Fantasy as a genre has been going strong this year, especially in video games. Skyrim came out as a huge hit, Kingdom of Amalur has become a quiet success, Dungeon Defenders is sweeping the Indy titles, and others have brought players back to the realms of mages with funny hats, heroes with big swords, elf maidens in need of a new tailor, and fantasy staples like orcs, goblins, and dragons. Anyone care to guess what other elements might be involved in games like these? Trolls, demons, archwizards, shadowy assassins, dwarves, giant animals, swords, shields, bows, castles, scheming advisers, kings, princesses, magic items, wildly impractical armor, bandit caves, pirates, skeleton warriors, lost civilizations, wolves, inter-dimensional monstrosities, dungeons, catacombs, pretty forests, and on and on and on.
Why is fantasy so predictable?
We all love Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. It was a great series with an engaging world. Why is it everyone has to rip that off? Maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but you have to admit that a lot of fantasy has a similar feel to it. We keep a lot of the same elements in that genre. Heck, I know I do that same. I was recently looking back on a project I had started and realized just how cliche it felt. We stick to the same elements because we're familiar with them and they're safe. Elves, dwarves, and orcs don't need a lot of detail work because all of us already have a pretty good idea what they are like.
I'm getting sick of the same thing over and over. There is only so often you can read about the human boy teaming with the elf girl and the clumsy wizard as they save the world from the evil overlord. Or play as the silent barbarian/one-man-army who is the only one in the entire world that can change the fate of the world. As much as different authors try to spice it up, typically they all have a relatively similar plot. These work fine, but it means that we become complacent, and soon resentful, of the worlds we've put ourselves in. For me, when I could substitute one fantasy world for another, my interest just starts to fade.
The sad thing about this is that it is all just a sign of laziness. Let's look at science fiction quickly. BioWare has released games in both of these genres, Dragon Age (fantasy) and Mass Effect (Sci-Fi). In Dragon Age we have humans, elves, dwarves, and an orc knock off. In Mass Effect we have humans, turians, krogans, asari, drell, elcor, hanar, keepers, salarians, volus, geth, yahg, vorcha, reapers, quarian... the list goes on. All of these races are unique and well defined. Each one has its history and issues. And this is all within the bounds of science (sort of). Why is in worlds were magic can seemingly defy logic we get stuck with the same races and characters, while in a world ruled but what could possibly exist is so much richer? The mage can summon fire from heaven but he can't have tentacles for arms and raptor legs?
We need a revival in this genre. It is one of my favorites, but my passion for it is waning. The lack of real innovation is crippling this genre. Bethesda did some work with this in their Elder Scrolls series, adding Argonians (lizard people) and Kahjit (cat people) but even those are pretty mundane. How can a genre titled "fantasy," which is supposed to be all that we can imagine and more, be stuck in the same repeating ideas. There should be unlimited opportunities in this genre. Magic could be used to explain countless types of characters, races, and abilities. Terry Pratchett's series Discworld has an amazingly rich world that is unique and engaging, with more than just your standard characters. Yet he seems like the only one (that I have come across) who pushes these traditionally accepted boundaries. We need to drop the notion that fantasy is limited to elves and dwarves, and reach out for those hidden worlds that could change fantasy for the better.
Seriously though, I'm sick of the female heroes wearing the equivalent of on tin can's worth of armor.
Just something to chew on.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Soupmon Digivolve
You might remember back in December when I wrote about the cartoons I grew up with and how today's cartoons suck. I was recently reminded of this when I plugged back into the Digital World in an old favorite cartoon of mine, Digimon. Remember this show? Eight kids and their unique monster counter parts having to save the real world and its digital counterpart from varying types of super hyped bad guys? Each episode saw them meeting different monsters and unlocking new powers. This was a great show, fun and engaging, with characters that I still love to this day (T.K. is my favorite, nice to see him so central in the second season). Even with the wild setting, wacky antics, and rather repetitive problems, Digimon was fun, and as I look back now, there is a little more I get from it.
This show had some profound messages about life.
So here's the common theme in the first season. Each kid is given a crest representing the trait that best represents them. These are courage, friendship, love, sincerity, reliability, knowledge, hope, and light. Given that the last one is kind of a stretch, but the others are essential qualities of life. Each of the "Digi-Destined" has a few episodes dealing with how they best fit their specific crest. Tai learns about being courageous, but not stupid, Matt learns about relying on others, Sora learns about her mother's love , and so on and so on. Each episode plays out in a way that makes the problems the characters face easily identifiable. Matt is bummed over his parent's divorce and not having to take care of T.K. Izzy is dealing with being adopted. Mimi is dealing with real responsibility.
