Not too long ago, I took
to Reddit’s Truegaming section to pose a question: what kind of lasting effect
have guns had on video games? I think
it’s a legitimate question, considering how you pretty much can’t have a game
these days without guns. Okay, maybe not
every game has guns (Tokyo Jungle comes
to mind, and is stronger because of it), but there are ENOUGH games full of
guns to give pause. It really doesn’t
say good things about the state of the industry when I read a GameInformer article about Gearbox’s
upcoming game Battleborn, and the
first paragraph talks about how the dev established itself as a FPS ace with Halo: Combat Evolved. And in that very paragraph, it goes on to say
that Gearbox left its comfort zone by making Borderlands…another FPS, only with RPG elements, sort of. And then their new game is -- hold on to
something -- another FPS. Only
different! Somehow.
I’ve
gone on about this before, but it bears repeating: guns are a useful tool
in-universe and out of it, but they can be limiting in the very same
method. Think about it; a character’s
weapon of choice/fighting style says a lot about their personalities, and in a
video game it can decide (and jazz up) the mechanics. Or, to put it a different way, compare a
handful of shooters to a handful of fighting games. There are basic principles that carry over
from, say, Street Fighter to BlazBlue, but the varying characters,
styles, and mechanics make each fighting game a whole different beast. Conversely, playing one shooter gives you
nearly everything you need to succeed in another. There are nuances that set them apart, yes,
but there’s only so much you can do in terms of deviation.
So the question that’s
been on my mind, now more than ever, is simple: what makes a good shooter? And I intend to find out.
As fate would have it,
I’ve had the fortune (or misfortune) of playing a number of different shooters
recently. It’s been…uh…an
experience. I can tell you that much
right off the bat.
It’s probably for the
best. There seems to be a misconception
about me that I only like Japanese things -- and only JRPGs, to a similar
extent. I’d like to think that I’ve
proven many times in the past that I like good things, regardless of their
country of origin, but I don’t blame others for assuming the worst of me. I haven’t gone out of my way to talk too much
about things that are clearly outside
my comfort zone -- and in this case, it’s shooters. That’s a real problem, now that I think about
it; after all, I can’t start screaming “SHOOTERS ARE DUMB AND ARE FOR DUMB
PEOPLE!” if I don’t have the experience or concrete evidence to make such
claims.
So I actually played
some shooters. You can thank a friend of
mine for that; he’s a shooter fan, so he let me borrow one game, and then
another one. Couple that with me owning
one (for a given definition of “shooter”) and my bro downloading a certain
magical title -- along with long since owning a franchise staple -- and I’m not
wanting for bullets. I can tell you
right now that, yes, some of them are actually pretty good. Others?
Not so good. Which ones? Well, I’ll explain in the weeks to come. But first, let’s set the ground rules,
starting with this one.
I need a safe
word. And that safe word is HOVER.
I can guarantee you
that there are going to be points in this little miniseries where I get
super-angry. That’s usually how these
things tend to play out. So in order to
put some kind of safeguard in place -- and to signal to you when a shooter
makes a large enough faux pas -- I’m going to be spamming HOVER whenever I get the
chance to cool off. It’s the only way I’ll be able
to keep Cross-Up a happy place…or at least pretend that it is.
I should probably use
this post to make a couple of other things clear. So here are a few qualifiers.
1) The posts for the ShootStravaganza aren’t going to be big whompin’
Let’s Discuss posts. I know that the
stuff I put up here tends to get a little dense,
but I don’t anticipate any of the things that go up being more than a
one-off. If anything, they’ll probably
read more like “first impressions” rather than full-on dissections. And the reason for that is…
2) The posts to come are
based on the minimum amount of sessions.
That is, I played each of the games not to completion, but to a point
where I felt like I had enough information on it to come to a conclusion. In a lot of ways, I’ll be judging each game
based on its ability to grab me in its opening hours. The question they (or any game) need to
answer is: “Why should I play this game again?”
Some games managed to answer that sufficiently in the first session. Others did not. But whatever the case…
3) The cross-section of each game should try to prove the merit of the
modern-day shooter -- not just me. I
don’t have any problems admitting when a shooter does something good, but it
should offer that readily without me having to dig for an answer, OR trying to
make excuses. Remember, we live in a gaming
climate where devs all over the world are trying to make their titles “appeal
to a wider audience”. Given that --
given the adaptability of shooter mechanics -- I don’t think there’s any real
reason why a shooter CAN’T appeal to someone like me. I can get past my biases and say without
reservation when something is good. If
there’s quality, I’ll admit it. If
there’s a flub, I’ll admit that, too. I
don’t see why I can’t like a shooter just because I know what a hi-ougi is.
I want to find out what
makes a shooter good, and what makes it bad -- precisely because I don’t know
the answer. Beyond that, shooters have
(maybe justifiably) gotten a bad rap these days, and I’d like to think that the
genre itself isn’t inherently evil. So I
want to investigate for myself, and come to my own conclusions, without the
shackles of gamers’ stigma. I’m hoping I
can find some sort of answer -- and I hope that if nothing else, I can
entertain you all with my antics.
And…that’s about all I
have to say for now. So go ahead and
leave a comment if you’ve got a perspective to share. What do you think of shooters? Do you like them? Hate them? Have experience? Insight?
A glowing exemplar of a title you could name? Then go ahead and tell me. I could use some other opinions going into
this thing. I welcome the chance to have
my mind opened. Or better yet, blown.
Until next time,
then. Get ready, readers -- because the
ShootStravaganza has officially begun. Or will begin soon, at least. Be excited, maybe!
Right then. What’s on tap?
…Is it too late to call
the ShootStravaganza off?
The shooter situation in gaming reminds of the platform situation of the 1990s. During that time, platformers were EVERYWHERE, ruling the gaming scene. Things have definitely switched gears with the shooter genre being the order of the day.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately you have so many developers/publishers trying to be top dog in this genre that we gamers have to deal with far too many "me too" shooters so standing out becomes that much more difficult. But then, why stand out when you can just copy and past what developer A did and make just as much or nearly as much dough as said developer?
Once upon a time, I was head over heels for the shooter genre with the likes of Perfect Dark, TimeSplitters and Unreal Tournament. But that was eons ago. There's a sea of shooters out there now and with all the Battlefields, Call of Duties and what not, it makes my head spin just thinking about diving back into a genre where guys are your best friend.
"Why stand out when you can just copy and past what developer A did and make just as much or nearly as much dough as said developer?"
ReplyDeleteThat is sound reasoning...BUT from what I've heard, that's actually a LOSING strategy instead of a winning one. Setting aside the loss of dignity and integrity of the developer by jumping on (or tugging) certain bandwagons, there have been reports that say those who try to play copycat or slot into certain grooves end up falling or failing just as hard. Remember Insomniac Games' Fuse? (I don't blame you if you don't.) Debuted at the 37th-ranked game in the UK, IIRC. Likewise, has ANYONE been clamoring for -- or even care about -- EA's trigger-happy reboot of Syndicate? And isn't Dead Space's fate up in the air because despite all the fuss made to market it and the splicing of its DNA, Dead Space 3 didn't meet sales expectations?
I know that devs are going to try and go with what they know, and/or what they think will sell. But when that's been proven wrong, and when the biggest names are the only ones making the biggest sales, then what does that mean for the industry at large?
To quote Matt of the Best Friends Zaibatsu: "It's not great."
Left 4 Dead 3 can't come out fast enough.
ReplyDeleteYep. Can't argue with you there -- though I guess that's to be expected from Good Guy Valve.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think they're good guys. Those still waiting for Half-Life 3, on the other hand...