For those of you that played it, what did you dislike most about Twilight Princess? Was it the bloom and brown that’s run the gamut of every title last year? Was it the completely useless items that muddled the reason as to why anyone would even call it a Legend of Zelda game? Was it the mind-numbing linearity and lack of side-quests outside of collect-a-thons? Or, perhaps, was it the lack of difficulty?

Well, chances are it was all of those things combined, but the whole easy-mode thing probably stuck out the most. There’s a mass of games falling prey to this idea, theory, and concept that games need to be far more accessible to help penetrate the market more. Developers around the world are doing research groups in order to meet the demands of people who will never play their games anyway.
(continue reading…)

There is a popular Dutch gaming magazine I like to read. The reason why I like the magazine so much is because the articles and reviews always feel like they were written with passion, a passion for gaming that is. Some game journalists don’t have a passion for gaming, but for journalism. While their form may be good, their reviews are worthless.

The game magazine I’m talking about gave Super Mario Galaxy a 100. A perfect score. Of course, you don’t hand out a perfect score every day, so the reviewer felt like he had to give his view on the matter.
Here is the (translated) transcript:

“My admiration for this game is based on both objective as subjective grounds. For me the mark 100 is the best mark that can express everything that Galaxy has to offer. I don’t care for crap about perfect games existing or not existing, because you have to assume for this that there is an objective method to measure one’s fun while playing a game, and I don’t, because I’m a practical person. Besides, Super Mario Galaxy is just a perfect game.”

This got me thinking, maybe we are looking at reviews in the wrong way. Too many reviewers look at games as a summation of different factors: graphics, sound, story, etc. But that isn’t what games are about. Games can have an awful story, but still be a lot of fun. The same goes for graphics. Could Super Mario Galaxy have been improved? Yeah, maybe it could’ve had a better story, or maybe the final boss could’ve been better, or maybe less of the music could’ve been MIDIs. But would these improvements make the game more fun? No, they wouldn’t. While an RPG may benefit from a better story, SMG wouldn’t have been more fun to play, and that is what really matters.

Last issue, the magazine gave LittleBigPlanet a perfect 100. The reviewer wrote the following:

“You might be wondering after reading this review why the hell we gave this score of 100 points, but it is exceptionally hard to explain how hard it is to explain this game. The amount of fun we had is hard to put on paper.”

The reviewer then proceeded to try and explain just how much fun they had playing the game. And that’s what games are about, aren’t they? Fun.

And that’s what we should care about in games. Not graphics. Not sound. Not whether it’s bugfree. It’s whether it’s fun or not. If a game has terrible graphics, it can still be fun. If it has some crazy bugs, it can still be fun. If your guns make odd and wacky sounds, the game can still be fun. And fun is what’s important in a hobby.