Home » News » Game On or Game Over: Brace for the gamergasm!
News

Game On or Game Over: Brace for the gamergasm!

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: Here we are at the apex of the coming gamergasm (I just made a word). It’s that time of year where we circle our calendars, check our wallets and come up with mysterious illnesses to get days off of work. You know what I mean, the holiday game cycle is here. So many games are about to flood the market in the next month and a half that gamers will have to make some tough decisions. I both look forward to this time of year and hate it at the same time. It’s hard to keep up with everything I want to play, and I invariably feel like I missed something or didn’t give a game the full attention it deserved. That’s one benefit of the new console generation, the backlog is smaller, and (as of right now anyway) I don’t feel like I am playing catch-up with games.

This holiday is a little different than the past couple, in that there are several titles that have been pushed back to the start of next year; thereby clearing a little more room for the games this fall. Games like Evolve, Batman Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3, and Battlefield Hardline are all next year. Yet, there is a two week stretch where some big games (both budget and time commitment) come out Assassin’s Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, and Dragon Age: Inquisition and to be honest, I am not sure what I am going to do. The gamer in me wants to get all three games on release day and play them when I can, but the realist in me feels like I should pick one or maybe two to focus my time on.

We talked a little bit about it last week, but I wanted to broach the question more formally this week. Just from a personal stand point for you, how do you decide what games to get on launch, and what games to put on the back burner for a rainy day (or blizzard in my case)? Are you the type of gamer that buys every game they want on day one even if you won’t play it right away? Or are you one that will hold off the purchase in hopes of a price drop by the time you get to it? I can see the benefits of both to be honest.

Go-Go-Gamergasm-01

Nicholas: Like I’ve mentioned before, with this new generation I’d like to be a little smarter with how I plan my purchases. Finishing the last generation (note: it finished when the new consoles were launched) there were just far too many games that I either didn’t finish or that I didn’t even open. I don’t want to end up in the same situation this time around. My process on whether I purchase a game on launch or whether it goes on the back burner will depend on two factors. The first is whether I really want it – as in, really really want it. The second, do I have something else to play that I’m interested in finishing? Unless the answer to both questions is “yes”, or unless the answer to the first question is a major “YES”, then I’ll hold off until later to pick it up.

For example, Forza Horizon 2 for me was a definite launch title. Reason being, it was a game I’ve been keen on getting for a while and at the time of launch there was nothing on my Xbox One that I hadn’t finished that I wanted to. Far Cry 4 for example is a game I wouldn’t mind getting, but unless I’ve got nothing to play it will go to the ‘maybe another day’ list.

How about yourself though? You mentioned you can see the benefits of both decisions, care to elaborate on them?

Andy: Like you, I have made a somewhat pact with myself that I won’t overdo it on games. I want to have a reasonable expectation that I will put considerable time into a game before I get it. In the past I’d buy every game I wanted right when it came out, even if that mean only playing it for an hour or two. Looking back, for me anyway, I could have done things differently and got more bang for my buck if you will. I want to be more selective on what I get, and so far (although it’s early yet) I am holding strong. I have passed on Shadows of Mordor, The Evil Within and Alien: Isolation. All three of those are games I can see myself playing, I just have other game priorities right now and don’t think I’d give them the attention they deserve. I hope to get to them someday, but I know that someday won’t realistically be in the next month or two, so they are a no-go for me.

When I said I can see the benefit of both buying games right away and waiting here’s what I mean. By buying them all on day one you are obviously increasing your game catalog but also supporting the developers. First week sales are a big measuring point for most games, so when possible I like to help in that small way. Also, by increasing your catalog, then those days when you don’t want to play whatever game you’ve been playing you can easily grab something else. On the flipside, waiting to get a game means it’s easier to focus on the title(s) you have right now, giving them the time they need allowing you to beat them and not have to refresh yourself on the controls and where you are in the story. Also, and let’s be honest here, waiting a month or two there is a pretty good chance you can find a sale and/or price drop and get the game cheaper than you would have on launch. We’ve talked before about how expensive it is to be a gamer, saving a few bucks by waiting a month or two to play a game isn’t necessarily a bad idea really. And, really, by waiting I can play the games I have more and get my money out of them. With that said though, I am a hoarder by nature when it comes to stuff like that, so it’s a constant battle for me not to run out and buy a new game.

I’m a little kid at heart, so avoiding the temptation of buying multiple games during this time of year is challenging. With all the hype, advertisement and pre-order bonuses it’s a truly epic battle of wills. One I failed miserably at last year, but striving to achieve this year. One of the worries I have about passing up on a game the day it’s released is the feeling that if I pass it up now, I will never play it because there will be more games coming out. One of the big reasons I feel OK about passing on a few games this holiday season is, for the most part, the fact they all seem to be the same. Sure, not the same title, developer, etc., but Assassin’s Creed Unity is an open world adventure game… so is Far Cry 4. While there are a good crop of games coming out this holiday season, is it just me, or do many of them seem like they fall into the same category? That’s one of the things that is making it easier for me to pass on a game right now, because I’ll essentially be picking up a game from the same genre already.

Go-Go-Gamergasm-02

Nicholas: There are certainly some similar games being released right now, but I think each of them offer something different in terms of gameplay that makes them unique enough. For example, Assassin’s Creed Unity and Far Cry 4 are certainly both open world adventure titles, but if you were to have them played side by side, they wouldn’t look familiar at all. What you do in both and the environments in each are totally different that I think it would be slightly unfair to group them together. That said, I was visiting a friend’s place last week and watching him play Shadows of Mordor and that game plays exactly like Assassin’s Creed… or at least as far as the parkour is concerned. That was a game I immediately ruled out as “don’t need it” because the similarities between it and what I’ve played in AC are so noticeable. Well, that and I’ve never seen the appeal with the Lord of the Rings universe.

Keeping on this point, let’s take Forza Horizon 2 and The Crew. Both are open world driving games, both offer a variety of races to participate in and both allow a for fairly comprehensive customization on each of your vehicles. Would it be appropriate to group these two titles together and pick one over the other if you wanted to only get one? I think so. Alternatively, would I do the same for it and Project CARS (which has now been delayed until Q1 2015)? Perhaps not. I guess it comes down the individual though.

Going back to you, have there been any games you’ve played that you’ve felt have been so similar that you could have stuck with one and not had to worry about the other? What needs to be unique between two different games for you to not group them together like ACU and FC4 above?

Andy: I can’t speak for others, but originally I was fully prepared to get both Forza Horizon 2 and The Crew even though they were scheduled to come out fairly close together. A combination of things has swayed me from that decision though. First, with the amount of fun I am having with Forza Horizon 2 I don’t see myself putting it to the side anytime soon. Secondly, I feel somewhat lied to by Ubisoft, one of the reasons to preorder the game from GameStop was guaranteed access to the beta. The beta rolled around and no access. Turns out, without informing anyone of it, Ubisoft changed the guaranteed beta to a “limited technical beta” to which many were left on the outside looking in. Lastly, after seeing more gameplay of it, I think I’d be happier just holding off on it for a little bit. Probably pick it up early next year. I do think Project CARS is in the same genre of games and should be considered as such. For racing fans this holiday season is full of choices that’s for sure.

Your last question is actually a really good one. I’m not sure if I have ever thought I could have stuck to a previous game, but I know I have thought (several times) how similar two games were to each other. It’s especially noticeable when the games are released so close together. Action/adventure games seem to be the genre that bleeds into each other the most, add to that when a developer/publisher makes multiple games within a genre. Take Ubisoft for example; Watch Dogs shares a lot of similarities with Assassin’s Creed like open world, parkour, how the collectibles are spaced and how missions/objectives are constructed. While different, the bones of the game feel pretty similar. At first look I think ACU and FC4 will be different enough that they offer a different experience than the other. One has guns and one focuses more on stealth. One is much more over the top that the other as well.

You mentioned something above that really got me thinking on a much broader scale, which you probably didn’t mean it to do that – but my mind works in odd ways sometimes. I think this ties into the trend we are seeing about multiple sequels to games. You said “…different in terms of gameplay that make them unique enough.” That got me thinking, gamers are very good at supporting franchises. We play the crap out of them and hold them near to our hearts and can recount countless tales about our escapades in those games. Yet, we don’t demand a true step forward for those franchises. It seems we (as gamers) are OK with having the same game with a re-skin and minor tweaks because they are “different enough”. What’s your opinion on that? Should gamers be okay with new titles/franchises being the ones to push the industry forward while we let existing franchise skate by on their laurels and only tweaking small things in their titles? Or should we expect more innovation from all games? Is “different enough”… good enough?

Go-Go-Gamergasm-03

Nicholas: That’s honestly a really solid question. I think the first thing we need to identify is what makes us fall in love with these franchises to begin with? What was it about Super Mario Bros. title   that got me into gaming originally as a kid? What was it about Need For Speed Underground that sparked my fascination with all things cars and racing? What is it about Pinball FX and Fallout that you love so much? To these questions I think the answer has to be, “because they’re fun”. The reason why I loved Need For Speed Underground so much was because it was an enjoyable racing game to play. That’s also why I love all the Mario games to date and why I (as do you, and as I’m sure everyone reading this is too) continue to be a gamer is because there are so many fun games to play.

When I first started to think about my response to your question I originally thought, “these series don’t need to innovate because they’ve got it right from the beginning”, but the more I thought about this the more I felt it was incorrect. Take a look at Assassin’s Creed for example. The first title was good, but why did the second game wow so many gamers over? The reason was because it innovated and improved upon itself significantly. On the other end of the spectrum, why did its subsequent sequels seem so disappointing? Because they failed to innovate enough – they became stale. The same reason goes for the Need For Speed franchise and why I assume it’s taken a year off its annual release cycle – surely the developers behind the next one are really trying to step it up a notch.

To answer your question, no, gamers should not expect new franchises/games to raise the bar while the established series plod along, but at the same time we need to be a little realistic. We should be understanding that a developer can’t make a massive overhaul of a sequel if it wants to see the longevity of its franchise, but that doesn’t mean it should rest on its laurels. If AC tried to revamp its parkour elements each year gamers wouldn’t be able to ‘cling’ to their favourite gameplay element of the series. There needs to be consistency and also improvements, but at the same time, they can’t just re-release the same game. Contrast this to a new IP though where it doesn’t have a legacy it needs to stay true to. For this reason the possibility for innovation is much greater. That said, developers need to make sure all the other elements of the game are up to scratch otherwise it can all fall flat. Watch Dogs is a great example. It tried to bring in some new features, but because the rest of the game was just average, it didn’t really shine through. Destiny can be seen as kind of the same.

I asked above why you love Fallout so much, so why do you? As a fan of the series do you expect the developers to work with their strengths and make minor tweaks, or do you want to see overhauls in the different gameplay mechanics each time? Do you think factors like annual release schedules for series like AC, NFS and even FIFA prevent these series from truly maximizing their potential because they only have a one to two year development cycle rather than a number of years like a new IP or series like Fallout/Bioshock do?

Andy: I love Fallout for a couple reasons. First I credit that game as being the title that took me from playing games to becoming a gamer. It was no longer about just passing a level, it was about the experience and how decisions I made had potential to affect the story/world down the road. That’s pretty fricken cool if you ask me. Secondly, the world of Fallout is as much a character of the game as the actual characters are. It’s because of Fallout that I am such a fan of post-apocalyptic stories. I know it sounds corny, but it really taught me a lot about being a gamer and having fun, I wasn’t just playing it to play it. I was playing it for bigger reasons.

I do think annual releases hinder the ability of developers to truly push the envelope. I don’t think it gives them enough time to try something and see if it will work or not. That’s why we constantly see re-skinned titles with minor tweaks and updates. I’ve long said sports titles should be every two years (at most) and on the off year have gamers pay for a roster update. Heck, I’d be onboard with that in a heartbeat. The fact remains though, those yearly iterations sell, and they sell well or else the developers and publishers wouldn’t have a reason to do them. I was talking with a friend about this topic and he had an interesting statement. He said gamers are afraid of change. Gamers like the status quo with minor upgrades and tweaks for their tried and true franchises. They also like expect new IPs to be the ones to bring truly revolutionary ideas to the table. Thinking about those two statements, I can see the truth in them. Sticking with Assassin’s Creed as an example, there really hasn’t been too much that has changed. Sure, there have been updates, refinements and what have you but the base of those annual games doesn’t change a whole lot. For the most part gamers seem OK with games that are “different enough” as long as they are part of an existing franchise.

To bring this article back full circle and close it out, we started by talking about day one buying habits, when do we get a game when do we hold off. We talked last week that buying any game on launch is really a calculated risk, especially in the case of new IP’s. When a franchise offers “just enough” change, but keeps the bones of the game the same gamers know pretty much what they are going to get. A new IP is a little bit trickier to judge what’s really under the hood. Do you think gamer familiarity is one of the reasons why developers seem hesitant to really push the envelope with existing franchises. Do you think this is a case of the desire for certain sales trumps the uncertainness of innovation and trying something new? Do you think my friends comment has merit, in that gamers are afraid of change so we are partly to blame for the “different enough” type tweaks to games?

Go-Go-Gamergasm-04

Nicholas: Yes, yes and yes. I think it would be a mistake to think that developers aren’t cautious of significantly changing up their games in established franchises because they are worried of how the title will be received by the fans. I’m sure this would have played a part (not sure how much, but at least a little) in Ubisoft deciding to make three Ezio-based AC games. On the flip-side, we also can’t ignore the fact that developers and publishers are in the business of making money, and if they know they’re onto a certain gameplay mechanic or type of game that will sell, then they’re going to try and milk it and reap the sales as much as they possibly can. Can anyone not think this was the reason Ezio featured in three back-to-back games? Can anyone not think this is why we have annual franchises for? It mightn’t be the best for gaming, but it makes money.

Finally, I think your friend is certainly onto something. When I had the chance to check out Assassin’s Creed Unity a few weeks ago I was a little disappointed that the game felt so different to what I was used to. Sure, it still featured those underlying elements that made the franchise so popular, but it wasn’t the AC 4.5 I expected it to be. Looking back now though I want to just play it again because it is something new and different, but I’m sure my initial feelings won’t be unique when the game launches worldwide soon, and for this reason what your friend said made sense. As much as we want to see games push the bar, we want them to continue doing what we love. No matter how innovative and different NFS might become, I’ll always want them to do a true sequel to Underground 3. It could very well be that people like me that are holding gaming back. If so, excuse me folks.

You said it best last week when you mentioned that you just wanted games to be fun. If a game achieves this, I think a lot of the things we’ve discussed above sort of become irrelevant when we’re really in the thick of it. Make no doubt, I love playing Forza Horizon 2 and seeing improvements like dynamic weather and how the cars actually respond to the fact it’s raining outside, but when I’m drifting around the street in my Mazda RX7, whether it’s because the game is significantly different to the first title or whether it’s almost the same with a few tweaks, I’m just enjoying the fact I’m enjoying the game itself. Maybe this should just be the goal each time?

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.


This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.