But I’m not sure if that is really an acceptable standard for evaluating sports videogames anymore. We constantly compare the game to the previous installment, measuring progress on a technological curve that argues that the games should just get bigger, more complicated, with more features, and somehow more beautiful and lifelike.īy that standard, NHL 15 disappoints. Role-playing games need customization to feel whole.īut what about sports games? It’s an especially relevant question given their iterative, year-to-year nature. Shooters need multiplayer to be complete. We evaluate in the context of genre and against the historical arc of development-reading is intertextual, always. It does so much well, and yet it’s stripped down, and seems somehow incomplete.īut how do we decide what we think a game “should” contain to be considered full, or rich? Where is the list of features that are to be checked off to declare that a game is a success or designed well? We often measure games against the expectations created by genre conventions, and we do so implicitly. Here’s the truth: I’m conflicted about NHL 15.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |