"http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2012/02/whether-they-love-or-hate-story-in.html This man=my new hero. NOTE TO GAMING PRESS: ignore me- go with whatever this guy says.He's FUCKIN SPOT MUFUCKIN' ON!"Now, I've never been shy about my admiration for Jaffe calling it like he sees it, and in this instance it's really no different. I agree wholeheartedly with what both Joe (the author of the blog Jaffe cited) and Jaffe are saying, but I think there are other factors at play here that need to be looked at and addressed. This blog post will by no means be exhaustive or definitive, but it will give an honest assessment of what I perceive to be the situation talked about—from a longtime gamer with over three decades of experience.
First things first, I feel it is imperative to note that while it is great that the gaming industry has grown exponentially in recent years, it is, in my humble opinion, largely a victim of that success. Back in the early days of shooters (Galaga), platformers (Super Mario Bros.), and beat-'em-ups (River City Ransom) these games HAD to rely on great gameplay mechanics because it was all they had. Sure, none of those titles listed were as primitive as titles for the Atari VCS, Intellivision, or even ColecoVision, but they definitely pale graphically when stacked up against something as old as the 64-bit era.
As technology has progressed allowing publishers (through developers) more realistic and immersive worlds and experiences, some things have been lost in the transition. People like the aforementioned gentlemen and myself would argue that the gameplay mechanics have gone. Now, this is't a post decrying all current-gen games as unoriginal hacks of nostalgia past—quite the opposite. But there are some things that should be considered:
The things that are in the aforementioned blog post and Jaffe's comments aren't in-and-of themselves bad. There's nothing wrong with a deep, engrossing storyline or a lush ambient world, as long as they don't get in the way of, or supplant, gameplay. Unfortunately, far too many titles released in the last ~ 5-10 years rely heavily on already established mechanics but try to put a new spin on them by slapping on a different coat of paint, or long and complicated narrative. That's not to say that there aren't titles that don't succeed. For example, the Uncharted series has set high water-marks in both cinematic quality as well as believable characters and a gripping narrative. This is due, in no small part, to Naughty Dog's masterful storyteller Amy Hennig and the talented team of developers and programmers that work there. But if we were to boil it down to its constituent parts, the series, in all honesty—hasn't innovated the genre much since the original Tomb Raider titles. This doesn't automatically mean that this series isn't successful, or that it isn't in some way trailblazing in the genre. In many ways, it's the nature of the beast.
Success in the game industry, is a double-edged sword. If a particular title does well, producers want to see more of it in order to remain profitable show their backers a return on investment. the problem with this, is that we end up having series that have regular release schedules, which not only dilute the pool of games from any particular genre, but in gaming as a whole. Where once there were maybe 2-4 must have titles released a year for any particular console platform, we are seeing this happen on almost monthly basis. Multiply this by three separate consoles, and it's easy to see why people's pile of shame are reaching higher and higher (FWIW, mines currently hovering around 20 games). And that's not even including the games that come out for the PC/Mac and various mobile devices.
I would argue that it would actually be beneficial for producers to allow developers more time to make less games. While the market has a glut of adequate games on the month-to-month basis, wouldn't it be much better to receive just a few AAA titles every quarter, half-year, or even yearly basis? The impact of this would be twofold: first, it would allow developers the time to ensure the games that they are making are being released complete, and not rushed in order to make some arbitrary holiday or product tie-in schedule. It would also allow gamers a chance to decompress in-between titles in the same genre, so they wouldn't feel as though they're doing the same “fetch” or “pizza delivery” quests in every game they've played recently. Nintendo is a master at this. The innovations in both the Mario and Zelda have been slight over the years, but because they are released so sporadically, many players don't seem to notice or even feel as though they're playing the series again for the first time.
In some ways, this is why think the mobile platforms have been able to get a foothold in the industry. Take a look at the now ubiquitous i-devices such as the iPhone and iPad. They're small enough to be taken anywhere, and have the processing and graphical prowess to create truly unique experiences. And because the form factor is new, and touch control is still in its infancy, developers are starting back at square one like they did on games like Galaga, Centipede, etc. while definitely not the best game I played in 2011, Disney's Where's My Water was probably the most unadulterated fun I'd had with any game last year. In the settings, you can restart your progress, which I have done untold times—the game is just that good, and the premise is drop-dead simple. Granted, it can't hold a candle to the atmosphere, storyline, characters, and gripping narrative that my GOTY The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, but it didn't need to. I've definitely spent more time playing it on my iPad then I have Skyrim on my 360.
Another example of this, is a game I've recently started, Darksiders. While I am thoroughly enjoying the game, if it isn't a complete mash-up stolen love-child of God of War and Devil May Cry, I don't know what is. It doesn't make it a bad game, but as each level progresses, I can't shake the feeling that I've done this a million times before.
