A gaming primer: Making sense of the alphabet soup of RPG's, FPS's and all the rest

A friend turned me onto "Metacritic" a while back.  In case you don't know, it's a site that offers reviews of games and other types of entertainment from both "professional" (and I use the term loosely) game reviewers as well as from actual players.  For the most part I throw out the professional reviews. 

They're of no more use to me than an EA press release. 

The user reviews are far more useful. 

Of course there's nothing to stop a game publisher from getting a few shills to pump up the "user" ratings but for the most part they're easy to spot.  Gushing testimonials, irrational praise and personal attacks on contrary opinion are the hallmarks.  I tend to throw out the "perfect" 10 out of 10 as well as the 0 ratings.  Neither is possible, nothing is ever that perfect nor that awful.

I mean think about it, if a game were that bad who would buy it? You'd literally have to be forced at gunpoint.  Perfect?  Not possible either, it's software and all software is flawed.  Game glitches, texture screw-ups and unbalanced opposition happen all the time.  Even games I have a profound fondness for have left me pounding the desk in a fit of rage.

A good game transcends the sum of its parts.  You may notice the problems but they don't get in the way.  A good game accomplishes the task it was designed for, namely to entertain you and never pops the bubble of your fantasy.

Ok, so buyer beware, take every opinion with a grain of salt, blah, blah, blah.  But just what does make a good game?  

How can we be objective about such a subjective topic?

First you have to figure out what kind of game suits you.  Otherwise you're going to be spending an awful lot of money based on YouTube trailers and cover art.

Are you looking to be the next Chuck Norris or are you more of a Hobbit?  Do you enjoy blasting hordes of baddies or scheming to bring them to a certain doom.   I'll attempt to help you find your niche in what follows.

With apologies if my presentation is a bit generalized, I'll attempt to break it down by the major genre's.  Of course there's going to be crossovers and sub-genres like RPG-Action and Adventure games but for the most part the major categories include:

FPS (shooters)

RPG (Role playing)

Racing (Simulation and Arcade)

and MMO's which increasingly cross categories.

We'll start with the most hyped category, the shooters.

Shooters, FPS or otherwise....

First Person, Third Person or otherwise if the whole point is that you're shooting at somebody who's likely shooting back you're in a shooter.

These days, the shooter that probably leaps to mind is Call of Duty or maybe Battlefield.  Both of those are shooters designed to put you in the role of a combat ready character with the unique distinction of saving the world all by yourself or with a few buddies if you play multiplayer.

Some FPS's are more focused on a story like Call of Duty while others are more focused on multiplayer like Battlefield.  If you're into Tom Clancy novels then don't expect much of a narrative from a game that touts its online multiplayer action.  Conversely, if you're into more of a tactical experience you'll generally find the online component of story based shooters lacking. 

Shooters are often used as a stress reliever.  Let's be honest here, I mean, how many of us have raced down some distant virtual battlefield with visions of our boss's face on every opponent.  Makes Tuesday morning a little more bearable doesn't it?

So what makes a good shooter?

Like any other gaming genre a good shooter allows you to become immersed in the game environment.  It doesn't have to have the best graphics or the most weapons but it does have to let you feel like you at least have a chance against the opposition.  It should also give you a variety of roles and equipment to choose from.  Some people like to play Rambo while others would rather be MacGyver, there's a place for each and there should be plenty of toys to play with when you get there. 

Shooters are about running around and shooting at stuff, that should be obvious.  That means whatever ammo you're flinging at the bad guys shouldn't routinely bounce off their chests like Superman.  It also means that all the pretty scenery in the world is useless if you can't move around it.  Invisible walls that block your way, map glitches that leave you exposed or stuck  and overly complex controls only serve to distract you from playing the game

That said, a good FPS should have simple controls but still give you the option to twist your keyboard or gamepad in knots if you so choose.   Along those same lines, it should also allow you to map your controls however you want to.  

One of my personal pet peeves is a game(of any genre) that doesn't allow me to use the same control layout that I've used for years.  I have a certain way of doing things and if I'm paying $60 for a game I damned sure better be able to set them up any way I want!

If you're into multiplayer (and who wouldn't be if they're playing an FPS) then you have to be able to trust the servers you're playing on.  Cheaters are everywhere but there should at least be an attempt to discourage them.  An active program of anti-hacking and anti-cheating vigilance should be in place.  It's no fun to be someone else's cannon fodder and publishers like Activision and EA have gotten wise to the threat to their revenue stream by cheats. 