Despite its fantasy wrapping paper, this series showed kids some real struggles that they might face as they grew older. And they also offered solutions. They may seem cheesy (and they are) but the message they offer is dead on. They are told things like, don't rely on yourself, don't be reckless, keep on working for what you believe in, never doubt the need for responsibility, and more. Kids have powerful imaginations, and they think about these worlds that they see. I know that as a kid I thought about what I would be like as a "Digi-Destined" and what my crest would be (will power). I would put myself into the world and it would enrich the experience for me. I can't say that I consciously thought about these life lessons and how they applied, but they were still a part of the world that I wanted to be a part of.
While not so life altering, there are other elements in the show that are very surprising. Characters like Angemon, Myotismon, Garudamon, Zudamon, and many more are inspired by religion and myth from around the globe. This is an excellent example of tangential learning. I was always interested in these characters and when I was able to look them up, I found their roots and was fascinated by the stories of what inspired them. My love for folk lore and myth has been partly inspired by this show, I believe. A show like this that takes from so many cultures is a great way to expose kids to new ideas and origins of beliefs in an accessible way. No one is forcing any of them to pursue knowledge, but it is opening the door for them.
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm running off of nostalgia. Digimon was corny and poorly written, with some of the most cliche dialog I've heard in a while. It is not, by any practical definition, good. Still, it offers kids a lot of opportunities to learn and grow. Cartoons these days just don't offer the same kind of chance. They are flashy and entertaining but wholly insubstantial. How much thought really goes into these shows? You might think it isn't not be fair to compare an older Japanese anime with a modern American cartoon, but this is an example of how cartoons can be great. We grew up with this in America; it is just as much a part of our lives as it is to anyone in Japan. We benefited from it, so why can't later generations. There was a lot of care that went into this show, and subsequent seasons. The fun was balanced with the creative. We just don't see that anymore. I would support the bringing back of these kinds of intelligent shows to kids. I would love to be able to watch something with my son or daughter someday down the line and see that they aren't just distracted for half an hour, but that they are investing in it and being invested in as well.
I do have to admit, some of the digimon were really trippy. Nanimon? That's weird.
Just something to chew on.
This show had some profound messages about life.
So here's the common theme in the first season. Each kid is given a crest representing the trait that best represents them. These are courage, friendship, love, sincerity, reliability, knowledge, hope, and light. Given that the last one is kind of a stretch, but the others are essential qualities of life. Each of the "Digi-Destined" has a few episodes dealing with how they best fit their specific crest. Tai learns about being courageous, but not stupid, Matt learns about relying on others, Sora learns about her mother's love , and so on and so on. Each episode plays out in a way that makes the problems the characters face easily identifiable. Matt is bummed over his parent's divorce and not having to take care of T.K. Izzy is dealing with being adopted. Mimi is dealing with real responsibility.
Despite its fantasy wrapping paper, this series showed kids some real struggles that they might face as they grew older. And they also offered solutions. They may seem cheesy (and they are) but the message they offer is dead on. They are told things like, don't rely on yourself, don't be reckless, keep on working for what you believe in, never doubt the need for responsibility, and more. Kids have powerful imaginations, and they think about these worlds that they see. I know that as a kid I thought about what I would be like as a "Digi-Destined" and what my crest would be (will power). I would put myself into the world and it would enrich the experience for me. I can't say that I consciously thought about these life lessons and how they applied, but they were still a part of the world that I wanted to be a part of.
While not so life altering, there are other elements in the show that are very surprising. Characters like Angemon, Myotismon, Garudamon, Zudamon, and many more are inspired by religion and myth from around the globe. This is an excellent example of tangential learning. I was always interested in these characters and when I was able to look them up, I found their roots and was fascinated by the stories of what inspired them. My love for folk lore and myth has been partly inspired by this show, I believe. A show like this that takes from so many cultures is a great way to expose kids to new ideas and origins of beliefs in an accessible way. No one is forcing any of them to pursue knowledge, but it is opening the door for them.
