"I only care about the story" - some jerk
Ever since the advent of the CD-rom, gaming somehow changed. I've talked before about how it destroyed video game music as we knew it, by making it linear instead of interactive. But, if you think about it, didn't it destroy everything else in the same way? Let's talk about cutscenes. In the 8 and 16-bit eras, games would have dramatic cutscenes every once in a while designed merely to add some depth to the in-game storytelling. These consisted of still images and scrolling text, or maybe some simplistic animation. Similar techniques were used for "attract mode" displays in arcade machines, again, to add a bit of "story telling" as well as some visual flare to an otherwise ugly-looking game.
But was the game ever about the cutscene? WAS IT?!?!
 |
| Cutscene in Pac-Man: Actual gameplay experience may vary. |
Will someone explain to me, then, why games in the 21th century are all about the non-interactive parts? Crack open a video-game magazine, look up a gaming blog or one of those hideous TV shows about gaming, and look at how the review, even approach games. They will try to sell that shit to you like it's a fucking movie. I'm not making shit up. Open a new tab and go for it. It's disgusting.
 |
| ProTip: Don't let your hardcore buddies see you crying. |
For comparison's sake, let's bring out Gamepro's classic rating scale. Remember that? Back in the day, video game magazines had their own rating scales, usually judging different aspects of the game separately, occasionally bringing up an average. These were usually:
- Graphics, covering how the game looked, not just the graphical power, but the general artistic direction. Keep in mind these magazines would rate games on different consoles with different processing power.
- Sound, focused on sound effects quality as well as music.
- Control, or how well the game reacted to your input, bad control can ruin the best games.
- Gameplay, or how much fun it actually is. Often labeled as the most important aspect.
Nope, I don't recall any specific situation in which "Story" was weighed in, but I guess it might be a factor in some publications. The main reason story was not a big deal, was because only certain genres were about the story.
OK, now back to contemporary game journalism. "It's a game about some characters who have to save something important from something bad."
That's it. That's all you get. A goddamned movie synopsis. Because now that games are fucking mainstream, somehow they thought it would be appropriate to treat them like movies, because that's what mainstream media understands.
They might throw you a "Great graphics!" bone every now and then, but who gives a damn when all games look the same? What they're rating is the console's graphic processor, not the game's "realist" (AKA non-existing) art direction. If they were rating the game's art direction, games like Skyward Sword and Monster Hunter Tri would be high above all the first person shooters. Naw, they just care about counting hairs and sweat drops. Then you have the average hypocritical gamer who says they only care about the story, but also evade the under-powered consoles like it's the damned plague.
Enough with the "graphics" tangent. My point is this: Games are not movies, and should not be judged as such. It's not about the story and the special effects. Sure, you want good graphics and a solid story, but games have a lot more to offer, because they're freaking GAMES. If you just want a good story with nice special effects and little interaction, go watch a movie and leave my video games alone!
No comments:
Post a Comment