Saturday, February 14, 2009

Why I Don't Actually Like Video Games

I said I'd do this some day. Now seems good.

Video games, on the face of it, are a ridiculous hobby; especially the sort of video games I play, which is to say largely the single player ones. There is nothing of value they provide that can't be provided better elsewhere. About the best I can say of them is: They're no more wasteful than television, and less wasteful than, say, brain-frying chemicals.

As an example, just read my reviews of Persona 4 and Prince of Persia, and then ask yourself this: When I say Prince of Persia is "not deep," what do I mean? Not deep compared to Persona 4? What is the value of depth in this context?

Certainly Persona 4 has more challenging gameplay and a more engaging story, but by what standards? Persona 4's story is very good by the standards of video game stories, but that still means it's very bad compared to, for example, 90% of the books I'd see if I walked into any given library and looked around. Even if one accepts the premise that exposure to quality storytelling is somehow life-enriching (I do, but am not sure why), few to no video games have provided a quality of storytelling that couldn't be easily exceeded by a trip to a local library, where access to the stories in question is free. As for the more challenging gameplay, as long as I'm questioning the values of things, what's the value of that? I can barely think of any; I may be engrossed in complex turn-based strategic battles between benevolent and malevolent elements of humanity's id, but while it may hold my attention, it's not life-enriching.

I play video games because I need something to fill my time and distract myself from the fact that for any moment of time I'm engaging with most of my hobbies, I'm not accomplishing anything of value, either internally or externally. The finite hours of my life tick by as I perfect the motions behind Ryu's fireball, so I can defeat M. Bison to unlock Sakura, so I can defeat M. Bison with her to unlock Dan, and once I've unlocked Dan, I'm not left with anything except a jerk with pink gi and a ponytail who doesn't even exist.

People who play multiplayer games are different; they, at least, are using games as a medium for socialization, which arguably is valuable if "value" is to be a useful concept.

Now, I personally am a bit of an outlier—for me, playing and writing about video games is life-enriching in that it nets me riches in the form of paychecks. So it all worked out peachy for me. Still, I can recognize that much of the challenge -> reward cycle video games use to keep our attention is manipulative bullshit.

I am not a big fan of the whole Puritan "First toil, then the grave" school of how one should live one's life, but the more I try to meaningfully analyze games, the more I come back to most games just not having much meaning, when you get right down to it. Exceptions spring to mind (Ico, Rez), games that show me new storytelling techniques—techniques that could not be accomplished in non-interactive media—and expand the range of imaginative tools with which I can envision the world around me. Arguably these games give the rest of the game industry meaning, in the sense that it provides an environment where they can be made. But individual games? Time sinks. I would be better off organizing my receipts or, yes, reading a book.

That's why I don't actually like video games, for some value of "don't actually like video games."

(Most of my posts are intellectually deconstructive these days. I figure if I keep doing it, I'll eventually find something to reconstruct.)

Viceland Reviews: Persona 4 and Prince of Persia

They're up.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

The Unholy Trinity

I don't play a lot of MMOs. I have tried World of Warcraft and I hated it. Eve Online... well, I don't much like unregulated PVP. I do like City of Heroes, though, and I especially like City of Villains. And not just for the character creator. I'll get back to why I enjoy CoV in a moment.

That said, due to my unfamiliarity with the genre, the following may be unqualified statements.

...

Tank/DPS/Healer is dumb. I can't stand it. The more a game separates those three roles, the less I will play it.

The ideal fantasy game, for me, is a game that allows me to feel as if I'm participating in the sort of fantasy fiction I enjoy, whether that be fantasy fiction first experienced through books, movies, or television. Even if I'm not playing Aragorn (actually I'm not a fan of The Lord of the Rings, either, but that's a topic for another blog), I want to feel like I'm playing a guy who might occupy an Aragorn-ish role.

Is Aragorn a tank, a DPS guy, or a healer?

He's none, and that's a terrible, stupid question, because fictional fantasy combat does not work that way. Fictional fantasy characters don't fill out those roles unless you squint so hard your eyeballs pop out of their sockets.

For lack of better terminology, the "Holy Trinity" feels very first draft. Very clumsy. It feels like the result of someone making a list of all the things you can do in virtual combat and then saying "Okay, we'll make one type of player character to do each of those things." There is no finnesse there, no effort put into making these characters feel like actual fantasy characters who show up in fantasy settings; it's just raw compromise for the sake of easy game design.

Compare City of Villains. City of Villains has five archetypes: Brute, Corruptors, Dominators, Masterminds, and Stalkers.

Brutes are heavy DPS guys who can mitigate damage against themselves, but they cannot tank effectively in the classical sense. (Fortunately, due to the way the rest of the archetypes work, they don't have to.) Corruptors are comparatively fragile but weaken enemies, acting as force multipliers in groups of player characters; they can heal, but it's not their focus. Dominators manage enemy behavior and can hulk out, increasing their direct combat effectiveness. Masterminds summon minions, which gives them both decent damage output and something like classical tanking ability (though, like Brutes, not to the extent of tanks in most MMOs). Stalkers do huge damage but are quite capable of defending themselves through stealth, if played correctly.

1) They all play differently.
2) They all play well alone.
3) They all play well together.
4) They all feel like the sort of character archetypes you actually get in comic books.

None of them fit obviously into one spot on the tank/DPS guy/healer trinity.

I would not call City of Villains the pinnacle of MMO design, just the most convenient example I could think of of... second draft play design. It benefits from the recognition that enemy damage mitigation, player character damage management, and player-character-on-enemy damage are the three roles that need filling in conventional MMO play, but it doesn't go the cheap and easy route of just making one character type to fill each of those slots. It's got problems (it's repetitive, for one) and I haven't actually played it in a few months, but it's a good illustration of the reason why I hate most MMOs, hold the design theories behind them in contempt, and will never play WoW again.