That fresh feeling...

Whether we like it or not, change is a part of life. We go through stages, phases, trends, and bends until we can’t recognize who we were when we started. And at the tender age of 20, I think I might be going through yet another transformation as a gamer. So this feature will be an examination of myself as a gamer. I’m not sure what I’ll find, but I think it’s something worth thinking about.

So last night I popped Modern Warfare 2 in for the first time in a few months and played a few hours of its highly-esteemed multiplayer. I eventually turned the console off with the realization that it simply wasn’t fun. And while I wasn’t exactly on fire after exiling myself from the online community for so long, my dissatisfaction stemmed from something else–it was pointless.

If you’ll allow me to elaborate, it felt like a pre-season football game. There’s no prize at the end of the round for finishing with the highest score. You just play for the sake of playing. While that sort of thing can be fun sometimes, I don’t go and start pick-up games of basketball with complete strangers. It’s playing with friends that gives meaningless games their fun. Considering I haven’t had a solid group of online friends since the days of Halo 2, it’s a wonder I’ve gone this long testing my reflexes against stoners and 10-year-olds in an endless game of death.

Over the past month or so I’ve taken stock of what types of games I enjoy most, and I’ve found that I’ve become more and more of a solitary gamer. The games that stick out in my memory are RPGs. The shooters I remember are the ones with good stories. And as I look at my game collection, I see that other genres are scarcely represented.

I rather enjoyed this story.

I don’t know, I’m probably rambling a lot here and it’s not very interesting to read. I still like shooters, but pretty much just for the campaigns. If I’m not progressing towards some satisfying end goal (like the climax of a narrative, for example) then I just can’t seem to care. High scores don’t matter to me anymore. I simply don’t view video games as games anymore. I play them for their interactive stories. The actual game part taken out of context is sort of pointless and boring to me now. But maybe that’s just because the gameplay I’ve been playing through lately is all predictable and similar.

See, I think expectations play a big role in the enjoyment of a game. I doubt it’s coincidence that my 2009 game of the year (Dragon Age: Origins) was one that I didn’t religiously follow leading up to its launch. In fact, I didn’t even get it at launch. I wasn’t going to buy it until I saw it a month later for $40. Then when I played it, it was all fresh and new and a pleasant surprise. I miss that feeling. I feel like there’s so much media coverage these days that you know exactly what to expect from every game you’re interested in. It sort of steals some of the magic of a new game. Personally, I’d recommend that you immediately stop following a game once you’ve decided that you’re definitely going to buy it. Sure, this might lead to some disappointing purchases, but it could also lead to some great surprises.

As for me, I can’t rightly stop following games if I’m supposed to be reporting that news to you guys. What I can do is branch out and diversify my gaming tastes. For starters, I’ve decided not to buy Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I’m sure it’ll be a fantastic game that’s just as good as the previews indicate, but it’s the orange to Modern Warfare 2‘s apple. They’re just too similar. I want a pineapple. So what I’m going to do is start buying some games that I usually wouldn’t buy. Instead of Bad Company 2, I think I’ll pick up Shadow Complex for $10. I’ve never played that type of game, or at least I haven’t in a long time. I’d like to try it out. I think I might also buy Just Cause 2. It has the same spirit as Grand Theft Auto III in my opinion, and that was a new genre for me when I bought it. I still think it’s the best game in the GTA series. And hell, maybe I’ll get really crazy and buy Final Fantasy XIII just so I can say I’ve finally played a Final Fantasy game. It doesn’t look stunningly awesome to me, but maybe that’s just the sort of attitude that will make it stunningly awesome for me.

Well, that looks new.

I suppose the realization I’m coming to is that all the games I’ve been playing for the past several years are too similar. It makes the gameplay too predictable. And even if a game does something new for its genre, I know beforehand because of media coverage. I know exactly how every feature in the game works. This is probably why I gravitate towards a game’s story more than anything else these days–it’s the only thing that’s still fresh and new. If the game has a bad story but good gameplay (read: BioShock 2) then the only freshness the game has to offer tastes rather sour. If the story isn’t anything spectacular but the gameplay’s new and interesting (like Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts) then the game-world is still satisfying enough to justify biting in.