The bottom line is,  the mechanics of a good FPS never get in the way.  If you're new to the genre chances are you're going to be somebody's target practice for awhile but there'll be enough opportunity for small victories to keep you hooked. 

Recent FPS titles are some of the most heavily demanding that any gaming platform will handle.  If you're on a PC you'd better have at least a midrange graphics card (no integrated graphics allowed, not even Haswell.)  That video card better be able to handle Direct X 11 and the rest of the system should have the fastest storage system available.  Nothing is more irritating to an FPS player than waiting for a map to load while your friends with SSD's are already blasting the baddies.  The only thing worse is some joker with a 400ms latency slowing down the whole game.

RPG's or Role Playing Games....

If you'd rather not spend your time running around shooting at anything that moves all up close and personal but still enjoy immersing yourself in a virtual world then RPG's may be your thing.  The best way to visually describe most RPG's is the old time arcade side scrolling games.  You generally have a top-down view of one or more characters under your control and try to complete quests (objectives) to advance you along the storyline.  Story is important in an RPG, probably more so than any other genre. 

Aside from the top-down views of the map that identify the usual RPG are the player customization and inventory screens.  As you progress you acquire ever more powerful items to help you on your quest.  Inventory management is central to an RPG as are trades, upgrades and merchants.  All of which usually take place in the neutral territory of some quiet hamlet.   Most are set in a medieval/fantasy setting with others taking more of a sci-fi bend. 

RPG's tend to be more susceptible to grinding gameplay than other genres.  Maddening puzzles, seemingly impassible enemies and hidden destinations test your resolve.  That's why story is important and unless you cheat there's no skipping ahead to the last page. 

RPG's don't have to be side scrolling helicopter view affairs, however.  Games like the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim  borrow elements from FPS games in that you get up close and personal with the trials and tribulations of your character. 

What makes a good RPG is the story.  It's often the only thing that keeps your grinding away as you traverse huge maps and battle an array of foes both great and small.  I personally tend to reserve my harshest criticism for this type of game because it usually requires the biggest commitment of time.  If that investment doesn't pay off you could find yourself cheated out of 100's of hours.

I don't spend a lot of time with RPG's myself mostly because I've found very few worth the commitment.  Of the few I like, however, all shared common traits.

First, they didn't confuse me with overly complex inventory systems with organization straight out of an accounting textbook.  Let me put my stuff where it needs to be, assign it to a few hotkeys and be done with it.  If somebody's bragging about the 12 levels of their inventory system I'm running the other way.

Second they didn't make me have to twist my fingers into pretzels just to control my character.   If you expect me to run around a map and dispatch demon hordes don't make me do triple key combinations when a right click would do.  It's a game, not finger yoga.

Third, and this is a big one, If I have to go through an entire quest just to save my progress I'm done with your game.  Nothing's more irritating than having to beat back the same enemies repeatedly because I stubbed my toe and died with the end in sight. 

Fourth, they didn't bore me.  I love open world games of any type but don't make me have to participate in a 2 day marathon just to get to something interesting.  You can only dispatch so many woodland creatures before it gets tedious.  If I wanted to take a nature hike I'd go outside instead of playing your game.

RPG's are usually less concerned about graphical quality than FPS games but that doesn't mean they have to be ugly.  The Elder Scrolls series (Skyrim, Oblivion) as well as Dungeon Siege and Diablo featured cutting edge graphics.  The difference between a game engine for an RPG as opposed to an FPS boil down to the RPG engine optimized for player movement and combat.  FPS's are more concerned with the realism of the immediate player environment. 

RPG's I  liked were: Dungeon Siege 2, Torchlight 2, Fallout 3, Star Trek Online and BioShock.  Disappointments were:  Fallout :New Vegas, Dungeon Siege 3 and Diablo 3.

Racing (Driving) games (Simulation or Arcade)....

It's funny how genres tend to crossover.  I've played driving games that might as well have been an FPS on a racetrack with objectives and weapons mounted on the car. 

The two primary types of driving games (arcade or simulation) are primarily differentiated by their controls, views and how realistic your vehicle reacts.

In any racing game there's usually a " racing series" consisting of individual events that you'll have to place well in to advance.  Some offer upgrades and better cars as you progress through the game as well as unlockable tracks and other bonus content. 

Single and Multiplayer options are usually available with online play brokered via specialized portals like EA's autolog and Codenaster's RaceNet.   Single and Multiplayer achievements rarely transfer between game modes with some exceptions like the original Race Driver: Grid.  In that game your single player experiences could unlock more cars and more tracks to challenge your multiplayer rivals.  

 In some cases the single player game is handled through the portal as well.  EA's Need For Speed games tend toward the practice as do older versions of Codemaster's "Dirt" series of games. 

Of course racing games are best enjoyed with friends but expect to have to go online even if you're in the same room.  An unfortunate trend that can ruin an evening if the game servers go dark. 

That's what racing games have in common, now the differences...

Simulation racing games are more demanding and in my experience are best suited to players with higher end gaming systems and realistic driving controls like steering wheels and pedals.  They often have graphical quality rivaling the best FPS games.  In fact the latest Need For Speed games are using the same game engine as Battlefield 4. 

That has more to do with the emphasis on realistic looking damage than car control in the case of Need For Speed, however.  Destructible environments are just a bragging point for EA's Frostbite 3 engine used in Need For Speed: Rivals and Battlefield 4.  Strange that those two games would have anything in common isn't it?

Playing a driving simulation can be an exercise in futility if you don't have the right platform.  Car control will always evade you if you're stuck with a gamepad or keyboard as your only options.  With the emphasis on realism, subpar graphics hardware will also ruin the experience.   If you can't see the forest for the trees chances are your virtual ride will be wrapped around one of them more than you'd like.

Cockpit views are essential to complete the fantasy.  With multiple monitor setups all the rage these days you can put yourself behind the wheel of a Stock Car tearing up the Nascar circuit or the streets of Europe in a touring car.

Examples of Driving Simulation (racing) games are: Need For Speed: Shift and Shift 2, Forza and Sports Car GT.

Arcade driving games are often visually indistinguishable from their simulation counterparts.  With eye-popping (but not necessarily realistic) graphics and a dizzying array of both single player and online play options.  While you could use steering wheel controls it's usually not necessary.  There's not as much of an emphasis on a realistic experience outside of the look of the cars and the tracks.  Car control is much more forgiving and the emphasis on speed and fun.   Sims are about speed as well but the average arcade racing fan is going to be frustrated by overly sensitive controls and lost races. 

Controls are simplified and cockpit views are less common than the more popular bumper cam.   It's more about the competition than the environment.  They're called arcade because they can trace their lineage back to arcade classics like Pole Position and Outrun.

Games in this subcategory include: Blur, Split Second, Test Drive Unlimited, Mario Kart and Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit are all considered arcade racing games. 

MMO's or Massively Multiplayer Online Games....

In earlier articles I've mentioned World of Warcraft (WoW) and Star Trek Online.  These are two examples of the MMO or massively multiplayer game.  Different from the multiplayer options available in many games, an MMO is built around large game environments designed for thousands of players.  Most MMO's are some variant of an RPG while others follow other genres.  The key is that the environment has to be able to support huge throngs of players.  64 players on an FPS map may seem like a lot but it's nothing compared to the thousands exploring the worlds of Star Trek Online or WoW at any one time.

Most MMO's also embrace the concept of "Free to Play" or "Freemium."  The games are usually free to download and play but the revenue model is built on players buying upgrades and other items from the publishers online store to enhance the game. 

Where most other games are more of a solitary experience, MMO's are designed from the outset to be social.  In-game messaging, chat rooms and special events encourage a social network built around the game.   Graphics, controls and settings can vary widely making the type of game less important than the community that supports it. 

Finally...

I'm sure there's gamers out there that will take issue with some or all of my definitions of the different types of games.  I've purposely over generalized simply because the lines are frequently blurred.  A quick glance at the Steam store shows just how much.  RPG Action, Adventure and Puzzle are just a few of the  extra adjectives you'll see tacked on to this list. 

On the subject of handheld games like those you find on smartphones and tablets know that they  generally follow the categories above.  However, due to the obvious limitations of the touch interface the most popular usually fall into RPG/Puzzle and driving games.  I'll leave it to you to explore those options as I tend to treat mobile gaming as little more than something to do while I wait for somebody's plane to show up.  Many of them employ the "pay to play" or "Freemium" model so be warned, they're designed to be addictive.

That's it, I'm off to see if I can find any good Battlefield 4 servers.