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm running off of nostalgia. Digimon was corny and poorly written, with some of the most cliche dialog I've heard in a while. It is not, by any practical definition, good. Still, it offers kids a lot of opportunities to learn and grow. Cartoons these days just don't offer the same kind of chance. They are flashy and entertaining but wholly insubstantial. How much thought really goes into these shows? You might think it isn't not be fair to compare an older Japanese anime with a modern American cartoon, but this is an example of how cartoons can be great. We grew up with this in America; it is just as much a part of our lives as it is to anyone in Japan. We benefited from it, so why can't later generations. There was a lot of care that went into this show, and subsequent seasons. The fun was balanced with the creative. We just don't see that anymore. I would support the bringing back of these kinds of intelligent shows to kids. I would love to be able to watch something with my son or daughter someday down the line and see that they aren't just distracted for half an hour, but that they are investing in it and being invested in as well.
I do have to admit, some of the digimon were really trippy. Nanimon? That's weird.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Funny Doesn't Equal Good
I'm a big fan of web comics. Weekly updated snippets from the on going stories are a good method in story telling, with some advantages to the monthly updates you might get from big name publishers like DC. It makes it easier to follow various characters in a wide range of situations. I follow something like fifteen different comics through the weeks, maybe more, and I can stay engaged with the story and characters despite the differences in genres and styles. My browsing of web comics has shown me a somewhat bothersome trait, and that is what I want to discuss today.
Funny characters and dialog do not necessarily mean deep or interesting characters.
I recently was introduced to the web comic Questionable Content. It is basically the story of the cast living life, though they encounter a broad range of strange and outlandish situations that are far from everyday life, (on the time of writing this, three of the characters are on a space station for one of the character's father's birthdays). This is a very well-written comic with witty dialogue and interesting plot twists. Yet, despite solid writing, it falls a little flat for me, and the reason for this is because of the characters. This comic has run for over 2000 panels, something like nine years. In a three day span, I read the entirety of it (a great use of time I know). And through out, I saw the art style change, the dialogue becoming stronger, and new characters added to the mix, but the characters themselves were fairly static. They go through a number of similar situations in the series, and each time they seem to react the same, either with passiveness, aggression, aloofness, or any other trait that seems to be their single point. You don't see a lot of growth from them. Sure they accomplish things in regards to work or relationships, but we see these fall apart because their basic issues are not addressed. And the worst part of it is, each of the characters see what their problem is, and some even go to therapy for it, to try and change, but it doesn't seem to do any good for most of them. Thank goodness for Hannelore, the OCD. Despite having what might be the most "crippling" flaw, we get to see her grow in leaps and bounds in a very refreshing way.
Along with that lack of real growth is the cast growth. These two seem inversely related. As the characters don't grow, the cast does. They started with a solid cast of three and added a few more in, but now there is probably some twelve characters or more, and each of them has their own connections and hobbies to keep track of. This starts to get confusing when you try to keep track of everyones' work life, romantic endeavors, as well as back stories and prior interactions. Some time a character will return after months of absence and it is easy to forget who they were in the first place, let alone what they're doing now. It seems like the author just adds another character if they have run out of ideas as to what to do with the current cast.
Again, this doesn't mean that Questionable Content is a bad comic, it just doesn't reach it's full potential. A web comic that has both character growth and wit is Between Failures. I have followed this comic for a while now, and it never ceases to get me engaged. Between Failures starts with a tight cast. There are six main characters, and about five secondary characters. These characters all have interesting personalities and quirks that make them interesting and believable. Insecurities and fears, as well as goals and ambitions, fit with the characters and you can see how they deal with them in good and bad ways. Ed is a short man with a short temper and he knows it is his Achilles heel. We see him messing up with this issue and trying to overcome it. Each character has growth and depth. The writing is just as witty as in Questionable Content, but you can feel the underlying affection that the friends have for each other. Even though you meet with them when they are already established friends, it is easy to see how they compliment each other and why their friendships are strong. There is an unwritten history between them that doesn't need to be told, the reader just knows that they are genuine.
A good story is fine, but the reader can get frustrated when the characters keep applying the same methods to the same situations and never learning. Part of the draw for web comics should be that you can trace the character's growth and look back and see how what happened in past clips affects what they are doing now. The same excuses and fears turn into whining. Characters need to be able to be witty as well as human. Humans do learn from their mistakes. We might be stupid, but even we can figure out how to be better. I would like to see Questionable Content really give their characters strength and greater depth. If their characters really started to grow and mature, I think Questionable Content could be one of the best on the web.
Except for Goblins, that guy is awesome.
Just something to chew on.
Funny characters and dialog do not necessarily mean deep or interesting characters.
I recently was introduced to the web comic Questionable Content. It is basically the story of the cast living life, though they encounter a broad range of strange and outlandish situations that are far from everyday life, (on the time of writing this, three of the characters are on a space station for one of the character's father's birthdays). This is a very well-written comic with witty dialogue and interesting plot twists. Yet, despite solid writing, it falls a little flat for me, and the reason for this is because of the characters. This comic has run for over 2000 panels, something like nine years. In a three day span, I read the entirety of it (a great use of time I know). And through out, I saw the art style change, the dialogue becoming stronger, and new characters added to the mix, but the characters themselves were fairly static. They go through a number of similar situations in the series, and each time they seem to react the same, either with passiveness, aggression, aloofness, or any other trait that seems to be their single point. You don't see a lot of growth from them. Sure they accomplish things in regards to work or relationships, but we see these fall apart because their basic issues are not addressed. And the worst part of it is, each of the characters see what their problem is, and some even go to therapy for it, to try and change, but it doesn't seem to do any good for most of them. Thank goodness for Hannelore, the OCD. Despite having what might be the most "crippling" flaw, we get to see her grow in leaps and bounds in a very refreshing way.
Along with that lack of real growth is the cast growth. These two seem inversely related. As the characters don't grow, the cast does. They started with a solid cast of three and added a few more in, but now there is probably some twelve characters or more, and each of them has their own connections and hobbies to keep track of. This starts to get confusing when you try to keep track of everyones' work life, romantic endeavors, as well as back stories and prior interactions. Some time a character will return after months of absence and it is easy to forget who they were in the first place, let alone what they're doing now. It seems like the author just adds another character if they have run out of ideas as to what to do with the current cast.
Again, this doesn't mean that Questionable Content is a bad comic, it just doesn't reach it's full potential. A web comic that has both character growth and wit is Between Failures. I have followed this comic for a while now, and it never ceases to get me engaged. Between Failures starts with a tight cast. There are six main characters, and about five secondary characters. These characters all have interesting personalities and quirks that make them interesting and believable. Insecurities and fears, as well as goals and ambitions, fit with the characters and you can see how they deal with them in good and bad ways. Ed is a short man with a short temper and he knows it is his Achilles heel. We see him messing up with this issue and trying to overcome it. Each character has growth and depth. The writing is just as witty as in Questionable Content, but you can feel the underlying affection that the friends have for each other. Even though you meet with them when they are already established friends, it is easy to see how they compliment each other and why their friendships are strong. There is an unwritten history between them that doesn't need to be told, the reader just knows that they are genuine.
A good story is fine, but the reader can get frustrated when the characters keep applying the same methods to the same situations and never learning. Part of the draw for web comics should be that you can trace the character's growth and look back and see how what happened in past clips affects what they are doing now. The same excuses and fears turn into whining. Characters need to be able to be witty as well as human. Humans do learn from their mistakes. We might be stupid, but even we can figure out how to be better. I would like to see Questionable Content really give their characters strength and greater depth. If their characters really started to grow and mature, I think Questionable Content could be one of the best on the web.
Except for Goblins, that guy is awesome.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Massive Action Fiasco
Last week I wrote about games on their appropriate counsels. That got me thinking about one game from the PS3. The game is M.A.G. (Massive Action Game). It is a FPS by Zipper Interactive, the guys behind SOCOM. Its main draw was that it allowed for over 200 players to be in-game at one time. While an awesome idea, and the game was pretty solid technically, M.A.G. never really took off in popularity. While a bit of a flop MAG did a few things right, with one big one standing out.
M.A.G. made you feel like a part of the group.
I know I've been on a kind of alone/acceptance kick for a while, but this time it's far less touchy-feely. M.A.G. placed the player in one of three private military corporations (PMC for the sake of laziness). Each PMC had it's own back story, voice overs, player voices, and load out look. One looked more modern military, one looked more advanced/near future, and the other was more homemade/ guerrilla war style. Through the style choices, players could identify with what was their in regards to buildings and vehicles, as well as who was on their team. Every area could easily be identified as a certain organization's territory.
Another area that M.A.G. did well in was player community. Since there were only three choices of teams to play on, and you were basically stuck on that team until you decided to delete a profile, the team goals were always more important. There were four positions in game. The basic was the soldier, the average player. Above him was a squad leader who were in charge of six to eight soldiers.; these were the players who had played longer and leveled a good deal. Above them was the platoon leader, in charge of four squads. Then at the top was the regiment commander, who was the head of the entire group. Each leader was able to use different perks and special commands, as well as set main objectives.
Along with this player set-up was the goals of the match. There were three basic map styles, either capture the points, capture the vehicle, or full-blown invasion. Each group was sent to a different section of the map, with squad leaders coordinating with platoon leaders to pick the most important objectives. The squad leader would set up fargo objectives which would be rewarded with more experience points. It was to each team member's benefit to follow their squad leaders orders.
Combining these two game play choices built up a team mentality. Players followed the chain of command and relied on each other for success. Players couldn't heal themselves and needed a partner to help them get back in the action. Every player had their own play style that they brought to the match. Some people might be tank busters, others hung back and picked people off with snipers, some were the run and gun assault types, and others (like me) picked up support with repair, healing, and distractions. Each play style was rewarded, but no one style was clearly better than the other in regards to earning xp or kills. There was the added choice of being able to have two other player load outs that you could switch to depending on the situation.
M.A.G. was an experiment in player communities and mass gaming. I believe that the reason it failed was mostly because of the choice of putting it on the home counsel instead of PC. Besides the idea that FPS games work better with a mouse, there is also the easy of communication. PS3 mikes are expensive and rarely used. On the other hand, most computers these days have them built in. It makes it easier to communicate and organize teams. Despite this, M.A.G. was a good try and an admirable experiment. If anything, it shows that some companies are willing to try new ideas. I hope to see projects like this later on in the industry, games that focus on the player community as much as a good experience. Red-5's upcoming Firefall might be a great example of this, we'll see.
Also, they really need a way to cut down the fricking long load times.
Just something to chew on.
M.A.G. made you feel like a part of the group.
I know I've been on a kind of alone/acceptance kick for a while, but this time it's far less touchy-feely. M.A.G. placed the player in one of three private military corporations (PMC for the sake of laziness). Each PMC had it's own back story, voice overs, player voices, and load out look. One looked more modern military, one looked more advanced/near future, and the other was more homemade/ guerrilla war style. Through the style choices, players could identify with what was their in regards to buildings and vehicles, as well as who was on their team. Every area could easily be identified as a certain organization's territory.
Another area that M.A.G. did well in was player community. Since there were only three choices of teams to play on, and you were basically stuck on that team until you decided to delete a profile, the team goals were always more important. There were four positions in game. The basic was the soldier, the average player. Above him was a squad leader who were in charge of six to eight soldiers.; these were the players who had played longer and leveled a good deal. Above them was the platoon leader, in charge of four squads. Then at the top was the regiment commander, who was the head of the entire group. Each leader was able to use different perks and special commands, as well as set main objectives.
Along with this player set-up was the goals of the match. There were three basic map styles, either capture the points, capture the vehicle, or full-blown invasion. Each group was sent to a different section of the map, with squad leaders coordinating with platoon leaders to pick the most important objectives. The squad leader would set up fargo objectives which would be rewarded with more experience points. It was to each team member's benefit to follow their squad leaders orders.
Combining these two game play choices built up a team mentality. Players followed the chain of command and relied on each other for success. Players couldn't heal themselves and needed a partner to help them get back in the action. Every player had their own play style that they brought to the match. Some people might be tank busters, others hung back and picked people off with snipers, some were the run and gun assault types, and others (like me) picked up support with repair, healing, and distractions. Each play style was rewarded, but no one style was clearly better than the other in regards to earning xp or kills. There was the added choice of being able to have two other player load outs that you could switch to depending on the situation.
M.A.G. was an experiment in player communities and mass gaming. I believe that the reason it failed was mostly because of the choice of putting it on the home counsel instead of PC. Besides the idea that FPS games work better with a mouse, there is also the easy of communication. PS3 mikes are expensive and rarely used. On the other hand, most computers these days have them built in. It makes it easier to communicate and organize teams. Despite this, M.A.G. was a good try and an admirable experiment. If anything, it shows that some companies are willing to try new ideas. I hope to see projects like this later on in the industry, games that focus on the player community as much as a good experience. Red-5's upcoming Firefall might be a great example of this, we'll see.
