This weekend I went on something of a Rock Band binge: I finally got the money/XBLA points to pay for the licenses that will enable music exportation from RB 1+2. Thus, this weekend has been a case of wailing on and on so much I'm surprised the neighbors didn't knock down my door thinking someone inside was getting murdered.
There's a lot I like about RB3: I like how it completely updates the concept so much that going back to RB1+2 is completely impossible. I like how the music library keeps best scores. I like the amusing cut-scenes. I like the afore-mentioned music exportation. I like the challenges scattered throughout and how they unlock additional items in the store. I like how the user can assess the tunes they just did and how it can affect future games. And the presence of the Spades challenges make for a fun addition too.
One problem though is that there seems a sense that multiple players are a necessity. RB1 did this as well but RB2 made it more accommodating to the single player making it possible to still play and complete the game even if you were a friendless grump. But to take that away from the player is indeed a problem - indeed insulting to make it an expectation of the player.
And why can I only have one band? Again, this seems more of a holdover from RB1 when it should be a holdover from RB2. Taking away something that worked is not really a good move for sequels.
These are small things but to me they seem like backwards step - which is surprising considering how much improvements RB3 makes over it's predecessors.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Dirty Dozen
Another scrap of information has emerged about the upcoming Mass Effect 3: It would seem that the crew numbers in ME3 will be smaller than that in Mass Effect 2.
I'm disappointed by this to say the least. I really enjoyed the large crew in ME2 and felt it was one thing that really made ME2 stand out as an RPG. To enlarge the crew from six to twelve (ten in game + Zaeed and Kausmi) was a great move - therefore going back to six seems more like a backward step in more ways than one.
As said before, ME2 was for me gaming's equivalent of the Dirty Dozen: You take twelve characters and you spend the majority of the game forging them into a fighting unit. And along the way, you learn a lot about each of them in turn - indeed, the loyalty missions were a masterstroke on Bioware's part, allowing the gamer to find out about each of his crew and taking them on a mission which changes them forever.
Now some may say that small cast would offer more focus when compared a large cast that may prove to be unwieldy - indeed, the only other RPG I can think of with a cast number in double figures would be Final Fantasy 6 (14) - but it is indeed a credit to Bioware that they put a lot of attention to each of the Loyalty mission and make sure the player actually cared about those people who's come to fight beside Shepard.
Also the large cast also adds variety in selection - indeed too often does it happen in RPGs that the player just picks the same party members each time. Indeed, it's fun to see different combinations in different battles. Likewise, the large crew also expands the interior of the Normandy - I heard someone think the Normandy became over-crowded but I don't think so: The large crew with their own areas made the ship look big and well-populated.
Still, no matter how much complaining I'm willing to do, there's no denying that Bioware have their hands on the wheel and we're all just going for the ride.
Damn....
I mean if I knew this was going to happen, then what was the bloody point of me going to the trouble of having everyone alive by the end of ME2?!
I'm disappointed by this to say the least. I really enjoyed the large crew in ME2 and felt it was one thing that really made ME2 stand out as an RPG. To enlarge the crew from six to twelve (ten in game + Zaeed and Kausmi) was a great move - therefore going back to six seems more like a backward step in more ways than one.
As said before, ME2 was for me gaming's equivalent of the Dirty Dozen: You take twelve characters and you spend the majority of the game forging them into a fighting unit. And along the way, you learn a lot about each of them in turn - indeed, the loyalty missions were a masterstroke on Bioware's part, allowing the gamer to find out about each of his crew and taking them on a mission which changes them forever.
Now some may say that small cast would offer more focus when compared a large cast that may prove to be unwieldy - indeed, the only other RPG I can think of with a cast number in double figures would be Final Fantasy 6 (14) - but it is indeed a credit to Bioware that they put a lot of attention to each of the Loyalty mission and make sure the player actually cared about those people who's come to fight beside Shepard.
Also the large cast also adds variety in selection - indeed too often does it happen in RPGs that the player just picks the same party members each time. Indeed, it's fun to see different combinations in different battles. Likewise, the large crew also expands the interior of the Normandy - I heard someone think the Normandy became over-crowded but I don't think so: The large crew with their own areas made the ship look big and well-populated.
Still, no matter how much complaining I'm willing to do, there's no denying that Bioware have their hands on the wheel and we're all just going for the ride.
Damn....
I mean if I knew this was going to happen, then what was the bloody point of me going to the trouble of having everyone alive by the end of ME2?!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Don't you think I look cute in this hat?!
I've been playing Dragon Age 2 lately and so far so good. Granted I've heard a lot of bad things about this and I've taken them into account - never a wise move but I must concede that in some cases it pays to be fore-warned. In any case, I'll guess I'll keep pushing on and when the bad stuff happens at least I'll be prepared for it.
Now let's talk about the romance sub-plot - No holding it off any longer I suppose. I've set my male Hawke on a path to seduce Isabela. Considering what I've previously said about the same-sex relationships this may not come as surprise that I'm doing a het romance. But really, it was more accident than design: I just happened to come across Isabela first and liked her character. As for the other potential romantic candidates, Anders and Fenris got in late and Merril...has yet to be encountered.
Still, romancing Isabela was my choice in my game and I'm going with it. So more power to me :)
But there was one moment that didn't sit well with me: At one point, Anders asked me question with three responses. Two of them were romantic options and the other involved being a prick. Being committed to winning over Isabela I went with the third option.
Now I've previously commented on the absurdity of the romantic sub-plot getting more attention than necessary and, as a result, this moment left a nasty taste in the mouth: It seemed that the romantic sub-plot was less an optional sub-plot and more a necessity.
This doesn't work on several accounts: Firstly, back in Baldur's Gate such a sub-plot was something to do and give the player something to add to their character. By comparison, it seems that if you're unwilling to hit on particular characters in DA2, the game is just to go into a big sulk and punish you for making such a dumb decision.
Secondly, whilst the first DA provided plenty of responses in conversation, DA2 offers a dialogue wheel. Thus such confines mean that being friendly with party members is pretty much an open invitation for them to hit on you (indeed, I had the same problem with Mass Effect 2). This is indeed frustrating and restrictive in the terms of party interaction.
And thirdly, there is the nasty feeling that what was once an option is now compulsory. Now I've loved Bioware RPG's for offering a lot of freedom and options in developing a unique character in the player's own way but to place them in a position where you're forced into a) being a prick or b) having a romantic partner decided for you is indeed a step backwards. What if you don't want to? The game punishes you for it? That doesn't seem a leave a lot of choice
Perhaps in a way it is fitting that the sub-plot has garnered more attention than the actual game :\
A cynical view would be that Bioware put more time and effort into the romantic sub-plot than the rest of the game. Yet I wonder how great a truth lies in that statement....
Now let's talk about the romance sub-plot - No holding it off any longer I suppose. I've set my male Hawke on a path to seduce Isabela. Considering what I've previously said about the same-sex relationships this may not come as surprise that I'm doing a het romance. But really, it was more accident than design: I just happened to come across Isabela first and liked her character. As for the other potential romantic candidates, Anders and Fenris got in late and Merril...has yet to be encountered.
Still, romancing Isabela was my choice in my game and I'm going with it. So more power to me :)
But there was one moment that didn't sit well with me: At one point, Anders asked me question with three responses. Two of them were romantic options and the other involved being a prick. Being committed to winning over Isabela I went with the third option.
Now I've previously commented on the absurdity of the romantic sub-plot getting more attention than necessary and, as a result, this moment left a nasty taste in the mouth: It seemed that the romantic sub-plot was less an optional sub-plot and more a necessity.
This doesn't work on several accounts: Firstly, back in Baldur's Gate such a sub-plot was something to do and give the player something to add to their character. By comparison, it seems that if you're unwilling to hit on particular characters in DA2, the game is just to go into a big sulk and punish you for making such a dumb decision.
Secondly, whilst the first DA provided plenty of responses in conversation, DA2 offers a dialogue wheel. Thus such confines mean that being friendly with party members is pretty much an open invitation for them to hit on you (indeed, I had the same problem with Mass Effect 2). This is indeed frustrating and restrictive in the terms of party interaction.
And thirdly, there is the nasty feeling that what was once an option is now compulsory. Now I've loved Bioware RPG's for offering a lot of freedom and options in developing a unique character in the player's own way but to place them in a position where you're forced into a) being a prick or b) having a romantic partner decided for you is indeed a step backwards. What if you don't want to? The game punishes you for it? That doesn't seem a leave a lot of choice
Perhaps in a way it is fitting that the sub-plot has garnered more attention than the actual game :\
A cynical view would be that Bioware put more time and effort into the romantic sub-plot than the rest of the game. Yet I wonder how great a truth lies in that statement....
Monday, May 23, 2011
Director's Cut
Recently I got picked up the original Soul Calibur on XBLA. I played the original when it was on the Sega Dreamcast (SHUT UP) and thought it was quite impressive - even when stacked up against it's then little brother SC3. So how does it look now being played on the 360?
In all honesty? I have no idea.
Well, lets go with the good: This is definitely a game that has aged well - which is an impressive feat as video-games are a medium wherein things seem to age quicker than a Mayfly. The graphics hold up really well, even for a sixth generation console, and, dare I say it, looks more attractive than Soul Calibur's recent incarnations. And having these gorgeous visuals in HD is even more sweeter.
But there are problems too: Firstly the lack of online play is an exclusion that leans on the near-crippling. And whilst having everything unlocked was a nice idea at first (particularly someone like me who couldn't get those last pieces of artwork), it does make it clear that repeated plays are now redundant. And the Mission Mode has been thrown out for no better reason - all of which makes one wonder why XBLA even bothered to dust off this game for inclusion.
But I'm annoyed that the Opening Direction was taken out. I'm sorry but I would like to defend the Opening Direction and say it was one of my favorite inclusions in the Dreamcast incarnation.
What did I like about it? Simple: for the first time,l the player actually had a say in what had previously been off limits. As I mentioned previously in my post on the best intros of the 16-bit era, an intro to a videogame has the unenviable task of grabbing the gamer's attention and make them want to play the game in question. It's a tall order considering gamer attentions has been forged over the years to have a capacity greater than five minutes - Indeed, many impressive intros have given way to lousy games that suckered many a gamer in long enough before they realised they got screwed.
But what made Soul Calibur's opening special was that for once the gamer actually had a say as to what happens in the opening. Sure it was a case of placing characters at particular points for their portraits and/or to pose with their weapons but to be granted that freedom in an area where the player just and to sit and enjoy the lovely cinematic was indeed a privilege worth grasping with both hands. As such I made many intros with this feature and it never got dull.
It is indeed odd that this unique feature got removed - particularly at a point when games these days are offering a lot more freedoms to the player that were previously unattainable. Indeed, it makes me wonder why I bothered with this XBLA downloaded particularly when I still have a working Dreamcast and the original Soul Calibur.
....And stop laughing
In all honesty? I have no idea.
Well, lets go with the good: This is definitely a game that has aged well - which is an impressive feat as video-games are a medium wherein things seem to age quicker than a Mayfly. The graphics hold up really well, even for a sixth generation console, and, dare I say it, looks more attractive than Soul Calibur's recent incarnations. And having these gorgeous visuals in HD is even more sweeter.
But there are problems too: Firstly the lack of online play is an exclusion that leans on the near-crippling. And whilst having everything unlocked was a nice idea at first (particularly someone like me who couldn't get those last pieces of artwork), it does make it clear that repeated plays are now redundant. And the Mission Mode has been thrown out for no better reason - all of which makes one wonder why XBLA even bothered to dust off this game for inclusion.
But I'm annoyed that the Opening Direction was taken out. I'm sorry but I would like to defend the Opening Direction and say it was one of my favorite inclusions in the Dreamcast incarnation.
