Overrated games; or the regrets of buying MvC3

There are numerous kinds of overrated games in the world. There are ones that let you down right out the gate, with all the pre-release hype misleading us into making a mistake, a great example being the games Too Human and Lair, both massive failures on their respective consoles. There are the ones that split opinion, getting rave reviews from some and getting panned by others, such as Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts; I didn't think much of the demo myself but some seem to swear by it. There are ones that deep down have the makings of greatness but just don't live up to their potential, like for me the original Assassin's Creed or Halo: ODST; both paved the way for better games in the series. There are some that follow in the footsteps of greatness and simply can't match up. I'm looking at you Deus Ex Invisible War. And there are some that, with the beauty (or lack thereof) of hindsight we see were just never as good as we thought at the time: Sonic the Hedgehog anyone..?

Then there are some that everyone seems to think are good, getting highly recommended by our friends and peers, receiving a minimum of a 'good' review by most all websites out there, and even being labelled by some as the best that genre has to offer, 10/10, practically perfect. And yet we don't 'get it', we don't see what the fuss is about or why so many go gaga over this game or series.

It's this final category I want to discuss, because its this category of game that I find most fascinating. Some games, such as the Grand Theft Auto series or Final Fantasy series, I know are just not my kind of game; the genre or style or setting don't appeal to me on a personal level. While I may claim them to be 'overrated' by my own tastes, I know that independently of myself I have many many friends, whose taste (I think) is sound, who would vouch for the quality and value in these games. Equally there are some that I see as flawed, but I can't deny the fun they offer: Mario Kart Wii being a great example. I dislike some of the imbalances inherent in that game (and yes, I know you can turn off high level weapons like the Blue Shell, but no-one who plays against me ever wants to for some reason..) but I can't deny the amount of fun I've had with that game, and after all I'm probably not the intended audience for it.

The games I wanted to highlight and discuss are ones which seem to be universally acknowledged to be good-to-excellent games (so probably minimum of 80-85 on metacritic, that you've heard being spoken highly of by gaming websites or friends you know) but don't seem to be doing anything extraordinary, different or exciting to justify the praise.

I have a few I could discuss, but for me the most obvious one I've experienced is Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (Rated 85/100 on metacritic, with no reviews below 70 from 77 critic reviews). I don't want this discussion to be too much about this one game, but I have to tell you I was really looking forward to this pre-release, and I'm not saying it doesn't have any merit - it certainly offers something different in the fighting genre. However to rate it that highly I think the game needs to offer way way more than it did - it literally gives us barely more than Marvel vs Capcom 2, which I have on my 360 (through classics on the marketplace) which was over 10 years older. I feel like the creators of the game were a lot more concerned about creating a cool looking, well-balanced fighting game that stuck to the original, that they forgot you have to actually offer a fully-featured game! Maybe I'm just out of touch with the fighting game genre but I'm sure it should have given way more than it did..

The Arcade mode is a joke: all you do is fight about 6 or 7 different dudes in a row before fighting the final boss (same boss every time), and then depending which fighter you won with at the end you get a few comic book panels telling you their ending. You can play versus locally or online, and there's a practise arena (although that's also pathetic, teaching you nothing about the game - its basically just an opponent who doesn't fight back). From memory, that is all that game offers. For a fan of single-player games, and a big fan of the concept the game offered, I was hugely disappointed and it is easily one of the biggest regrets I've had when purchasing a game. This annoyance is compounded by the fact that Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, which is the exact same game but includes about 10+ new characters and a couple new levels, was released recently to similar reviews, with most reviews brushing over the fact that this totally screws over those people who payed full whack for it two years ago!

I've ranted about Capcom's business practises before; the way they expect customers to 'double-dip' on series like Street Fighter and MvC Special Editions/Ultimate Editions/Super Editions/Give-Us-Your-$ Editions, the extortionate prices for their DLC, the locked content on discs they expect us to cough up still more money for. But this complaint is entirely separate from that; this game frustrates and baffles me because, unless I've missed something here, a cool concept and cool visuals don't make a game 'good'. A limited experience, and one I might add that didn't cater to anyone but a hardcore crowd, surely can't be worth the same as fully featured games like Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 3, Eldar Scrolls: Skyrim, FIFA 12, Gears of War 3, heck even shorter games like Call of Duty... you get the picture.

The fact that this game is rated higher than Castle Crashers, a game I think deserves a lot more plaudits and is 10 times more fun, doesn't sit right with me. While both are effectively button bashers with limited modes (and yes, I know there is an art to fighting games for the hardcore), one game cost me £40, the other £10. One I've pumped 20+ hours into and enjoyed with many of my friends, the other I spent a few hours with initially, played one game against my brother and then got bored. Can you guess which is which?

Now I'd like your input on which games or series you think are overrated, similar to the above criteria - games which seem almost universally praised and yet you just don't see why. Which games do you think don't live up to the hype? Which ones seem to be insanely popular but really don't do it for you? And what are your thoughts on these undeserving games - is it just a personal preference that's holding us back? Or is *shock horror* metacritic and the gaming press not always a good indicator of how good a game actually is?

Please leave your thoughts on this discussion below. Thanks

Alex

New ending for Mass Effect 3

In an interesting twist, Bioware have announced that they have decided to release 'further closure' for Mass Effect 3, following massive outcry at the ending of the game. Most of the complaints focussed on the ending and that it didn't take into account choices made in earlier series.

This is, as far as I'm aware, the first time a major developer has made big changes to a game based solely on feedback from players. My question for you, dear readers, is if this is a good thing, with games becoming far more user-centric and the opinions of gamers being accounted, or a bad thing, where developers will now be frightened to make unpopular decisions for the benefits of story-telling because they don't want risk a negative fan reaction?

Link to the news article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458208

Dominion Of The Damned: Final Fantasy XIII-2

I've posted what I like to call "A View" on Final Fantasy XIII-2 on Dominion. Please feel free to discuss the article here or there. I'd especially welcome any discussion on the general topic on here, if anyone cares for it ;P

Dominion Of The Damned: Final Fantasy XIII-2: E xcitement, laughter, boredom, disappointment and hope. All of these I have experienced playing Final Fantasy "13.2" , a flawed sequel whic...

Retro-gaming: The rise of fun

I've been feeling somewhat nostalgic of late, and started thinking back to mad sessions of Crash Team Racing and Halo: Combat Evolved (with a link cable, teams of 4 in separate rooms with occasional outbursts of semi-demonic laughing) With the recent(ish) release of the anniversary edition of Halo, which included, in my opinion, the incredibly useless feature of being able to switch between the graphics of the new and the original versions, and the massive rise of retro games (boom of 8-bit games on xbli, to name but one trend) it seems that looking back on gaming is something that everyone seems to be doing.

There is a point to my nostalgia, however. I started to wonder if we look back at those games for a reason. I doubt that it is because they are classics (some of my fondest memories are of playing Cel Damage which scored a measly 65 on metacritic*) or because they feature innovative game-play features or cutting-edge graphics. We look back on them because they are fun, and because we wanted to share that fun.

So, if there is a boom in retro-games, does that mean that modern games are fun deficient? I have to admit that I think they are. There are brilliant brilliant games out now, no doubt, but I can't remember the last time I ended up actually falling out of my chair from laughter due to a game**. I love Skyrim and Mass Effect and Halo: Reach; after all they are good games, but the focus on drama and storytelling and cinematic views has come at the cost of games being less fun.

Rather than ending this as a rant, I can think of an interesting question instead. What features would you rescue from games gone past, and what would you not be willing to give up from modern games?

*Although tellingly the user rating was 9.0 out of 10.

** I suspect it was the line 'There were iron posts lining the path all along the docks, apparently for tying up ships. It sounded like a load of bollards to me.' from Discworld Noir.

The future of game genres

Following on from a previous post about Japanese Role-Playing games (JRPGs) I wondered if people had any thoughts on any other genres which may be seen as obsolete in the near future and what other types of games might need reinvention. Some questions to spark discussion:

a)     What genres/types of games do you see as needing to change or evolve in the current gaming climate, or have you seen any examples of this already happening?

b)     Do you see any trends in gaming that you think will affect how certain types of games will react with one another?  And are these changes for the better or worse, or simply just different?

c)      Is there any chance that we will see new types of games and genres emerging in the future, or will everything simply be a mash-up or rebrand of previous themes? Do you have any ideas of a new genre of game?

I know it seems like exam questions but I hope its helpful in generating discussion.

Also I'd rather we didn't get caught up in the term 'genre'; I'm not trying to get into what makes a genre, whether that word can exist in modern games etc. - thats something for a future post! - what I'm talking about are the general terms we use like RPG, FPS, Strategy, Racing, etc.

DLC: Where do we draw the line?

This is a long one people, but it's something I've felt passionate about for a little while now and is back in the limelight recently, so thought it appropriate to talk about.

With the continual rise of downloadable content (DLC) we are in an age where your experience in a game is no longer bound by what you initially get on the disc or download online. It seems like a logical step, and one that we can all get behind when done right. If you are invested in a world, then having the option to pay to get extra missions, levels, weapons etc. can only be a good thing right? I mean imagine if those games you pumped hours and hours into as a kid had that option: 30 extra Pokemon to collect, yes please! Of course for a number of years on PC a lot of games offered extra content for free, even if it was on the whole smaller than todays offerings. But I do think its right if a developer spends time (and therefore money) on content and feels they need to recoup some of that it's their prerogative to charge us; if you don't want the content or don't think it offers value for money just don't pay for it, you still have a full experience out the box and are no more entitled to that content than the game itself.

However questions are starting to be asked about the ethics of what's acceptable now that DLC is becoming a standard in almost every major game released. I will give you three examples of past DLC which have effected me as a gamer, one which I think reflects exactly what DLC should be and two that don't.

A positive example of what DLC can be used for I found in Mass Effect 2. While it was controversial at the time, the game came with access to something called the Cerberus Network. This was available to anyone who purchased the game new, and once activated allowed them day-one DLC. Now that may sound like a negative thing, but this was simply EA and Bioware's way of trying to combat second hand sales, which really are a burden on the video game market currently (much more so than films or music but that's another discussion). The DLC you received was a short side-mission and an extra character for your crew, and over the next few months after launch they included 3 more pieces of free content. After that they then started releasing paid content that included a new character, a new side-mission etc.

This is acceptable to me because they didn't deny anyone access to key game content or anything they worked on during development time (ie. Pre-launch). Even the stuff that you have to pay for if you buy it second hand is not key to the story at all, just an incentive to buy it new, and the paid-for DLC was done post launch and of a good standard.

A worse example is in the soon-to-be-released sequel Mass Effect 3. In this a piece of DLC called 'From Ashes' was leaked onto Xbox Live early and has been confirmed to be day-one DLC which will cost money (unless you purchase the special edition of the game which costs £15-20 more). The game isn't even out yet and they already have content ready to release on day one. I'm going to avoid spoilers, but what's even more frustrating is that the DLC in question sounds very important to anyone who knows the lore and storyline of the first two games. Even if its only a side-mission or character, the significance of it is clear simply from the descriptions I've read online. This I feel is totally unacceptable. Bioware's justification that the game went gold a while ago and they have been working on the DLC since doesn't wash with me. When a game releases it should be content-complete, and not including something that is ready ahead of launch, let alone over a week before launch, is unethical in my opinion and clearly an attempt to milk the consumer. It takes absolutely no effort to give us that content on day one as a download for free, again why not as again an incentive for brand-new buyers; it isn't the consumers fault that EA pushed back Mass Effect 3s release purposefully to avoid the busy Christmas market, so I'm sure its true that the game was probably ready a while ago, but there is absolutely no way for EA or Bioware to prove that the content they are releasing was paid for out of some arbitrary DLC budget/time-window and not the budget set aside for the game itself.

I would use a short analogy to illustrate: If I buy a DVD I pay the full £10 for the film I saw advertised. If after watching the film I was told I could pay a further £2 to see an extra 20mins of the film, an extended cut if you will, and I enjoyed the film then of course I probably would. However what if I paid the full £10 and then was told I could have some 'missing scenes' that were cut for the DVD release back in the film for £2. These scenes aren't extra, it took no extra effort on the part of the film-maker to create them, animate them, edit them. They should have been there in the first place. I would not find that acceptable..

Totalbiscuit is a famous online personality who goes into more depth on this particular game and explains the issue very well. He helped bring this issue back up for me and I probably borrowed quite a few of his arguments too, although I would say these ideas have been around for a little while now, he just vocalises them very well. WARNING FOR POTENTIAL ME3 PLAYERS, CONTAINS DLC SPOILERS Check it out below if you have the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM&feature=plcp&context=C3fa74b5UDOEgsToPDskL4CvpYksv88r56K3AJV9nh

Probably the worst example I've heard so far though is in the case of Capcom's Street Fighter IV (which I don't actually own), and also more recently in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (which I do). In the case of Street Fighter IV Capcom charged people for new costumes for characters. Not only was this available day one, but it was on the actual disc! You can almost justify some DLC for not being able to fit on the disc if its hefty. Perhaps.. Maybe.. No not really. But you weren't even buying something extra, this was content that had already been designed and created and just got locked so people had to pay.

This was taken to even madder extremes in Marvel vs. Capcom 2 when two playable characters, Jill Valentine and Shuma Gorath, suffered the same treatment, being on the disc and you paying about £3 each (extortionate!) to unlock them.

There are plenty of other examples of games that use or misuse DLC. I think DLC is at best a positive bonus, something that can add to and enhance an already great experience, or even give you totally new, unexpected experiences, like Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare or Mass Effect 2s Lair of the Shadow Broker. At worst it is a way for publishers to make money on the most trivial of things, on content that required little-to-know effort (Horse armour anyone?) or even was included in the initial development budget in the first place but they know certain gamers, and often their most dedicated fans who should be treated with more respect, can be exploited.

I wondered what people's opinions were on this. Do you have any good or bad examples of DLC out there right now, that you have or haven't purchased? And where do we draw the line as consumers here?

Next Generation Consoles - Innovation or Power?

With all three mainstream consoles coming to the end of their lifecycles, the time has come to look ahead at the next generation.

Rather than discussing what we are getting, it would be more interesting to discuss what we want from these consoles. The most pertinent question is whether we want a focus on innovation or power?

To better define this, the current Wii console can be seen as pure innovation. It's completely different and provides a new tool to create new games with.

On the other hand, focussing on power would be what the other consoles have essentially done. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are, simply put, powered up versions of their predecessors. Sure the technology is technically innovative but the games we have seen produced are mostly sequels, albeit improved to some degree (mostly).

At this point in time, I think our games will have to be much more innovative. This is simply because ratcheting up the power isn't going to necessarily produce better games.

This is not to say that more power is bad, just that coming up with innovative gimmicks is not the way forward either.

Discuss!