Games I Don't Get

I play quite a few games. Whether it be a platformer, shooter, RPG, action, adventure or anything else, I've at least tried it. For the most part I adapt rather quickly to a video game; its' controls, its' flow, its' story. I understand what it's trying to do and I go along with it. However, there are only a handful that have failed to click with me. I remember them well due to their praise among critics and enthusiasts alike. For me, I fail to understand how these "pinnacles of gaming" are, in fact, that. I'm not saying they're bad games, I'm just saying I'm missing the point and there doesn't seem to be any way to simply define why they are so great to me.

Bastion (Xbox 360, PC - 2011)
This is a more recent example. Going into Bastion I knew it was coming out, and I heard an enormous amount of praise it received. After trying the demo it gave me pausing. I said to myself 'this seems good, but it's not for me.' So, like many of us I waited until the $15 price tag became a $7.50 one during a sale, at which point I picked it up. To me, Bastion has a good art style, some okay music, good storytelling of a basic story, but has mediocre combat and poor leveling mechanics for an RPG. I find the game to be boring, slow and not all that interesting. I can honestly only play the game for what seems like a half hour at a time once every couple of months because there is simply no drive for me to play it. I would appreciate it if someone out there would tell me what makes this game so exceptional, because I'm certainly not seeing it.

Rayman Origins (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Wii - 2011; PC, Vita, 3DS - 2012)
Another recent example. While some call it the best platformer of 2011, I call it fun at times, frustrating at others. While Rayman Origins is very pretty and has some delightful tracks, I find that the levels are a bit too long and the controls are a tiny bit at odds with the physics presented. I think Rayman Origins is a legitimately good game, but I would hardly call it exceptional. I know the prime example for this is Super Mario 3D Land, but I wouldn't agree. The prime example is New Super Mario Bros. Wii. To me, New Super Mario Bros. Wii doesn't try to overstay its' welcome. In Rayman Origins it feels like every level takes a minimum of 10 minutes to complete, and it becomes a chore to play the same level for that long. Platformers in general have gone to quick, short burst level types to keep players engaged in something new and exciting. Because of the length, Rayman Origins doesn't hold my interest for very long, and makes me wonder how people put up with it.

ICO (Playstation 2 - 2002, Playstation 3 - 2011)
I like quiet, slow-paced games that are by and large puzzle-based. I waited a long time to play ICO, and when I finally did play it in 2011 in HD, I was very disappointed. The game doesn't feel all that well thought out besides the hand-holding mechanic. People have said 'oh, you're a small kid, so the combat is supposed to suck.' Tell me, why does that sound like a good idea for a game? Games are supposed to be enjoyable, are they not? Why should bad be acceptable for a core gameplay mechanic? Especially when small kids in video games have been shown to be exceedingly powerful before? I don't really think there's a good excuse here. When you have to do something to advance, the mechanics surround said advancement should not only be engaging, but good and feel like you're actually making it work. ICO doesn't work in this regard. For me, it's a shame since I wanted to love it, but it wouldn't let me.

Half-Life 2 (PC - 2005)
This one is going to make a lot of people hate me, but I think Half-Life 2's problem is its' pacing. While there are some nice parts to it, they are mostly marred with a lot of padding revolving around travel. These ares are long, boring, tedious and ultimately unnecessary. While some argue its' Valve's attempt to create a 'cohesive world' I argue that you can do so without padding, especially if there's still a bit of loading that occurs during the game. To me, Half-Life 2 isn't that enjoyable, and is definitely the low mark of the series. Some enjoy it, but I just can't stay awake long enough to appreciate it.

These are only a few examples of games I don't get. There are some I'm forgetting sure, and there were definitely some I felt this way about during the NES era of games. Unfortunately those games were just bad and my memory of them were correct in thinking they were unjust. Everyone has games like these, but it doesn't make me less of a gamer for not understanding why they are good.