What did I like about it? Simple: for the first time,l the player actually had a say in what had previously been off limits. As I mentioned previously in my post on the best intros of the 16-bit era, an intro to a videogame has the unenviable task of grabbing the gamer's attention and make them want to play the game in question. It's a tall order considering gamer attentions has been forged over the years to have a capacity greater than five minutes - Indeed, many impressive intros have given way to lousy games that suckered many a gamer in long enough before they realised they got screwed.
But what made Soul Calibur's opening special was that for once the gamer actually had a say as to what happens in the opening. Sure it was a case of placing characters at particular points for their portraits and/or to pose with their weapons but to be granted that freedom in an area where the player just and to sit and enjoy the lovely cinematic was indeed a privilege worth grasping with both hands. As such I made many intros with this feature and it never got dull.
It is indeed odd that this unique feature got removed - particularly at a point when games these days are offering a lot more freedoms to the player that were previously unattainable. Indeed, it makes me wonder why I bothered with this XBLA downloaded particularly when I still have a working Dreamcast and the original Soul Calibur.
....And stop laughing
Friday, May 20, 2011
The only battle worth fighting for
Well how about that? This blog is now one year old! Sure I've just been rambling on and on and no one is really reading this waste of Internet space but the hell: Any milestone is worth celebrating. So to mark this event, lets talk Achievements.
It's a controversial subject that everyone seems to have an opinion about so here's mine:
As a gamer, I find the XBLA Achievements and the PS3 trophies to be both something of mixed blessing: On one hand, you are being rewarded for playing and for doing something cool but on the other, you are ultimately being driven towards something superficial.
There are a few things that I feel work with these achievements.
For one, it brings a sense of challenge: It's great to play a game you like and to be rewarded for doing something interesting is all the better for it. And many games, like Mass Effect, Rock Band and Red Dead Redemption, boast achievements that can actually effect the way the game is played.
For two, it adds credibility. Whereas on previous consoles when you did something interesting/challenging and you told your friends, it was solely your word. Now, with achievements any claims can be backed up with hard evidence.
And for three, it's something of a social element. Indeed, when I add friends to my XBLA account, I like to compare scores with the games we've played and see how our progress matching up with each other. And bragging rights are always fun.
But on the other hand, there is still a lot that this concept does wrong and no amount of praise can overcome.
Firstly, challenges are fun and it’s always a welcome surprise to do something and unexpectedly get a shiny gold star for doing so. But somehow gaining an achievement just for the sake of progression is kinda dumb. I ask you: so what? Anyone can do that is making into an achievement is pointless and baffling as to why it’s made so special. Sure getting an achievement for completing a game is acceptable but to get one after so much progression is kinda daft. More so when the achievement is watching a cinematic and requires very little effort on the player!
Secondly, whilst having a large achievement score is fun for bragging rights, it does raise the issue of how the score got so big. Indeed, I heard someone on XBLA racked up a score of 1,000,000! An impressive feat to behold yes but to do that one would have to play literally thousands of games (as such it’s believed that the user in question wasn’t one person but a whole group of people).
And thousands of games would certainly include the lousy ones.
So what’s the point? Previously if you played a game that you ended up hating and was ridiculed, then only you would know about it. With the advent of online profiles, everyone can now see what you’ve been playing and secret shames can’t be ignored or hidden.
And if you’re playing a game just to rack up your achievement score then something really is wrong. The key word here is FUN! That’s why we play games and achievements are (more or less) there to add to it. Seriously, if you’re playing a game for any reason related to FUN value then maybe it’s time to go out and do something else. Like getting laid. Or jumping in front of a bus.
Thirdly, what is really the point? Bragging rights are nice and well – and it is indeed fun to match one’s progress between friends, but considering the effort that is usually put into scoring one achievement, what exactly is the payoff? A score you can’t do anything else with? If that’s the case then what was the bloody point then?
In the terms of a payoff, the games I feel that do achievements well are Sid Meier’s Pirates and Super Smash Brothers Brawl. The former has achievements that can lead to game money used to unlock artwork and videos whilst the latter boasts achievements that unlock a full range of trophies. Ironically, neither game is on the XBLA or the PSN [*]
Fourthly, what effect is this going to have in the long term? As this blog has made clear many times before, I take things at my own pace and prefer to discover things in my own time and see things with fresh eyes. I take great pride in this and have often found that anything can be awesome even when many people have trodden the same road long before. Anyone who checks my XBLA profile (Death Jester558 for the curious) will know nearly all of my achievements have no date attached. Why? I don’t care when I did it – why should I when IF is more important.
And when you think about it, what will happen in ten years or so? Will XBLA carry into subsequent generations? Will people with big scores now have an even bigger score by 2021? Would anything you did in 2007-9 be kept as a record – and more importantly would anyone care?
All of this is speculation – no one knows for sure. And therein lies the rub: Racking up a big achievement score may be all well and good now but what will it matter years later?
Ultimately through, if you’re scoring achievements because you love the game in question then good for you. If you’re not in for the fun value and doing something that’s ultimately meaningless and/or in the name of a large score then do us both a favour and piss off.
Thank you.
[*] well maybe not SMP but I played the original Xbox version as opposed to the one on XBLA so I wouldn’t know the difference
It's a controversial subject that everyone seems to have an opinion about so here's mine:
As a gamer, I find the XBLA Achievements and the PS3 trophies to be both something of mixed blessing: On one hand, you are being rewarded for playing and for doing something cool but on the other, you are ultimately being driven towards something superficial.
There are a few things that I feel work with these achievements.
For one, it brings a sense of challenge: It's great to play a game you like and to be rewarded for doing something interesting is all the better for it. And many games, like Mass Effect, Rock Band and Red Dead Redemption, boast achievements that can actually effect the way the game is played.
For two, it adds credibility. Whereas on previous consoles when you did something interesting/challenging and you told your friends, it was solely your word. Now, with achievements any claims can be backed up with hard evidence.
And for three, it's something of a social element. Indeed, when I add friends to my XBLA account, I like to compare scores with the games we've played and see how our progress matching up with each other. And bragging rights are always fun.
But on the other hand, there is still a lot that this concept does wrong and no amount of praise can overcome.
Firstly, challenges are fun and it’s always a welcome surprise to do something and unexpectedly get a shiny gold star for doing so. But somehow gaining an achievement just for the sake of progression is kinda dumb. I ask you: so what? Anyone can do that is making into an achievement is pointless and baffling as to why it’s made so special. Sure getting an achievement for completing a game is acceptable but to get one after so much progression is kinda daft. More so when the achievement is watching a cinematic and requires very little effort on the player!
Secondly, whilst having a large achievement score is fun for bragging rights, it does raise the issue of how the score got so big. Indeed, I heard someone on XBLA racked up a score of 1,000,000! An impressive feat to behold yes but to do that one would have to play literally thousands of games (as such it’s believed that the user in question wasn’t one person but a whole group of people).
And thousands of games would certainly include the lousy ones.
So what’s the point? Previously if you played a game that you ended up hating and was ridiculed, then only you would know about it. With the advent of online profiles, everyone can now see what you’ve been playing and secret shames can’t be ignored or hidden.
And if you’re playing a game just to rack up your achievement score then something really is wrong. The key word here is FUN! That’s why we play games and achievements are (more or less) there to add to it. Seriously, if you’re playing a game for any reason related to FUN value then maybe it’s time to go out and do something else. Like getting laid. Or jumping in front of a bus.
Thirdly, what is really the point? Bragging rights are nice and well – and it is indeed fun to match one’s progress between friends, but considering the effort that is usually put into scoring one achievement, what exactly is the payoff? A score you can’t do anything else with? If that’s the case then what was the bloody point then?
In the terms of a payoff, the games I feel that do achievements well are Sid Meier’s Pirates and Super Smash Brothers Brawl. The former has achievements that can lead to game money used to unlock artwork and videos whilst the latter boasts achievements that unlock a full range of trophies. Ironically, neither game is on the XBLA or the PSN [*]
Fourthly, what effect is this going to have in the long term? As this blog has made clear many times before, I take things at my own pace and prefer to discover things in my own time and see things with fresh eyes. I take great pride in this and have often found that anything can be awesome even when many people have trodden the same road long before. Anyone who checks my XBLA profile (Death Jester558 for the curious) will know nearly all of my achievements have no date attached. Why? I don’t care when I did it – why should I when IF is more important.
And when you think about it, what will happen in ten years or so? Will XBLA carry into subsequent generations? Will people with big scores now have an even bigger score by 2021? Would anything you did in 2007-9 be kept as a record – and more importantly would anyone care?
All of this is speculation – no one knows for sure. And therein lies the rub: Racking up a big achievement score may be all well and good now but what will it matter years later?
Ultimately through, if you’re scoring achievements because you love the game in question then good for you. If you’re not in for the fun value and doing something that’s ultimately meaningless and/or in the name of a large score then do us both a favour and piss off.
Thank you.
[*] well maybe not SMP but I played the original Xbox version as opposed to the one on XBLA so I wouldn’t know the difference
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Impossible to Define
As I mentioned previously in my list of best endings a conclusion to any game can play a key role in making or breaking it completely: It is the end result of the player investing so many hours of their life (not to mention enjoyment) so a decent payoff is crucial. Thus, it is any wonder that talk of the worst game endings inspires so much disgust?
That being said, has there been a game that left me feeling robbed of victory? Why yes there has. Now you young pups can rant about half-arsed game endings but truth be told, you don't know nothing about nothing. That being said, let me tell you about game I played on the Commmodore 64 called Impossible Mission 2.
For the uninitiated, IM2 was the sequel to a game called, funnily enough, Impossible Mission (not to be confused with the TV/movie series Mission: Impossible). Released in 1984, IM pitted an athletic secret agent, controlled by the player, running & jumping his way through a huge multi-story building and outwitting an army of intelligent robots. The ultimate goal was to search each room and find pieces of a puzzle that, when placed together, will eventually reveal a password to outsmart the game's antagonist - a mad scientist by the name of Dr. Elvin Atombender who's threatening to destroy the world (or something).
For it's day IM was something of a pioneer, doing things that were unheard of at the time - namely a) a combination of platforming action and head-scratching puzzles and b) the incorporation of speech in a computer game. The latter in particular, although primitive at the time, really made the game popular and provided such memorable phrases such as "Destroy him My Robots!"; "Another visitor, Stay awhile! Stay Forever!" and the unforgettable "AAAAaaaaAAAAAaaarrrGGHHHH!!!!" (seriously, how come these haven't been made into an Internet meme yet?!)
Which now brings us to IM2: a game, like many sequels, that seems doomed to remain in the shadow of the predecessor. On the plus side, it does what a true sequel and expands on the original concept: The secret agent now has a number of gadgets and devices at his disposal, the rooms in each tower section are now all themed and there are a number of new robots for the player to outwit. On the downside, the graphics look drab and uninspiring (unlike the first IM), the inital thrill of the voice synthesizing has significantly less impact and the puzzle element has been reduced almost completely - true there still remains a code to be cracked but now it's done through some bizarre system involving musical samples.
And then there is the ending: The agent cracks the code, finds a secret/central room to the building, locates the correct computer and...well..... see for yourself:
I remember seeing this when I was about 8-10 years old and I had no idea what the hell was going on. Some twenty years later and I STILL have no idea what this ending is trying to convey. What happened? What was the white shape jumping off the building? Was it the agent? His ghost? An astral projection?! And why is this whole scene being viewed on a computer monitor?!
Some people have complained about video games having vague/abrupt endings but this truly takes the cake - Indeed matters aren't helped with a question mark accompanying the declaration of The End.
However, reading the comments that accompanied that youtube clip, there is theory that the white shape is in fact Elvin Atombender, committing suicide rather than admitting defeat - the white shape was meant to be someone running in a white lab coat only the programmers ran out of time/memory to make it so. Such limitations may account for why the shape is a palette swap of the agent and why 'Elvin' seems to have the same death scream.
It's a plausible theory but that's what it is: A theory. It's doubtful that the ending will ever make sense - and certainly won't erase nearly twenty years of wondering what kind of ending was that.
Seriously, you kids today have it easy....
That being said, has there been a game that left me feeling robbed of victory? Why yes there has. Now you young pups can rant about half-arsed game endings but truth be told, you don't know nothing about nothing. That being said, let me tell you about game I played on the Commmodore 64 called Impossible Mission 2.
For the uninitiated, IM2 was the sequel to a game called, funnily enough, Impossible Mission (not to be confused with the TV/movie series Mission: Impossible). Released in 1984, IM pitted an athletic secret agent, controlled by the player, running & jumping his way through a huge multi-story building and outwitting an army of intelligent robots. The ultimate goal was to search each room and find pieces of a puzzle that, when placed together, will eventually reveal a password to outsmart the game's antagonist - a mad scientist by the name of Dr. Elvin Atombender who's threatening to destroy the world (or something).
For it's day IM was something of a pioneer, doing things that were unheard of at the time - namely a) a combination of platforming action and head-scratching puzzles and b) the incorporation of speech in a computer game. The latter in particular, although primitive at the time, really made the game popular and provided such memorable phrases such as "Destroy him My Robots!"; "Another visitor, Stay awhile! Stay Forever!" and the unforgettable "AAAAaaaaAAAAAaaarrrGGHHHH!!!!" (seriously, how come these haven't been made into an Internet meme yet?!)
Which now brings us to IM2: a game, like many sequels, that seems doomed to remain in the shadow of the predecessor. On the plus side, it does what a true sequel and expands on the original concept: The secret agent now has a number of gadgets and devices at his disposal, the rooms in each tower section are now all themed and there are a number of new robots for the player to outwit. On the downside, the graphics look drab and uninspiring (unlike the first IM), the inital thrill of the voice synthesizing has significantly less impact and the puzzle element has been reduced almost completely - true there still remains a code to be cracked but now it's done through some bizarre system involving musical samples.
And then there is the ending: The agent cracks the code, finds a secret/central room to the building, locates the correct computer and...well..... see for yourself:
I remember seeing this when I was about 8-10 years old and I had no idea what the hell was going on. Some twenty years later and I STILL have no idea what this ending is trying to convey. What happened? What was the white shape jumping off the building? Was it the agent? His ghost? An astral projection?! And why is this whole scene being viewed on a computer monitor?!
Some people have complained about video games having vague/abrupt endings but this truly takes the cake - Indeed matters aren't helped with a question mark accompanying the declaration of The End.
However, reading the comments that accompanied that youtube clip, there is theory that the white shape is in fact Elvin Atombender, committing suicide rather than admitting defeat - the white shape was meant to be someone running in a white lab coat only the programmers ran out of time/memory to make it so. Such limitations may account for why the shape is a palette swap of the agent and why 'Elvin' seems to have the same death scream.
It's a plausible theory but that's what it is: A theory. It's doubtful that the ending will ever make sense - and certainly won't erase nearly twenty years of wondering what kind of ending was that.
Seriously, you kids today have it easy....
Monday, May 16, 2011
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
Recently it has been announced that Mass Effect 3 will cave into fan pressure follow the lead of Dragon Age and incorporate the potential for a homosexual romance sub-plot.
Personally I have mixed feelings about this announcement. By comparison I am more indifferent to the possibility for gay romance in Dragon Age but if other people liked them then I shouldn't complain. After all, how one takes upon the romance sub-plot is up to the player and if they do things differently to others then that's their way of playing the game in question and more power to them.
However, in the case of ME3, I can see some problems:
1) This is coming in with the third game - indeed rather late in the saga. Thus it seems absurd for a character to suddenly decide they are gay/bisexual. I have friends who are gay/bisexual and I can tell you that how they are isn't based on a decision - it's based on genetics. No one can change who they are and to have a ME character suddenly decide to change their preference of sexual partner just seems both weird and awkward.
Indeed, it was bizarre for Dragon Age to have Anders start off as straight (Awakening) to suddenly decide he likes dicks as well (DA2). And for a series such as Mass Effect, whose strengths lie in immersion, writing and being epic, this may seem something of an backward step.
2) Suddenly the group dynamic is changed: Suddenly, Shepard is now beating off people with a stick. This has already proven a problem: Why, in my last play-through of ME2, I wanted my Shepard to turn down any romantic advances - as I wanted him to remain loyal to Ash from the first game - but this was a challenge indeed. Similarly in Dragon Age Origins, there is too much opportunity for the characters to hit on my character. By way of example, I thought Zevran from DAO hitting on anything with legs was kinda exasperating at times - and apparently I'm not alone: I heard that some gay gamers actually took offense with Zevran stating his seeming obsession with sex totally misrepresenting as to what gays are like as people.
Thus to have nearly everyone hit on Shepard in ME3 is both unrealistic and kinda silly. So Shepard able to have anyone and everyone fawning at his/her feet? Pull the other one.
3) Honestly, I think Bioware are pushing their luck: Remember when they tried to romance sub-plot for the first time? In Baldur's Gate 2? That was innovative at the time and, as such, kinda cool: It happened over the course of many conversations that could happen during and in-between questing. Like any romantic relationship, it was something that happened over a long period of time and showed, through the limits of text and voice-acting, a growing attraction Aerie/Jahiera/Viconia have for the player. In contrast, it's far more easier to get in relationship in Mass Effect - no doubt inspired by the limitations of the dialogue wheel. Thus it is too easy to have acts of friendliness being taken as romantic advances - as if it was one or the other. Which, as a series taking pride in giving the player as many options and methods to do stuff seems kinda strange.
