splinter Cell we know and some of us love. Its new direction works to an extent, but it's also an indication that games are steadily converging into one another. Forget the one-console future — I'm worried about the one-genre future.
Then, on the other hand, comes along Metro 2033 — a game I'm equal parts charmed and repulsed by. It's proud of its identity as an in-depth, primarily PC-developed FPS. Not only does it not choose to dumb itself down, it rather burdens itself with its own characteristic furniture. Bullets are your currency as well as your ammunition. Gas masks not only require you to replenish filters but can also break, which means you're screwed if you're nowhere near a shop that sells them or the corpse of a similarly unfortunate fellow.
Still, you can just reload your last save and keep trying right? Not on Xbox 360, sunshine. Death sends you right the way back to a checkpoint. If you went through said checkpoint in a bad way, you're up the creek without a paddle. It's immensely frustrating, yet pleasing all at the same time because the developers had an image in place for this game and carried on through.
I somehow doubt it'll do well enough to warrant a sequel (on consoles at least), and it may just be a nice marketing tie-in for the books that are prominently and cheekily advertised throughout (and which I wouldn't mind checking out a translation of).
But I like to think that if we had a Metro 2034, it'll stay as bravely strong and frustratingly weak. Just please don't make it a cover-based action adventure.