One of the common problems with many discussion topics, as well as some games reviews, is the idea of attacking a concept from the angle of all the things it is not doing, instead of analyzing if it is successful in the goals it sets for itself.
I prefer open world games to linear games in general. That's the average, but it's by no means a hard fast rule. If I am analyzing a God of War title, however, my approach is not going to be a discussion in how linear the game is. Not being open world is not actually a "problem" the game has. Me preferring one over the other is a "problem" I have.
In the case of God of War, what is it attempting? Well, the combat system is front and center, and you have some puzzles here and there, and a variety of enemies. Is the combat system flexible? Does it offer a decent amount of depth? When discussing this category, it's fine to look at other kings of this specific genre - action combat games like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry for example - and compare how successful (or not) each was at executing their combat system. It would make far less sense to compare God of War to Batman: Arkham City and say "one of the problems God of War has is that it doesn't have environments that are open enough to really explore, like the Batman games." If you want a game with more open environments you can really explore, the aim should be to purchase a game closer to Batman: Arkham City. Attacking a product for not having something that it never intended to have in the first place is odd, to say the least. It's damning a game for you not doing the research to know if the game fit your individual preferences instead of for something the game simply is not doing well within the structure of its game design.
You can apply this to any type of game, but it remains true.
There is also a distinction to be made between feeling a game is simply not up to a certain standard that the genre has now made possible in the modern age over just feeling the game did not have elements you personally wished were there because you like a different sort of game.
For example, I may criticize a modern game for having really poor graphics, when a visual component is handled significantly better in other genre competitors. On the other hand, if a game is meant to achieve a certain type of retro look - like say Megaman 9 - I'm not going to compare that to Mighty No. 9 and say "well, really, we've moved on from NES games. That's a big flaw Megaman 9 has!"
This is frequently a problem where console wars are concerned. Due to the increasing ire between groups of console loyalists, attempts to try to gain "points" for their console of choice turns into a mission statement to compare any games that are even tangentially related by genre and suggesting that "mine is better." Many of these criticisms, due to the nature of trying to stretch the argument to fit a console warrior perspective, are often about calling out other games for what they are not, rather than what they are.
And this is a problem because it avoids being able to discuss real problems games have. If I am playing a racing game that is track-based, for example, I want to be able to meaningfully discuss the nature of the track design. Are the curves and lines interesting? Does the track design surprise in any way? Is it good for competition, or better for time trials? What is less interesting (read: not interesting at all) is to start asking why it is a track game at all.
Or consider RPGs, another genre where this happens all the time. I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. Many times jRPGs are often criticized from certain corners because, for example, they have art styles typical of Japanese anime or that they are far too linear. These are people who prefer western style open RPGs, and they believe it's a valid criticism to point out how unlike western games jRPGs are. It's not a valid criticism.
What do you guys think about this issue? Is it worth discussing? How can we go about making comparative discussions more meaningful?
I prefer open world games to linear games in general. That's the average, but it's by no means a hard fast rule. If I am analyzing a God of War title, however, my approach is not going to be a discussion in how linear the game is. Not being open world is not actually a "problem" the game has. Me preferring one over the other is a "problem" I have.
In the case of God of War, what is it attempting? Well, the combat system is front and center, and you have some puzzles here and there, and a variety of enemies. Is the combat system flexible? Does it offer a decent amount of depth? When discussing this category, it's fine to look at other kings of this specific genre - action combat games like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry for example - and compare how successful (or not) each was at executing their combat system. It would make far less sense to compare God of War to Batman: Arkham City and say "one of the problems God of War has is that it doesn't have environments that are open enough to really explore, like the Batman games." If you want a game with more open environments you can really explore, the aim should be to purchase a game closer to Batman: Arkham City. Attacking a product for not having something that it never intended to have in the first place is odd, to say the least. It's damning a game for you not doing the research to know if the game fit your individual preferences instead of for something the game simply is not doing well within the structure of its game design.
You can apply this to any type of game, but it remains true.
There is also a distinction to be made between feeling a game is simply not up to a certain standard that the genre has now made possible in the modern age over just feeling the game did not have elements you personally wished were there because you like a different sort of game.
For example, I may criticize a modern game for having really poor graphics, when a visual component is handled significantly better in other genre competitors. On the other hand, if a game is meant to achieve a certain type of retro look - like say Megaman 9 - I'm not going to compare that to Mighty No. 9 and say "well, really, we've moved on from NES games. That's a big flaw Megaman 9 has!"
This is frequently a problem where console wars are concerned. Due to the increasing ire between groups of console loyalists, attempts to try to gain "points" for their console of choice turns into a mission statement to compare any games that are even tangentially related by genre and suggesting that "mine is better." Many of these criticisms, due to the nature of trying to stretch the argument to fit a console warrior perspective, are often about calling out other games for what they are not, rather than what they are.
And this is a problem because it avoids being able to discuss real problems games have. If I am playing a racing game that is track-based, for example, I want to be able to meaningfully discuss the nature of the track design. Are the curves and lines interesting? Does the track design surprise in any way? Is it good for competition, or better for time trials? What is less interesting (read: not interesting at all) is to start asking why it is a track game at all.
Or consider RPGs, another genre where this happens all the time. I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. Many times jRPGs are often criticized from certain corners because, for example, they have art styles typical of Japanese anime or that they are far too linear. These are people who prefer western style open RPGs, and they believe it's a valid criticism to point out how unlike western games jRPGs are. It's not a valid criticism.
What do you guys think about this issue? Is it worth discussing? How can we go about making comparative discussions more meaningful?