Shrapnel Games Blog

10/19/2005

Angry Again

Filed under: General, Scott, The Industry — Scott @ 8:51 pm

Wow, the 21st century isn’t exactly all hovercars and fembots, now is it? A thousand people dead here, fifty thousand people dead there, hurricanes, insane fuel costs, everyone trying to scare you into thinking the human race is about to be wiped out by chickens (has anyone else noticed how the media is using the same fear effects as pre-Y2K…which of course, turned out to be a whole lot of nothing, too).

Ah, but we’re gamers, and thankfully we can escape from the violent real world, into an escapist world full of umm, violence. Hmm, sorta strange when you think about it. Makes me wonder about my buddy Jeff, who is right now over in Iraq. I remember playing Halo 2 co-op with him and he was telling me that he saw that they have consoles over in Iraq and was wondering if he was going to be able to get his Xbox over. Now that he’s been over there for a few months I have to wonder if he still feels like playing first person shooters?

That’s a thought. How surreal would it be to come back from war and go to some LAN event and see a bunch of DoOdZ playing Counterstrike, or Day of Defeat, or Battlefield 2? Or to read some article about the perfect CQB tactics, written by some pasty game site editor whose anime DVD collection outnumbers the number of dates he had (“More dice than dates” is a classic shirt by the way, Jim, and so yes, I am rip—paying homage to it)in his life?

Obviously I can’t answer that, and I guess I won’t know until he returns from his tour next year. I’d be curious though if anyone reading this and is in the same situation (just returned, or perhaps still in combat duty) could remark on it. Do military first person shooters provide you with any entertainment post-combat, or do you see them as totally silly now?

Speaking of military first person shooters I was looking at some screenies of the upcoming Ghost Recon 2 game and you know what folks? I’m really getting sick and tired of the direction most mainstream games are taking. Here’s a few things about mainstream gaming that are really making my blood boil…

1. Games look like they’re a Penthouse photo spread from 1979.

What the heck is up with all the soft-focus and haze in games now? Why is it that as games try to look more and more realistic, they keep trying to make them look totally bogus? I don’t know about you, but when I’m walking down the street and everything is hazy I know that either (a) it’s time to clean my glasses or (b) eating strange mushrooms really isn’t a good idea. Stop with the freaking soft focus!!

2. Everything shines. Even non-reflective surfaces.

In one of the screenshots there is a tire with sunlight glaring off of it. I’m sorry, but I have never in my life seen a tire act like a mirror before. But today’s games call for lots and lots of specular (I think that’s the term…if not, ya know what I mean) graphics. Everything, and I mean everything, has got to reflect in a modern game. Why? Because you can? What other freaking reason is there? Just like #1, this is a stupid, stupid, graphical effect that needs to go the way of lens flares. Remember when it seemed like every single game featured enough lens flaring to make you think the sun was going supernova in each game? Heck, I think even Miles Corkmeyer’s Championship Bingo had lens flare.

3. Graphics over gameplay.

Not that this is anything new, this is just something that constantly irks me. Take the latest Age of Empires game, for example. I knew something was up when every single preview talked about the graphics, and nothing about the gameplay, save the fact there would be some sort of home city. Did you know that they even had a guy in charge of doing nothing but the water effects (which in screenshots looks like…wait for it…looks like it SHINES. What the heck type of ocean do the folks at Ensemble visit that looks like a mirror?), which to me says it all. Judging from the reviews the gameplay is pretty much the same as before, with a few tweaks. Hey guys, how about trying to make the gameplay innovative instead of worrying about the rag doll physics of little guys getting blown up?

Tell me something folks, how many units do you think a mainstream game could push if it was sold in a plain brown box, with only a summary of its gameplay on the back?

But you know what, every day indie games pretty much do just that…they sell based on ideas, on innovation, on dreams realized. Sure, there are probably one (or a hundred) too many Arkanoid games out there in indie-land, and we’ll probably never get an indie FPS, but overall when you want to play a game that’s not a clone of a clone of a clone, you’ll find it with your friendly local indie developer.

Of course that’s not to say mainstream gaming isn’t fun. It’s just that at some point we’re going to reach a point where people realize the emperor has no clothes; someday games are going to all look pretty much the same (like really reflective as peered through a vaseline-smudged lens), and people are finally going to ask, “But what about the gameplay?”

GAMEplay. That’s what it’s all about, right?

-Scott

Current spins: Sacred Reich – Ignorance, Kate Bush – Hounds of Love, The Sins Of Thy Beloved – Lake of Sorrow

November 8th, A Feast For Crows finally arrives!!!!!!!!!

No Comments »

  1. Amen, Scott! Although I do love my graphics, it seems too many games focus on graphics before making a good core game! This is why I’m such a fan of taking proven game engines and THEN bringing the graphics up to speed.

    I think the “soft-focus” and “everything-reflective” phenomena are simply phases, and that there will be a backlash against it. My eyes are bad enough as it is - I don’t need a game making me feel like I need a new prescription or that I need to shine my concrete patio!

    The emphasis in graphics SHOULD be on reality, which, IMO, includes softer COLORS, not softer EDGES, as well as more desaturation of color as a whole.

    Thanks for another insightful blog entry, Scott!

    Curt

    Comment by Curt Pangracs — 10/20/2005 @ 7:04 am

  2. Think thigs are bad now? Just wait until you go snowblind seeing the reflectiveness of the swords (in near pitch dark conditions) in Elder Scrolls IV ;)

    Me? These days I’ve got more swamp zombies than dice. Just gotta keep making those headshots…

    Comment by Daeloch — 10/21/2005 @ 8:59 am

  3. Yep, grasping the correct colour is really complex. We (let me include myself with those who create digital art - hey, I own a Wacom tablet!) tend to start painting with bright colours when you are a newbie, to desaturate as you improve your performance.
    But somehow desaturation looks “old” and noone wants to look that way in a video game. Do you remember “Band of brothers” or “Saving private Ryan”? The art director chose that desaturated colour to give the impression of those ‘44 documentaries.
    Now, game art directors want to attract young audience, and that means bright explosions (instead of geisers of sand and debris), shiny colours (yep, even a Tiger I would shine, according to them) and light flares all around.
    I guess it is all dictated by the intended audience…

    Comment by tayete — 10/25/2005 @ 8:59 am

  4. Graphics over gameplay — you’re not kidding. I made the mistake of buying (name: deleted) because I wanted the fancy 3D explosions and stuff. Imagine my horror when I discovered that in WWII tanks had health bars and, if you “heated” them with a flamethrower, the crew would bail out and you could capture and use their tank. Y’know, I gotta figure a T-34 drives and shoots just the same as a PzIV, yup, yup…

    Anyhow - keep the faith. Games with good gameplay are like a hearty meal of chili: they stick with you. Games with graphics and no gameplay: like a diet of ice cream and processed sugar. OK… bad analogy…

    mjr.

    Comment by Marcus J. Ranum — 11/8/2005 @ 8:03 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress