As we progress another year in the world, we evolve in the world of gaming one step further. More revamps, modifications and so-called 'improvements' are made to the games that we play -- Call of Duty and Halo to name a few. Gameplay is forever changing, but is it for the better or worse? What is simplicity in terms of gaming? Let's analyze.
Call of Duty -- the world's best selling game series, its latest title just reaching $1 billion dollars in sales. Call of Duty has grown since its first 'major' game on the Xbox 360, Call of Duty 2. However, is this growth good? I personally have some negative feelings about the changes that have been implemented throughout the Call of Duty series. In Call of Duty 4, the game was so simplistic. There were no deathstreaks, no large variety of killstreaks and no proficiencies; it was merely consistent of the basic figures in FPS titles. These “basic figures” include a standard collection of weapons, little variety of ‘game changers’ (e.g. perks), you get the idea. This is what I personal feel made Call of Duty 4 feel so clean and fun. The game certainly required skill, there was no advantages/disadvantages (with the exception of connection, although that is out of the developers’ control) to reduce balance.
Nowadays, the latest features of Modern Warfare 3 tend to favour the lower quartile of players; the simplicity and balance has been ridden. Deathstreaks is a perfect example. As a result of a player's sloppy performance, they are rewarded. They are now able to kill their enemies significantly easier, with 'cheap' tactics (ex. Dead Man's Hand). Here, the simplicity is no longer. The balance is no longer. The fun is being blocked by features that are cheap, and frankly are ruining gameplay. This is not just my opinion; I feel that this is an opinion that is shared amongst many players and is factual to an extent. Many players are saddened to see that there are new changes to the Call of Duty series that have damaged the simplicity of the series that was initiated in Call of Duty 4; this is certainly evident throughout the gaming community.
This is not only occurring throughout the Call of Duty series. It is concurrently occurring throughout the Halo series too. I am not the only Halo fan that feels the addition of armour abilities was a bad move from Bungie, there are many fans out there that feel the same. Armour abilities have a severe impact on the simplicity of Halo: Reach. If you think about it, the fans’ emotion regarding Halo is dying down. This originally initiated approximately post Halo 2’s release – I’m positive other Halo fans will agree with me.
So then, you may be wondering: “What is this ‘simplicity’ in gaming?” Simplicity is the balance of a game’s gameplay. It is a game based on a straightforward concept without game changers – the game solely relies on the player’s abilities and intelligence rather than including traits that defeat the equality in a game. Halo 2, Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike and even Minecraft are examples of the described concept. Minecraft is such a simple concept, although it is so amazing at that. Minecraft is simple, yet the possibilities are endless -- the concept is spectacular. The developers provide the players the resources that they require, and they are able to expand on that. On the other hand, we have Counter-Strike. A game 10+ years old, yet the population of the game is still so big, even after all of the years it has existed. Why is that? I personally feel that it is due to its equality; it’s simplicity. The game is so straightforward. It includes basic FPS gameplay that maintains to attract players to still play, despite the fact that it has aged in comparison to the latest generation of gaming.
So, you may now be at the stage where you are thinking: “Well, games have to change sometime. Of course games are going to evolve sometime, right?” If you’re thinking that, you are correct. Games do have to grow and evolve to satisfy the simultaneously evolving gaming community. However, there can be modifications including the mentioned simplicity of gameplay. Game developers need to focus on what gaming is all about – storyline (characters, atmosphere and setting), features (theatre, connectivity with friends via online gaming and social networking) and graphics (wow-factor). As a gamer, I personally find that games with an emotionally attaching storyline have an extremely powerful impact on my opinion of the game.
Developers need to stop this negative growth, or we will be entering a bad future of gaming. Fortunately, some developers are ‘clicking on’ to this. 343 Industries intend on making Halo 4 “what Halo is all about”. They, in my eyes, understand the true gaming community and their feelings about games. I hope other developers follow their tracks and create a better future for gaming.
Call of Duty -- the world's best selling game series, its latest title just reaching $1 billion dollars in sales. Call of Duty has grown since its first 'major' game on the Xbox 360, Call of Duty 2. However, is this growth good? I personally have some negative feelings about the changes that have been implemented throughout the Call of Duty series. In Call of Duty 4, the game was so simplistic. There were no deathstreaks, no large variety of killstreaks and no proficiencies; it was merely consistent of the basic figures in FPS titles. These “basic figures” include a standard collection of weapons, little variety of ‘game changers’ (e.g. perks), you get the idea. This is what I personal feel made Call of Duty 4 feel so clean and fun. The game certainly required skill, there was no advantages/disadvantages (with the exception of connection, although that is out of the developers’ control) to reduce balance.
Nowadays, the latest features of Modern Warfare 3 tend to favour the lower quartile of players; the simplicity and balance has been ridden. Deathstreaks is a perfect example. As a result of a player's sloppy performance, they are rewarded. They are now able to kill their enemies significantly easier, with 'cheap' tactics (ex. Dead Man's Hand). Here, the simplicity is no longer. The balance is no longer. The fun is being blocked by features that are cheap, and frankly are ruining gameplay. This is not just my opinion; I feel that this is an opinion that is shared amongst many players and is factual to an extent. Many players are saddened to see that there are new changes to the Call of Duty series that have damaged the simplicity of the series that was initiated in Call of Duty 4; this is certainly evident throughout the gaming community.
This is not only occurring throughout the Call of Duty series. It is concurrently occurring throughout the Halo series too. I am not the only Halo fan that feels the addition of armour abilities was a bad move from Bungie, there are many fans out there that feel the same. Armour abilities have a severe impact on the simplicity of Halo: Reach. If you think about it, the fans’ emotion regarding Halo is dying down. This originally initiated approximately post Halo 2’s release – I’m positive other Halo fans will agree with me.
So then, you may be wondering: “What is this ‘simplicity’ in gaming?” Simplicity is the balance of a game’s gameplay. It is a game based on a straightforward concept without game changers – the game solely relies on the player’s abilities and intelligence rather than including traits that defeat the equality in a game. Halo 2, Call of Duty 4, Counter-Strike and even Minecraft are examples of the described concept. Minecraft is such a simple concept, although it is so amazing at that. Minecraft is simple, yet the possibilities are endless -- the concept is spectacular. The developers provide the players the resources that they require, and they are able to expand on that. On the other hand, we have Counter-Strike. A game 10+ years old, yet the population of the game is still so big, even after all of the years it has existed. Why is that? I personally feel that it is due to its equality; it’s simplicity. The game is so straightforward. It includes basic FPS gameplay that maintains to attract players to still play, despite the fact that it has aged in comparison to the latest generation of gaming.
So, you may now be at the stage where you are thinking: “Well, games have to change sometime. Of course games are going to evolve sometime, right?” If you’re thinking that, you are correct. Games do have to grow and evolve to satisfy the simultaneously evolving gaming community. However, there can be modifications including the mentioned simplicity of gameplay. Game developers need to focus on what gaming is all about – storyline (characters, atmosphere and setting), features (theatre, connectivity with friends via online gaming and social networking) and graphics (wow-factor). As a gamer, I personally find that games with an emotionally attaching storyline have an extremely powerful impact on my opinion of the game.
Developers need to stop this negative growth, or we will be entering a bad future of gaming. Fortunately, some developers are ‘clicking on’ to this. 343 Industries intend on making Halo 4 “what Halo is all about”. They, in my eyes, understand the true gaming community and their feelings about games. I hope other developers follow their tracks and create a better future for gaming.
