Mainstream Gaming

This post was adapted from something that I had previously written.

To this day, I consider the Sega Genesis to be the greatest game console ever released. I owned a broad variety of truly entertaining games. Storylines had been better implemented than in previous consoles, so the gameplay made sense. (Can someone explain the reason Pac-Man has to eat white dots to move to the next level and why he is in a maze to begin with?) It also maintained the idea that gameplay must come first.

The next generation of consoles saw Sony enter and dominate the market. It was one of the most significant developments between generations as polygon graphics became the focus. While I had originally eyed Sega’s Saturn console as my next purchase, many of the games I loved vanished from the face of the earth because they didn’t showcase the technology well enough. When it was announced that Eternal Champions had been scrapped, I felt that a dying console (I couldn’t justify an earlier purchase) wasn’t worth investing in. I caved in to Sony’s hype. Now that I know what direction Sony was trying to steer the industry, I think that I should have gone with the Saturn.

After being told for years that Genesis fans were missing out on the greatest franchise, Final Fantasy, I actually got caught up in the hype of Final Fantasy 7. Everyone was calling it the greatest game in history before they got their hands on it. I read all of the reviews and saw nothing but praise. Spending the fifty bucks at launch was a no-brainer for me.

At first, I let the idea that I was supposed to love the game influence my opinion (Good luck seeing anything similar from me these days). I was actually convinced that I was playing the greatest game of all time. After finishing, I had to play again. Unfortunately, I got stuck when I couldn’t handle the lengthy lie of a flashback sequence. It wasn’t worth a second time through.

Eventually, I started looking at Final Fantasy for what it really was. The cinematic sequences were great for the time, but they were intrusive as they did not transition well with gameplay. The mini-games also didn’t seem to fit right. The storyline was bland. The level design was among the most linear that I have ever encountered. It felt like I had no control over where the characters were going. I was simply pushing them along a pre-determined path. Character development was non-existent except for a sequence at the end where the characters told you that they had changed. Final Fantasy 7 was a great technical accomplishment, but a terrible game. In the end, I had wasted fifty dollars on a silent movie with a weak plot.

All the reviews that I read about Final Fantasy 7 offered only praise. My concerns reflected things that no reviewer seemed to notice. How did every single reviewer overlook the linear level designs? How did every single reviewer love a plot that I don’t think could stand on its own? Why did every single reviewer value the pre-rendered components more than gameplay? Why didn’t anyone see that the game had serious flaws?

After Final Fantasy 7, I stopped trusting reviews. FF7 was considered to be the greatest game of all time. No reviewer wanted to get the review wrong, so they let the hype influence their opinions. This means that all big name franchises are guaranteed better reviews than they deserve. If a Final Fantasy game isn’t considered to be among the greatest games in console history, it won’t be worth the purchase.

In recent years, favorable reviews of the Halo franchise have some gamers convinced that Microsoft was paying for reviews. I can assure anyone reading that this is nothing more than a trend that started during Sony’s rise to video game popularity. Reviews of big name franchises are always unreliable. Even so, nobody should take any reviews too seriously. The odds that your opinions will match the opinions of others (unless the opinions of others influence your opinions) are zero.

The sites that were supposedly biased toward Microsoft for liking Halo were more likely influenced by the hype. I expected the same for Metal Gear Solid 4. With all the hype surrounding MGS4, I decided to watch one of their trailers. In short, nothing happened but it would not end. It felt as though the developers were trying to impress people with the length of the sequence. Everything I read indicated that the game was too cinematic. Maybe some reviews can be useful, but you absolutely have to be able to read between the lines and compensate for their bias.

I should also point out that I do not want to read reviews from those considered to be accurate. How can an opinion possibly be accurate? It can’t. More than likely, these reviews are influenced by the expectations and opinions of others. Accuracy in reviews means that those reviews offer nothing that you can’t get elsewhere. You also should understand that accuracy in subjective evaluation is a form of bias.

With games like Metal Gear Solid 4, I can’t help but wonder if the gaming industry is becoming too cinematic. A lot of people praised the game for being worthy of the motion picture industry. With new games selling for sixty dollars, is it in the industry’s best interests to try to emulate more affordable products? I know that I would be more willing to spend twenty dollars on a movie than sixty. In video games, I would much rather see a revival of focus on actual gameplay instead of technical accomplishments.

Can this model be sustained in the long term? Can the video game industry really maintain its current level of popularity while the products become more like a more affordable alternative? At some point, it seems probable that people are going to start to realize that they can buy similar products for significantly less money. As people stop supporting video games, those who play because their friends do and those who play because it’s a popular activity will leave in large numbers.

While trying to make games more movie-like seems to be working right now, I feel that the industry needs to increase its distance. Starting with the Dreamcast, all consoles have been powerful enough that anything that needs to be displayed for gameplay purposes can be displayed. Video games need to stop focusing on realistic graphics and cinematic sequences. They need to get back to the interactivity that sets them apart from motion pictures. They need to provide us with a product that we can’t find anywhere else.

During the Genesis years, a lot of people would have considered me to be a hardcore gamer. Nobody will make that argument today. Have I changed since then? Technically yes, but that isn’t the reason that I have changed classification. The real reason is that “Casual” and “Hardcore” have changed meanings since then.

Many gamers criticize Nintendo’s Wii console for being too casual. People feel that they have to turn to Mario to please the hardcore crowd. Since when is Mario classified as hardcore? Nobody would have made that argument during the 16-bit era. In the 16-bit era, hardcore gamers were more likely to try the games that casual gamers never heard of. They were gamers who played because they truly enjoyed the gaming experience.

These days, hardcore gamers generally latch onto well-established franchises and try to become as good as they can on a handful of titles. Fitting in with friends and developing bragging rights supersede the actual entertainment experience. They are always behind the curve waiting for new ideas to become established before showing any willingness to accept them as worthwhile purchases. Modern hardcore gamers don’t enjoy playing as much as they think they do. They play more out of obligation.

The hardcore gamers of today play a more limited selection of titles, and only seem to play what everybody else is playing. The casual gamers of the past were only willing to play established franchises. These groups are essentially the same. Similarly, the casual gamers of today are embracing new ideas while the hardcore gamers of the past were among the first to try new things. These groups are essentially the same. Some people might have changed along with the industry, but it appears that casual and hardcore gamers have swapped labels.

Perhaps some new terms should be established. Those who consider themselves to be hardcore right now seem to base their purchases off of hype and reputation. The titles that they are primarily interested in are the bigger releases. Their decision to follow the crowd as gaming became mainstream seems to give “Mainstream Gamer” some legitimacy as a label. That is how I think of this group.

I guess I need to come up with a term for those who actually play games for the gameplay. These are the people who were vital to the rise of the industry. These are the people who care about games. These are the people who will continue playing if the industry approaches collapse. These are the people likely to save the industry when mainstream gamers finally lose interest. These are the true gamers.