Ten Gaming “Hot Takes” (Part 2)

A few days ago, I shared the first of my gaming “hot takes,” and today we’re going to finish the job. I’ve got five more “hot takes” to round out this list, and I think we’ve got some spicy ones in the mix!

As I said last time, this isn’t clickbait! These are opinions that I genuinely hold, and I’m not inventing things for the sake of being controversial or to score “internet points.” I’m also keenly aware that I’m in the minority, and that plenty of folks can and will disagree. That’s okay – there should be enough room in the gaming community for differences of opinion and friendly discussion of these topics. This is all subjective, at the end of the day!

So if you missed the first part of the list, you can find it by clicking or tapping here. Otherwise, it’s time to get started!

“Hot Take” #6:
Story matters more than gameplay (in most cases).

Starfield (2023).

When discussing Starfield a few weeks ago, I said something rather telling. I didn’t really appreciate it in the moment, but looking back, I think it sums up my relationship with video games as a hobby quite well: “I’m someone who’ll happily play through some absolutely bog-standard gameplay if I’m enjoying a story or getting lost in a fictional world…” If you want to see the full quote in context, by the way, you can find my piece on Starfield by clicking or tapping here.

That line pretty much sums up how I relate to most games I play – and almost all single-player and action/adventure titles. There are some exceptions: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe springs to mind, as does Fall Guys, and some turn-based strategy games, too. But when I look at the games I’ve enjoyed the most since at least the second half of the ’90s, it’s story more than gameplay that appeals to me.

There are some exceptions!

It was a solid story and great world-building that convinced me to stick with Cyberpunk 2077, even when I felt its gameplay was nothing special. And on the flip side, it was a mediocre story set in a boring, empty world that led to me giving up on Starfield after less than thirty hours. When I fire up a single-player game, I’m looking for a story that grabs me, and a world I can lose myself in.

It doesn’t feel controversial to say “I want a game to have a good story,” but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make. For me, story almost always trumps gameplay. While there can be exceptions – games with either incredibly innovative gameplay in which the narrative is less relevant or games that are so mechanically poor or bug-riddled that even the best story couldn’t salvage them – for the most part, that’s what I’m looking for in a new release.

I stuck with Cyberpunk 2077 because of its story.

It was Shenmue, around the turn of the millennium, that stands out to me as an example of this. Shenmue was the first game I’d played where the story seemed like it would be right at home on the big screen, and I absolutely adored that. Many games have come along in the years since with compelling characters, wonderful worlds, or magnificent mysteries… and I think that’s part of why I still love playing video games after more than thirty years.

If games had stuck to being glorified toys; story-less arcade boxes where the only objective was either “kill everything on the screen” or “keep walking to the right,” then I think I’d probably have drifted away from the hobby. But I was fortunate enough to play some absolutely phenomenal titles as gaming made that transition and many incredible stories were written.

“Hot Take” #7:
More complexity and additional gameplay elements do not make a game “better.”

Darn young’ins.

Some modern games try to cram in too many features and gameplay mechanics that add nothing to the experience – and in some cases actively detract from it. I know this probably comes across as “old man yells at cloud;” an out-of-touch dinosaur whining about how modern games are too convoluted! And if this was something that only happened in a handful of titles, I guess I’d be okay with it. But it seems to happen all the time!

Strategy and “tycoon” games seem to fall victim to this very easily. I adored Rollercoaster Tycoon when it launched in 1999; it felt like a game that was simple to get started with but difficult to master. In contrast, when I tried 2016’s Planet Coaster… I was hit with such a huge wall of options and features that it was offputting. I didn’t know where to start.

Games used to be simpler…

There’s a balance that games have to find between challenge and complexity, and some titles get it wrong. I don’t have the time (or the energy) to spend tens or hundreds of hours becoming a literal rollercoaster engineer; I want something I can pick up and play, where I’m able to throw down a few theme park attractions without too much complexity. If the game had those more complex engineering sim elements in addition – as optional extras for players who wanted them – that could be okay. But when booting up a new game for the first time, I don’t want to encounter a dense wall of features and content.

This doesn’t just apply to strategy games, either. An increasing number of shooters and action/adventure games are incorporating full-bodied role-playing systems, and again it just feels wholly unnecessary. Look at a game from the early 2000s like Halo: Combat Evolved. It was a shooter – your character had a handful of weapons to choose from, and you blasted away at aliens. There was no need for levelling up, for choosing traits or skills, or anything like that. But more and more modern games, even in the first-person shooter or stealth genres, are going for these kinds of role-playing mechanics.

Skill points and levelling up in Assassin’s Creed: Mirage.

Don’t get me wrong: I love a good role-playing game. But when I boot up something like Assassin’s Creed or Destiny, the last thing I want or expect is to spend ages in menus micromanaging a character who, to be blunt, doesn’t need that level of engagement. Partly this is about balance, and in some cases it can be fun to level up and gain access to new equipment, for instance. But in others it really is a question of simplicity over complexity, and what kind of game I’m playing. Not every game can or should be a role-playing experience with a complex set of stats and skills.

Some titles really emphasise these elements, too, seeking to win praise for including a convoluted levelling-up system and skill tree. And a lot of the time, I find myself rolling my eyes at that. Leave the role-playing to RPGs and leave the overly-complicated systems to simulators and let me pick up and play a fun game!

“Hot Take” #8:
I hate VR.

Promo image of the HTC Vive Pro 2 headset.

Is “hate” too strong a word to use in this context? I’m going to go with “no,” because I genuinely hate VR. I was worried when the first VR headsets started being released that the video games industry in general was going to go all-in on VR, because I felt if that were to happen that I wouldn’t be able to keep up. But thankfully VR remains a relatively niche part of gaming, and even if that were to change, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to replace regular old video games any time soon!

In the ’80s and ’90s, it seemed as if VR was something tech companies were working towards. It was a futuristic goal that was just out of reach… so when VR headsets first started cropping up, I really thought that they were going to be “the next big thing.”

TV shows like VR Troopers hinted at VR being the direction of travel for video games as far back as the ’90s.

But I’ve never found a VR system that I could actually use. I could barely manage playing tennis on the Wii – and even then I had to remain seated! I’m disabled, in case you didn’t know, and the move toward VR headsets and motion-tracking devices felt a bit threatening to me; these technologies seemed like they had the potential to lock me out of gaming.

There haven’t been many VR titles that have interested me, though. One of the only VR titles that did – Star Trek: Bridge Crew – was pretty quickly ported to PC without the VR requirement. While the influence of VR is still clearly present in that title, I think it demonstrates that at least some VR games can work without the expensive equipment.

Star Trek: Bridge Crew was quickly ported to non-VR systems.

There’s plenty of room for innovation in gaming, and for companies to try out different kinds of screens, controllers, and methods of interactivity. But for me personally, VR felt like a step too far. I’m biased, of course, because between vision problems and mobility restrictions I don’t feel capable of using any of the current VR systems – not to anything like their full capabilities, at any rate. But even with that caveat, I just don’t think VR has turned out to be anything more than a gimmick.

It’s possible, I suppose, that a VR system will come along one day that I’ll feel compelled to invest in. But it would have to be something I could use with ease, and none of the VR devices currently on the market fit the bill. So I won’t be jumping on the VR bandwagon any time soon!

“Hot Take” #9:
We need fewer sequels and more original games.

I’ve lost count of the number of entries in the Call of Duty franchise at this point…

Across the world of entertainment in general, we’re firmly in an era of franchises, sequels, spin-offs, and connected “universes.” This trend has been going on for well over a decade at this point… but it’s been to the detriment of a lot of stories. There’s always going to be room for sequels to successful titles… but too many video game publishers have gone all-in on franchises and a handful of ongoing series at the expense of creating anything original.

