How Video Games Are Ruined
By: Blue Rose
1. Time Limits
So many video games love to put time limits on things. Why? To falsely manufacture action*. It's annoying, it's gimmicky, and it's one of my least favorite devices in the entire realm of video gaming.
Biggest Culprit: The worst one that stands in my mind is "Katamari Damacy". This game had fantastic potential to be so much fun if I wasn't constantly worrying about making it by the time limit. There were so many props, so many things to see, but it was so rushed, you couldn't take the time to enjoy it.
When it's good: When coupled along side an infinite time mode. I understand that somewhere (deep in a very, very dark corner) there is someone that enjoys this whole "Time Limit" thing, but why can't they include free-play modes for those of us who actually like to relax, and enjoy the game?
Other Notes: Sometimes time limits are totally useless. The time limit reaches zero, and guess what happens. Nothing. The funniest example of this is "Minesweeper". Why they chose to include the time limit no one knows, but it's there in case you want to see how fast you sweep mines and don't have a stop watch handy.
2. Poor Health Systems
* Oh yes, that's right, I'm talking about you Bejeweled!
** Stupid People
By: Blue Rose
1. Time Limits
So many video games love to put time limits on things. Why? To falsely manufacture action*. It's annoying, it's gimmicky, and it's one of my least favorite devices in the entire realm of video gaming.Biggest Culprit: The worst one that stands in my mind is "Katamari Damacy". This game had fantastic potential to be so much fun if I wasn't constantly worrying about making it by the time limit. There were so many props, so many things to see, but it was so rushed, you couldn't take the time to enjoy it.
When it's good: When coupled along side an infinite time mode. I understand that somewhere (deep in a very, very dark corner) there is someone that enjoys this whole "Time Limit" thing, but why can't they include free-play modes for those of us who actually like to relax, and enjoy the game?
Other Notes: Sometimes time limits are totally useless. The time limit reaches zero, and guess what happens. Nothing. The funniest example of this is "Minesweeper". Why they chose to include the time limit no one knows, but it's there in case you want to see how fast you sweep mines and don't have a stop watch handy.
2. Poor Health Systems
Some video games have completely awful health systems, and it can screw you over big time. I can't say how many times I've ended up quitting a game because I get really far, and then get stranded somewhere with low health and no way to gain any.
Biggest Culprit: For me, the worst example of this was "Half Life 2". Without health that regenerates over time, and hardly any way to gain health, I got extremely frustrated when i got stranded at a save point very late in a chapter with only 4/100 health. This caused me to abandon finishing the game.
When It's Good: The best ways to incorporate health systems, in my opinion, are with minimal consequences. There's nothing more frustrating than when you are having fun in a video game, then, because of a simple mistake, die and are sent back. Wayyyyy back. Back to a place so early in the game, it's almost in the game's prequel. All this does is break the flow of the game. It's an awful tactic by developers because instead of being immersed in their product, you're broken out of it with a sharp jolt.
Other Notes: While these low risk health systems are the most fun, they are definitely the most unrealistic. Which bothers a lot of people**
Biggest Culprit: For me, the worst example of this was "Half Life 2". Without health that regenerates over time, and hardly any way to gain health, I got extremely frustrated when i got stranded at a save point very late in a chapter with only 4/100 health. This caused me to abandon finishing the game.
When It's Good: The best ways to incorporate health systems, in my opinion, are with minimal consequences. There's nothing more frustrating than when you are having fun in a video game, then, because of a simple mistake, die and are sent back. Wayyyyy back. Back to a place so early in the game, it's almost in the game's prequel. All this does is break the flow of the game. It's an awful tactic by developers because instead of being immersed in their product, you're broken out of it with a sharp jolt.
Other Notes: While these low risk health systems are the most fun, they are definitely the most unrealistic. Which bothers a lot of people**
3. Limited Lives
While this isn't something that's implemented very often any more, it's still very very very frustrating. It hasn't been a widely mainstream facet of gaming since the days of the Arcade, but every once in a while it resurfaces. Besides, it's terribly fun to know you can jump off a cliff when you get frustrated, and re-spawn unscathed.
Biggest Culprit: "Contra 3". If you've ever even attempted to play this game, you know how impossible it would be to play through on the game's original 3 life system. Even getting past the first level is nearly impossible with their original system. It makes it to to where you can't even enjoy the game without cheating, and it's hurt a lot of games.
When It's Good: Never.
Other Notes: Yet again, sometimes developers put this in for no reason. In the new "Super Mario Bro.s" game on the Wii, when you run out of lives, you just hit continue. That's it. There's literally no reason to have a life system, but hey, who am i to argue with so much success?
Biggest Culprit: "Contra 3". If you've ever even attempted to play this game, you know how impossible it would be to play through on the game's original 3 life system. Even getting past the first level is nearly impossible with their original system. It makes it to to where you can't even enjoy the game without cheating, and it's hurt a lot of games.
When It's Good: Never.
Other Notes: Yet again, sometimes developers put this in for no reason. In the new "Super Mario Bro.s" game on the Wii, when you run out of lives, you just hit continue. That's it. There's literally no reason to have a life system, but hey, who am i to argue with so much success?
4. Beating a Franchise to Death
This is one of the worst. Although, I can't quite blame developers for this, because I would probably do the same if I had such a money making formula. This is something that is especially prevalent today. Developers are scared to entirely break out of the mold, so when they come up with a new idea for a game, they just mix it in with their recognizable franchise.