Also, they really need a way to cut down the fricking long load times.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Game On...The Proper One
Never did I think I would understand the idea that consoles were unfit for First-Person Shooters. I had grown up with Golden Eye, The Orange Box, Resistance: Fall of Man, and others. I was perfectly happy with the duel analog game play and the long load times and updates that came with console connections. And then I went to college and discovered the world of PC FPS. Between the WASD keys and mouse I found a whole new way to play. Among my play time, I found a game called Hydrophobia: Prophesy, an adventure game like Jak and Daxter that I had enjoyed on my PS2. I tried it with high expectations and was sorely disappointed. I came to a realization (as I so often do).
Each system is set for its own games; crossing some lines is inadvisable.
There are so many kinds of games out there, and each type requires its own set of skills and mentalities to go with it. Real Time Strategy games require micro management with a big picture perspective. Turn Based games require forethought and anticipation. Fighting games require precision timing and knowledge of counters and combos. FPS games call for observation and twitch reflexes. These are pretty basic, and there are others across the board depending on the game and the system.
Certain genres are better suited to certain play styles. RTS games need you to be able to select and move both specific units and groups easily and to a variety of locations. FPS games need precision moving for aim and easy weapon cycling. These games lend themselves better to the easy of motion with the mouse and the various keys on the board. Action games and platformers need easily adjusted character movement. Fighting games need a range of motion using only a few inputs. The duel analog and button layouts work well for this.
When we cross platforms it gets hard. Yes FPS games are on the counsel, but the game play is more rewarding on a PC. On the other hand, Action/Adventure games don't perform as well on PCs. The game play is usually more cumbersome and awkward. That's why games like Shank, when ported to the PC, suffer, they weren't built at the ground level with keyboard and mouse in mind.Saint's Row 2 is another good example of a great game being brought down by poor transitioning. The menu set up was atrocious. The developers didn't make it so that the mouse could switch between options and menus, instead they used keyboard buttons and the arrow keys. This made basic actions like saving and navigating options a hassle and brought down the games quality.
This is the crux of the issue. Games need to be developed with their intended play style in mind. Some games port well between the systems, but there is never a perfect transition. Controls may end up sloppy and awkward, menus and options are difficult to navigate, or software bugs may hinder play. This isn't talking about cross-platform games like Modern Warfare or others like that. Those are built on the idea that they will be marketable to either audience. What I am saying is a basic idea. Proper planning needs to be done, not just for the short goals, but with the possibility of change over.
Or you could buy another Xbox controller if you really want to deal with that refrigerator of plastic....
Just something to chew on.
Each system is set for its own games; crossing some lines is inadvisable.
There are so many kinds of games out there, and each type requires its own set of skills and mentalities to go with it. Real Time Strategy games require micro management with a big picture perspective. Turn Based games require forethought and anticipation. Fighting games require precision timing and knowledge of counters and combos. FPS games call for observation and twitch reflexes. These are pretty basic, and there are others across the board depending on the game and the system.
Certain genres are better suited to certain play styles. RTS games need you to be able to select and move both specific units and groups easily and to a variety of locations. FPS games need precision moving for aim and easy weapon cycling. These games lend themselves better to the easy of motion with the mouse and the various keys on the board. Action games and platformers need easily adjusted character movement. Fighting games need a range of motion using only a few inputs. The duel analog and button layouts work well for this.
When we cross platforms it gets hard. Yes FPS games are on the counsel, but the game play is more rewarding on a PC. On the other hand, Action/Adventure games don't perform as well on PCs. The game play is usually more cumbersome and awkward. That's why games like Shank, when ported to the PC, suffer, they weren't built at the ground level with keyboard and mouse in mind.Saint's Row 2 is another good example of a great game being brought down by poor transitioning. The menu set up was atrocious. The developers didn't make it so that the mouse could switch between options and menus, instead they used keyboard buttons and the arrow keys. This made basic actions like saving and navigating options a hassle and brought down the games quality.
This is the crux of the issue. Games need to be developed with their intended play style in mind. Some games port well between the systems, but there is never a perfect transition. Controls may end up sloppy and awkward, menus and options are difficult to navigate, or software bugs may hinder play. This isn't talking about cross-platform games like Modern Warfare or others like that. Those are built on the idea that they will be marketable to either audience. What I am saying is a basic idea. Proper planning needs to be done, not just for the short goals, but with the possibility of change over.
Or you could buy another Xbox controller if you really want to deal with that refrigerator of plastic....
Just something to chew on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)