Replayability values

One of the reasons I started this blog was because I felt that no one was representing my view of things in the gaming world. I'd read all kinds of comments and opinions on gaming sites and forums , but I practically never felt that I agreed with any of them. This was even worse when it came to game reviews. I felt that game journalists often put too much focus on things which were not as important, and generally that people were missing the truly great things about PC gaming and gaming in general.
I felt that starting my own blog where I could be free to express my opinions and not be afraid of a flame war was the best choice.

Why am I mentioning this now? Because I've again stumbled across an avalanche of opinions which I find so misguided that it's impossible for me to ignore them.
What I'm referring to is people's complaints regarding Portal 2's lack of replayability options. You see, if a game doesn't have randomly generated levels or a competitive multiplayer mode it's not replayable enough, and therefore not as worth our money.

Now I know that games are a unique medium, but in this case I don't see why this is any different than a book or DVD. When you buy a DVD or a book, that's what you get - there is no re-read or re-watch value. You buy it to own it and be able to watch or read it as often as you like. Why are games different in this respect? Why does a game have to include things especially made to make us replay it? It's ridiculous.

The problem with this opinion of putting so much emphasis on replayability is that designers end up giving this more focus when they ought to be using their resources on improving the core game experience. Thus we get games such as the new Aliens vs. Predator, which had a mediocre plot in single player and even worse multiplayer. If they'd canned the multiplayer and put the extra time on crafting a worthy single player experience I'd probably give the game another go.

And that's my real point here - multiplayer games have never drawn me back as much as well-crafted single player games. I'm not saying that games don't need multiplayer - but not for the sake of this replayability nonsense. As a result of this hokum, Valve have recently stated that Portal 2 would probably be their last game which had an isolated single player experience. Hopefully, this doesn't mean they will never make single player games again, but that they'll always include some multiplayer element. In the worst case this could mean we'll start getting less than stellar games from Valve, as too much of their focus will be divided, or in the not-quite-as-bad case it will take them longer to release games. Either way, this stupid insistence on replayability in its most shallow form has brought us to this state.

I don't really believe that the masters of the medium, such as Valve, will be hurt by this. They know how to make good games and know what part of the community they should listen to. What worries me are the up and coming developers. People whose first game could be one great idea put together beautifully, or a bunch of good ideas strung together poorly just in fear of failing to please the ravenous crowds. A bad first game could also become their last.

It's a shame many people with short attention spans just don't get this. I have no problem replaying games because I appreciate them. I don't need crappy gimmicks such as a tack-on multiplayer or randomly generated (but virtually identical) levels. I've replayed The Longest Journey, Max Payne an the Monkey Island series, for example, more often than any game which offered "replayability value!" I've replayed Portal 2 about three times since its release. Why? Because these games are good. They're genuinely great experiences and that's their replayability value right there.

Et 2, Portal?

Right. Let me make this clear.
Portal Two is the best video game ever made.

Obviously some won't agree with me. Some who like strategy better, or some who enjoy games which let them make their own adventure. Sure, they don't have to enjoy the game. But in terms of storytelling and style, this just doesn't get better. I'm officially convinced now that Valve are the masters of storytelling in games. They're the ones we'll look back at years from now when these virtual narratives are as valued as film and novels.

Valve aren't there yet. I think a lot can be done in terms of how stories are told through video games, but they have definitely gone further than anyone else. No one tells a story the same way they do. They embrace the strengths of the medium, and use them to tell the story rather than rely on methods used by film or texts. They understand this medium is different. Portal 2 is an absolutely brilliant piece of work.

I'll write more of my thoughts about this game later. I just wanted to put it out there. This is the best story ever told on our monitors.

Video Killed the Blog Star

Well, it's finally happened. I've decided to stop making (or trying to make) video logs for this site. It was a hard decision for me to make because I really wanted to have a go at this - making interesting and fresh video journals of games. The idea still appeals to me.

But the reality is that I don't have the hardware or software to make videos in a quality I'm satisfied with. What happens is I spend a lot of time recording both myself and the games and by the time I get close to finishing I'm not satisfied with how it looks or sounds so I end up deleting the whole thing. That's what happened with my Bioshock review way back and this has happened now with the log about Resident Evil 5.

