Admittance: I am a fan of "repetitive" games! Of course, I don't see them that way!
Examples include the Dynasty Warriors series, Fighting games, old-school arcade games which focus more on the acquisition of score, rather than seeing some clear cut ending, JRPGs that use tested and true mechanics that have been prevalent since the days of the NES, and Beat 'em ups, which can be summed up with "Walk right, and KILL!"
You will constantly hear these types of games shoved through the grinder by game reviews/journalist. The whine of repetition, or a lack of gameplay, or the games being too easy, or too hard. They act as if these genres have offered the same thing for YEARS, and have never evolved...
And after that, they go and heap praise on the latest Western RPG made in the vein of Oblivion/Morrowind, the latest iteration of a sports game series, or the latest First/Third person shooter featuring a buzz cut/ bandanna wearing Caucasian male of murky morality.
Conflict within Disinterest
Whenever I get a new Game Informer, or read such obviously bias opinions in gaming magazines, I have to wonder... WHY do they pick the reviewers they do? I don't WANT to hear a Warriors series review from some whiner who can't see more than "Mash X until you've conquered China!" These are not the kind of people who can tell me of the pros and cons of this iteration of a series. The are the kind of people, that are only telling me, in so many words "This series isn't meant for me, and I don't want to play it."
As an example, I don't play football. I don't watch football. Would I be a good person to review the latest Madden? Not at ALL. I wouldn't appreciate any of the finer details about the game. I couldn't tell you how the feeling of the game has changed from previous years. I couldn't weigh in on anything beyond the bullet list of features that the publisher sent me in their media kit. My opinion wouldn't be worth you money and/or time, in the slightest.
There are enough fans out there now-a-days, that I should never have to read the opinions of anyone who "doesn't get it". You make a disservice not only to the readers, but also to the games developers and publishers, when displaying such a lack of care and interest towards a product.
Double Redundancy Redundancy!!
So, we established that these disinterested folks don't really care, right? Well, such people often do things by the book, in very predictable ways.
One of the first items in their war chest, is to complain about "stale gameplay" or that the game is "repetitive".
I've hated this one for years. Ever since the days when people would complain about being able to beat Street Fighter II (or any other fighter) by just doing jumping roundhouse kicks over and over. If you CAN beat a game just by doing one or 2 moves, sure, it might be a failing of the A.I, but also, you're doing it wrong! Game was made for you to try and strategize, to react aganist what the CPU does, not to find a strong tactic, and just spam it.
Most games that are said to have "stale gameplay" offer a myriad of features. They offer you the ability to shift enemy positions, set up traps, and to find and use chokepoints, or other positional strategies.
Depth of gameplay should never be backed on stupid things like how many buttons the controller uses. It should be based on what you can do, how often you can do it, and if shifting through those options is fun, and flows well.
For example, I love brawlers that give me loads of options. Throws from the back and front, grapples, combos with different uses, ground attacks, multiple jump attacks, charge button moves... and all of this is usually done with 2 or 3 buttons. However, these games give me the feeling that I can pretty much attack and react from every angle imaginable; like I'm never detached from the gameplay.
I personally find this more invigorating than most first/third person shooters (Not to be confused with what I'd call Shooters, like Contra or R-Type!). I hate playing shooters where there is no strategy to your shooting. Hitting enemies in the hands, arms, shoulders, legs, and knees... these should all bring different effects. Yet it seems like, STILL, we get FPS's with barely any difference in effects derived from hit location. The only "Sure Kill" place for a gunshot on a human body isn't JUST the head, y'know!
-Ahem- So, yeah. It's a matter of perspective! Only a person who knows a genre well should be able to judge this. Anything can look dry and mundane, depending on the perspective.
Character Define 101
One last thing I'll comment on: Character design! I hear over and over about how trite JRPG characters are. Everyone rants and raves about belts, zippers, flamboyant hair, etc...
...But you know what? I'd prefer a "generic" JRPG character design to almost anything that you see in Gears, Fallout, etc. And don't get me started on the characters of Fable!
Anime cliché, to me, works better than the clichés of FPSs and WRPGs. My personal reasons?
One: at LEAST Japanese games have such strong visual styles, that the can fall back on the style of the artist, to bring varied visual emotion to the character. Just because you've seen an angry Akira Toriyama (Dragon Ball) character, doesn't mean you've seen an angry character by, say, Harada (Disgaea series).
Two: Japan's clichés are iconic, and seem more timeless. I've grown up alongside do-gooder heroes that are clumsy, shy girls with gentle hearts, and dastardly villans who actually believe their actions are justifiable. These are classic stroytelling archetypes, that have multiple, well developed dimensions.
I've seen the "Lone marine" stereotype for a long while, too, but... first of all, it seems way too much like the same main traits (Big and burly, foul-mouthed) are replicated through 60% of the cast for these games. While each character in a JRPG is pretty much their own seperate personality. It just doesn't seem like a timeless archetype, it just seems like an overuse of a specific one.
Once again, you can see, I shouldn't be judging such things! Marcus Phoenix, or Commander Shepard, were not made to appeal to me. Just like the heroes of a Rune Factory game, or Spectral Force, were not made to appeal to the fans of the GTA series.
And End to the Epic
So, to sum it all up, I think it's a big shame to watch all western magazines rate japanese games as if they are mediocre, based on backwards methodology that doesn't apply to their subjects. I've always thought reviews should be used to focus and grow audiences of products, rather than to limit and fracture them.
We should all understand that creative products are made by people. These people deserve to be treated fairly, reguardless of if you like the products or not.
----
Next update, I'll have something to share on Project Arena. Expect that post on Tuesday!
Posts
