Should game modes or self-imposed limitations that improve gameplay affect critical evaluation, or should the worst be assumed?
To expand on that a bit, it's an idea I got while playing and reviewing the(in my opinion) pretty abysmal Alien Breed.
As I was playing, I was asking myself these sorts of things:
- "I wonder if forcing myself to stop moving while I shoot would make this a better game?"
- "What if I forced myself not to use ammo to open doors?" (another major flaw of the game, not mentioned in the review)
- "What if I spent my 165 clips of ammo and started over?"
- "What if I only use the starting weapon?" (this actually turns out to be easier, in a few ways)
I tried all of these things, at least for a few minutes. In some cases, it was fun for a few minutes, but it either turned out to have no effect on the enjoyment of the game, or it was simply too much work to give a return on my time investment. Then I realised something: I shouldn't be covering for the game's flaws. Team17's designers should be figuring out the game design that gets players the most enjoyment, not me. I think this is very true, but...
On the other side of the argument, I had an amazing experience with a self-imposed rule. While playing Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, I was getting bored with my own challenges. Playing on expert difficulty, I had been trying so hard to get a good score without alerting guards or killing them, or setting off alarms, or dying(obviously) that I was aiming for perfection, quicksaving every time I got past a difficult section and failing multiple times out of hastiness.
Then, I tried something different. I decided to self-impose a "semi-hardcore" mode, where I would force myself not to save throughout the mission, doing everything possible to survive until the end. Failure would require a restart of the entire mission.
Wow. What an experience. I came out of the next mission with my heart racing. For the first time since my introduction to Chaos Theory, I was actually engaging with Sam Fisher's role again, watching guard walking patterns studiously, sticking to shadows more often, being careful about taking slow steps, and shooting out more lightbulbs.
It was as if I had gone from trying to climb a wall with anchors every few feet to climbing it without ropes. Boy, did my every move matter in those missions. I actually fired my weapon a few times to save my life, and still managed to complete the mission. My success rating wasn't as good as it had been in the past, but I couldn't have cared less. I had scraped through that mission by the skin of my teeth, and it became one of my most amazing gaming experiences.
Then, I tried something different. I decided to self-impose a "semi-hardcore" mode, where I would force myself not to save throughout the mission, doing everything possible to survive until the end. Failure would require a restart of the entire mission.
Wow. What an experience. I came out of the next mission with my heart racing. For the first time since my introduction to Chaos Theory, I was actually engaging with Sam Fisher's role again, watching guard walking patterns studiously, sticking to shadows more often, being careful about taking slow steps, and shooting out more lightbulbs.
It was as if I had gone from trying to climb a wall with anchors every few feet to climbing it without ropes. Boy, did my every move matter in those missions. I actually fired my weapon a few times to save my life, and still managed to complete the mission. My success rating wasn't as good as it had been in the past, but I couldn't have cared less. I had scraped through that mission by the skin of my teeth, and it became one of my most amazing gaming experiences.
So... Has playing by your own rules ever improved your gameplay experience? Do you think reviews should address alternative playstyles or personal principles? What about game modes? If a game has a shallow, easy mode and a deeper mode, should a review assume the most cynical playstyle is being used, or assume the better mode will be played by most players?