However, I've not given up on the idea of thinking about these games and gaming in a broader fashion. Instead of a video journal I will just upload larger articles on the blog from time to time discussing basically the same things I planned for the video, with some screen grabs to illustrate my points.

And, even though I'm giving up on video for the time being, I have something else in mind which will hopefully provide some variation to the site. I'm going to upload something like a podcast in which a friend and I will be discussing various issues connected to gaming. That way there is no burden of video editing and we still talk of intriguing gaming-related topics.

So despite having to give up on a good idea, there are still exciting things to come. Stay tuned!

Crysis 2 DeCrysified

What do you say when you neutralize a crisis, anyway?

In any case, I've just finished Crysis 2 and I'm happy to say I really enjoyed it. I like it more than the first game, actually, despite the fact that this outing was not a PC exclusive.

I'll post more thoughts on the game later on, but just wanted to mention in a nutshell that it has a really intriguing story - rare nowadays for FPSs - and even though it is nowhere near problem-free it's an immensely enjoyable experience.
More on this later!

Back Again (Again)

It seems that this happens a lot with this blog. I start writing with a bunch of ideas in mind, all excited, and then I just stop... and then I come back, saying that THIS time I will write without stopping. And then I stop. And then I come back.

Well, no more! Why? Because THIS time I will not stop!
... no, really.

Honestly, I don't know that I'll always be able to write - but I do know that I want to keep at it. As long as that's true, I'll continue to write here and do my best to provide you with my perspective on gaming.

Importantly, I've also finally finished my degree so I really do have more time to invest in this journal. The first thing I want to do is continue with the videos I started a while back and just gave up on for lack of time. I made one video review of Battlefield Bad Company 2 and decided that I want my videos to be less actual reviews and more just 'views' - that is, looking at gaming in general through the games. This is what I would like to get to now, started with Resident Evil 5. True, it's a pretty old game by now but I want to examine it for its design - I think it is a good example of a game that is geared towards 'console gaming'. I'll explain what I mean by this in the actual video post. But, yeah, I'm back again.

More Streamlining

While still pondering the meaning and consequences of streamlining adventure games, I got to thinking about other game genres as well. I came to the conclusion that I disagree with Jonathan Blow when he says that adventure games are the only ones which haven't been streamlined. Again, this is assuming I got to the bottom of his tragically obscure opinion.

However, if indeed he meant that in adventure games the problem is that the player has no real direction - he's solving puzzles without knowing why - well, then, the same can be said for shooters. It is true that FPS games are more scripted and their story often intense and gripping, light-years away from Doom's endless corridors of bad guys who basically stand in place and wait to be gibbed. I'd still argue, though, that players often don't know what they're doing.

And, unlike Blow, I'm going to give an example. The game that immediately sprang to mind when I thought of this was Portal. By the way, I'm going to speak a bit of the game in terms of plot so if you haven't played this, consider this your spoiler warning and skip to the next paragraph. The first part of Portal is a self-aware puzzle game. The protagonist is solving puzzles to apparently test the portal gun. This part is 'streamlined' in the sense that the player knows what he needs to do and why, and so is in tune with the plot. Things get complicated once Chell (the protagonist) escapes the death trap prepared by GLaDOS. This is actually a beautiful moment of design when the player is being lowered into the fire and, without instructions or hints, he has to understand for himself that he needs to use the portal gun to escape.
After this moment, however, the design begins to break in terms of said streamlining. The player is still in a puzzle game, but now moving forward has no context. When I played the game I realized that I'd been, for some reason, heading towards GLaDOS herself only when I actually got there. Each puzzle the player solves after the escape leads him to the end, and that's only because it is the only way to move on.

This is a technique used in all shooters. Some don't try to pretend and just give the player a straight path, while others give more breathing space. But in every situation, the player moves forward because that's the only way that isn't backwards. The player is not always thinking in terms of plot or game-space, but rather "Is this where the game wants me to go?" "am I going the right way or will I have to double back?"

This isn't only because a shooter is linear. Deus Ex has moments like these as well. Granted, there is definitely more of a sense of purpose when the player gets an objective and a level of choice in how to perform it, but with all the bonus experience and hidden places this becomes a treasure hunt rather than a streamlined game. On the very first level of the game I spent a good hour trying to get into a place that really wasn't worth the time, all the while thinking it was a hidden way to the objective. These gaps between what the player thinks and what he does in the game world are always there.

