14 DAY TRIAL // The game industry is doing fine these days with lots of stuff going on at the E3 and lots of fuss and bragging about present and future projects. And I was this close to believing that almost all developers are so dried out of ideas that they would rather make teasers and buy editors to praise every piece of rubbish they throw at us rather than actually design games. Last year was a total bore. Except some sequels that did nothing else but keep up with the good work, like Football Manager 2006, Splinter Cell 3, Need For Speed Most Wanted, Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones, Civilization 4 (which, between you and I, wasn't such a big deal after all), Call of Duty 2 or Barbarian Invasion (which is a mere expansion), there wasn't almost anything else to keep me up all night.
It is May already, and I still hear that cricket chirping in my head. So what's up? Well, there will be new physics engines, new graphics engines, new sequels and new console brain-dead games. You will probably wonder what's wrong with this picture. I'll answer with another question: where is the innovation, where is the immersive gameplay, where is the vision, where is the nerve, where are the games? Have I aged so quickly and altered so much my tastes for game content, or is it really true: people forgot how to make real computer games?
However, I doubt my mind is playing tricks on me. With so many ESRB rated mature games, there is no doubt developers still try to make something for gamers of my age. Surprisingly, besides some guts covering the whole screen and some preposterous butts and tits, there are just the same recycled stereotypes that involve mute heroes saving worlds habited by weirdoes or half-naked women hacking and slashing through rows of nasty-looking guys. The alternative is a handful of strategy-like games speaking again and again about the destruction of Earth, the destruction of humanity and the so many other kinds of destruction that you start asking yourself, what's left to fight for if everything crumbles with such passion? On the other hand, when was the last time a strategy game involved any strategic thinking whatsoever?
Not even role playing games are as role-playing as they once were. Recently, every game that has a character management system is given the title of role-playing. And you can complain as much as you want about its frustrating linearity. If the marketing manager said this game is a RPG, there is nothing you can do about it.
There was a time when I believed computer games will rival motion pictures and win through their interactivity feature. Lately, thanks to the console game design influences, I came to the conclusion that even DVD movies offer more interactivity than games.
I believe that too many developers simply forgot what is gaming all about. Fortunately, there are still great things, ready to save the day, as usual. The same ol'sequels: Heroes of Might and Magic, Brothers in Arms, Call of Duty, Splinter Cell, Gothic, and such. Just recently, on a forum I do not wish to mention, a game designer told a user that he believed his game was better without fauna and without those "useless" elements that made the game more immersive. He believed that too much diversity was harmful, and that simplicity should be perceived as a factor that helps the game be more rewarding towards its players. He could have been right, if we were in the 90's.
It has been a long time since I last saw innovation in game design, and just one hour since the presentation of the latest graphics engine. I simply do not see any fun in having state of the art textures on my main character or unnatural realistic landscapes. All that I expect from a game is to help me find some piece of mind, to help me entertain by using my brains for solving simple but ingeniously conceived tasks or puzzles and experience moderate, positive feelings. How can I manage this with a bunch of games that only manage to confuse you thanks to a clumsy AI or a badly optimized GUI? And what the use of having excessive "eye-candy" if there isn't anything worthy to see? I do not need to play games to experience the sight of soft shadows, dynamic lighting or God's knows what else. It is enough to take some time and look around me. I want to feel, I want to get involved, I want to test some of my mental abilities. Am I asking too much? And, of course, I do not want to play the old stuff anymore, I yearn - as anyone else does - some revolutionary designs, something like Call of Cthulhu, but with a little more emphasis, and with a better, smoother polish, and not just mature content but a mature approach. I mean, what's the use of writing a grim story about a grim life if, from time to time you are forced to collect coins and all kinds of junk and try to look important while doing time trials?
Ten years have passed since games like Doom, Warcraft, Ultima U-world or Monkey Island, and besides graphics and the same recycled (otherwise fine) sequels, games did not undergo any substantial improvements. It is as if they are resistant to it.
Fortunately, the 2006 E3 edition promises a richer harvest for this year. I will, however, abstain from expressing my exhilaration until the moment I put my hands on what I believe I have seen.