Speaking of reviews, here’s a interesting follow-up from the side of developers.

Brian P. Shea, IGN:

Ultimately, reviews should never be viewed as the final word on a game. Instead, they’re guidelines for readers to apply to their own personal taste. If a review gives a game a 7.0 and cites poor multiplayer a one of the game’s issues, but you don’t intend on playing the multiplayer, you can synthesize that review and conclude that you might be very likely to enjoy the game more than the critic - and that’s OK.

A worthwhile read but I maintain that a 7.0 persists as a flag. It is likely going to deter consumers from a $60 gamble “to apply their own personal taste.”

Host of the DLC podcast Jeff Cannata to co-host Christian Spicer regarding the Driveclub launch:

I think you brought up a really interesting point in saying, “we should be able to return these games.” The idea that this industry as a whole has figured out a way to convince the public that they can’t return broken products, that you buy it and you’re screwed, that there’s no lemon law for software, is a little bit ridiculous.

After hearing this, I was immediately reminded of why I continue to base my video game purchases on reviews. If a return policy and/or less expensive price-tag was put in place, would I be willing to take more chances? I’m not entirely sure. But as it stands, I am not willing to take, as DLC guest Brian Brushwood put it, “a $60 gamble.”

A great article by Colin Campbell at IGN exploring the gaming community’s need and desire for shorter yet emotionally fulfilling games such as Journey, Limbo, and Dear Esther:

[…] the two-hour narrative game has arrived as something with a definite beginning, middle, and end. It’s a story that is designed to be played through entirely in one sitting. It does not demand the kind of time-investment of a game like Mass Effect 3, nor does it attempt to persuade you to join a sub-culture of online enthusiasts like Call of Duty. Nor is it crafted to ensnare you with addictive tricks, like Angry Birds. It is downloadable and priced at the cost of a movie ticket and a bag of popcorn.

The article includes interviews with game developers Jenova Chen (Journey), Dan Pinchbeck (Dear Esther), Edmund McMillen (Super Meat Boy), and Dino Patti (Limbo).

Dan Pinchbeck:

[…] we’ve got this slightly weird situation where it’s all or nothing, right? It either has to be something that basically takes you the amount of time it takes you to have a bowel movement or it’s got to last you for six months. There’s nothing in the middle and that just seems weird and crazy.

The article also explores developer’s desires to work on smaller games due to the developer’s ability to experience creativity more freely rather than be pressured by massive, corporate controlled budgets and large, separated development teams.

Jenova Chen:

If you make something artistic you need to reach a very strong coherence in the development team so the game has a singular voice. A very clear vision, so that the audience who experience the game can clearly get that voice or get the vision. If you have hundreds of people working on something there’s no way of working on the game towards the same direction. When you have three hundred people working on something the game just felt like a huge crowd of people singing but they’re not well orchestrated. It sounds loud, it sounds impressive, but you don’t know what they are singing. You don’t know what the game is about.

A worthwhile read that I can get behind!

Recently, I have found that I have very little time to invest in gaming. When I do find that time, I do not want to attempt jumping into a massive story, knowing I’ll likely forget what was going on, forget how the mechanics work the next time I play it, or never finish the game, nor do I want waste my time on grinding in an MMO or flinging birds into bricks.

---

[This was originally posted on 4/18/12 on my previous thestarrlist.tumblr.com blog; reblogged in regard to Ben Kuchera’s piece To hell with longer games, tell me how SHORT your game is.]

Stephie Grob Plante, writing for xoJane:

The free songs — including “Counting Stars” by OneRepublic and “#thatPower” by will.i.am ft. Justin Bieber — are not necessarily my jam(s), but it’s hard to complain about free. As I scroll through the song purchase options, I grumble at the glut of current(ish) tracks and dearth of classics. Swipe, swipe, swipe — WAIT: “Creep” by TLC for $1.99?! I hadn’t planned on buying anything, but…sold.

With one solid tune and a wealth of moves like “Niece,” “Rejectin,” and “Pros and Cons,” my childhood aspiration of becoming an In Living Color Fly Girl — a very real, very unattainable dream — feels within reach, at least from the confines of my 12x16 living room.

Hilarious read; surprising results.

Jordan Erica Webber, The Guardian:

In that demo, a sprite called Yoska teaches the player how to use their hearing to hunt a bird and shoot it down with a bow and arrow and fight bandits and goblins with a sword. It sounds like something you’d expect to do in a modern big-budget RPG, which Willey says is intentional: “What we’re really aiming for is an audio game that has a kind of AAA [those with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion] feel about it.”

That should appeal to vision-impaired players such as Harlow, whose experience of “real video games” before he lost his sight has led him to consider many audio games “kind of bad, and just not entertaining”. But Willey and Satizabal both hope sighted players will enjoy the game too, so that they can have a shared experience with those who are vision-impaired.

Sounds extremely interesting and like a great focus for game development. Start any piece with the words Super Mario 64 and you’ll have my attention.