In the next paragraph, I am going to use the phrase "I don't understand." Actually, I do understand, really I do get the thought process whereby everything that one does, one expects the maximum amount of money from the maximum amount of people possible, usually by whatever means necessary. I just think that that whole thought process is absurd, destructive, unhelpful, and it inhibits innovation, creativity, and risk-taking.
I don't understand game developers that are in it for the dollar bills, that don't make games because they like making games. I'll save my anti-capitalist rant for another time. What it comes down to for me, here, in this instance, is playability. When I start a game, I want to be able to play and beat it start-to-finish in one sitting (this never ever happens, unless it's a short little Flash ditty). If I pay for a game, then I expect a gaming experience commensurate in quality and length with the amount of money spent on it (more or less). What I do not want is to spend $50 on a game that lasts 5-6 hours and doesn't even finish. I do not want to spend $10-15 on a release-day DLC (or any other) that will allow me to finish the game. DLC should always be extra stuff that won't effect the game's play or balance. TF2's fancy hats are a great positive example. Things like Diablo III's cash-shop, where players can spend real money on super-powered items, are a fantastic negative example.
Also on the wrong side of my scorn here are Flash and other indie-ish games that stop you from playing after a certain amount of time, unless of course, you convert your real money to in-game currency and buy more time to play. Virtually all of these so-called social games have and depend on this feature. They establish a compelling (or at least addicting) gaming experience, but then stop you right as you're getting into it and force you to take a break for howeverlong--countdown timer included--unless you pay out. This, for me, breaks the game. Especially if there's some sort of multiplayer component, doubly so if the only way to opt out of the multi experience is to pay real money for protection.
I am willing to spend money on games in order to play them. I am significantly less willing to have to pay multiple times for parts of the same game, and if a game makes me do that in order to finish it, then I am probably not going to buy their next games. If I want to play them, I'll find a copy and I'll play, but that studio will not receive my money because of their "good business policies," which are actually rapacious, conniving, and dastardly.
Here's a good busniess policy for game studios: make a good game--actually, truly, really good, and not just the product of the hype machine or coasting on your company's "legacy" or reputation--price it accordingly, and then release it. This, I think, is the reason why there is a huge proliferation of indie games that are kicking the teeth out of big-studio games. Super Meat Boy, Bastion, Minecraft, Terraria, VVVVV, etc., are all fantastic, and each can be bought for less than $15.
So please, big game devs, make good games and treat your gamers right. Don't try to steal our wallets. If the industry still operated on the values of a decade or two ago, we would have games of much higher quality from everyone because it's the quality that sells. Unless, of course, you've hooked an army of teenagers to CoD and they'll buy whatever drivel you put in front of them.
*PS, that picture is for all you capitalist swine. Make quality art for the sake of the experience. No one likes looking at a shitty painting, no one likes reading a shitty book, no one likes watching a shitty movie (not talking about so-bad-it's-good here). Same goes for games. Get over yourselves.
0 comments: on "Games"
Post a Comment