*Contains light spoilers of BioShock*
With a few weeks in between
reviews, I have taken the chance to go through my backlog and play
some games I had yet to have a chance to play. One of those was
2007's BioShock. I had played BioShock Infinite when it came out and
absolutely loved it, but for some reason had never gotten around to
playing the original. After being heralded by some as “the best
game of the current generation,” or even one of “the greatest 100
video games of all time,” by Time Magazine, and winning countless
awards, my expectations and anticipations were set pretty high. Then
something weird happened. It didn't live up to those expectations.
The game felt dated to me, I had difficulty with the shooting
mechanics, and the whole game felt clunky to play, and it got me to
thinking. Games that have come out in the past 15 years seem to be
period pieces, rather than works of art made to stand the test of
time, though should still be respected for their influence on games
that after that expanded on their original ideas.
Don't get me wrong, I did
enjoy BioShock immensely. I did not see the Atlas-Fontaine twist
coming, the pacing of the story felt right, despite a disappointing
ending in my opinion, and it was definitely not UN-fun to play. But
it felt like a game that in 2007, no pun intended, would have been a,
“game-changer.” So shouldn't that mean that to someone who picks
it up now, only six years after its release, it should still be just
as jaw dropping as it was to those who played in 2007? It frustrated
me. Everything felt right as far as presentation goes, Rapture's
art-deco theme is a beautiful environment that, though graphically
looking slightly dated, was able to grab my attention for the whole
duration of the game. I enjoyed the story and the pacing of the game
immensely, but I couldn't manage to get over how clunky I felt that
playing the game was and it made getting from one stage to another a
chore that I was only willing to accomplish to see where the story
was going to take me. I accept that the game is not particularly
easy, and I enjoy a challenging game as much as the next guy, so I
started to assume that this was just a game I was not very good at
and should come to terms with that and enjoy it for what it is even
if it was proving to be very frustrating for me to get through.
Until I had the same problem with another game.
In 2000, at the ripe age of
six years old, I adored the in-line graffiti simulator, Jet Set
Radio. The bright colors and cel-shaded art captivated me and I
would go to my friend Sam's house all the time to play that and the
original Sonic Adventure on his Sega Dreamcast at any chance I got.
So, when I stumbled upon Jet Set Radio on the PlayStation Network, it
seemed like a no-brainer to purchase it. After downloading it, I
instantly started it and was immersed back into the world of
Tokyo-to. As Professor K re-introduced the story of the GGs to me, I
was ready to paint the town red...and blue, green, and several other
colors. What I found though, to my dismay, was an insufferable game
that was almost impossible to play. Gone was the speed and ease of
skating around and doing tricks I so distinctly remember from my
childhood, and in their place was a very slow game that was so hard
to control that I gave up and deleted it after around thirty minutes.
I'm not here to say what
games are great and what games are not. I can only give my opinions,
popular or not. Is it the nostalgia of games from our past that make
them retain this sort of legendary quality in our minds? Is it the
enjoyment we received from these games that burned a picture into our
more youthful brains? Who can forget finally beating that bastard
Sephiroth at Olympus Coliseum in the original Kingdom Hearts after
what felt like at least a hundred attempts? Or the first time you
got decapitated with a chainsaw in Resident Evil 4 and you just
watched your limp body laying there, spewing blood? I cite these two
games as examples because they are two of my all time favorite games
that I still talk about and that have left a lasting impression on my
gaming psyche. That being said, I have not played either since at
least 2006. Would these games still be marvels of technology to me
now? I can't say for sure, but after my experience with the
aforementioned Jet Set Radio I have apprehensions about playing
Kingdom Hearts -HD 1.5 ReMIX for my review when it is released
September 10th. What if it doesn't live up to how
spectacular I remember it being?
Now, just because a certain
game may not live up to your memory of it, I personally do not
believe that doesn't mean that those games aren't great in their own
right. Technology is changing at such a rapid pace all around us
that things become out-dated daily. It is unfair to look at a game,
I will go back to BioShock as my example, for being clunky in 2013
and not respect what it did for its genre and games as a whole in
2007. While certainly games can retain their playability through
decades and still be immense amounts of fun, Super Mario for example
still controls great and is great fun to still play in my opinion,
but I don't think great can just be categorized on playability alone.
The size of the ripple effect a certain title casts its influence on
into the gaming world can also be what makes a game great. At the
time maybe BioShock's gameplay was ground-breaking, and now it feels
clunky and dated to me, but it was the game's influence on others to
build upon and expand that original idea that makes that game great.
It's risky ventures to focus on story rather than combat like
Telltale Games' The Walking Dead did, which won VGA's 2012 game of
the year award. In a time of vast changes in gaming, both
aesthetically and internally, it is no longer enough to base a game's
quality solely on its face alone. Because whether you enjoyed a game
or not, it may be what's inside that influences your favorite game to
be the way it is.
Blake Hester
Parentsbasementgaming@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment