|
jeux ne sais quoi
This just in: Your favorite game sucks
By Jason L. Blair
If you've spent enough time online in gaming forums
or chat rooms, you've probably heard that before. Of
course no one game will suit everyone--but why does there
appear to be so much open hostility toward some games? Especially,
it would seem, your favorite game?
There are many reasons for this, and, in fact, I'm going
to go over some of them below. Maybe at the end we'll
find out which games actually do suck and which ones don't.
Fight or Flight Pattern
There's a school of thought that humans as a group will
inherently draw into a pattern of comfort and familiarity.
Anything that disrupts that comfort or obscures that familiarity
will elicit a negative response. The greater the discomfort
or alienation, the more negative the response.
Gamers, if no one else, seem to follow this pattern. To throw
some completely anecdotal information at you, I know a guy
who has been playing only Axis and Allies for at least a decade.
He has no interest whatsoever in playing anything else. It's
not that he hates the other games. (How can he? He's
never played them.) He just happens to really like Axis and
Allies.
There's nothing expressly wrong with this outlook. There
exists no mandate that people must play a variety of games.
As long as the person isn't spewing bile about games
they've never played, it's a pretty harmless viewpoint.
But let's look at another camp: There are gamers who
are miserable in their current groups because the other players
only want to play Dungeons & Dragons. Those gamers recognize
that Dungeons & Dragons is not a bad game--they're
just tired of playing it. They crave something new, some different.
This is a classic example of group dysfunction. If you've
played in the same group long enough, you (or someone else
at the table) has probably experienced it. These people need
to get out and find another group--if their current group
can't be persuaded to try something different.
Then there's the third camp: The hateful, bitter camp.
The ones who only play Axis and Allies because "every
other game sucks." The ones who only play Dungeons &
Dragons because "they can't be bothered to learn
something new." They are a cowardly and superstitious
lot, and it's best not to look directly at them.
This stance is really just ignorant hand-waving and doesn't
amount to a whole lot. Frankly, there's no argument for
or against it. It's just yabbering, and best left alone
if the person cannot be educated otherwise. If you are a person
from the second camp and are surrounded by people in the third
camp: Get out. Get out now.
Dis Game ith Buh-woken
Gamers will often malign something they construe as being
broken. But in terms of games, what does "broken"
mean? As far as I'm concerned there are only two definitions
that fit here: "The game doesn't do what it says
it does!" and "This game doesn't do what I
want it to do!"
Let's address the first one. It's a pretty basic
concept that a game should do what the subtitle and adcopy
say it does. "Yes, I do want to play demonic soldiers
in a shoujo manga-inspired Rome while being able to use all
these nifty Sword & Sorcery Studios sourcebooks I own.
I think ApollyoNominataQuest d20 is the game for me!"
If the person buys ANQ d20 and finds out it only has rules
for creating the lesser-known members of the Getalong Gang,
then the game is "broken" from a marketing perspective.
If the game promises "brand-new revolutionary magic
rules" and is really just filled with bad photocopies
of the spell lists from AD&D Second Edition, then it is
"broken" from a whole different perspective.
Does a broken promise equal a broken game? No. The mechanics
may function beautifully for the design they express--even
if they're not supported by the rest of the book. Let's
be honest, the "world" is just window dressing for
the system. Like it or not, your favorite game is probably
a generic system even if it's not sold as one. When you
buy a game, you typically buy two things: the mechanics and
the world. The former can be used for pretty much anything
and the world just does the buyer's research and/or imagining
(or at least the first steps) for them. But that's a
different column.
The second type of "broken" isn't the matter
of a broken promise but broken expectations. From what I've
observed this is the number-one-with-a-bullet reason most
people get pissed off at a game. In fact, it's pandemic
across all media. "Man, 'The Sum of All Fears'
is the worst romantic comedy ever." " 'The
Matrix' really fails as a period piece about the trials
of forbidden Victorian love." " 'Vivaldi's
Four Seasons' is a terrible compilation of rock ballads."
When something fails to meet your expectations, your reaction
is usually very contrarian. So whose fault is that? Most of
the time, yours.
I'm not talking about a game that doesn't match
what all the adcopy says. That's the marketers'
fault, as we discussed earlier. I'm talking about the
public's expectations of what a game should be. As a
designer, I'm interested in creating the game that interests
me. If I'm not jazzed by the idea then the follow-through
will be lackluster at best. As a consumer, you're interested
in buying the game that interests you. If you're not
jazzed by the idea then you feel your money is wasted.
Now, I'm a consumer also. When I buy something I want
to be inspired; that's my primary pocketbook motivator.
If I buy something and I am not inspired, I don't fault
the purchase. We're just not a good match. Because of
this, I don't get pissed off when someone likes Chuck
Palahniuk's novel "Choke." I didn't like
it, but I know others who did. Okay, so be it. I feel the
same way about games. Despite some people's beliefs,
it's okay to not like something. That does not however
automate fault to the "thing."
All of that is a matter of receipt failing to match expectations.
Just because something doesn't do what you want it to
do doesn't mean it's broken. There are some of you
out there that need to repeat the previous line as a mantra.
A matter of mechanics
Oh yes, this old chestnut. Many a debate and flamewar has
erupted because of one's cry that Game X's mechanics
are broken, broken, broken. See, this one is tricky. You have
to get into some math that, frankly, I'm not too comfortable
with. I have people who check my odds for me to make sure
my designs match my goals, and I like it that way. Perhaps
there are "broken" mechanics, but who's to
say?
You can't tell me a mechanic is broken unless you know
the designer's purpose. I have a suspicion that some
of the people who point to a certain ruleset as broken are
using that elusive yardstick called "reality." Woe
are they. Reality is not a valid measurement, nor is it a
suitable design goal (my opinion here, people). I'm not
saying reality can not be great inspiration, however. The
InterLock system from Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. is a fine example
of a nifty mechanic heavily inspired by reality and real-world
principles.
Once you are certain of the designer's mechanic and
emulative intent then I may concede a certain level of "breakage."
After all, if a designer expressly states she wanted a game
where players would succeed 75% of the time and then made
it impossible for a player to succeed more than 10% of the
time, the designer failed. But then it would be a matter of
broken execution and not necessarily true that the game is
broken. Instead, the designer just failed to meet her own
goal.
The following line is true.
The previous line was false.
So when is a game broken? When it doesn't match its
own logic. A game is an abstraction, not a treatise on the
principles of existence. A game doesn't have to make
sense in the "real world" but it should follow its
own laws. If it doesn't, then it may very well be broken.
Notice the lack of quotations. In the end, a game being able
to abide by its own rules is what truly matters.
Controversial, my ass!
Some games are disliked not because they are "broken"
and/or the gamer is xenophobic but because they tackle subjects
that a certain audience would rather they not. Trust me, I
know whence I speak. For some reason, in doing so, these games
upset some gamers so much that those gamers think no one should
deal with the subject and anyone who does is some twisted
deviant pervert (*cough*cough*) but I digress.
Perhaps they have a point. Perhaps games that approach the
subject of child abuse, brutal powermongering, and domineering
sexuality have no place in the gaming market. However, the
sole gauge of that is the buying audience. Last I checked,
Little Fears, Unknown Armies, and Vampire: the Masquerade
sold pretty damn well.
Right about here someone usually brings up that most fantasy
gaming centers around wanton destruction, thievery, and genocide.
This argument assumes that wanton destruction, thievery, and
genocide are of the same quality, caliber, and level of appropriateness
as abuse, powermongering, and sexuality. Are they? I have
no idea.
Mores and morals are as much absolutes as beauty is a truth.
That is to say, it's a perpetual and fruitless, in the
terms of resolution, debate. Even if there were absolutes
for each there arises the problem of, you guessed it, intent.
To ignore intent is akin to stating a game sucks without being
bothered to read it. Of course, to some folk, certain topics
are out-of-bounds regardless of how they are handled.
In my opinion, no one can make any judgment call on anything
without taking the time and expending the effort to familiarize
themselves with it. That means no skimming reviews, no latching
on to hearsay; that means picking up and reading the material.
This means finding out the author's intent, as well.
(Am I the only one who hears that record skipping?) Yes, in
a perfect world full of perfect authors, intent would be blatantly
obvious in the material and comprehension on behalf of the
audience would be immediate and without fault, but as long
as we reside on this whirling blue and green rock doing some
research into the author and the process are integral to fully
understanding something. This is the same across all media.
This understanding is not necessary for you to enjoy the game
or dislike the game, but it is absolutely necessary if you
plan on damning or condoning the effort made.
Another problem rears its head after both the intent and
the execution have been deciphered and agreed upon: Appropriateness.
And here is where the thorns stick out the farthest. The will
of the buying public (as mentioned above) is actually pretty
supportive of things the vocal moral minority decry. Make
of that what you will. As long as dollars are spent, those
products will get made, as profitability and sales are the
fundament of any good publishing plan.
In the end, the question of morality is one without answer,
or rather one with as many answers as witnesses.
In England, your game's called
a 'Hoover'
So, does your favorite game suck? Of course. It's probably
the worst game ever made. I know all my games suck, especially
my favorite one. Which is fine by me if it motivates you to
create a game that doesn't suck. Good luck on that, though.
Trust me, you're going to need it. •
|
