Topic: A interesting rant from a game journalist

[Flames_of_chaos]

Source

The one part of the podcast that's most stuck with me has been a listener-submitted letter that praises Persona 3 as a fantastic example of what can be done with a game on a limited budget. Because P3 had a much lower budget than something like Kingdom Hearts, the reasoning goes, it was far more creative than your typical blockbuster title. Since the team couldn't afford to create a massive world with a vast cast of characters, they stuck to a very small and limited environment and developed their few characters with unprecedented depth, creating something with very little flash but plenty of substance.

I absolutely agree with this line of thought, and in fact it crystallizes perfect in light of recent news. Last week's Metal Gear Solid 5 (maybe) teaser, for one; and then there was last night's news that Dragon Quest X will be making its way to Wii, of all things. One of these tibits fills me with interest, the other with weary resignation. The funny thing is that the roles are swapped from what they were a year ago; if these new items had popped up last December, I would have said, "Yeah! More Metal Gear! And, eh, Dragon Quest keeps stagnating. Whatever." Now, it's the Metal Gear sequel that reeks of creative bankruptcy and the Dragon Quest plans that make me curious to see what lies in store.

And here's why: 2008 was the year I stopped caring about AAA releases. They're the grease that keeps the wheels of my job spinning, I realize; if it weren't for the hype around Gears of War and the frothing fanboy brain seizures prompted by any mention of Killzone 2, I'd probably be out of work. But god, I'm so sick of vapid big-budget games. I guess they're a sign that the games industry has finally achieved its goal of catching up with Hollywood, because most blockbuster game releases feel as mentally empty and emotionally void as your typical $200-million-budget-Don-LaFontaine-would-have-narrated-the-trailer-when-he-was-alive film. So well done, games industry. You've realized your dream at last. Too bad it wasn't the right dream. Games aren't movies, and the horrors of Siliwood should have proven that...yet the biggest and most visible games still use "Hollywood summer hit" as their model. Sometime around June, I finally got sick of it.

Specifically, it was the double feature of Metal Gear Solid 4 and Grand Theft Auto IV that did me in. Two giant games; two fantastically designed games; two games whose excellent interactive portions were constantly thwarted by their creators' Hollywood pretensions. It makes me angry that reviewers actually called GTAIV's narrative "Oscar worthy," because (1) no, it really wasn't and you guys seriously need to go and watch a good movie, OK?; and (2) that kind of empty praise is just going to encourage Rockstar to keep focusing on the sloppy, poorly-written pulp noir aspects of their creations to the detriment of the part that actually makes GTA unique and fun: the gameplay. I'll save my irritation with GTAIV for another day, but playing it immediately after MGS4 made me realize that I don't have to keep swallowing the games that the industry pays the most money to hype up, that I don't have to accept these things as the limit and pinnacle of what this medium can achieve, that there's more merit in games that are content to be games than in games that desperately want to be movies that you can sometimes control and in which the possibility of a temporary interactive setback interrupts the flow of the story.

Seriously, screw that stuff.

Well, no, don't screw it. So long as it keeps things lively, building interest among the traditional 15-to-35-year-old male demographic by providing the shiny, expletive-laden explosions they do so love, games like Gears 2 and GTAIV have a place. But make no mistake: those games aren't the future of gaming; they're a part of the future. And Dragon Quest X, I hope, represents the other side of that coin.

It was a pretty big shock for me when Dragon Quest IX was announced for Nintendo DS (good lord, has it really been two years?), but it makes perfect sense now that I've played more of the series. I understand what Dragon Quest is about now, and it's not about the bleeding, ragged edge of technology. The series has had a tough time catching on here in the States because, generally speaking, gamers here are about the bleeding, ragged edge of technology. But you look at something like Dragon Quest VII, which was contemporaneous with Final Fantasy X, and it seems downright laughable. Even Dragon Quest VIII, which looked pretty dang good, had the same basic game mechanics as its 8-bit predecessors: turn-based combat, tons of battles, and fairly limited character-building, with Final Fantasy-style party-twinking to break the game being downright impossible.

But those things aren't really the point of Dragon Quest; they're the means to an end, and I've come to understand that the end the series aspires to is something different. Dragon Quest uses its modest visuals and familiar game systems to tell stories -- not big, twisty, shocking stories, but variants on the traditional "legendary hero saves the world" stories. Each DQ title explores a different facet of that fundamental concept, and if you can look beyond the visuals and the somewhat stagnant mechanics, you can appreciate the series' greatest strength: its heart.

Right now I'm playing a preview version of Dragon Quest V for DS, which I'm restricted from discussing in any detail until the usual stupid assortment of embargoes dissipates, but it's an incredible game. It looks exactly the same as the DS version of Dragon Quest IV, and I'm fighting a lot of the same enemies with the same skills and tactics as in the previous title. But again...that's not the point. The point is the game's heart, and in that respect DQV is fairly unparalleled -- maybe by Mother 3, or Skies of Arcadia, or a handful of smaller, more esoteric games. But I look at the efforts competing RPG series have made to explore similar concepts of family, personal duty and heroism through generations and I see well-intended but honestly sort of disastrous results like Phantasy Star III and Final Fantasy VIII.

And so it makes sense that Dragon Quest's sequels are headed to DS and Wii. They don't need PS3-level power to be heartwarming, and in fact too much tech would probably just get in the way. The hardcore gamers have their PS3s and Xbox 360s, but everyone has a DS or a Wii. The DQ series goes where the people are, because that's where the money is; right now, that's on Nintendo consoles, because Nintendo's plan for disruptive technology is actually working out.

My biggest concern about the gaming industry right now is this nonsensical polarity between "hardcore" and "casual" games; I'd hoped the Wii would serve as a bridge between the two, but honestly Nintendo has done a terrible job of it, transforming all but a handful of their longest-running franchises into neutered, pandering messes while they focus their time and money on catering to the retirement home crowd. (That's the current retirement home crowd, mind you -- not the cool retirement home crowd of the future, the one with a stack of MegaTen games to work through.) I'm hoping that DQX is a sign of good things to come: a traditional, uncompromising franchise that's found a home on Wii, where it can focus on its core strengths and be a great game without the need to run a $100 million ad campaign to convince everyone that it will make your brain explode due to visceral awesomeness.

High-end PS3 and Xbox 360 games aren't the future, and neither is the current, pathetic state of the Wii. If any game can reconcile the two, I think, it will be DQX: it's a major franchise, steeped in the traditional vocabulary of video games, but with broad appeal (at least in its home territory). Here's hoping that other third parties take this as a cue to start focusing on the Wii for something other than embarrassing shovelware.

[Bill Aurion]

I agree with the first bit, but then this pops up:

"I'd hoped the Wii would serve as a bridge between the two, but honestly Nintendo has done a terrible job of it, transforming all but a handful of their longest-running franchises into neutered, pandering messes while they focus their time and money on catering to the retirement home crowd."

Really?  REALLY?  I'd like to know ONE of these franchises that has been "neutered"...Sounds like he forced some negativity for the article to appear "balanced", but failed completely...

[Flames_of_chaos]

Well out of that whole article that same bit i disagreed with as well. Nintendo didn't really neuter any of their games of the existing franchises when the Wii iteration hit. The only thing I do agree with though is Nintendo didn't really do a great job of bridging the "casual gamer" to the "hardcore gamer" such as drawing their new found audience to Nintendo's core franchises. 

[NWR_pap64]

I agree with the first bit, but then this pops up:

"I'd hoped the Wii would serve as a bridge between the two, but honestly Nintendo has done a terrible job of it, transforming all but a handful of their longest-running franchises into neutered, pandering messes while they focus their time and money on catering to the retirement home crowd."

Really?  REALLY?  I'd like to know ONE of these franchises that has been "neutered"...Sounds like he forced some negativity for the article to appear "balanced", but failed completely...

Hah, I too was enjoying the rant till that part came.

The only game some felt was changed due to casual affair was Mario Kart Wii (Gametrailers kept ranting about it in their review). But yeah, everything else has been fine. Did he already forget how fantastic Galaxy was last year?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Mario Kart Wii plays phenomenally.

[Shift Key]

Really?  REALLY?  I'd like to know ONE of these franchises that has been "neutered"

Twilight Disappointment Princess. I left Wolf Link in some dungeon to think about what he did. He hasn't made it out yet so it must be a long list.

[Nick DiMola]

I agree with you guys absolutely phenomenal writeup aside from the Wii knocks at the end. However, I do see the "bridge" potential of Dragon Quest X. I think it will bring more traditional game development and be a step in the direction of satisfying an even larger audience.

It's actually mind blowing that a member of the media has expressed a sentiment that I have expressed for years now. Big budget games are just like big budget movies; empty and boring. Just like Jeremy said, these games are killing the industry, not "casual" ones.

I think the even funnier part about the whole thing is how big budget games aren't the ones that attract the mass market, simple Wii games seem to do the trick for that. Ah, irony.

EDIT: Been reading through the comments on the blog, and one is a paste of something written by that idiot amir0x on NeoGAF. Can someone delete him from the Earth? Somehow he manages to twist Jeremy's undefinable "heart" into a bad thing while making sure to point out just how awesome GTA IV, Gears of War, and Halo are.

[NWR_pap64]

Really?  REALLY?  I'd like to know ONE of these franchises that has been "neutered"

Twilight Disappointment Princess. I left Wolf Link in some dungeon to think about what he did. He hasn't made it out yet so it must be a long list.

Um, you do realize that TP started life as a GC game, long before the casual, neutering debacle, right?

As for Mario Kart Wii, here are the top 3 reasons why some hardcore gamers feel it was neutered for the sake of casual players:
- Too many powerful items: This is something I think affect both casual and core gamers. The only part of the game in which this is a problem is during single player. This didn't seem a problem in multiplayer.

- The Wii wheel: People have claimed that if you use this you are a casual tool. You don't need to play with the Wii wheel and it offers classic and GC controls, so no issue here.

- Multiplayer lacking features: This is the biggest issue with some gamers. But like I said, this also affects casuals. I doubt Nintendo would remove extra features for the sake of the casual.

I really gotta do more research and see what Mr. Parish means when he says some games have been neutered.

[Peachylala]

The Wii bash pretty much killed the rest of the article for me, but he did make excellent points about big budget games.

Does he even remember Metroid Prime 3 or Galaxy? Guess the Wii is too casual for 1up bloggers.

[Ian Sane]

Jeremy doesn't know what he's actually complaining about.  The problem with GTAIV and Metal Gear Solid 4 isn't their big budget.  His complaint is really that they try to hard to be like movies and dedicate too much effort to storylines that are pretty damn sh!tty.  I like the Metal Gear games but Hideo Kojima just so wants to be a movie director.  Except the problem is he's a pretentious hack with idiotic story ideas.  Most videogame plots are like if you had a big budget movie directed and written by 13 year olds.  They're on par with action movie ideas I would come up with in grade 8.

It seems more like Jeremy needs more games like Metroid Prime which tells the bulk of it's story in gameplay and has a story designed so that the player lives it instead of watches it.  It also is a little less pretentious in it's storytelling.  It knows it's a videogame and doesn't try to be overly clever with catchy dialog and plot twits.  Retro knows they're game makers making a game, not wannabe film-makers living vicariously through their game.

It isn't like black and white.  It's not like games have to be either Xenosaga or Pac-Man.  You can make an epic big game (and by "epic" I mean epic gameplay and depth) and not have it be a sh!tty movie.  The irony is that Jeremy is talking about Dragon Quest which is an epic big budget game.  It isn't some Wiiware puzzle game.  He doesn't like GTAIV and MGS4 but doesn't seem to quite understand why he doesn't and is jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Jeremy is right about the Wii being a poor gap between casual and hardcore.  It's has the image of the grandma console and third parties treat it as such (though hopefully Square Enix will change that).  And while the diehard fans claim Nintendo hasn't abandoned the hardcore well they still had an E3 completely focused on non-gamers and this Christmas the two big Nintendo titles are Wii Music (non-game) and Animal Crossing (glorified port of the DS version clearly aimed at people who never played the original).  Nintendo may still care about core gamers but if so they really SUCK at expressing that.  This Christmas season the Wii is completely irrelevent from a core gamer point of view.  The Wii isn't going to bridge the gap between hardcore and casual when Nintendo allows something like that to happen.

The neutering "issue" is amplified partially because of the timing of Mario Kart Wii.  Mario Kart is the most recent BIG Nintendo game that isn't a non-game (I personally like Warioland but it lacks the big hype and is short and thus is often overlooked).  Well Mario Kart is kind of neutered.  And since then we had the sh!ttiest E3 ever and no core games for Christmas and Nintendo trying to pass off an Animal Crossing PORT as being for core gamers and it's all been really horrible timing.  For a lot of core gamers Mario Kart Wii (probably the only truly neutered game) is the most recent Nintendo game they played.  Ooops.

It also doesn't help though that Nintendo emphasised that the remote was for people who were confused by traditional controllers.  It makes the whole thing sound dumbed down.  And then Nintendo announces all these Wii-makes?  Well it sounds like they're neutering those games.  Miyamoto mentions how Twilight Princess is the last Zelda of its type?  That statement, mixed with what appears to be a dominant non-gamer favourism, suggests neutering Zelda.  Nintendo has painted non-gamers in such a way to make them look so pathetic that the idea of a game that the old group and the new will both like seems impossible.  The natural assumption would be that they have to dumb the game down because those non-gamers are apparently so damn easily confused.

[bustin98]

Its like since this current generation launched, game players have been jumping from one game to next ready to tell the world that each one is 'the game' that defines what this generation is about. But like a mirage those aspirations evaporate only to reappear on the horizon.

Technically speaking, alot of games got it right and deserve some praise. The complaint should be on the fans and those who perpetuate the hype machine. How much hype is on a board game? Did the latest edition of Risk send some segment of fanboys in a frenzy? I don't know but I would imagine not.

This is what Nintendo wants. To be considered more of a 'game' and less of a 'hobby'. You'll probably find some used board games at Goodwill, but I bet most of them have been worn down to the cardboard. Nintendo wants you to cherish the games you buy, to not buy on a whim. The thing about hype is people hop on the bandwagon, play through a game, ask themselves why they bought it, realize that the game being released next month is what they are looking for, and trade in the now 'not what I wanted' game for credit towards that new game. In the end what does that person have to cherish? I bunch of memories of playing a game that was not for them?

Not to say that I don't want to see Nintendo games hyped. But that part of me is the 'I want what I like to be popular' me. In truth, I really want to have games that I can go back to time and time again without being bored 10 years from now. 10 years from now, how will Grand Theft Auto 4 stand up? That, I think, is where the heart and soul of a game shines.

[Luigi Dude]

I really gotta do more research and see what Mr. Parish means when he says some games have been neutered.

Parish is a nostalgia blinded fanboy who thinks everything old is better, and the newer version of games suck.  Case in point, his horrible Wario Land Shake review.
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3170104&p=44&sec=REVIEWS

All he does is go on about how great Wario Land 4 was and how greatly inferior Shake is.  As someone who's played both WL4 and Shake to 100%, his review seriously makes me wonder his state of mind.  Wario Land Shake pretty much takes the gameplay of WL4 and improves it in every way possible.  I've tried to find what his exact complaints are while playing the game, and haven't found any truth to any of them.

I'd imagine, Parish feels this way about a lot of other Nintendo series as well.  Even if the new games are just as good or better then some of the older titles, he's going to hate them anyway just because they're new.  This would explain perfectly why he said Nintendo neutered their games, because in his mind, anything new is going to be neutered no matter what.

[Armak88]

I don't think that Nintendo's main franchises have been neutered, but there has been a definite change to many of them.

Twilight Princess: Probably the easiest Zelda game to date. The bosses were all push overs, the temples were for the most part straight forward, and puzzles were self contained and simple.

Metroid Prime 3: environments were linear and lacked the interconnectivity of the previous games. The difficulty was still there, but not quite to the levels of the previous games (after rundas, i think things petered out for the most part.) Echoes was really quite hard though, so I don't begrudge corruption for not going there.

Mario Galaxy: Easy. Sure the last twenty stars you get are tougher. but the bosses and levels are straight forward and linear. I always wanted to explore but never really got to. I felt like I had seen the whole level after getting the stars there.

I don't see any of these changes as being only because of the new casual market, games getting easier has been a trend for quite some time now. Thankfully all of Nintendo's games are saved from this by exhibiting stellar game play. Galaxy and TP are games that deliver genuinely fun experiences even if they don't challenge me as much as their former incarnations. Same with Metroid, but it remains challenging, my gripe with corruption had more to do with it's linearity, but it still remains one of my favourite games.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo wants you to cherish the games you buy, to not buy on a whim.

No they don't.  Look at the VC and all those ports they had on the GBA and the Wii-makes.  If you cherish your game you won't buy it again when they re-release it.  If you cherish Mario Tennis or Mario Kart you'll be less likely to buy the sequel because it will seem redundant to you.  Nintendo wants us to buy their game, forget about it and then only have enough pleasent memories of it to buy a sequel to it or buy a re-release.  The way I cherish games and go back to SNES games that over ten years old?  Nintendo doesn't want me to do that.  Nobody does.  All videogame companies treat videogames as disposable entertainment.  They ALL want us to buy their game on the whim.  They only reason they don't like people trading in games is because then used sales might eat into their profits.

The more I think about all this core gamer vs. non-gamer stuff I think the whole thing might just be a generation gap.  Videogame consoles have now existed for over 30 years.  If you owned an Atari when it was current you've got to be at least nearing 40.  For a lot of Nintendo fans videogaming really began for us in 1985 with the NES.  Over 20 years videogaming is going to change a fair bit.  Like a lot of forms of entertainment videogames keep with the times.  My dad's rock music taste spans about 20 years from his first Beatles album he got when he was about 15 to the mid-80's.  After that he just doesn't really dig any rock music and his tastes are now classical and adult comtemporary.  Videogames are for young people and as we all get older videogames are going to identify with us less and less.  They're always changing and they're making them for different people now.

As my brother puts it "they don't make anything cool anymore".   And it isn't necessarily because your getting older but just that things have changed and you have a wider perspective than younger people will.  You'll notice more change and some of it you're just not going to like.  It's not even necessarily universally bad change.  It might just be that you liked a certain element that's no longer there and someone younger than you never experienced it and thus doesn't see the absense of it as a problem.  I don't like the Simpsons anymore, haven't for years.  Younger fans don't get my criticism though because they didn't watch the same show as me.  We're fans of two different styles of humour that just happen to be attached to the same TV series.

Though it doesn't help that Nintendo has largely stuck with the same franchises for a long time now.  They're getting stale and Nintendo's new IPs to replace them?  Well they're all aimed at a different target demo.  Parish probably doesn't like Warioland Shake It as much as Warioland 4 because the concept has become more stale to him.

[NWR_Lindy]

I think Parish would feel differently about "big budget" (whatever the hell that means, really...so every game on Wii was developed in Iwata's garage? Yeah right...even though he would have a REALLY big garage, but I'm rambling) games in a year in which every single one wasn't a sequel.  After playing Resistance 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Killzone 2, it's very easy to feel like you've seen it all before.  That's because YOU HAVE...since they're all sequels that build on an original concept instead of introducing a brand new one.

I bet he wouldn't have written a piece like this in 2006, when the original Gears of War was released along with Okami, Oblivion, and several other games that could be considered completely new or non-linear sequels.

[Mario]

Because he's a fucking idiot. Shake It destroys Wario Lame 4 in every way possible.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

when can I get a [check]-Watched label under my name

these avatar ornaments seem to be a new status symbol.

[EasyCure]

when can I get a [check]-Watched label under my name

these avatar ornaments seem to be a new status symbol.

they're the new Points.

[vudu]

FYI, yesterday Parish posted a follow up to Wednesday's rant.

Also, if you don't already follow it, you really should check out www.gamespite.net, Jeremy's otherblog/site.  It's great for old people gaming. 

[KDR_11k]

Lindy, except for GTA all those games were nothing new even when they were released.

Ian, you're egocentric if you assume the VC is to make people rebuy their games because many of us have never owned these games in first place and only now get the chance to play them.

This is Malstrom's response. He goes a bit further and tries to identify the problems more.

[Kairon]

I actually read through all that Malstrom post. It's very interesting, to say the least, and I think he has a very interesting and thought-provoking definition of what "content" and "innovation" should really mean in the game industry.

[Peachylala]

It was a very good read, and he made some very good points. Yet whenever Nintendo tried to do something vastily different in a series, everyone bitched about it. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite Zelda games because the content was different. Yes, it was a sequal to Ocarina of Time, and had way fewer dungeons, but the sense of adventure, awaiting the new lands you could explore and interacting with the NPCs was a great experience. However, about 20% of the fanbase liked it, while others bitched about how it wasn't Ocarina of Time.

And what about the "core" audience that Nintendo is so-called "abandoning"? Heh, it's ironic considering that the majority of Nintendo "core" SNES audience dropped them like a rock after the PSX came out, and completely ignored them (for some obvious reasons) during the GCN era. Is it really Nintendo's fault that Wit Fit sells more then Metroid Prime 3? While the latter didn't have as much marketing, it still sold over a million units. Quite a respectable number. And then there are the games that were show-cased at the Fall Summit.

Or we could just hark on Reggie. That's always fun.

[NWR_pap64]

Wow, 1up seems to be on a roll complaining/bitching about big gaming in 2008.

This blog now talks about how many of the big titles across all three platforms failed to impress and lacked the innovation 2007 brought.

Check it out here:
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8971093&publicUserId=5725436

[KDR_11k]

Remember, 1up tries to troll the internets for page views.

[Ian Sane]

It was a very good read, and he made some very good points. Yet whenever Nintendo tried to do something vastily different in a series, everyone bitched about it. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite Zelda games because the content was different. Yes, it was a sequal to Ocarina of Time, and had way fewer dungeons, but the sense of adventure, awaiting the new lands you could explore and interacting with the NPCs was a great experience. However, about 20% of the fanbase liked it, while others bitched about how it wasn't Ocarina of Time.

I think this is the dilemma for all artists who have a fanbase with expectations.  There will always be the people who just want more of the same.  From an artistic point of view catering to these people too much will result in stagnation.  It also goes against an artist's natural instinct to grow and develop over time.  At the same time this is a business and you're expected to make money off your work.  Too radical of a change or a design that is too inaccessable can turn off enough people to make the work no longer profitable.  It can be videogame sequels, movie sequels, seasons of a TV show, albums by a band, a comic strip, a book series - there's this balance between making your work stale or uncommercial.  Nintendo just has to deal with that like everyone else.

Though there is also a third option where you realize there's a much bigger market that isn't interested in your work and then altering your work to appeal to the new audience at the potential expense of your existing fanbase.  This sort of change is often money-driven and is usually associated with "selling out".

With Majora's Mask I think Nintendo should take a few things into account:

- the time limit was restricting.  Even as a huge fan of the game I felt having a time limit while in a dungeon wasn't very user friendly, though with almost everything else it was enjoyable.  To me this is like how the first Pikmin had the 30 day time limit that turned a lot of people off but that was removed from Pikmin 2 without making the game not feel like Pikmin.

- the game was released in late 2000, at a point where the N64 was not as popular.  A lot of people that had bought the console for Mario 64, Goldeneye or OoT had given up on the console by then because of it's lack of games.

- just because someone rejects a change doesn't mean change is bad.  It may just be that that particular change wasn't accepted.  It doesn't mean the Zelda audience is against change, they just may not like THAT specific change.