Friday, August 22, 2014

Gaming is better than ever, so why does it suck? ( PART 3)


Remember awhile back when I said history may be repeating itself? 

The signs are there and I'm fairly certain we're rushing headlong into 1983 again.  Here's why...

In the past 3 or so years that I've done this blog I've chronicled the spectacular failures of recent releases like SimCity, Diablo 3, Medal of Honor:Warfighter and Battlefield 4.  It wasn't just the technical failures that made them notable for our purposes, however.  It was that they were such perfect examples of the "business" of gaming.

If you recall, My friend and I have made gaming a priority for over a decade.  We've seen game franchises come and go but some seemed to have more staying power.  For example, it used to be that anything with Battlefield, Need for Speed of Call of Duty in the title was what we called an "Instabuy."

But the past few years that term was more likely to be applied to more mature titles purchased in a Steam Sale than faith in any gaming franchise.  Macro economic concerns aside, we seemed to have lost the faith.

It was a struggle to figure out why too.  Were we just getting crotchety in our old age or was it something else?  Fairly quickly we were able to dismiss any romantic notion about the glory days of our younger selves.  It was an easy enough test, validated through a quick and thoroughly entertaining jaunt through the zombie infected maps of Killing Floor.  By the way, it's a 5 year old game built on a 10 year old game engine.

Those few minutes with an outdated (yet still popular) game brought a laser focus to what was wrong.  Games are more commodity than art now.  In fact, more than they've ever been since the crash of '83. 

Beloved franchises have increasingly become little more than cash cows to be milked by greedy publishers.  Look no further than the lawsuit against EA alleging that they cooked a prospectus to hide very real problems with the Battlefield 4 launch. 

I truly believe that game developers want to put out a superior product and care about being good stewards of the franchises under their care.  I can't say the same of the EA's or Activision's of the world that reign over them, however, they deal in timetables and volume.  Artistic concerns are secondary. 

That's the rub...

Most games worth playing aren't free, it is a business after all and a quality product deserves compensation.  But producing a good game is more art than formula.  Just because something worked before doesn't mean slapping on a new coat of paint and incrementing the version number will guarantee success.  

And it shouldn't!

Call of Duty and Battlefield are perfect examples.

My gaming nights over the past few years have largely been comprised of Battlefield, Borderlands and to a lesser degree, Call of Duty games.  But where Battlefield 3 (BF3)was revolutionary, Battlefield 4 (BF4) seemed like little more than a rerun.  It was BF3 DLC with crappier gameplay. 


Then there was the incessant pitches to buy into "premium" and get access to upcoming DLC and "special" events designed to give an advantage to those who could afford to "pay to play." 

Call of Duty (COD)was no better.  The last title I cared about was Modern Warfare 2 (MW2)with single player and co-op play modes that set the standard for the industry.

Modern Warfare 3?  Almost the same story as Battlefield 4.  It was a re-skinned MW2 right down to almost identical cooperative objectives.  

It was a rerun too...

Yes, I played Black Ops and Ghosts and admittedly their Single Player campaigns were decent but their cooperative games never rose to the level of a Modern Warfare 2 or World at War in my view.  

Not to be outdone, COD had it's own bundle of tacky add-ons for all it's recent releases.  There was the "Elite" subscription that got you "most" of the endless stream of DLC that gave you special goodies.  Examples included custom texture packs to apply to your guns and multiplayer maps to add to what always seemed like empty servers.  

I suppose publishers think they can fix a flawed game by giving you more of it.

Games are better than ever but they still suck precisely because of the "business of gaming."

We're not blasting pixilated aliens or racing around blocky polygon filled race tracks anymore.  Gaming is an entertainment medium on par with movies and television.  An immersive, interactive experience far removed from just casual entertainment or electronic babysitter.

Or at least it should be but the underlying premise of the Business of Gaming is that the buying public is stupid.  Willing to bite at any shiny object dangled in front of them. 

Honestly, for the past few years they were probably right and it was a viable model but now?

Notsomuch...

You've dangled the carrot, shown us that we can expect more and now you have to deliver.   But more often than not launch day finds little more than empty promises.  Inadequate server capacity for games requiring an always-on connection, poor or nonexistent quality control and unfinished code seem to be the rule rather than the exception.

The old adage of getting what you pay for fails here.  Why pay a premium to be a beta tester?

Is the industry getting the message?  If sagging sales numbers of the latest blockbuster game titles and consoles are any indication, they should be. 

There are signs of hope.  EA's latest Battlefield (Hardline) was set to launch this fall but after a private and public beta it was decided to allow the developers more time to refine the game and make it look less like BF4 DLC. 

Unfortunately, if history holds true, the move is more exception than rule.  The Business of Gaming is concerned with sales quarters not legacies.  They'll squander the goodwill gained from a previous success on shelf loads of garbage with nothing in common but the name on the box.

Which can only lead down a road that takes the gaming industry back to 1983.  

Keep an eye out for semi-trucks heading for landfills!

No comments: