I never really understood why Blizzard, upon the release of Mists of Pandaria, chose to merge all achievements across all the Player's characters.
Prior to this I enjoyed having multiple characters and each of them are doing different things. They evolved in completely different ways and frequently surprised me (as all good characters should do to their creator).
Now however, all my characters share the same achievements. If there isn't one they haven't got, it will be noted as being achieved by someone else - much like the carrot that is dangled in front of the donkey to make him haul the cart. If there was a sense of individuality, it's gone for good.
And that's what really sucks - in terms of gaining achievements throughout Azeroth my characters are now all facsimiles of each other. Granted I can see the benefit of not having to do certain tasks over and over again but somehow whatever character my characters may have built up is now gone. Naesandra rated highly in cooking - now somehow all my characters are all expected to follow suite. Indeed, it does look artificial that my character earn an achievement for something they never did.
So is that what this is? A guilt trip courtesy of Blizzard? Or just another method of making sure you keep playing?
Monday, April 29, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Mechwarrior
Here's a blast from the past: an arcade from the late eighties known as Mechanized Attack!:
They say the further you get from your childhood the more laughable products from that era become (or something like that). Now me, I grew up in the eighties and I look back at that decade fondly for some really great action movies - namely in the form of muscular action heroes and the whole 'one man army' trope.
I originally saw Mechanized Attack in it's arcade form. I thought it looked lame with baddies that were shamelessly ripping off the T-800 from the Terminator movies. That and it was friggin' hard as! I tried it and I couldn't get off the first level!
Now I'm not a fan of the whole, first-person rail shooters as they are stupidly difficult, offer tedious levels, are more less plonking you in direct line of fire with no chance of getting out and throw everything & anything at you! Of course most of these can be attributed to the eighties and the penny-pinching nature of arcades - thankfully things got better (Virtua Cop? Yes please. Operation Wolf? No thanks).
That being said, to me Mechanized Attack looks like it's taking the whole One-Man-Army trope to the most ridiculous extreme imaginable. Never mind having a horde of T-800s large enough to make Skynet envious: How the hell are the Player Characters able to withstand so much firepower? Do they have skin of steel like that of Colossus from the X-Men? What type of guns are the Player Characters using that they down battleships and Harrier jets with ease? And how big is the enemy army? What kind of resources do they have that they can call upon Harrier jets, helicopters, and so many tanks? In fact with so many war machines why would they even need to bother with having T-800 clones?
Still at least give the baddies credit: They saw a potential threat approach and figured sending Harrier jets and battleships (in the first level!) would sort him out good and proper - at least they had the foresight to send off the most powerful war machines out first
They say the further you get from your childhood the more laughable products from that era become (or something like that). Now me, I grew up in the eighties and I look back at that decade fondly for some really great action movies - namely in the form of muscular action heroes and the whole 'one man army' trope.
I originally saw Mechanized Attack in it's arcade form. I thought it looked lame with baddies that were shamelessly ripping off the T-800 from the Terminator movies. That and it was friggin' hard as! I tried it and I couldn't get off the first level!
Now I'm not a fan of the whole, first-person rail shooters as they are stupidly difficult, offer tedious levels, are more less plonking you in direct line of fire with no chance of getting out and throw everything & anything at you! Of course most of these can be attributed to the eighties and the penny-pinching nature of arcades - thankfully things got better (Virtua Cop? Yes please. Operation Wolf? No thanks).
That being said, to me Mechanized Attack looks like it's taking the whole One-Man-Army trope to the most ridiculous extreme imaginable. Never mind having a horde of T-800s large enough to make Skynet envious: How the hell are the Player Characters able to withstand so much firepower? Do they have skin of steel like that of Colossus from the X-Men? What type of guns are the Player Characters using that they down battleships and Harrier jets with ease? And how big is the enemy army? What kind of resources do they have that they can call upon Harrier jets, helicopters, and so many tanks? In fact with so many war machines why would they even need to bother with having T-800 clones?
Still at least give the baddies credit: They saw a potential threat approach and figured sending Harrier jets and battleships (in the first level!) would sort him out good and proper - at least they had the foresight to send off the most powerful war machines out first
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
East vs West
Regular visitors to this blog would know that I’m something of a connoisseur when it comes to RPGs. So the big question then is: Which do I prefer out of Western RPGS or JRPGs?
Much like any tribe, it would seem that there is no overlap: It’s either one or the other. My experience has shown that people raised on Dungeons and Dragons think JRPGs are inane whilst people who grew up with Final Fantasy tend to have little to no time for anything else.
But if the logic of 'the first one is the best one' was true then I’d lump in with Western RPGs. I grew up playing Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64 and it in turn got me interested in Dungeons and Dragons. It proved to be my gateway drug to fantasy and as a result, set me on a path to seek out familiar material – eventually leading to reading Fighting Fantasy, Chronicles of Narnia, Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings.
However that logic isn't always the case: You see what appeals to me about RPGs is more or less a replication I had when I was a child: Taking a group of heroes together and go kicking some arse in various forms: Visiting interesting locations, smashing the face in of anything dumb enough to stand in your way, growing stronger with each step, building a bond with the dudes in your party, and, well, saving the world (true many games of the era did that but only in RPGs did it present a time investment that actually felt like the effort was worth it). This may sound like nostalgia but ultimately any RPG whether from the East or West, seems to follow the same formula – it only becomes matter of how this formula can be utilized.
So what do I like about Western RPGs? I enjoy roaming around Tolkien-inspired environments, with quasi-medieval elements merged with huge monsters. I enjoy a high quality of narrative and writing that always accompanies Western RPGs. I like being an elf, complete with long hair and pointy ears. I enjoy making decisions that actually have an effect and shape the world around me. I like leading a large party of dudes (large party as in more than two) through one battle after another. I like storming into a final dungeon made to look like an extension of hell loaded with demons galore. I like seeing, and interacting with, worlds that had been from straight from the pages of Tolkien. If anything I like seeing the Dungeons and Dragons rule-set being replicated in gaming form.
That being said, is there anything I don't like about Western RPGs? Why yes: They all seem to drawing from Tolkien playbook that it gets really tiresome to see the same tropes used over and over again. Also if you, like, play enough Bioware RPGs you soon realize that they're all formulaic - come on: you can't tell me that Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins and Stars Wars KOTOR aren't running on the same blueprint.Indeed, it is rare to see one break from the formula - and rarer still to see one do so successfully (as the fans of Planescape Torment will attest).
So what does the JRPG offer to me then? Well for a start they offer a lot on technical level: I love the use of bright colours that I wouldn't see otherwise in a Western RPG. I love seeing environments that are inventive in their design. I love being swept up in a continually gorgeous soundtrack. Anything beyond that? Well, I do like how many JRPGs treat their characters and put effort into writing for them. And say what you like cinematics in a JRPG you can't deny that they're done very well. And if anything I appreciate JRPGs for being (for most of the time) an antithesis for the gritty Tolkien-inspired Western RPGs.
So then, what don't I like about JRPGs? Oh where do I start? For one, I find they don't offer a sense of non-linearity - you go in a different direction than the one the computer wants you to go in and computer gets all sulky. For two, there is very little freedom on offer when compared to Western RPGS - you're not making lasting decisions, no you're just prodding a character along a predetermined route. For three, whilst JRPGs may look great on a technical level most of it comes at the expense of the actual game part of the game. For four (?) I don't like many of the enemies in JRPGs because, more often than not, they look stupid and have equally silly names that one wonders if they're there to be taken seriously. Finally, through playing numerous JRPGs, there is the realization that they're all trying to be Final Fantasy. And don't say they're aren't lest I call upon the bullshit police. I've seen attempts to replicate the formula that made Final Fantasy work in both the likes of Phantasy Star and Skies of Arcadia. And even then Final Fantasy originated as a variation on the DnD rule-set. In fact I can't think of any areas where the formula needed improving - which may account for why little has been done with the JRPG genre since.
So in the end what can I conclude from this post? Well I can say that I see these two forms of RPGs as beverages: Western RPGs are like a fine wine and JRPGs are like red fizzy cordial - both of them are nice but there's a time and place for each of them and they're not to be conusmed all at once.
Yeah lets go with that
Much like any tribe, it would seem that there is no overlap: It’s either one or the other. My experience has shown that people raised on Dungeons and Dragons think JRPGs are inane whilst people who grew up with Final Fantasy tend to have little to no time for anything else.
But if the logic of 'the first one is the best one' was true then I’d lump in with Western RPGs. I grew up playing Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64 and it in turn got me interested in Dungeons and Dragons. It proved to be my gateway drug to fantasy and as a result, set me on a path to seek out familiar material – eventually leading to reading Fighting Fantasy, Chronicles of Narnia, Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings.
However that logic isn't always the case: You see what appeals to me about RPGs is more or less a replication I had when I was a child: Taking a group of heroes together and go kicking some arse in various forms: Visiting interesting locations, smashing the face in of anything dumb enough to stand in your way, growing stronger with each step, building a bond with the dudes in your party, and, well, saving the world (true many games of the era did that but only in RPGs did it present a time investment that actually felt like the effort was worth it). This may sound like nostalgia but ultimately any RPG whether from the East or West, seems to follow the same formula – it only becomes matter of how this formula can be utilized.
So what do I like about Western RPGs? I enjoy roaming around Tolkien-inspired environments, with quasi-medieval elements merged with huge monsters. I enjoy a high quality of narrative and writing that always accompanies Western RPGs. I like being an elf, complete with long hair and pointy ears. I enjoy making decisions that actually have an effect and shape the world around me. I like leading a large party of dudes (large party as in more than two) through one battle after another. I like storming into a final dungeon made to look like an extension of hell loaded with demons galore. I like seeing, and interacting with, worlds that had been from straight from the pages of Tolkien. If anything I like seeing the Dungeons and Dragons rule-set being replicated in gaming form.
That being said, is there anything I don't like about Western RPGs? Why yes: They all seem to drawing from Tolkien playbook that it gets really tiresome to see the same tropes used over and over again. Also if you, like, play enough Bioware RPGs you soon realize that they're all formulaic - come on: you can't tell me that Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins and Stars Wars KOTOR aren't running on the same blueprint.Indeed, it is rare to see one break from the formula - and rarer still to see one do so successfully (as the fans of Planescape Torment will attest).
So what does the JRPG offer to me then? Well for a start they offer a lot on technical level: I love the use of bright colours that I wouldn't see otherwise in a Western RPG. I love seeing environments that are inventive in their design. I love being swept up in a continually gorgeous soundtrack. Anything beyond that? Well, I do like how many JRPGs treat their characters and put effort into writing for them. And say what you like cinematics in a JRPG you can't deny that they're done very well. And if anything I appreciate JRPGs for being (for most of the time) an antithesis for the gritty Tolkien-inspired Western RPGs.
So then, what don't I like about JRPGs? Oh where do I start? For one, I find they don't offer a sense of non-linearity - you go in a different direction than the one the computer wants you to go in and computer gets all sulky. For two, there is very little freedom on offer when compared to Western RPGS - you're not making lasting decisions, no you're just prodding a character along a predetermined route. For three, whilst JRPGs may look great on a technical level most of it comes at the expense of the actual game part of the game. For four (?) I don't like many of the enemies in JRPGs because, more often than not, they look stupid and have equally silly names that one wonders if they're there to be taken seriously. Finally, through playing numerous JRPGs, there is the realization that they're all trying to be Final Fantasy. And don't say they're aren't lest I call upon the bullshit police. I've seen attempts to replicate the formula that made Final Fantasy work in both the likes of Phantasy Star and Skies of Arcadia. And even then Final Fantasy originated as a variation on the DnD rule-set. In fact I can't think of any areas where the formula needed improving - which may account for why little has been done with the JRPG genre since.
So in the end what can I conclude from this post? Well I can say that I see these two forms of RPGs as beverages: Western RPGs are like a fine wine and JRPGs are like red fizzy cordial - both of them are nice but there's a time and place for each of them and they're not to be conusmed all at once.
Yeah lets go with that
Monday, April 22, 2013
I Know You
Game developers are always saying that they want YOU, the player, to be made to feel like they're a genuine part of the experience. But as I've said before, I've never bought that: You give the PC both a face & a name and the immersion is broken. They are no longer playing a part of the narrative but are instead pushing just another avatar.
One could make the argument that anyone could fashion the avatar they control into the likeness of the player but that doesn't work for me: If the player knows they're making a PC that resembles themselves then part of the immersion is lost: You're not playing yourself - you're playing some twat who looks like you.
No, the way it should work is to not make such an intended connection obvious: I kind of like how in Spec Ops the Line the player's XBLA name is incorporated into the credits. I, of course, had no say in this and, as a result, the immersion and the notion I was genuinely playing a part in the narrative increased tenfold.
So what would I do? Well, if I were making a 'never-show-the-face'-esque first person shooter, I would make the request of the player that they take picture of themselves using a webcam of some kind. Thus, the image would be replicated in every reflective surface. I've seen such an act being performed in various sport games so why can't it be taken out into different genre? If anything, it would make the 'player playing a part' more genuine.
Whether they'd like it or not
One could make the argument that anyone could fashion the avatar they control into the likeness of the player but that doesn't work for me: If the player knows they're making a PC that resembles themselves then part of the immersion is lost: You're not playing yourself - you're playing some twat who looks like you.
No, the way it should work is to not make such an intended connection obvious: I kind of like how in Spec Ops the Line the player's XBLA name is incorporated into the credits. I, of course, had no say in this and, as a result, the immersion and the notion I was genuinely playing a part in the narrative increased tenfold.
So what would I do? Well, if I were making a 'never-show-the-face'-esque first person shooter, I would make the request of the player that they take picture of themselves using a webcam of some kind. Thus, the image would be replicated in every reflective surface. I've seen such an act being performed in various sport games so why can't it be taken out into different genre? If anything, it would make the 'player playing a part' more genuine.
Whether they'd like it or not
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Duellists
Here's something I've been pondering on: One way of building an effective gaming villain seems to be the ability to taunt the player. It would seem that to attack the player on such a psychological level would enrage the player and inspire them onward to knock nine bells out of the villain - after all if a villains doesn't make the player want to punch their face in, then the villain isn't doing their job properly. As a result, taunting the player has built some truly unforgettable villains in the form of GLaDos and SHODAN.
But here's the thing: Taunting the player effectively places me in a position of powerlessness - I can't deliver any witty comebacks to the smart-arse who won't shut up. True that may be precisely the point but whilst I, as the player, may yell at the screen, I can't help but feel that something is missing with my comebacks having little effect. After all, if a villain can make me the player angry then it's only fair I should make the villain angry, right? Thus, somehow, being represented by a silent, faceless player character makes said PC come across as being a middle man in the unfortunate position of being caught in-between a battle of wits.
Anyone whose seen the movie Red Dragon would know the relationship between Will Graham and Hannibal Lector: Hannibal hates Will and is trying to attack him in various forms - but when Will refuses to give in to the good doctor, the angrier Hannibal gets.
It's a compelling scenario and one that could really do with being transplanted into a gaming scenario. Think about it! An evil villain determined to break a character, both in mind and body, whilst the player character isn't taking that shit lying down and has an array of comebacks - both verbal and physical. And of course with both characters growing angrier with each other, this will lead to, potentially, the mother of all final showdowns.
But this scenario seems unlikely as having the player character represented by a fully-realised character does take away the personable nature of the villains mental assaults - as it's the character being taunted not the player.
Of course, Portal had Chelle but some people awfully willing to forget that....
But here's the thing: Taunting the player effectively places me in a position of powerlessness - I can't deliver any witty comebacks to the smart-arse who won't shut up. True that may be precisely the point but whilst I, as the player, may yell at the screen, I can't help but feel that something is missing with my comebacks having little effect. After all, if a villain can make me the player angry then it's only fair I should make the villain angry, right? Thus, somehow, being represented by a silent, faceless player character makes said PC come across as being a middle man in the unfortunate position of being caught in-between a battle of wits.
Anyone whose seen the movie Red Dragon would know the relationship between Will Graham and Hannibal Lector: Hannibal hates Will and is trying to attack him in various forms - but when Will refuses to give in to the good doctor, the angrier Hannibal gets.
It's a compelling scenario and one that could really do with being transplanted into a gaming scenario. Think about it! An evil villain determined to break a character, both in mind and body, whilst the player character isn't taking that shit lying down and has an array of comebacks - both verbal and physical. And of course with both characters growing angrier with each other, this will lead to, potentially, the mother of all final showdowns.
But this scenario seems unlikely as having the player character represented by a fully-realised character does take away the personable nature of the villains mental assaults - as it's the character being taunted not the player.
Of course, Portal had Chelle but some people awfully willing to forget that....
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Would you believe they put a Man on the Moon?
Another game has been given the boot from my Hall of Shame: To the Moon!
There's a wide variety of Indie games available on Steam - but with such a large number it becomes something of a challenge for one game to stand out from the rest. So why To the Moon? Well I'd heard that it was released 2011 but already gained a reputation for being one of the greatest tearjerkers ever conceived in gaming.
And my immediate response was: 'You're on Buster!'
Far be it from me to be a masochist who relishes in being depressed but I'm not one to back down from a challenge.
So what did I take away from this game upon it's completion?
What indeed....
Let me get this out of the way: To the Moon is a failure as game. There isn't much for the player to do except drive the player characters from one location to the next along an extremely linear path. There is little to do except solve small picture puzzles and collect objects within a contained environment. Many gamers, these days it seems, really hate how games are dictated by linearity and how their role as a player is reduced to nothing more than pushing the narrative forward.
So it pretty much falls to the story to hold this game up - and if that is the case then To the Moon's story would have a strength rating comparable to Hercules.
I won't give too much away but I've seen a lot of stories played out in gaming and To the Moon stands head and shoulders as one of the best. It was fascinating to see the life of a character play out, complete with bad luck and missed opportunities - I'm not sure if any other game has attempted this but I give Firebird credit for having the balls to do so. Also, it was great to see the use of symbolism and finding out how all the clues given over the course of the game slot into place. In addition, River proved to be a fascinating character and her romance with Johnny came across as nothing short of compelling. In fact, now that i think of it, this game really did work for me at a personal level - and if a game can do that then it must be a damn good one.
Mind you, the presence of the goofier moments of dialogue were puzzling. They seemed like they'd come in from a completely different game and an intrusion into the mood of the game. It could be argued that the goofy dialogue provided a relief for the player but somehow I doubt it was necessary.
And the conclusion? Well I didn't shed a tear - but I would be lying if I said I didn't feel a lump in my throat.
Also worthy of mention is the music (THE MUSIC!). There's only so many adjectives I can use but it's best people discover it for themselves - in fact now I feel kinda silly for buying the game on Steam and not the physical edition which included the soundtrack!
That being said does To the Moon work as a game? Could it have worked better as a movie? That's hard to say. It can't be argued that movies are indeed hard to get made these days (a statement made baffling considering the rubbish that sometimes gets made) so many people with great ideas are finding a different way to get them across - whether in comics or in games. Now whilst having a game that's completely story driven may sound like it's completely defeating the purpose of it being a game itself - but the story is such a strong one that playing To the Moon, I found myself all too willing to forget whatever shortcomings in the gameplay department.
And that in itself is worthy of a medal.
There's a wide variety of Indie games available on Steam - but with such a large number it becomes something of a challenge for one game to stand out from the rest. So why To the Moon? Well I'd heard that it was released 2011 but already gained a reputation for being one of the greatest tearjerkers ever conceived in gaming.
And my immediate response was: 'You're on Buster!'
Far be it from me to be a masochist who relishes in being depressed but I'm not one to back down from a challenge.
So what did I take away from this game upon it's completion?
What indeed....
Let me get this out of the way: To the Moon is a failure as game. There isn't much for the player to do except drive the player characters from one location to the next along an extremely linear path. There is little to do except solve small picture puzzles and collect objects within a contained environment. Many gamers, these days it seems, really hate how games are dictated by linearity and how their role as a player is reduced to nothing more than pushing the narrative forward.
So it pretty much falls to the story to hold this game up - and if that is the case then To the Moon's story would have a strength rating comparable to Hercules.
I won't give too much away but I've seen a lot of stories played out in gaming and To the Moon stands head and shoulders as one of the best. It was fascinating to see the life of a character play out, complete with bad luck and missed opportunities - I'm not sure if any other game has attempted this but I give Firebird credit for having the balls to do so. Also, it was great to see the use of symbolism and finding out how all the clues given over the course of the game slot into place. In addition, River proved to be a fascinating character and her romance with Johnny came across as nothing short of compelling. In fact, now that i think of it, this game really did work for me at a personal level - and if a game can do that then it must be a damn good one.
Mind you, the presence of the goofier moments of dialogue were puzzling. They seemed like they'd come in from a completely different game and an intrusion into the mood of the game. It could be argued that the goofy dialogue provided a relief for the player but somehow I doubt it was necessary.
And the conclusion? Well I didn't shed a tear - but I would be lying if I said I didn't feel a lump in my throat.
