Less political hot take: the "primary gameplay loop" is not given enough respect in games coverage.
I been thinking about why my tastes in games veer so differently from critical consensus so much and why with games, unlike with other entertainment like movies, I see so many games that are beloved that I "respect" but cannot play, while I like dumb panned games like the evil Ubisoft even though I acknowledge their flaws, agree with the criticism, and still like them.
And the phrase "primary gameplay loop" comes into it. I credit Yahtzee for bringing it to my attention but I dunno if he coined it. Either way, he talks about it as the single most important aspect of a game, the thing that matters. He, and JM8, have discussed being in front of young aspiring game designers who pitch ideas and the ideas are all stories and settings and when asked "well what do you actually DO" they're like "well I dunno shoot things I guess." The point being- it's a game, and the player has to constantly do things, and if those things that you're repeatedly doing aren't fun, engaging, or interesting, then nothing else matters.
Makes sense! Now- whether those things are fun, engaging, or interesting depends on two thing. The first is quality, and I use the term in the engineering sense meaning that it performs the funtion intended- i.e., it works. Consistently, the player is show what to do and they can execute. The other is personal response- do I actually enjoy this activity? And assuming the first quality metric is successful, we get purely subjective here and this is the part that's missed in games coverage. Even if the shooting or jumping is done well, doesn't mean everyone is going to actually like shooting or jumping.
Example: Outer Wilds. The game is praised for its premise, it's world-building, and ending. But the primary gameplay loop is traveling in first person perspective and looking around. It's flying in that perspective with a physics-based action, or it's walking, and it's observing things. That is the actual game. If, like me, that perspective is headache-inducing, and that activity is inherently tedious, you are not going to enjoy this game. And the insistence to "push through" it or "it's all worth it in the end" is missing the point of video games as a medium. But if you like that stuff- if the idea of flying to planets to look around and all that is inherently fun- then sure!
(heh maybe I'm just making another case for mandatory demos).
Or Dark Souls- the primary gameplay loop is fighting things in 3rd person with primarily melee combat. Yes, even mage builds. So if attack, roll, roll, etc is fun- which it is to me- then Dark Souls has the potential to be fun. The other stuff- world, lore, clever levels, buildcraft- those are all great and what makes it better than other 3rd person difficult hack 'n' slash, but unless someone likes the primary loop of fighting things with this style of combat, Dark Souls will not be good for them.
Strategy game reviews are better about this because it's a less popular genre. They're like "if you like tower defense" etc because they know a lot of people just don't like that stuff. But guess what- a lot of people don't like fps navigation, or being lost in metroidvanias, or strong attack light attack dodge parry, or crafting. Video games require constant actions and should be judged very differently from movies. If someone tells me they like movies but haven't seen something great or classic, if I'm in the right mood I will annoyingly advocate for it. Because watching a movie- any movie- is inherently the same action- sitting there and paying attention, that's it. It's the same "primary loop." Not so with games.
And one's interest a loop can change, as with my decreased interest in said 3rd person melee combat which is why I've been lightly mocking the spate of soulslikes. I mean I just don't wanna R1 attack L1 parry no more, at least for a while. And that's just mean, you know, others are still into that, and that's fine.
I been thinking about why my tastes in games veer so differently from critical consensus so much and why with games, unlike with other entertainment like movies, I see so many games that are beloved that I "respect" but cannot play, while I like dumb panned games like the evil Ubisoft even though I acknowledge their flaws, agree with the criticism, and still like them.
And the phrase "primary gameplay loop" comes into it. I credit Yahtzee for bringing it to my attention but I dunno if he coined it. Either way, he talks about it as the single most important aspect of a game, the thing that matters. He, and JM8, have discussed being in front of young aspiring game designers who pitch ideas and the ideas are all stories and settings and when asked "well what do you actually DO" they're like "well I dunno shoot things I guess." The point being- it's a game, and the player has to constantly do things, and if those things that you're repeatedly doing aren't fun, engaging, or interesting, then nothing else matters.
Makes sense! Now- whether those things are fun, engaging, or interesting depends on two thing. The first is quality, and I use the term in the engineering sense meaning that it performs the funtion intended- i.e., it works. Consistently, the player is show what to do and they can execute. The other is personal response- do I actually enjoy this activity? And assuming the first quality metric is successful, we get purely subjective here and this is the part that's missed in games coverage. Even if the shooting or jumping is done well, doesn't mean everyone is going to actually like shooting or jumping.
Example: Outer Wilds. The game is praised for its premise, it's world-building, and ending. But the primary gameplay loop is traveling in first person perspective and looking around. It's flying in that perspective with a physics-based action, or it's walking, and it's observing things. That is the actual game. If, like me, that perspective is headache-inducing, and that activity is inherently tedious, you are not going to enjoy this game. And the insistence to "push through" it or "it's all worth it in the end" is missing the point of video games as a medium. But if you like that stuff- if the idea of flying to planets to look around and all that is inherently fun- then sure!
(heh maybe I'm just making another case for mandatory demos).
Or Dark Souls- the primary gameplay loop is fighting things in 3rd person with primarily melee combat. Yes, even mage builds. So if attack, roll, roll, etc is fun- which it is to me- then Dark Souls has the potential to be fun. The other stuff- world, lore, clever levels, buildcraft- those are all great and what makes it better than other 3rd person difficult hack 'n' slash, but unless someone likes the primary loop of fighting things with this style of combat, Dark Souls will not be good for them.
Strategy game reviews are better about this because it's a less popular genre. They're like "if you like tower defense" etc because they know a lot of people just don't like that stuff. But guess what- a lot of people don't like fps navigation, or being lost in metroidvanias, or strong attack light attack dodge parry, or crafting. Video games require constant actions and should be judged very differently from movies. If someone tells me they like movies but haven't seen something great or classic, if I'm in the right mood I will annoyingly advocate for it. Because watching a movie- any movie- is inherently the same action- sitting there and paying attention, that's it. It's the same "primary loop." Not so with games.
And one's interest a loop can change, as with my decreased interest in said 3rd person melee combat which is why I've been lightly mocking the spate of soulslikes. I mean I just don't wanna R1 attack L1 parry no more, at least for a while. And that's just mean, you know, others are still into that, and that's fine.
