Thursday 9 February 2012

Innovation, is it the be all and end all?

Should every game reinvent the wheel or is it ok to just be competent and fun without really moving the genre forward? I ask this question because tomorrow sees the release of 38 Studios Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning an RPG that many had billed as being an Elder Scrolls killer due to the involvement of Ken Rolston who had previously worked as lead designer on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

As the reviews for this game have hit the net they have been fairly polarised between those who have enjoyed the action-orientated combat alongside the world that Big Huge Games have managed to create, and those who have marked the game down because it ‘doesn’t move the genre forward’.

I really dislike that phrase. To me it just smacks of elitism and downright ignorance of what a game should be about. It is also an easy and lazy way to criticise a game without having to delve into specifics. The argument could easily be thrown at many of the top tier games that came out at the back-end of last year.Gears of War 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword and even The Elder Scrolls V:Skyrim all scored highly and found themselves on many game of the year lists, yet I struggle to think how any of them innovated and drove their perspective genres forward.

So why are those games given a free pass with regards to innovation yet a game like Reckoning is lambasted for doing exactly the same thing. This is where my theory of elitism comes from. Reckoning is produced by a fairly new developer without a good track record behind them whilst the games listed above all come from respected hit-makers. Time and again I feel games produced outside the top tier of developers are often given a rough ride when it comes to innovation and as for the big boys they can continue to churn out the same old guff and no-one bats an eye lid.

Now I am willing to accept that some of these games are not as good as the triple A titles and for that they should be rightly criticised, but that doesn’t mean reviews can avoid giving any solid reasons and just plump for the old ‘no innovation’ chestnut. You can only do that if you are going to apply the same tag to every game you review. The trouble is, reviewers aren’t about to do that because if they did they would have to mark down nearly every title they review as very few ever 'move the genre forward'.

And this brings me neatly back to my original question; does a game have to move the genre forward? Personally I would love innovation in every game I play, but I’m a realist and know that that is just not possible in the modern gaming industry. I have no problem playing a game that does very little to move the genre forward as long as it is a well-made game. The reason why games tend not to deviate from well-known tropes is because those well-known tropes have become such for a reason: they are good well-known tropes. It feels churlish to criticise a game for including game mechanics that have, in the past, been praised.

So reviewers, I say to you; either criticise each game equally when it comes to innovation or confine‘doesn’t move the genre forward’ to the dustbin of journalism where it should remain alongside other nonsense terms such as ‘playability’ and ‘if you are a fan of the genre’.

As for Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning I enjoyed the demo and look forward to checking out the full game. Fable mixed with Elder Scrolls you say? Reviewers be damned, that sounds right up my street.

No comments:

Post a Comment