4) Most importantly of all, I see all this attention given to the romance in Mass Effect and to be honest, I call bullshit. For fuck's sake people: It is a sub-plot! It's not something you HAVE to do and it is entirely OPTIONAL! Seriously, why would people care about their romantic partner when THERE IS A MAIN PLOT INVOLVING SAVING THE UNIVERSE?!??!?!!?!?!
*pauses to get breath back*
Personally I enjoy Mass Effect for the epic nature, writing, immersion, exploring the vast universe before me and shooting dudes - the romance sub-plot is there as an added bonus. All of which is what the game sets out to do and achieves in spades.
Seriously, if people are so enamored of the romantic sub-plot it makes me wonder why Bioware don't go the whole hog and just make a dating sim!
Personally I have mixed feelings about this announcement. By comparison I am more indifferent to the possibility for gay romance in Dragon Age but if other people liked them then I shouldn't complain. After all, how one takes upon the romance sub-plot is up to the player and if they do things differently to others then that's their way of playing the game in question and more power to them.
However, in the case of ME3, I can see some problems:
1) This is coming in with the third game - indeed rather late in the saga. Thus it seems absurd for a character to suddenly decide they are gay/bisexual. I have friends who are gay/bisexual and I can tell you that how they are isn't based on a decision - it's based on genetics. No one can change who they are and to have a ME character suddenly decide to change their preference of sexual partner just seems both weird and awkward.
Indeed, it was bizarre for Dragon Age to have Anders start off as straight (Awakening) to suddenly decide he likes dicks as well (DA2). And for a series such as Mass Effect, whose strengths lie in immersion, writing and being epic, this may seem something of an backward step.
2) Suddenly the group dynamic is changed: Suddenly, Shepard is now beating off people with a stick. This has already proven a problem: Why, in my last play-through of ME2, I wanted my Shepard to turn down any romantic advances - as I wanted him to remain loyal to Ash from the first game - but this was a challenge indeed. Similarly in Dragon Age Origins, there is too much opportunity for the characters to hit on my character. By way of example, I thought Zevran from DAO hitting on anything with legs was kinda exasperating at times - and apparently I'm not alone: I heard that some gay gamers actually took offense with Zevran stating his seeming obsession with sex totally misrepresenting as to what gays are like as people.
Thus to have nearly everyone hit on Shepard in ME3 is both unrealistic and kinda silly. So Shepard able to have anyone and everyone fawning at his/her feet? Pull the other one.
3) Honestly, I think Bioware are pushing their luck: Remember when they tried to romance sub-plot for the first time? In Baldur's Gate 2? That was innovative at the time and, as such, kinda cool: It happened over the course of many conversations that could happen during and in-between questing. Like any romantic relationship, it was something that happened over a long period of time and showed, through the limits of text and voice-acting, a growing attraction Aerie/Jahiera/Viconia have for the player. In contrast, it's far more easier to get in relationship in Mass Effect - no doubt inspired by the limitations of the dialogue wheel. Thus it is too easy to have acts of friendliness being taken as romantic advances - as if it was one or the other. Which, as a series taking pride in giving the player as many options and methods to do stuff seems kinda strange.
4) Most importantly of all, I see all this attention given to the romance in Mass Effect and to be honest, I call bullshit. For fuck's sake people: It is a sub-plot! It's not something you HAVE to do and it is entirely OPTIONAL! Seriously, why would people care about their romantic partner when THERE IS A MAIN PLOT INVOLVING SAVING THE UNIVERSE?!??!?!!?!?!
*pauses to get breath back*
Personally I enjoy Mass Effect for the epic nature, writing, immersion, exploring the vast universe before me and shooting dudes - the romance sub-plot is there as an added bonus. All of which is what the game sets out to do and achieves in spades.
Seriously, if people are so enamored of the romantic sub-plot it makes me wonder why Bioware don't go the whole hog and just make a dating sim!
Monday, May 9, 2011
Wii can do it 2!
Apparently it's official: Nintendo have a successor to the Wii heading our way: Project Cafe Thus I present some thoughts on the matter:
- With a new console (reportedly more powerful than the 360), it's fair to say that the eighth generation of consoles is on the horizon. After all, it's been five years which, as history has proven, is the usual time for a new one. Strangely, I thought this current one would be lasting longer than before: We have HD, we have awesome visuals that probably aren't going to get any better, we have stacks of games available and we have embraced the potential of downloaded material. Where can we possibly go from here?
- I must admit I was surprised by the announcement of a successor: I would've figured that Nintendo would abandon the console concept altogether in favor of putting all their weight behind the 3DS. But it would appear not...
- Backwards compatibility is fine with Wii software but is that it? What about the Gamecube games i have? What about the Virtual Console titles I downloaded (of which they've been plenty)? I like how the 360 is arranged with profiles and how it recalls everything downloaded to the hard drive. This system it seems set to be implemented into the new Xbox (when/if it comes...) without too much trouble.
So how would Project Cafe this effect my DLC for my Wii?
- And while we're talking about the Virtual Console, how about expanding the concept? I want to see Saturn titles appear. Nintendo can't really deny (as much as they'd like to) that the VC has been a key asset in the Wii's success and there's no reason to discontinue it. Indeed with the competition catching up, in the form of the PSN and XBLA, Nintendo would be a fool to abandon this idea.
- And if the Wii is starting on the way out, does this mean we'll finally see a drop in price for Super Mario Galaxy? >:(
Ultimately though it's too early to form an opinion on Nintendo's new beast so most of this is speculation. And I doubt such a large corporation would pay any attention to grumpy bloggers like myself.
Oh well....
- With a new console (reportedly more powerful than the 360), it's fair to say that the eighth generation of consoles is on the horizon. After all, it's been five years which, as history has proven, is the usual time for a new one. Strangely, I thought this current one would be lasting longer than before: We have HD, we have awesome visuals that probably aren't going to get any better, we have stacks of games available and we have embraced the potential of downloaded material. Where can we possibly go from here?
- I must admit I was surprised by the announcement of a successor: I would've figured that Nintendo would abandon the console concept altogether in favor of putting all their weight behind the 3DS. But it would appear not...
- Backwards compatibility is fine with Wii software but is that it? What about the Gamecube games i have? What about the Virtual Console titles I downloaded (of which they've been plenty)? I like how the 360 is arranged with profiles and how it recalls everything downloaded to the hard drive. This system it seems set to be implemented into the new Xbox (when/if it comes...) without too much trouble.
So how would Project Cafe this effect my DLC for my Wii?
- And while we're talking about the Virtual Console, how about expanding the concept? I want to see Saturn titles appear. Nintendo can't really deny (as much as they'd like to) that the VC has been a key asset in the Wii's success and there's no reason to discontinue it. Indeed with the competition catching up, in the form of the PSN and XBLA, Nintendo would be a fool to abandon this idea.
- And if the Wii is starting on the way out, does this mean we'll finally see a drop in price for Super Mario Galaxy? >:(
Ultimately though it's too early to form an opinion on Nintendo's new beast so most of this is speculation. And I doubt such a large corporation would pay any attention to grumpy bloggers like myself.
Oh well....
Friday, May 6, 2011
Shining Star
Another game has been struck down from the Hall of Shame - Phantasy Star 4.
During the sixteen-bit era (largely regarded by some as the Golden Age of Gaming), whilst Nintendo had Final Fantasy, Sega had Phantasy Star. At that time, I had heard of both but it didn't go further beyond the names. It's ironic considering that Final Fantasy, of course, would go on to become inescapable - but what of the other camp?
Well having played PS4, I have to say I was impressed. I didn't know the Megadrive/Genesis for having any RPGs but this was indeed a treat. It was well presented, the plot was compelling, the characters likable, the whole thing was well-written.
There are signs this game was a labor of love and it shows: The graphics were gorgeous to say the least - I particularly enjoyed how the plot was conveyed through comic-strip style imagery. The combat was great and well thought out. Also pleasing is how the writers really worked hard to wrap up everything that had come in the previous Phantasy Star - even throwing in more than a few allusions - and bring the series to an excellent resolution.
And special mention must go to the music: I have a problem with Megadrive soundtracks in that they tend to date rather horribly but the music to Phantasy Star 4 - along with Golden Axe 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog - still holds up pretty well some seventeen years later.
It's not to say PS4 was without it's quibbles: The leveling up happened so quickly the challenge died away (indeed, I defeated the last boss on my first try!) - which is a bit odd as the Phantasy Star series has enjoyed a fearsome reputation of being one of the most the difficult RPGs ever made. And the encounter rate was stupidly high that traveling the worlds was a slow and annoying process.
Still, I enjoyed Phantasy Star 4 - and it is indeed admirable that it ended the way it did in an age where franchises are run into the ground (not least of which is PS's formal rival).
And so I come away with this game being not only is it the best of the series but both one of the Megadrive's finest moments and one of the best RPGs of it's era.
Good enough reason for it to stand tall with it's head held high.
During the sixteen-bit era (largely regarded by some as the Golden Age of Gaming), whilst Nintendo had Final Fantasy, Sega had Phantasy Star. At that time, I had heard of both but it didn't go further beyond the names. It's ironic considering that Final Fantasy, of course, would go on to become inescapable - but what of the other camp?
Well having played PS4, I have to say I was impressed. I didn't know the Megadrive/Genesis for having any RPGs but this was indeed a treat. It was well presented, the plot was compelling, the characters likable, the whole thing was well-written.
There are signs this game was a labor of love and it shows: The graphics were gorgeous to say the least - I particularly enjoyed how the plot was conveyed through comic-strip style imagery. The combat was great and well thought out. Also pleasing is how the writers really worked hard to wrap up everything that had come in the previous Phantasy Star - even throwing in more than a few allusions - and bring the series to an excellent resolution.
And special mention must go to the music: I have a problem with Megadrive soundtracks in that they tend to date rather horribly but the music to Phantasy Star 4 - along with Golden Axe 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog - still holds up pretty well some seventeen years later.
It's not to say PS4 was without it's quibbles: The leveling up happened so quickly the challenge died away (indeed, I defeated the last boss on my first try!) - which is a bit odd as the Phantasy Star series has enjoyed a fearsome reputation of being one of the most the difficult RPGs ever made. And the encounter rate was stupidly high that traveling the worlds was a slow and annoying process.
Still, I enjoyed Phantasy Star 4 - and it is indeed admirable that it ended the way it did in an age where franchises are run into the ground (not least of which is PS's formal rival).
And so I come away with this game being not only is it the best of the series but both one of the Megadrive's finest moments and one of the best RPGs of it's era.
Good enough reason for it to stand tall with it's head held high.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Where There's a Will
Whilst I have yet to play Bioshock, I am well aware of the thinking that went into it - Not that I could escape it anyway. Much has been made of how the makers were inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand and it’s implementation of the concept of free will into the game mechanics. I like the idea of the gamer having their perceptions challenged through their actions and the game progression – and it would seem that game makers are following suite.
I’m also interested in games that pull the rug out from under the player: leading them for on so long before the gradual introduction of an idea that challenges the gamer’s actions and makes them consider what they are doing before they realise it (ie Shadow of the Colossus).
These two ideals seem to have given many game developers pause for thought in how convey the story they want to tell and the response they want to get out of the gamer. So, to shamelessly capitalise on these trends I present my own spin on these ideas: Using the ingredients of ‘free will’ and the ‘bond of trust’, I present my own synopsis for a game plot in the (seemingly vain) hope that someone important is reading this.
A compelling scenario and one which has the potential to work. It deconstructs the notion of free will in game and provides some spins on some gaming formulas.
If anyone would like to take up such a challenge, contact me. We’ll talk.
I’m also interested in games that pull the rug out from under the player: leading them for on so long before the gradual introduction of an idea that challenges the gamer’s actions and makes them consider what they are doing before they realise it (ie Shadow of the Colossus).
