I do not like modern video games. I like games that make
it obvious a lot of care was put into their creation. I like
to have my performance graded, and I like to be punished when
I do not meet the standard of perfection. I like to be continuously
tested, forced to think each section through or have excellent
motor skills. I like entities that have charisma, whether
they are a wooden box or an Italian plumber. I like the charisma
to be conveyed by usefulness, and applicability instead of
empty hype. In the case of a living thing, I like to have
to read between the lines to recognize someone's greatness,
as opposed to it being forced upon me by corny comments, and
an aura of 'trying too hard'. I like to be told just enough
to let my imagination kick in and visualize the rest, so that
I can have a unique experience from everyone else playing,
and also so I can become fully immersed.
I like things to be realistic in a psychological sense as
opposed to an overt physical sense. For example: In Wizardry,
I must form a party with synergy and raise them correctly
in order to be effective. I must make the correct decisions
or the outcome will not be in my favor. Each character has
unique physics and psychology, and I have my own metaphysical
intentions for each of them. Skills, weaknesses, weapon/armor
preferences/limitations, and they have a potential uniqueness
to their background. If an Elf chooses to be an archer, he
will be dexterous and agile, proficient in long-range weapons,
and average to low defense wise. If I have a black mage, he
will learn black magic at the appropriate rate for his profession,
which he has chosen, and must be bound to in order to truly
excel at the art. It is ludicrous to see the omnipotent and
utterly generic characters in modern Rpgs that function as
a Mage/cleric/Fighter/Thief who can use all weapons and armor
and perform well in offense, defense and magic. Certain things
should not be customized. You can choose a race, a class,
and equipment as it pertains to a particular profession. What
doesn't make sense is the ability to have everyone do everything.
Such is the difference between Wizardry and FF7.
All the characters lose their value and distinction when they
all do everything. Rpgs are about different types of warriors
coming together to form a party in which they can lend their
individual and exclusive traits to in order to further the
goal of the group.
You do not become a cleric because you find some shiny rock;
you have to train in the school of white magic. To watch a
little girl, over 3 different turns cast Ultima, Life, and
then hit for 9999 is disgusting, and devoid of charisma. The
focus should be on the quest itself, and each quest is unique,
considering the goal is to achieve maximum synergy and functionality
with ones party; not watching movies and hearing about emotional
problems. Know why my cleric in Wizardry has no emotional
problems? Because he knows who and what he is: a cleric, and
a damn good one. He focuses on his white magic, and takes
everything as it comes. You can sit back and imagine the characters'
exploits when the game is turned off, but when it is on, the
focus should be attaining greater proficiency in ones' art
as it relates to the ultimate goal. I like text boxes that
tell me "a bandit draws near".…and "eyes me
cautiously". I then picture something far more amazing
than if the bandit approached me in FMV, and began speaking
like a member of a boy band. In Metroid, I can play
the role of a space Pirate, in Defender I can put the
fate of the people in my hand, and in The Legend of Zelda
I can explore a vast and mystical land. I can be fully transported
into the world in which it takes place. This is what physical
realistic programming takes away from games, because the more
they "add" to a character the more it takes away
from the immersion, and the less I can become that character.
Games like GTA are in opposition to the immersion theory,
because one could go for a walk and hear and see those kinds
of things in the real world…and why would you want to. These
are the very things that cause me to turn to video games and
my imagination for serenity. And regarding the endless quantity
of pointless "goodies" which can be unlocked upon
completion of these modern titles, I have this to say: I do
not need an incentive for beating a game besides beating it;
for if I did, I would surely not be worthy of the title: 'gamer'.
I like to have to use everything I've got to get where I
need to be, unassisted by in-game tutors. There is a lot to
be said for merely completing many classic titles, much less
earning a high score. I enjoy the bragging rights associated
with a flawless run through Ninja Gaiden, or beating
the champs' Space Invaders score. I like unlocking
the strategic secrets of each game, especially when it looks
like nothing is there, and appears 'hard'. This is when I
look beneath the surface and after a while I say "Ohhhhhhh
so THAT'S what they meant by that, or "Ohhhhhh so THIS
is the technique I use to get past this formidable 8-bit boss.
I like obstacle courses, in which every 10 yards there is
another enigmatic challenge. Levels like 6-2 of Ninja Gaiden
or some of the higher Galaga stages are almost alive
to me. They have charisma. I like it when there is something
I have to learn in order to progress. I like under-developed
characters, because then I can develop them, based on their
ambiguous, yet striking presence. For example, I get a kick
out of imagining the bosses in Double Dragon from Abobo
up to the shadow boss, in various situations that furthers
my immersion into the game environment. Or that damn dot in
Adventure that kept my attention for weeks. Or the secret
agent in Golgo 13, whom I can't escape picturing with
an English accent; or Vodka Drunkinsky from Punch out,
getting drunk at the bar before the fight; the minus world
in SMB for crying out loud and the red mages' hat in
FF1.
I like subtle details, either by themselves or in conjunction
with a finely worded and illustrated manual that combines
with my imagination and creates gaming bliss. I like the Japanese
80's synthesizer music on the NES, where I can just picture
that Japanese producer putting his heart and soul into capturing
the vibe of total 80's badassness; it matters not that it
is all synthesized or that they had no live instruments, what
matters is what they did with the synthesizer they
had; it is startling. The intrusive presence of commercial
hip-hop in a video game is the quickest way to jerk me out
of the vibe. I can find that anywhere for goodness sake; I
don't need it in my video games, nor do I need to hear any
modern "street" slang, which strikes me as absurd,
stereotypical, exploitative and utterly convoluted. I enjoy
the deeply challenging mathematical system in games like Might
and Magic, which allows me to calculate an entire round
of combat to a 'T' and forces me to focus on every decision;
for if I do not, my demise is eminent, and I will see that
long lost relic: the 'Game over' screen. Then I will have
no choice but to rework my strategy, rethink my math or improve
my motor skills in order to progress. That way I learn something.
I enjoy having to work my way into an area in which I can
save; so I can appreciate what it means to do so. I dislike
having the ability to save anytime, which causes me to loose
any sense of tension. There can be 300 different 'goals' in
a game, but as far as I am concerned there is nothing like
a game in which the one goal sounds simple (to reach
the end), yet actually is monumentally complex in application.
I do not like remakes, as I have never seen one that captures
the multiple facets of the original 'feel', and is not in
some way watered down and convoluted, failing to live up to
the name of, and capitalizing on the notoriety of it's namesake.
I do not like 3d, as I believe it is a method of fooling
the gamer into believing that there is more to do than there
really is. There are games that have tons of nice looking
inanimate objects, yet do not require half as much thought
or interaction as a single screen in many classic titles across
multiple genres; weather it is discovering what lies behind
the bush/rock/statue/water/etc. in Zelda, making the
correct series of jumps and slashes in Ninja Gaiden
or defeating a group of metal Babbles in Dragon Quest 3.
I do not like the control associated with 3-D. I find it ridiculous
and choppy to say the least. Some are better than others but
they all lack that sharpness and response found in a much
higher percentage of 2D games. All of this diagonal jazz,
or the delay in jumping, or any of the other aspects that
have no point other than doing them for the sake of themselves.
Even with the horrible controls most games are STILL way to
easy. Mario 64, for crying out loud, even as one of
the absolute best uses of 3D controls is at least 10 times
less difficult than its predecessors; especially SMB2 (J).
In the process of obsessing over 3D, the entire obstacle course
feeling was lost. After all there is much less tension in
successfully making proper jumps, using foes as platforming
objects etc. that made the older Mario games quite exciting.
On top of that you can save, which removes the sense of necessity;
that which prompts one to step up to the plate.
I do not like in game tutors. I see them as replacements
of a good manual and one's own skill. When a character jumps
out of a bush and says "Hey! The key is right over there",
well, that is just idiotic really. We used to have to take
notes, make maps, use our memory and solve problems using
our noggin. The manual told us what we needed to know, and
then left the rest to us. Now they use in game characters
with colored text and bolded sentences, stating the obvious.
I do not like a lack of challenge as I have stated, and I
detest game engines that cater to the "jump in"
style of play, as I feel sufficient time must be spent in
order to get to know the ins and outs of any game worth one's
time. The less time required for analysis, the less rewards
to reap upon deconstructing the engine.
I do not like FMV. I feel that games are a different medium
than movies and should be treated as such. FMV wastes time.
It shows you an interpretation of the game world from the
developer's point of view, which is exactly the same for everyone.
It is never as good as the worlds I see with my imagination
in classic games, which allows me to become fully immersed.
If a game tries to be a half-movie, it will not stand up to
dedicated movies, or dedicated games. As far as conveying
a story through FMV, I can have FAR greater stories conveyed
through films, where the only button I need to press is play.
And I won't even get started on books. I am used to blasting
invaders; or maneuvering through Ninja Gaiden; or orchestrating
a fine round of intense turn-based combat. Functionality such
as that sets the vibe for what I am actually doing, not a
movie showing one of my characters talk like N'sync and the
other like 50 Cent, while doing meaningless plot- oriented
things that have no relevance to the gameplay. I already have
many favorite movies and books. No plot-oriented game is going
to surpass them. What those movies and books cannot give me
is the almighty satisfaction of a perfect Battletoads
run through, or surpassing my Galaxian score, or when
I watch my 6 character party carry out a sequence of commands
that I have carefully inputted, causing them to function with
a synergistic essence that would make most Olympic diving
teams jealous. I like to reap the rewards of my efforts; whether
my efforts are in the form of motor skills, memory, hand eye
coordination, problem solving, tactical prowess, depth perception,
physics, math, science or impeccable timing. Without turning
this into a book or a thesis, or using 15 methods of saying
the same thing: I simply adore games with substance; I simply
abhor games without it.
