C) has nothing to do with how good the environments are; in fact it can be the opposite. Dragon Age II was distinct in that it offered both shitty environments and very few of them to boot.Metadigital said:Okay, so most of the review is fair, but there was one criticism that bugged me - and it's a criticism that bugs me in general.
It's when the reviewer complains about the environment in one of several ways:
A) The game brings too much attention to its environments by forcing you to pay attention to their detail.
B) The game brings you on a linear path and it makes the environments feel like a theme park.
C) The game makes you revisit the same place over and over again and it's boring.
Seriously, reviewers, stop this. These are all petty complaints. You are literally complaining because the environments are too good. It makes no sense.
Neither is B) an indication that the environment is good: it's an indication that the environment inspires exploration but that opportunity is quashed by the level design.
A) might seem strange to complain about, but in these cases it depends on what type of game you're playing. You wouldn't make this complaint about an exploration game like Myst forcing you to look everywhere, but if a fast-paced action game suddenly starts expecting you to hunt around the environment for clues, it kills the flow.
There's no question that all environments are important to gameplay on some level, but game designers tend to favour graphical fidelity over breadth and depth, despite the latter being arguably more important to gameplay.Obviously, if a huge amount of development goes into the environments, they will tend to be 1) important for gameplay, 2) critical to include, and 3) expensive and time consuming to produce.
Think about it this way: would you rather play a game of football on an expansive but scruffy and uneven stretch of local park, or on your neighbour's tiny but neatly manicured front lawn? Video games are constantly forcing you to do the latter.