The question I'm finally confronted with is; is this really such a bad thing? I think this desire for streamlining comes from a perspective that sees the player and game protagonist as one - the immersion must never break. As a literary critic I don't see why that is necessary. Games don't have to be escapist. Just because they're interactive doesn't mean that every time the player does something it's on behalf of the character on screen and they're minds must be as one. Besides, as a lot of gamers know from experience, games can be very atmospheric and immersive even if while playing them you spend a lot time thinking "how can I pass this level?" rather than "how can I save the princess?"

There are many more games and genres in which the player's actions are out of the plot's context. This is how games work. If there was complete unison between player and character I'm not sure it could be a game. That's not a bad thing either, but there is room for different types of games with different levels of immersion or interactivity.

I do agree that adventure games are perhaps in a most dire need of a re-imagining, though. I hope Blow has an ace in his inventory.

Jonathan Blow Interview

Jonathan Blow is the creator of Braid, a time-twisting platformer that combines puzzles, a mesmerizing art style and even a sort of general idea that wraps it all up nicely.

PC Gamer had an interview with him about his next game and his views on game design. The point that roused my interest was the one he made about adventure games.

He says:
"Adventure games are still what they used to be. And what the core gameplay actually is, is very different from what the designer intends. The designer wants it to be, “It’s going to be cool puzzle solving. There’s going to be a story and stuff.” But really what’s actually going through the players head in adventure games is, “I don’t know if I should be clicking on this thing” or “I don’t know if this is a puzzle” or “I don’t know if I need an item to solve this that I don’t have yet, or if I’m just not thinking.” "

I had to read it twice to grasp what he was saying. I don't think he is being very clear, and his interview is sourly lacking in examples. This is why I wanted to bring the point up, clarify it (assuming that I got it right), and offer my own insight. Because I believe that he’s right in a way.

In adventure games, even the best ones, we often go around solving puzzles for no real reason. I can bring many examples from my own experience - from The Secret of Monkey Island to the recent Back to the Future: The Game. You usually know what you need to do to advance but the playing field is large (such as Mêlée Island) and so the way isn't clear. For example, in The Secret of Monkey Island's first act, you know you need to pass the three trials to become a pirate but there's no real notion of how to do that - you just go around finding puzzles and then solving them, often doing something for no real reason (like following the shopkeeper to get to the Swordmaster) and then you 'solve' the game.

I think this is what Blow means when he says adventure games aren't streamlined, because this central mechanic is still here. In Back to the Future, I know that I need to somehow switch the keg of soup with the keg of liquor, but I randomly try things until something works. Of course, the game does give clues how to get that done (I’m not referring to the hint system), but ultimately – if you didn't notice the hint – your puzzle solving consists of mainly trying to click everything that is clickable and combining it with everything else.

However, even though Blow says that adventure games have stayed this way since their heyday in the early 90s, I do believe that recent adventure games have been heading in a direction of streamlining the experience. There are rarely cases where you wander aimlessly in TellTale's adventure games. There is a much stronger sense of knowing specifically where you need to be and what to do, just not how to go about doing it.

But that's also the problem. One of the greatest issues which plague modern adventure titles is that they are reduced in detail and scope, and I believe this is the result of what Blow refers to as streamlining. This has been the major critique of Telltale's Back to the Future game and I think it's a flaw with many of their titles.

Maybe my opinion simply comes from me being an avid adventure game fan myself, but I don't think they're only about solving the puzzle: they are about exploration, character; they're about doing things at a slower pace, soaking in the atmosphere. The obscure puzzles actually enable us to enjoy everything else in a much more profound way.

You can check it out for yourselves: the first playthrough of an adventure game, without a walkthrough, can take weeks. Once you've finished it, however, the game can be completed again in under an hour. It's those nonsensical puzzles that make the player walk back and forth, talk to people, look for clues, and so on. These puzzles help flesh out the world and enrich the player's exposure to it.

If Blow can make his new adventure game streamlined (in the sense that as players we’re not going around solving random puzzles but actually thinking about how to advance in relation to the story), and at the same time manage to keep the feeling of exploration and atmosphere… well then, I daresay his game will be amazing. But we just have to wait and see.