These two ideals seem to have given many game developers pause for thought in how convey the story they want to tell and the response they want to get out of the gamer. So, to shamelessly capitalise on these trends I present my own spin on these ideas: Using the ingredients of ‘free will’ and the ‘bond of trust’, I present my own synopsis for a game plot in the (seemingly vain) hope that someone important is reading this.
The game begins with a character who, for the purposes of this synopsis, is named Barry. Barry is released from something – cryogenic suspension would be the most workable source – to find himself on a medical table. Barry’s memories are jumbled and unclear but the thing he remembers the most is a glorious Hawaiian beach. However, the facility is under attack from some unknown enemy so Barry takes up arms to defend himself and to find some answers to his existence.
So far this sounds like it’s all been done before but this is but the first step towards a massive twist: As the game progresses Barry is driven only by the memory of the Hawaiian beach – the only thing he recalls and the only thing that seems closest to peace of mind. But as he progresses, Barry picks up clues to his past, suggesting he was a former secret agent and a murderer of many.
BUT! The big twist is at the end: At the end of his journey, Barry realises his journey has been a sham: he was indeed the product of scientific experiment and he was indeed released from cryogenic suspension but it wasn’t by the scientists who operated the facility: It was the antagonists he been fighting all through the game. It turns out they were some liberational force (or something) who opposed humans being operated on in such a manner. And the memory of the beach was fabricated: The one thing he been driven by doesn’t really exist at all and was merely implemented into his mind by the scientists as a test for brain research. Beyond that, his entire memory has been wiped clean.
And thus the game ends with Barry liberated from experimentation and fabricated memories. But then he makes a choice: He rejects it. Instead, Barry makes to conscious decision to return to cryogenic suspension, favouring to remain with his dream for all eternity.
A compelling scenario and one which has the potential to work. It deconstructs the notion of free will in game and provides some spins on some gaming formulas.
If anyone would like to take up such a challenge, contact me. We’ll talk.
Monday, May 2, 2011
1-2-3-4-5 Against One
Recently, my local EB had a two for one deal going so I saw it as an excuse to snap up both Rock Band 3 and Red Dead Redemption. Not bad eh?
Being a fan of Rock Band, I've been impressed with the latest incarnation insofar. Sure the excitement over music games is kinda dying down quite significantly but I like the Rock Band series. Aside it it being fun to play, I've always been impressed how each incarnation is an improvement over the last and how innovations tested in one incarnation can turn up in the next. Also pleasing is how DLC previously downloaded can be carried over into the latest incarnation, enabling the game to be continually played.
So how does RB3 stack up? Well it's great: I particularly like how progress is measured out in various tours, scoring XBLA Achievements leads to clothes and instruments being unlocked and the astonishing level of user friendliness. There is diversity indeed with the set list (not to mention some oddities) but RB is still as much fun as it's always been.
However, there are some things on a graphical/cosmetic level that bother me:
- Why is there still only four members in the Rock Band itself? This may sound quite strange but I figured the introduction of a new instrument, the keyboard, would've open up a new position for this fictional band.
As strange as it may seem, I wanted a fifth member. My band has five people in it and the box art certainly suggested a five-man band:
- Why can't my lead singer play an instrument as well? I heard this was going to be an inclusion with RB3 but it appears to be absent in the finished product. Damn....
- Being a complete nerd, I did indeed go to the effort of replicating the members of Demon Flower in RB3. It may seem daft but why not? They are my characters that I myself created and, much like Commander Shepard, it's indeed fun to see them go from RB2 into RB3 and build a history of their own along the way.
Strangely though, the character models in RB3 look....weird. Sure it may have been Harmonix's intention to implement a more realistic looking range of character models but to rebuild Spike, Sam, Robin, Evan and Jasmine makes them now look.... strange. True the RB3 model makes the members of Demon Flower look older and experienced but compared to the delightfully cartoonish models in RB2, it looks .....somewhat jarring.
Still, I should be grateful that I am playing RB3 - after all, down here in Australia RB1 was delayed by a full year and RB2 was never released AT ALL.
Be thankful for what I've got? Yes I think I will
Being a fan of Rock Band, I've been impressed with the latest incarnation insofar. Sure the excitement over music games is kinda dying down quite significantly but I like the Rock Band series. Aside it it being fun to play, I've always been impressed how each incarnation is an improvement over the last and how innovations tested in one incarnation can turn up in the next. Also pleasing is how DLC previously downloaded can be carried over into the latest incarnation, enabling the game to be continually played.
So how does RB3 stack up? Well it's great: I particularly like how progress is measured out in various tours, scoring XBLA Achievements leads to clothes and instruments being unlocked and the astonishing level of user friendliness. There is diversity indeed with the set list (not to mention some oddities) but RB is still as much fun as it's always been.
However, there are some things on a graphical/cosmetic level that bother me:
- Why is there still only four members in the Rock Band itself? This may sound quite strange but I figured the introduction of a new instrument, the keyboard, would've open up a new position for this fictional band.
As strange as it may seem, I wanted a fifth member. My band has five people in it and the box art certainly suggested a five-man band:
- Why can't my lead singer play an instrument as well? I heard this was going to be an inclusion with RB3 but it appears to be absent in the finished product. Damn....
- Being a complete nerd, I did indeed go to the effort of replicating the members of Demon Flower in RB3. It may seem daft but why not? They are my characters that I myself created and, much like Commander Shepard, it's indeed fun to see them go from RB2 into RB3 and build a history of their own along the way.
Strangely though, the character models in RB3 look....weird. Sure it may have been Harmonix's intention to implement a more realistic looking range of character models but to rebuild Spike, Sam, Robin, Evan and Jasmine makes them now look.... strange. True the RB3 model makes the members of Demon Flower look older and experienced but compared to the delightfully cartoonish models in RB2, it looks .....somewhat jarring.
Still, I should be grateful that I am playing RB3 - after all, down here in Australia RB1 was delayed by a full year and RB2 was never released AT ALL.
Be thankful for what I've got? Yes I think I will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)