“Welcome, welcome to the 7th instalment of Blog Banter, the regular blogging extravaganza headed by bs angel and coordinated by Game Couch! Blog Banter involves our cozy community of enthusiastic gaming bloggers, a common topic, and a week to post articles pertaining to said topic. The results are quite entertaining and can range from deep insight to ROFLMAO. Any questions about Blog Banter should be directed here. Check out other Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!”
Do all games need to be A-List games?
I’m not sure if this question itself implies that we should settle for mediocrity, I interpret this as meaning, should we need and require multi-million pound budget games that take years to develop?
The Price of Perfection
Take for instance Duke Nukem Forever, from reports that I’ve read, it seems to be a game that has got stuck in such a vicious circle, partly due to their aspirations to gaming perfection during development – which is a good thing, but I think they’ve taken it to an extreme. It sounds like the developers have been re-making the game so many times over using different game engines and technology, that we’ve never actually been able to see or play it.
In the 11 years it’s been in development, admittedly there’s been some issues to do with publishers and rights changing hands, but surely had they not be so such perfectionists about their game they could have released 2 or 3 Duke Nukem games by now and still be advancing with technology each time?
By spending so long on the development of this one game, it now has to be an A-list game if and when it is released? No doubt people will be disappointed no matter what they produce now just because they’ll never be able to meet the high expectations and given the length of time it’s taken to get out to market — assuming that it ever does!
A Different Way?
Perhaps we should applaud their dedication, especially given that there are so many (lazy?) games developers out there, who you would think from the finished product (or sometimes it’s not even that) that they don’t have any pride in their work. Although, that’s perhaps a little unfair on developers, they are often at the mercy of the publishers, who just want to get the game out onto the shelves regardless of whether it is finished, as was the case with the Elite game, Frontier: First Encounters when it went bad!
This topic also ties in with what Daniel Primed recently wrote here on Zath asking the question whether handheld gaming is taken seriously by the gaming industry. The handheld platforms are certainly not ones where you find ending years to create an “A-List game”. However, despite that fact, there are still many great gaming examples of what can be achieved on a certain platform without throwing huge budgets at a game’s development which still end up complimenting an established franchise really well.
Don’t get me wrong, I still really like my “A-List games” such as Half Life 2, Grand Theft Auto 4, World of Warcraft, Civilization 4, Battlefield: Bad Company, but equally you often find a quick and fun web game to occupy you for a short time, which is what I try to highlight when I find them, such as Vector Wars and Match: Super League Football — on these occasions the games again have to be good in context of the platform.
What Does It Mean?
Overall, I like to think that I take Jerry Maguire’s attitude to gaming — “Playing Less is More” — like many of us gamers as we’re growing up, we’ve got a lot less time on our hands than when we did when we were at school, college or university — so it’s even more important not to waste time on bad games that are just not worth it!
Ultimately, I believe that a game doesn’t need to be “A-List” to be enjoyed, but equally it shouldn’t mean we should settle for mediocrity in our gaming experience.
Do you feel the same as I do? Do we need to appreciate that not all games have to be “A-List”, but at the same time be wary that this could encourage more mediocrity?