And unfortunately, some original titles that have come along in recent years haven’t found success. I mentioned Starfield above, which seems to be seeing a precipitous drop in its player count, but we could also point to games like Anthem, Forspoken, or Babylon’s Fall – all of which were new settings featuring new characters that struggled to get off the ground.

Forspoken didn’t exactly light up the board, unfortunately.

The reason why I consider this one to be a “hot take” is simply because of how many players seem content to go back to the same handful of franchises or series over and over again. Some folks have even gotten genuinely angry with developers for sidelining their favourite series in order to work on something new, as if a studio should only ever be allowed to work on a single series in perpetuity. Sequels, prequels, and spin-offs are all more popular and attract more attention than brand-new experiences, and I think that’s short-sighted on the part of publishers and narrow-minded on the part of at least some players.

And I have to hold up my hands here: I can be guilty of this, too. I’ve written articles here on the website looking ahead to the next Mass Effect game, for instance, while it seems clear that at least some of the folks at BioWare wanted to branch out and create something different. And I have to admit that a sequel to a game I enjoyed or a new entry in a franchise I’m invested in is exciting – more so, arguably, than the announcement of a brand-new project.

Lots of people are eagerly anticipating the next Mass Effect game.

Brand-new games are more difficult and more expensive to get people to pay attention to. They’re also comparatively risky propositions from a corporate point of view; a ton of people will turn up for a game with a well-known name attached, even if it’s not all that good. But a brand-new world has to be something truly special to attract players in the first place – let alone retain a huge playerbase and make a profit.

But it’s a shame that that’s the situation we’re in, because when developers are restricted to sequels and the same handful of franchises, creativity is stifled. Where’s the next breakthrough going to come from if the only games a studio is able to make are sequels and spin-offs to earlier titles? And when audiences get tired of the decreasing number of surviving franchises… what will happen?

“Hot Take” #10:
Graphics actually do matter.

Kena: Bridge of Spirits (2021).

This is perhaps the most contentious point on this list! I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard some variant of the expression “graphics don’t matter” when discussing video games. But you know what? If you showed me two similar games in the same genre, with the key difference between them being that one was a ray-tracing Unreal Engine 5 beauty and the other looked like a Nintendo 64 game that had been sneezed on… I know which one I’d choose to play.

When I was really getting into gaming as a hobby in the 1990s, it seemed like the push for better and better graphical fidelity was never-ending. Games used their visuals as a selling-point, and that trend continued into the 2000s with consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation 2. It would’ve seemed wild in those days for a game to not only take a backwards step in graphical terms, but to celebrate doing so.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City looked great in 2002.

We need to separate “graphics” from “art style,” because they’re really two different things. Some games can do wonderful things with cell-shading, for example, or a deliberately cartoony aesthetic. When I say that “graphics actually do matter,” I don’t mean that photorealism is the be-all and end-all; the only art style that games should pursue. What I mean is that games that prioritise looking great – within their chosen style – are going to grab my attention.

I think an interesting example here is South Park: The Stick of Truth. No one would argue that that game is “realistic” in its art style – but that’s the point. Developers Obsidian Entertainment worked overtime to recreate the look and feel of the South Park cartoon – and what resulted was a genuinely fun and interesting visual presentation. Playing that game really felt like taking part in an extended episode of the show. Compare the way The Stick of Truth and its sequel look to the upcoming South Park: Snow Day. I know which one I’d rather play!

South Park: The Stick of Truth stands out because of its visual style.

When a developer wants to go down the photorealism route, though, it’s great to see just how far they can push modern hardware. There were moments in games like Red Dead Redemption II where the environment felt genuinely real – and that feeling is one that games have been chasing since the inception of the medium. I really can’t wait to see how graphics continue to improve, and how realistic some games might be able to look in fifteen or twenty years from now… if I live that long!

At any rate, visually beautiful games are always going to catch my eye, and games that don’t prioritise graphical fidelity will always have a hurdle to overcome in some ways. Gameplay and story are important, of course, but graphics aren’t irrelevant. The way a game looks really does matter.

