i'm going to use this platform to spring to a somewhat related topic. i'm also going to talk some shit about bioshock because i don't really like it that much and at the time i didn't want to rock the boat, but it's six years later and no one cares anymore. anyway, i totally understand the frustration some people are seeing from reviewers, and i don't think it's right to call out owners of a console as a group of people who all have the same problems.
a little consistency is all i ask. when i see a game like sonic or mirror's edge or fire emblem suddenly come under critical fire for the things they do wrong, and are perhaps appropriately scored, or at least judged more harshly than your assassin's creeds, bioshocks, heavy rains, or walking deads, i do wonder where priorities are among the gaming public and critics in general. i can assume that for a lot of the games that receive extremely high marks like grand theft auto iv or assassin's creed brotherhood, that there is some degree of bribery. without it, critics are free to springboard into discussions of maturity in dragon's crown or sexism in games in metroid other m.
but to me all i see are some people just yearning for their hobby, and sometimes their profession, to be taken seriously by mom and dad. so that when thanksgiving rolls around, they can proclaim they aren't wasting time, or that they do have a real job. bioshock isn't a very good game, and neither is the walking dead. bioshock's biggest contribution to the medium was explaining the linear level design through a plot twist. the walking dead offers nothing new. and what existing genres they do slot into, they could be considered competent at best. the reason these games get such a pass, to the point where they earn game of the year awards, is solely due to the parts that resemble other mediums the most. there's nothing about the gameplay or the design of either one that honestly stands out in the medium.
and it undermines the whole point of trying to have a respected medium. because when you're promoting poorly-rendered aspects like stories in games, when you say uncharted 2 is the best thing games have to offer in a year because nathan drake is such a well-developed character, you offer direct comparisons from other mediums with far, far better developed characters. and when the consensus is that bioshock is the best game ever made until the next year when grand theft auto iv comes out, or later when the walking dead comes out, or later when bioshock infinite or the last of us comes out, and it's because of the same reason that every one of those previous games was great, it starts to numb you to the praise.
games should be recognized for the extreme amount of work goes into them, but not for the story. the story can still be there as a motivator or as part of the design in certain genres like an rpg, but in most cases it shouldn't be the star. games should be looked at as great pieces of architecture, that dozens and even hundreds of people could come together to create a world where hopefully things make sense, where we can do things we can't, or shouldn't in life. it's not exciting when a game offers me a binary choice of being mega hitler and killing little girls for some power or not killing little girls and still getting some power. it's exciting when a game tells me to go this way, but then i find a shortcut on my own that was made for me to find. it's exciting once i master new controls. it's exciting when i beat a level after persevering time and time again, getting closer to the goal and a little bit better with every replay.
i remember when mirror's edge came out, and while the consensus was not bad, too many reviews stated the simplistic or bad story, the short campaign, and the existence of some time trials. maybe the music and visuals received praise too, but i can't remember. in the end it was a checklist of what a game should have instead of what the game was. mirror's edge? it was a game that challenged the player, and not just to beat the campaign. it challenged the player not to use guns, to beat the time trials as fast as you could, to use that knowledge in the campaign levels. and it did it as a first-person realistic parkour platformer. on top of responsive controls and beautiful level design (and i mean that in a design sense, not a visual sense), it was fantastically original. it didn't care about the story. it shoved those bits into the loading screens. it let you skip those bits as soon as possible (and if it was in-game, usually it served as a way to point you where to go). at the end of the day, it didn't meet x, y, and z requirements, so it had points taken off for that. verdict? good game with flaws that may be improved in the sequel. oh. okay.
and like i said, i'd be fine if mirror's edge is an 8/10 or whatever- and the consensus is that it's considered a great game with flaws. we don't have to be afraid of marking a 13 year old ocarina of time 3d down because the design has noticeably aged. we don't have to ignore the poor level design of a ken levine game because it's metroid prime with audiobooks. i'd just like a little more effort into why games are enjoyable as games, and a little consistency, please.
