My review of Radiant Historia is up. Looking back, I had a ton of fun with it, but I wish it finished stronger. When the going was good, and the game fired on all cylinders, it was an astounding experience. Everything it did just felt right. I never questioned the story, the pacing, or the locations. It all made sense in its own way.
Yet, as I mention in the review, the late game segments become a huge drag. This was bothersome not only because it lowers the game's overall quality, but also because it affected my review. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why the game changed so suddenly, but no answer was satisfactory. The problem, in retrospect, was that I was analyzing the game in a bubble. I assumed that every decision, good or bad, was an intentional effort on the part of the developers.
My troubles came to an end after reading a few other amateur reviews, one of which pointed out how the game was affected by its low budget. There was the answer, or at least part of it. Budget, like so many other outside factors, can have a huge impact on how a game turns out, yet the thought never crossed my mind. I felt embarrassed, and frustrated, that such a simple explanation went over my head. It was a stark reminder of how much further I have to go as a critic.
It also reminded me of just how much the press has influenced my train of thought. On a podcast, I once talked about "developer intent", the idea that developers have a fondness of using interviews to inform gamers of what their game is all about. This can be done during the preview phase, but is also crops up after the game is out, at which point it becomes a defense of their work. I don't have a problem with this practice in principle. In fact, it should probably be encouraged, so that gamers have a better idea of what they might be getting into whenever they pick up a game. But sometimes, a developer's words serve to (intentionally?) warp reality. There's a difference between telling your audience what you are trying/tried to do, and making a qualitative statement about your product when it is out for all to judge.
I have two examples of what I'm thinking of. The first is Bioware. They consistently talk up the importance of storytelling in games, to the point where some remarks state that a game can't be good with a story. It's a bullshit premise, because we have plenty of evidence of classic games with little to no story. It's made slightly bullshittier when you consider that Bioware has relied on the same core plot for years, and finally, people are starting to take notice. Unfortunately, not quite enough people are noticing, so the developer can continue to parrot the same belief in good storytelling, and gamers continue to believe that Bioware are the ones responsible for said quality storytelling. It's a situation in which they can say one thing, and do another, and no one really gives a damn.
The second example is Harmonix. Ever since they split from Activision to work on Rock Band, they've been hell bent on fulfilling their specific vision of what music games should be like. This vision, in turn, led to some of my biggest gripes with the early iterations of Rock Band. The lack of control over your avatar, its relatively party-unfriendly design, and its disdain for single-player modes were atrocious. I never saw anything resembling an admittance from Harmonix about these flaws. On the contrary, they felt that they were good, necessary enhancements, and that we should like it this way. Plenty of their fans nodded their heads in agreement, but I couldn't. I don't care if developers make mistakes sometimes, but I appreciate when they can at least identify them. Harmonix instead chose to follow their path to its logical conclusion the result of which was Rock Band 3 dropping to $20 faster than games with half its notariety, and with the franchise dropping off the face of the earth at roughly the same time as the dreaded Guitar Hero. I'm not happy to see that happen, but I wonder if it could have fared better if the team (and the players) were a bit more honest with themselves about what the series needed to stay relevant.
To bring this back to Radiant Historia, when I read enough interviews with such bullheaded declarations, I start to forget that game development is so much more than a single talking head with a plan. And if things go great, or horribly, the reasons are going to extend far beyond that one person and that one plan. I know that people like auteur driven entertainment, but it isn't conducive to strong criticism. An important lesson learned, and one I hope not to forget.
No comments:
Post a Comment