So that’s it!

A Sega Dreamcast console. I had one circa 2000.

We’ve come to the end of the list – for now! I’m sure I’ll have more “hot takes” and controversial opinions about video games that I’ll be able to share before too long.

I hope that this has been interesting – and not something to get too worked up over! As I said at the beginning, I know that I’m in the minority and that a lot of folks can and will disagree. Although some people take gaming a bit too seriously sometimes, I like to think that there’s room in the community for polite discussions and disagreements.

Have fun out there – and happy gaming!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

First impressions of Star Trek: Bridge Crew… three years late

The official trailer for Star Trek: Bridge Crew.

The Star Trek franchise seems to have drawn the short straw when it comes to successful video game adaptations, especially when compared to Star Wars. I can think of several good Star Trek games – my personal favourite is the Doom-esque Star Trek: Generations adaptation, which even today is one of my all-time favourite games – but I think I’m almost the only person who bought a copy. Even websites specialising in so-called abandonware don’t seem to know about that one! Other decent Star Trek games – such as Deep Space Nine: The Fallen, the Elite Force titles, and the Armada games – all performed adequately, but none really made a huge impression or hooked in new fans.

The 2010s offered very little by way of new Star Trek games. There was, of course, Star Trek Online – but as someone who generally dislikes massively-multiplayer titles I didn’t have a particularly good time with it. I’m glad it was a success and I hope it brought in some new fans, but that style of game simply isn’t my cup of tea. The only other game I’d played in the last few years was the bug-riddled mess that was 2013’s Star Trek. I persevered as long as I could with that title, but a few hours in I got to a point where a glitch prevented me from advancing any further.

Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force is one of the better Star Trek games.

The only other significant title released in the last few years was Star Trek: Bridge Crew – not to be confused with an earlier title, Star Trek: Bridge Commander. Released in 2017, Bridge Crew was a VR-only title, and as I don’t game in VR I never bothered to check in with it again. But apparently I should’ve, because a few months after it was released Bridge Crew got an update allowing for non-VR gameplay, something I only noticed when the title cropped up among my recommended titles during the ongoing Steam Summer Sale. Well I was dumbfounded! How could I have missed this? It was an immediate buy, as Bridge Crew must be one of only a handful of Star Trek games post-1990 that I haven’t played for myself!

I’m sure I’ve talked about this before, but aren’t modern games a chore to get running? After opening Steam and then selecting Bridge Crew, the game wanted to install a patch. Then it had to connect to Ubisoft’s Uplay service, which also required a separate patch, and just getting the game to open took several minutes. Not a problem unique to Bridge Crew by any means, but always bothersome!

Recognise this planet?

I think that the game’s opening sequence is different because I also bought The Next Generation DLC, but it was really quite cool to sit through a fairly accurate recreation of The Next Generation’s title sequence. The graphics, while not exactly cutting-edge elsewhere in Bridge Crew, did a great job bringing to life some of the planets and other space phenomena that should be familiar to any fan of The Next Generation, and I appreciated the effort that must’ve gone into it.

My first thought upon seeing that Bridge Crew had a non-VR mode – aside from “I must buy this game immediately” – was wondering how well it would port from VR to non-VR. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, my ability and desire to sit down and play games has waned a lot over the last decade or so, and I’ve heard bad things about some VR titles not playing at all well without a VR headset and controller.

The basic gameplay screen – as seen in the tutorial mission.

Bridge Crew is, as far I can tell, the first game I’ve played that started life in VR. I wasn’t sure what to expect, and the controls certainly take a little bit of getting used to. I played with an Xbox One control pad, as I do for most games, but I believe mouse and keyboard is an option on PC as well.

In order to better explain the control scheme, we need to talk about what Bridge Crew is and what it isn’t. Your character can occupy one of four bridge stations: the engineering station, the helm, the tactical station, and the captain’s chair. Regardless of which you choose, your character is static; they sit (or stand) at their console and don’t move from their position. This isn’t a criticism at all, it’s part of how the game was designed. Each of the control pad’s two analogue sticks move one of your character’s hands, and the triggers are used to select an option on the console or to perform an action. For example, at the engineering station it’s possible to allocate the ship’s power to different systems, at the helm to plot a course and engage engines, and at tactical to pick a target and fire weapons.