Biggest Culprit: There are so many choices in this section. Mario, Sonic, the never ending stream of Tom Clancy games, but I think the award has to go not an actual game, but a person. That's right, none other than George Lucas himself. With everything from "Lego Indiana Jones", "Lego Star Wars", "Lego Harry Potter", and "Lego Batman", to "The Force Unleashed", "Knights of the Old Republic", and a new Star Wars MMO that is soon to come out, George Lucas has successfully stamped his name on a hefty portion of the video game industry.
When It's Good: When games know when to die. Don't get me wrong, I love sequals. There are just times, however, when game developers need to figure out it's time to call it quits. I am all good with sequals as long as the developers introduce new, innovative ideas, while still sticking to their old formula of greatness, but it's a fine line. One walked very masterfully by the "Command and Conquer" Series :)
Other Notes: The most annoying thing is when developers borrow the name, and a few of the same graphic design style from another game, only to make a game nothing like the original. Alot of times Developers would be better off just scrapping it as a sequal, and starting a whole new adventure.
Biggest Culprit: There are so many choices in this section. Mario, Sonic, the never ending stream of Tom Clancy games, but I think the award has to go not an actual game, but a person. That's right, none other than George Lucas himself. With everything from "Lego Indiana Jones", "Lego Star Wars", "Lego Harry Potter", and "Lego Batman", to "The Force Unleashed", "Knights of the Old Republic", and a new Star Wars MMO that is soon to come out, George Lucas has successfully stamped his name on a hefty portion of the video game industry.
When It's Good: When games know when to die. Don't get me wrong, I love sequals. There are just times, however, when game developers need to figure out it's time to call it quits. I am all good with sequals as long as the developers introduce new, innovative ideas, while still sticking to their old formula of greatness, but it's a fine line. One walked very masterfully by the "Command and Conquer" Series :)
Other Notes: The most annoying thing is when developers borrow the name, and a few of the same graphic design style from another game, only to make a game nothing like the original. Alot of times Developers would be better off just scrapping it as a sequal, and starting a whole new adventure.
Conclusion
There are alot of new and exciting things emmerging in the video game world, yet developers continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Hopefully we can one day get to a point where developers will actually learn from their mistakes, and embrace creativity.
- Blue Rose
- Blue Rose
* Oh yes, that's right, I'm talking about you Bejeweled!
** Stupid People
So, in summary, all games should have infinite lives health and time. Hmm. Sounds challenging. And seriously, minesweeper without time? The whole point of the game is to pass time and compete with yourself or others and see if you can get better. The logic of the game is NOT hard for anyone to figure out if thought through slowly, time is the only challenging element.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying, but i think video games can still be challenging when you give players this kind of freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe best games are the ones that let you engage yourself in the challenge, but give you the freedom to just screw around when you need a break from the action.
Think about, for instance, a game like Halo. It can be challenging, but you do have infinite respwans, no time limit (in most cases), and a health system that regenerates.
I agree with you on some points, but otherwise I think this ideal is slightly... flawed, I guess? For instance, I completely agree with your Katamari Demacy comment. The time limits on that game were ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in most cases, these things... limited lives, limited health, time limits... they're put into a game to give it more replay value - or just play time in general. Think Mega Man. Very limited health, and lives, but without those things, the game would be very short. The game implements these things so that you have to play the game more and more just to beat it, and then you still have to beat Hard mode!
Also, nowadays, video games are split into two different catagories; those for "casual" gamers, and those for "hard-core" gamers. The aspects you mention are really only in the games meant for hard-core gamers. In other words, the creators of the game wanted to make it challenging, because they want the gamer to feel like they got their money's worth with whatever challenges the game holds. At least, that's my view on things. I agree that there's a time and a place, but I don't think they "ruin" video games, or should be discarded at all.
Video game nerd-
Marcus.
See, i think the best way to do it is have a balence. I'm not a huge fan, but i like the idea they had about being able to turn on and off certain challenges.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best video games are ones with dimension. Ones that, at times, can be full of action, challenge, and danger, but when you need a break give you the freedom of a sandbox game.
Me and Reach were playing Just Cause 2 the other day and i was thinking about this. There were times when he'd have to focus completely, and it was full of explosions, and gun fire, and all that great stuff, but when we got tired of that we could screw around trying to jump boats off of mountains and ridiculous stuff of the like. I think things like time limits, limited lives, etc etc make this impossible. Achieving that kind of balance is only possible when very flexible circumstances. How much fun would grand theft auto be if you had a time limit, only 5 lives, and health that never regenerated?
It takes freedom out of the game, and alot of times, while it doesn't completely ruin the game, it holds the game back from reaching its full potential
I see what you're saying. And, I agree. All elements of a game have to be distributed correctly and evenly. You can't have a GTA with a time limit locked onto the entire game. What would be the point then of having an entire city to explore?
ReplyDeleteBut the point I'm trying to make is that these elements don't "ruin" a game at all, if under the correct circumstances. And usually, they are. If you're trying to say, "If a game has a time limit, low health, and limited lives, it sucks," or "If a game doesn't have any of those restrictions, it's awesome," I have to disagree. But if all you're trying to say is that under the incorrect circumstances, time limits, etc. can ruin a gaming experience, then I agree.
MD
I would definitely agree with that. The title of this article is an exaggeration, but i do think every game would be made better if you had the ability to turn these things off without finding some way to cheat. I think developers should incorporate more freedom into games like this just for fun, and dynamic.
ReplyDelete