So I guess the only remedy for this is to branch out and experience gameplay that’s different from what I’m used to. Of course this doesn’t mean I’ll stop buying the genres I already like–I’ll just have to be more cautious when searching for games with good stories and new features. Ultimately, the most fun a game has to offer in my opinion is the exploration of a new world. New features are often a part of that new world. If the world and gameplay have been done before (as is the case with modern combat), then the only thing that can make a game interesting to me is a good story. So I’m going to go out of my way to spice things up and reinvigorate my gaming life. I’m sick of being a jaded old man. It’s time to try something new.

Share/Save

This guy's probably penetrated more genres than anybody else.

So I’ve been playing a lot of Assassin’s Creed II this past week, and as you might know, it’s got me thinking about game genres and what defines them. It seems that the lines between genres are becoming less and less defined these days, but there’s still a pretty stark difference despite the blending. So let’s start off by taking a look at what traditionally defines the major genres of today’s market.

“First-Person-Shooter” typically describes any shooting game that puts the player in the first-person perspective. The central goal of these games usually involves moving through a linear path and killing all enemies along the way. A strong competitive multiplayer component is generally part of the experience as well, and in some games, is a stronger focus than the single-player aspect. The FPS is a very inclusive genre that constitutes a large portion of the market, although there are a few cases of games that are first-person but don’t necessarily fit into this genre (Portal, Fallout 3, BioShock).

“Role-Playing-Games” have split into several distinct sub-genres, but all RPGs still share the same core attributes. The genre is most broadly exemplified by stat and skill progression, among other character upgrades. Japanese RPGs tend to be more linear than open-ended Western RPGs, but both are solitary experiences that are heavily story-driven. Massively-Multiplayer-Online RPGs are relatively new, and exchange the narrative of a single-player game for the social dynamics of an organic online community. There’s a pretty rigid consensus on what games fall under the category of RPG, even if sports titles like Madden follow the core stat-progression mechanic.

“Action-Adventure” games make up perhaps the largest genre of video games today because of just how broad the label is. These games are essentially any third-person titles that take the player through an “adventure” that involves plenty of conflict, or “action” throughout. So really, this genre almost seems like it was created to absorb any game that doesn’t neatly fit into the other, more specific genres. One could really take any survival-horror game, stealth game, sandbox game, or platformer and put it in this all-inclusive category. I’d say the core similarity is a third-person perspective–it’s really that broad.

Random chart about game genres!

Now obviously there are countless more genres, but those are really the big three in today’s market. And one could easily point to cross pollination between these supposedly distinct genres–Deus Ex may be an FPS, but the strong focus on story and stat building make it easy to confuse for an RPG. Not only does Madden feature the persistent stat progression found in RPGs, but the very act of calling a game makes it strikingly similar to Real-Time-Strategy games. And if we were to compare Grand Theft Auto IV with Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted 2, I’m fairly confident that nobody would say they’re similar knock-offs of each other, yet they all fall under the “action-adventure” title. There’s so much blending between traditional genres these days that it’s becoming hard to peg a given game into one category.

I think it’s worth taking a different kind of look at how we define game genres for a moment. Mind you, this is going to be a rather broad examination with plenty of room to narrow categories into more specificity, but I think these polarized perspectives offer some good insight into the kinds of games we play.

One of the most interesting qualities to study in a game is whether it’s a solitary or social experience. A lot of people these days feel like the single-player game is a dying breed. Uncharted 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and BioShock 2 are all seen as games that traditionally shouldn’t need multiplayer components, yet there they are. And it is a widely held fact that a significant portion of the people who buy games like Halo or Call of Duty never bother to finish the single-player campaign despite hundreds of hours spent in the online environment. It’s quite clear that people make a definite divide between solitary and social experiences. Most traditional RPG players aren’t particularly huge fans of MMOs, yet both sub-genres share the same core-mechanic.

I think the phenomenon of MMOs has had an interesting effect on the industry. If we look back far enough, single-player and multiplayer games were typically separated. Half-Life and Counter-Strike were separate products. Doom and Unreal Tournament occupied separate audiences. Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 served different purposes. But as time went on, it became common practice for a single game to contain both aspects of gameplay. But recent titles like Warhawk, Left 4 Dead, and MAG may be spear-heading a revival of segregation. Developers are realizing that if the majority of their customers are only interested in one aspect or the other, then it only makes sense to save costs on the less-heralded portion of the game. It’ll be interesting to see where this movement goes, if it goes anywhere at all. But the point is that there’s a clear-cut divide between solitary and social games. The loners among us generally prefer a good RPG, while those who game for the socialization gravitate towards competitive shooters.

Can you imagine this guy in a Call of Duty pre-game lobby?

Another really distinct way to label games is with a “first-person” or “third-person” tag. Rainbow Six and SOCOM are pretty much the same style of game to a tee, yet they feel completely different and cater to different crowds. Mirror’s Edge and Assassin’s Creed both rely on free-running parkour as the core gameplay, but they’re seen in very different lights. The Elder Scrolls franchise and Final Fantasy franchise are both single-player fantasy RPGs, but they’re never spoken of in the same sentence. As we can see, perspective really make a big difference when we’re playing a game.

Drawing on my own personal experience, my library of games is pretty heavy on first-person titles, Shooters, RPGs, Puzzlers, Survival-horror, and so on. For me, the first-person perspective is just so much more immersive than its third-person counter-part. It feels less like I’m watching something and more like I’m experiencing something when I see the game-world through the eyes of my character. Conversely, I tend to grow more attached to characters I play as from the third-person view. That’s not to say I enjoy the story more, but I am more invested in the characters. The surrounding world and NPCs can paint a beautiful picture in first-person games, but they can never replicate the empathy I feel for Snake in the microwave tunnel of Metal Gear Solid 4. And when I think of Fallout 3, I think of what I did in the world, as opposed to Mass Effect, where I ponder Shephard’s story and motivations.

A game’s point-of-view seems to have severe implications on its story and characters. One offers up a blank-slate for the player to occupy and drive through their own personal story, while the other calls on a player’s emotions with a more traditional character-driven story. Both have their pros and cons, but there’s no denying the drastic difference between the two macro-genres.

"Who am I again? Oh, God, explosions!"

But the previous two classifications really can’t substitute for this one. A recent blog I read divided games into two experiences–short, high-intensity games and long, low-intensity games. The first category is sort of like the sparks of a fire–it’s a tight, fast-paced, and heart-pounding experience full of set-pieces that stick with us long after the credits roll. The second category is more of a simmer–there may never be individual moments that send adrenaline coursing through our bodies, but the overall experience lasts longer and ultimately gives satisfaction through a sense of progression. Another good way to look at it is that the sparks cater to our primal and animalistic desires, much like sports do, while the simmer nurtures our more cerebral, conceptual half, sort of like literature.

If we look at things in this light, it becomes much easier to classify games and determine whether or not they’re for you. Let’s go back to the games that just don’t fit and see where they line up. Fallout 3, BioShock, Deus Ex, and Half-Life may reside in the realm of a traditionally intense genre, but they’re really geared more towards an intellectual experience. And not only in the sense of story, but stat progression too. Progression is a sort of gratification for hard work. It’s not an impulsive thing to think, “If I do this now then I’ll be rewarded down the line.” None of these games really “live in the moment.” Portal is a little harder to classify, as its puzzling mechanics typically give a less intense feel than shooters, but I feel like the humor that drives the plot is geared towards a simplistic desire to laugh. It is a game that is very “in the moment”, despite its brain-teasing puzzles. Madden and other sports titles fall clearly into the less-intense, longer-lasting genre when played alone, but when put in a competitive environment, they become intense battles of primal superiority. MMOs deal with the basic desire to socialize while the satisfaction of traditional RPGs is found later in the game through major plot events or steady stat progression (which, of course is also found in MMOs, but is really just something to do while players talk amongst themselves). And in spite of the difference in perspective, Mirror’s Edge probably shares more in common with Uncharted 2 than Assassin’s Creed II.

"Let's just pause and think about this for a minute, guys."

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. There are games that live in the moment and those that delay satisfaction for a later date. Neither one is better than the other, they’re just different. And there’s some cross-pollination to be found in these polar-opposites as well, although I’d argue less so than with traditional game genres. But it’s very apparent that there are two major game experiences, those that excite our more primitive side with jaw-dropping set-pieces and non-stop action, and those that take us along at a more leisurely pace, slowly building the tension until it culminates in a deeply satisfying finale. Which one do you prefer? Do you see a disparity in value? Do you plan to tear this article apart with an equally unthought-out post?

Share/Save