This control scheme obviously works better in VR, where a player might be holding two motion-sensitive controllers and could look and move more quickly to select the various options. There’s probably also a greater degree of fine control over certain options – like acceleration and deceleration when in the helmsman position. However, after a bit of practice and more than a few cock-ups I think I’m getting the hang of it.

Customising your character also serves as a basic introduction to the game’s controls.

The game is also designed to be played with friends. Each of the four roles can be occupied by another player, which should – in theory, at least – speed things up when engaging in the game’s various missions. It is possible to play without anyone else – as Billy-no-mates here can attest – but as with VR, the game has really been designed to work best when four players are working together in co-op.

There’s something undeniably cool for a Trekkie to sit in the captain’s chair of a starship – even it it’s just virtually. And I was surprised at the level of detail involved in using some of the game’s systems, all of which are lifted from Star Trek films and television shows. Courses must be plotted and laid in, then the ship manoeuvred by the helmsman to align with the course. Power must be distributed between systems like shields and engines by the engineer, and in battle, the tactical officer must choose targets and fire weapons. Performing each of these tasks – while fairly simplistic in line with the game’s control scheme – actually feels like working on a starship.

The helm aboard the USS Enterprise from The Original Series.

Perhaps it’s because many of the actions are mundane – like moving a dial or slider to adjust power or change the ship’s trajectory – that the feeling of “realism” exists in Bridge Crew. There are three starships that the game recreates: one based on the Kelvin-timeline films (which is the game’s main setting), as well as the USS Enterprise from The Original Series, and The Next Generation’s Enterprise-D. Gameplay is similar on each vessel, but the different aesthetics are great, and both Enterprises are faithfully recreated. The gameplay itself may get repetitive over time, but at the moment I’m still having lots of fun with it.

I have encountered one glitch – a visual bug where, for some reason, much of the bridge disappeared. This happened when the ship sustained heavy damage; I haven’t played far enough into the game and its various missions to know whether this will be a reoccurring problem or not, but I thought it worth mentioning here.

A graphical glitch I encountered while playing Star Trek: Bridge Crew.

I’m going to spend some more time with Bridge Crew over the upcoming days and weeks. I absolutely adore its faithful recreation of the bridge of the Enterprise-D from the DLC, and sitting in the captain’s chair on that bridge is a longstanding fantasy of mine! I’ve been lucky to sit in a recreation of The Original Series’ bridge twice – the first time in 1996, when Star Trek: The Exhibition came to the UK, and for a second time two decades later in 2016 at another event with the same title in Blackpool, also in the UK. Despite the same name, these two events were completely different. I’ve never been able to take Captain Picard’s seat on the bridge of the Enterprise-D, though, and with The Next Generation being my introduction to the franchise, and the series that first hooked me in, I’ve always wanted to have that experience. Bridge Crew got me as close to that as I’m likely to get any time soon, so for that alone I really appreciate what it has to offer.

Commanding the Enterprise-D from the captain’s chair has long been a fantasy of mine!

It’s a shame I missed Bridge Crew first time around. But it’s nice to have a new Star Trek game to get stuck into. I’m always hopeful that the franchise will produce a fun game, and while Bridge Crew has its limitations, and is really designed to be played in a specific way, it still seems like a lot of fun right now.

When I’ve spent some more time with the game I’ll check back in, but I wanted to say something about it while it’s still on sale – 50% off on the Steam version on PC – in case anyone else who missed out wanted a chance to pick it up.

Star Trek: Bridge Crew is available now on PC and PlayStation 4. Star Trek: Bridge Crew is the copyright of Red Storm Entertainment and Ubisoft. The Star Trek franchise is the copyright of ViacomCBS. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.