• 6Aug 08

  Oh Hell Yes!

  It's coming baby... it's coming!

  

  • Posted Aug 6, 2008 10:29 am PT
  • 17 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 31Jul 08

  In defense of shorter games.

  Okay, I realize I'm probably the only person in the world crazy enough to say this, but I actually like it when most games wrap it up quickly. What!? How can I possibly like it for a game to offer me less "bang for the buck"? Allow me to explain.

  How many times have you played a game where a couple of levels just don't feel in tune with the rest of the game, like they were just thrown together haphazardly? I'm sure that would be plenty. Filler levels are a common sight in virtually every game, and I must confess, I HATE them. You see, instead of enhancing an enjoyable experience, all a filler level does is actually delay my enjoyment of the good stuff a game has to offer. Let's say a game consists of 10 levels, 6 of which are amazing and 4 that are just average. Let's also assume each level would take around an hour to finish. Instead of delivering 6 sublime hours of gameplay, I'll be stuck with 10 hours of which 6 will be good and 4 not so much, but the bigger problem is that those 6 hours that could've been sublime, will be dragged down a few notches due to the tedium of having to drag myself through mediocre filler levels.

  The point I'm trying to make here is that instead of trying to please gamers by just offering more content, developers should focus on delivering the best gameplay experience possible, and if it happens to be that a shorter experience is better, then so be it. Artificially lengthening a game does not do it any favors, it only drags the overall experience down. Of course, the ideal solution would not be to wrap the game in 6 hours (or 10, whatever your definition of a short game is), but rather try to come up with a few more hours of equally amazing gameplay, but if the developers truly run out of ideas, it's better to keep the experience "short but sweet".

  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want all my games to be short. I obviously crave the occassional "epic" experience (any Grand Theft Auto for instance) that goes on for much longer than the average game, but pulling off that feat is something that's not necessarily withing reach of all developers. A great story with great characters that you don't want to part with are essential to such epics, and unfortunately, not all genres lend themselves to proper charcter development, which is why it's usually more story driven genres like RPGs or Adventures, that benefit from being longer games. As far as shooters go (which I admit, is the genre I spend most time with), I believe that 10 hours is the sweet spot for length. Going beyond that length can be tricky. Half Life 2 for instance, succeded at it thanks to its amazing characters and immersive gameworld. Doom 3 on the other hand (a game I love nonetheless), could've benefited from shaving off a few levels that brought nothing new to the table.

  One game that most people criticized for being too "short", though at around 10 hours I don't deem it to be short, is Max Payne (check my review here, feedback appreciated). Max Payne combined amazing gunplay with great storytelling and it never dragged down. It would've been real easy for developer Remedy to add some filler levels to prevent people from complaining, but there's a good chance that could've ended working against the game. By keeping it "short and sweet", the game is fondly remembered by all of those who played it.

  So now that I've let off that pointless rant, does anyone here think I'm insane?

  

  • Posted Jul 31, 2008 10:31 pm PT
  • 12 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 13Jul 08

  Reasons not to be a professional games reviewer.

  Those who've known me for a while should be aware that I like to write game reviews. I do it both for fun (I really enjoy it) and as a service to the community, since I feel I'm capable of writing fair, well structured, and objective reviews. So it would be logical to think that if the opportunity presented itself, I'd like to write reviews for a professional website or magazine, right? Well, unless said editorial source was willing to allow me to write reviews without a deadline and I was allowed to ditch any game I didn't want to review, then no, I wouldn't take a job as a reviewer.

  Here are my 4 reasons not to be a professional game reviewer:

  1/ You're forced to rush through games.

  First of all I'm going to point out this article that discusses the issue of finishing a game before reviewing it. It's no secret that just like game publishers are in a constant race to ship out their games before the competition, reviewing sources are also in a race against time, craving that "world exclusive" first review. This is nothing new, and quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with it. But for me, it's one of the main reasons why I've always felt that a job as a games reviewer is a very sucky one. From the moment you start rushing yourself through a game you're effectively killing the experience. Granted, considering that this is your job you're gonna have much more time to play games, but still, playing a 40 hour game in a single weekend is not my idea of fun. Not only are you likely to miss out on most of the story details (provided the game has a story), but odds are you're not even going to enjoy everything the game has to offer since you're too concerned about finishing the game and then finding the time to write a decent review, which more than likely won't even be decent since just like the playthrough, it will be rushed.

  2/ You'll have to play games you don't want to play.

  Let's say Big Rigs Over the Road Racing 2 has just been released; as obvious as its suckiness can be implied, it still needs to be reviewed. Would you really volunteer to play such game? Ok, maybe in that particular case you would, if only to witness a masterpiece of the odd kind, but when you're forced to play through dozens of bad games, you're likely to get jaded and probably even bitter towards the industry for releasing so much crap. And it doesn't even have to be bad game, maybe it's just a game of a genre you're not too fond of, but since the crew is short staffed, you're assigned the review. Fun...

  3/ You're not in the mood to play anything... too bad!

  It's one of days where not even a Nude Miss Universe Pageant would cheer you up, but your duty calls and you have to get the job done. Perhaps you have to finish a game you're actually enjoying, but those last few hours will be tampered by whatever event had you down in the first place. A lack of motivation can always lead to a poor job, so considering that reviewing that game is your job, there's also a chance you'll do a poor job. And that leads to the main reason why I believe reviewing games for a living isn't fun...

  4/ It's a job.

  No matter what spin you want to give it, or how fun the job can be at times, it's still a job. There will be deadlines, there will be pressure, there will be bosses you'll have to answer to, etc, etc, etc. While for many people a line of work related to one of their favorite hobbies can be appealing, for me it's quite the opposite. I don't want my hobbies to become a job. As a regular gamer, I enjoy writing reviews because it's something I do by choice whenever I feel like it. The minute it becomes work, it stops being fun.

  

  • Posted Jul 13, 2008 4:17 pm PT
  • 28 Comments
  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts