Blips: Passing Knowledge

Source: Why we should be more confident talking about games we haven't played
Author: Steven Poole
Site: Edge

In a new column for Edge, Steven Poole asserts that you don't necessarily have to play the entirety of a game to be able to voice a valid opinion about it. He cites Pierre Bayard's book How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read as inspiration, claiming that there are four categories of periphery understanding of media (in Bayard's case, books): those you don't know, those you've skimmed, those you've forgotten, and those you've heard of. Poole's central example in his piece in GTA V's "torture scene," and how even never having played it, the potency of the discussion around it provides a researched platform for crafting your own new opinions. Why should you purchase and play through dozens of hours of a game that, as a whole, does not interest you, so that you can have the experience of playing a short sequence for yourself, when that same information is basically available to you via other critical responses and YouTube videos?

I'm not in total agreement with Poole here, but in certain applications, he's spot on. On the subject of having to complete a game to comment on a particular aspect, he's right, that's an outdated qualifier, especially when it comes to large or never-ending games. I just reviewed Gran Turismo 6 without "beating" it. Why? Well, I have other games to review and other stories to write, and no one is going to want to read a review of that game by the time I get all the way through it. I did have a firm grasp on what the game has to offer though, and took an approach to reviewing it that centered on how the game presents itself and it's general tone instead of listing off the pros and cons of every stage in the game. This isn't a flawless strategy, but it does a pretty good job of balancing the elements of time, research, and deadlines, where a completionist mandate can exploit a critic's (especially freelancer) time and energy.

That said, my main problem with Poole's assertion is that it stems from what feels like a need to have an opinion on every subject that crosses the zeitgeist. The reality is that no one can play everything, and so to have an opinion on everything, you have to shortcut the process in some way. What feels like is often the case though is that folks are driven to have an opinion instead of driven to say something in particular. Do we really want game criticism to proceed further down the cable news talking head rabbit hole? Besides, it's always possible that a controversial scene or element in a game is offset by the rest of the experience, a notion only individuals who have actually played it would know. At that point, as a critic and non-player of a particular game, you'd better be bringing something profound to the table. In principle, I have little issue with the idea that you don't have to play a game to have a grounded, respectable opinion on it, so long as it's not treated as a free pass on performing research and understanding in-game contexts.

Blips: Blue Book Value

Source: Gran Turismo 6 is the racing game of our dreams
Author: Dan Solberg
Site: Kill Screen

OK, I'm a week delayed getting back to regular posting, but give me a break, I was driving through the polar vortex. Speaking of driving, I've also been playing quite a bit of Gran Turismo 6, and wrote a review for Kill Screen (check out their fancy new website too). It's a very good game.

The big thing that ended up being left out of the review was how GT6 handles microtransactions, an element that I was concerned about going in. Well, turns out there's no real cause for worry as Polyphony all but hides the real-money marketplace from you. It's a totally irrelevant factor in the game unless you explicitly seek it out, and the game never pushes you to do so. While I applaud this approach, I also wonder how much this diminishes potential profits. It's a smart design choice seemingly made at the expense of contemporary financial sense. Heck, while Forza allows you to pay something like double the price of the game in DLC, GT6 is giving it up for the initial price of admission and still offers more vehicles and tracks than its Xbox rival.

There's something desperate about GT6 too, provoking the thought that because the game is only available on an "after-market" console, that the developers needed to offer more than usual to encourage players to keep their old machines plugged in. The result is that GT6 presents an argument for itself that's extremely convincing and comes off as a product of its time and circumstance more than most. To play Gran Turismo 6 now feels like taking advantage of a tremendous deal, and as much as I'd hope Polyphony would continue these practices come GT7, I have my doubts. So I say, get in on the action now before the microtransactions and DLC inevitably rear their heads once Gran Turismo goes next-gen. I'd love to be proven wrong here.

Blips: Free 2 Disagree

Source: Game Design: The Medium is the Message
Author: Jonathan Blow
Site: Creative Mornings

This video is a few weeks old, but worth checking out if you missed it the first time around. Game designer Jonathan Blow (Braid, The Witness) breaks down why free-to-play games are a regressive movement away from the medium as one of artistic expression. For the most part, I'm on board here. The convincing analogy Blow sets up is one with hour-long TV dramas in the 70s and 80s. These shows were formed around the commercial breaks and the promise of syndication. Acknowledging that every medium has creative constraints that need to be worked within, these old TV shows felt much more constrained than modern hour-long dramas on cable networks. There are games that do F2P in an ethical way, but regardless, it changes the form that the game takes and the relationship between developer and player.

I'm about to start playing Gran Turismo 6, and have just learned that it contains microtranactions for cars. This has shifted my desire to play the game as one of excitement, to one of "I hope it isn't gross." From what I've seen of Forza this year, I'm not super confident. And that's a real shame. I haven't played a Gran Turismo game since 3, back when I was in high school, and have been greatly anticipated jumping back in with GT6 ever since it was announced for PS3. Having played DiRT 3 earlier this year, I've seen how commercial intrusion can put a damper on what otherwise feels like a pretty fantastic experience. In DiRT 3, you could not earn gold medals on certain events without purchasing additional courses and races. The extra gameplay isn't "extra" when it interferes with what I've already paid for; it creates an artificial gate (made worse by being in a game that costs $60 upfront). I've got my fingers crossed that GT6's microtransactions are truly extra features that will only appeal to people who care way more about cars than I do.

I just hate playing games that feel like the real challenge isn't the puzzles or the enemies, but in figuring out how to get the most satisfaction for the least amount of money. Unfortunately, this is the mentality that F2P perpetuates, and it's very popular.