Apples & Oranges
My opinion on gaming can be summed up somewhat by my recent console FPS experiences.
Halo 3... Well, it is pretty, to be certain, and the weapon selection is nice, I guess. But the truth is, the game was a letdown. The single-player campaign is possibly even shorter than in Halo 2, and there's just this feeling that there wasn't really a story, not even one worth a day of gameplay. Oh, the multiplayer is good, sure, but it has been good in other games with far more compelling gameplay than was offered here. I'm pretty much done with the hype over the Halo series, and look forward to the day when Unreal Tournament will again reign supreme.
But then there is Bioshock. There were great expectations from the makers of the System Shock games. Only here, the expectations were met. Imagine a game where enemies continue to respawn in dark corners when you aren't near them, where some of those enemies are so tough that your strategy lies in trying to simply keep them as far away from you as humanly possible. Add in limited resources, moral quandries involving children, and a story so twisted that you will be numbed at the midpoint revelation (if only for a moment, and if only from the dialogue), and you have a great game. This is everything Halo 3 is not: a FPS built less for the masses, and more for specific interests. Just as Oblivion was to RPG, so Bioshock is to FPS.
It is evident that there are two types of games these days. The first is the swill, a crude appeal to the lowest common denomenator, the Budweiser of gaming. These are the games built not for gamers, but for average slobs who equate "gamer" with "nerd", and act like their paltry accomplishments at such simplistic objectives somehow makes them kings (or queens) among men. These games lack depth, character, or personality.
Then there are the other games, the ones that engage the player to think beyond the usual limits. They are not always "artistic", per se, but rather reward creativity by giving the player the chance to make a choice. They draw a person in with gameplay that gives them more control over how the game is played. These games are a fine wine, laid long ago and still delicious with the passing of time.
There is nothing wrong in making the lesser kind of game. Even game designers need to eat, and if I personally could put out some half-assed shit that brings me millions of dollars, I would. But neither would I truly consider such a work worthy of merit or accolade, simply the thing I do to make a living.
The truth is that the argument isn't of "apples" and "oranges". Rather, it is one of "fresh" to "stale".
Halo 3... Well, it is pretty, to be certain, and the weapon selection is nice, I guess. But the truth is, the game was a letdown. The single-player campaign is possibly even shorter than in Halo 2, and there's just this feeling that there wasn't really a story, not even one worth a day of gameplay. Oh, the multiplayer is good, sure, but it has been good in other games with far more compelling gameplay than was offered here. I'm pretty much done with the hype over the Halo series, and look forward to the day when Unreal Tournament will again reign supreme.
But then there is Bioshock. There were great expectations from the makers of the System Shock games. Only here, the expectations were met. Imagine a game where enemies continue to respawn in dark corners when you aren't near them, where some of those enemies are so tough that your strategy lies in trying to simply keep them as far away from you as humanly possible. Add in limited resources, moral quandries involving children, and a story so twisted that you will be numbed at the midpoint revelation (if only for a moment, and if only from the dialogue), and you have a great game. This is everything Halo 3 is not: a FPS built less for the masses, and more for specific interests. Just as Oblivion was to RPG, so Bioshock is to FPS.
It is evident that there are two types of games these days. The first is the swill, a crude appeal to the lowest common denomenator, the Budweiser of gaming. These are the games built not for gamers, but for average slobs who equate "gamer" with "nerd", and act like their paltry accomplishments at such simplistic objectives somehow makes them kings (or queens) among men. These games lack depth, character, or personality.
Then there are the other games, the ones that engage the player to think beyond the usual limits. They are not always "artistic", per se, but rather reward creativity by giving the player the chance to make a choice. They draw a person in with gameplay that gives them more control over how the game is played. These games are a fine wine, laid long ago and still delicious with the passing of time.
There is nothing wrong in making the lesser kind of game. Even game designers need to eat, and if I personally could put out some half-assed shit that brings me millions of dollars, I would. But neither would I truly consider such a work worthy of merit or accolade, simply the thing I do to make a living.
The truth is that the argument isn't of "apples" and "oranges". Rather, it is one of "fresh" to "stale".