Filler, courtesy PA
Yeah, I’m a bit busy lately. You can blame me if you haven’t seen any Wii previews/reviews poppin’ up on TheGameFeed lately. They’re all backing up on me waiting for my editorial stamp and post…and I got my own to write too…I just got back from a weekend back home and crap’s goin’ down and just…ARGH! Ya ever wanna just scream in some people’s face to grow the hell up? Jeez…
Anyway, speaking of personal problems…I can actually very much relate to Gabe’s somewhat psychotic views of the Mario Party franchise. I feel his pain, I really do. I work so hard to be a kick-ass hardcore gamer, just to have stars handed to the n00bs like free candy for the stupidest crap? So unfair. But while the design may be a bit harsh on me at times, I’ve never thought ill of the franchise, just found it a bit too slow-paced for my tastes. And it’s definitely a bit over-milked at this point…
But certainly, you’ll never hear me on the record as saying the game’s are bad. Because as Tycho states in unnecessary elegance (as usual), “Mario Party represents a unique social proposition”. If that doesn’t spark your interest, nothing will, but anyways, go glance over Tycho’s post on all this, it’s a really good read.
In fact (and here’s where the “filler” comes in), I’m gonna QFT (Quote For Truth) one of the paragraph’s from his post…
“[Game review scores] aren’t values I’m opposed to, but they’re weighted differently. A peek over the Phoenix Wright scores will illustrate what I’m talking about. I prize Innovation, and will typically accept Novelty in place of it, but I don’t prize it to the exclusion of other virtues. The second game in this series - at any rate, the second one to arrive in the States - will be one of the best written games this year. But because it is merely an excellent, well-paced, often hilarious story that is executed with precision, you’re seeing it trudge glumly through The Valley Of Seven. Even though Capcom was careful to do the Annual Franchise twiddling that the gaming journalism edifice demands by incorporating Psyche-Locks and new evidence options, they apparently did not heap their offerings high enough on the altar. When counseling people on a purchase, the ability of that title to offer new gameplay scenarios is certainly a consideration. But if you think that there is a dearth of Innovation in this industry, and that its scarcity confers upon it the high value that other rare materials command, I urge you to seek out a well-written narrative. You will find an industry in crisis.”
So let me get this straight, the Nintendo fanboy logic(among you and others)is that any game has the potential to be good if it has some element of multiplayer that brings people together, from my observing that seems to overcome every other factor in the game when you review.
Not to say I’m against that form of judgment, it just seems a bit ignorant to me. Multiplayer sure has become what defines most games, which almost inherently causes them to lose quality in campaign mode. A game that is well balanced; Half-life 2 is a good example. Equally exciting with great A.I. in campaign; the physics and gameplay remains similar in multiplayer, when you add the human element of peer interaction it can totally change a game’s experience.
As for latest installments of MarioParty, I just think they’re Ideas spawning off Mario Kart and WarioWare.
Macro_Pheliac said this on January 31st, 2007 at 8:06 am
First off, I don’t know why you feel the need to label that “Nintendo” fanboy logic, there’s nothing that ties this down to any one type of fanboy. It’s merely a case of taste I feel.
Do I give large curve to games that bring people to have a good time, despite some otherwise questionable design flaws? Most definitely. This may seem ignorant to some, but I would challenge it’s quite the opposite. I’m simply looking at the often neglected fun factor. I will take a little knock to campaign in place of solid multiplayer anyday. Best example: Halo. The Halo franchise, in my opinion, is NOT a campaign game. The one-player mode is hardly even worth mentioning from my perspective, I find it abysmal. But still it’s multiplayer has erupted it into one of the top played non-MMO multiplayer games in the world. The Smash Bros franchise can be compared similarly.
What it comes down to is generally the more time spent on one mode, the more the other will lack. There are indeed some rare wonderful exceptions to this, such as Half-life 2. But basically, your always gonna probably go one way or the other. You’ve either got a Zelda, a Smash Bros, or something in between (Metroid?). The reason I often give a nod towards multiplayer party-type games is the sheer fun and replay value.
It’s a real dilemma for reviewers, certainly one that disturbs me, in the case of games with an amazing campaign versus games that sacrifice such for multiplayer (and don’t mistake that I don’t think on these things and am not actively searching for better means to approach them). On the one hand, it’s usually the single-player greats that mark the greatest examples of game design and innovation, such as Zelda, Oblivion, Castlevania, Phoenix Wright, and the like. On the other hand, these types of games very often (w/ the greatest ones like Zelda being the exception, not the rule) suffer from lackluster replay value and it becomes very hard as a reviewer to tell people to buy a game their going to shelve as soon as they’re done.
Party games however mark a genre with near limitless replay value, the moment your friends come over these games are golden again regardless of age. And in the best of these the amount of fun your having by bringing your friends into the game is often hard if not impossible to duplicate with a great campaign.
So yes, I will state that any game that has some element to bring people together HAS THE POTENTIAL to be good, moreso than a singleplayer-focused game. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean multiplayer-focused games get a free ride, and overcome all other factors. Not in the least. It’s just a simple math problem that the more players are involved, the easier it is to have a good time, so those games can afford to cut a couple corners and make it out ok. That, and replay value is generally MUCH higher.
As Tycho says, Phoenix Wright is likely to mark one of the best written games this year, with one of the most enjoyable campaigns around. But it falls into the pit of mediocrity with reviews. Is that fair? Is it fair for a game with so wonderful a campaign to be pushed down in place of much more poorly designed games who’s only claim is a decent multiplayer? No, it’s not. That’s why I pointed out Tycho’s post, that’s why I mentioned it. It’s a problem, a serious one in my eyes, and IT BUGS THE HELL OUT OF ME. I’ve pined for hours trying to conceive new approaches to reviews to help tackle this issue, but am at this point still at a loss.
So please, don’t think it ignorant when I or others take that form of judgement. It’s simply the case, at least for myself, that I highly value the fun factor brought in by party-type games, and that’s likely a small difference in tastes between us. You make a good and important counterpoint, and it’s not one that should be ignored by journalists and reviewers like myself…
Nmaster said this on January 31st, 2007 at 10:09 am