Very recently someone I know picked up a copy of the newly released Viking: Battle for Asgard, and having gotten quite of bit of time with the title a bit of a discussion was sparked. Viking is far from a bad game. It has a very rewarding combat system, it tells a tale that could only be described as epic (derivative, but epic) and it manages to tie in an interesting role-playing quest system to tie the bow on the package. My time with it was well enjoyed, and it was more time than I had assumed, as the game took upwards of 12-15 hours of playing to complete which now-a-days is a bit longer than the norm.
As a matter of fact, this game tossed a lot of my assumptions out the window. I hadn’t particularly heard much about it, but what I had heard gave me the impression that is was a generic God of War knock-off that wouldn’t play well or amount to any fun. That was a poor assumption, as quite of bit of fun came from this game, it played quite well and it was generally a good experience. Especially the large scale army battles. Those were intense.
This is where my interest was piqued, though. Battle for Asgard is, as I said, far from a bad game. However, it’s definitely not a great game either. It’s reviews have been all over the board; some good, some bad and mostly mediocre. This leaves me wondering, what’s wrong with a game being mediocre? The reality is that most people will look at the reviews and see that it’s received a 6.7 on Metacritic and simply pass the game up.
In my opinion, this is a travesty. Not because Viking is the must play game of 2008 (far from it, in fact), but because there’s really nothing wrong with “mediocre” games. They aren’t bad, they just aren’t as good as the heavy hitters out there. That doesn’t mean they aren’t fun though. This is a point I feel we’re missing a lot in today’s gaming community. If a game isn’t a triple A production than it’s not worth your time, even if it is fun or entertaining to play. Isn’t that what we want when we play video games? Sometimes I don’t want a masterpiece; sometimes I want to just sit around with a friend and enjoy playing a game. And besides, there’s no way that ever game out there will be the same quality as the best. Essentially, mediocrity is inevitable.
It’s one reason why I feel our review systems for games are broken. Scores should not be what people pay attention to, as they don’t really tell you anything about the game. Viking might not be a “10″ or even an “8″, but that doesn’t really matter. Viking is a fun game and that’s what matters. My belief is that there is a place in the industry for games like this, however the market doesn’t particularly allow for it because of a generalized review mechanic. Some places are getting rid of numbers, yes, but a letter will gain the same connotation as numbers do. Obviously there’s nothing I can do to “fix” the way reviews are done, but I do feel that just because a game gets a 5 doesn’t mean it should be skipped, and Viking proves that point.