Also worthy of mention is the music (THE MUSIC!). There's only so many adjectives I can use but it's best people discover it for themselves - in fact now I feel kinda silly for buying the game on Steam and not the physical edition which included the soundtrack!
That being said does To the Moon work as a game? Could it have worked better as a movie? That's hard to say. It can't be argued that movies are indeed hard to get made these days (a statement made baffling considering the rubbish that sometimes gets made) so many people with great ideas are finding a different way to get them across - whether in comics or in games. Now whilst having a game that's completely story driven may sound like it's completely defeating the purpose of it being a game itself - but the story is such a strong one that playing To the Moon, I found myself all too willing to forget whatever shortcomings in the gameplay department.
And that in itself is worthy of a medal.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Thomastown
Another game has been cast down from my Hall of Shame - Thomas Was Alone!
Well this was an oddity and half: On one hand we have a simple platforming game and on the other there is actually a compelling story conveyed in a rather engaging way.
Funny thing is, this game sounds downright awful on paper: Guiding shapes in a platforming game? Wow, I can imagine the investors scrambling for that one. Indeed, there isn't much, gameplay wise, about this game to write home about: The levels are short and the puzzles aren't really that difficult. So one may just as well ask why does this game even exist?
Simple: Because of the story and how it's presented.
Unlike a lot of big budget titles, this game succeeds on the characterization: These characters are presented with personality, they go through a character arc, and they come out the other side wiser and irrevocably changed - and considering the characters in question are all quadrilaterals this is saying a lot. The much-touted narration of Danny Wallace helps considerably and in retrospect it's impossible to imagine Thomas Was Alone succeeding without him.
Having said all that, this game is indeed strange with it's emphasis on story and presentation over gameplay. Normally, any other game would be crucified with it's emphasis on story and neglectful approach to gameplay but here it works. It works enough for gamers, being the harsh bastards we are, to turn a blind eye as opposed to resorting to the tried and tested criticisms of the past. And if that is the case then a) it must've been adman good story or b) it must've been told in a good way. Guess if you deliver enough in one area, us gamers will be willing to forget anything.
Anywho I enjoyed Thomas Was Alone - it was well-written, inventive and lot's of fun. I just hope with it's handling of the narrative aspect that other game developers sit up and take notice.
This is how you do it folks!
Well this was an oddity and half: On one hand we have a simple platforming game and on the other there is actually a compelling story conveyed in a rather engaging way.
Funny thing is, this game sounds downright awful on paper: Guiding shapes in a platforming game? Wow, I can imagine the investors scrambling for that one. Indeed, there isn't much, gameplay wise, about this game to write home about: The levels are short and the puzzles aren't really that difficult. So one may just as well ask why does this game even exist?
Simple: Because of the story and how it's presented.
Unlike a lot of big budget titles, this game succeeds on the characterization: These characters are presented with personality, they go through a character arc, and they come out the other side wiser and irrevocably changed - and considering the characters in question are all quadrilaterals this is saying a lot. The much-touted narration of Danny Wallace helps considerably and in retrospect it's impossible to imagine Thomas Was Alone succeeding without him.
Having said all that, this game is indeed strange with it's emphasis on story and presentation over gameplay. Normally, any other game would be crucified with it's emphasis on story and neglectful approach to gameplay but here it works. It works enough for gamers, being the harsh bastards we are, to turn a blind eye as opposed to resorting to the tried and tested criticisms of the past. And if that is the case then a) it must've been adman good story or b) it must've been told in a good way. Guess if you deliver enough in one area, us gamers will be willing to forget anything.
Anywho I enjoyed Thomas Was Alone - it was well-written, inventive and lot's of fun. I just hope with it's handling of the narrative aspect that other game developers sit up and take notice.
This is how you do it folks!
Friday, April 12, 2013
The Importance of Being Earnest
I don't watch a lot of Lets Plays but I decided to share this one because it was too funny to pass up:
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Grey Hunter
Rithendal founds himself being followed a sheep:
So just to clarify: my Blood Elf Hunter is being followed by a sheep AND a wolf.
I've got my eye on you Morkai....
So just to clarify: my Blood Elf Hunter is being followed by a sheep AND a wolf.
I've got my eye on you Morkai....
Monday, April 8, 2013
Character building
Recently I sat down and watched all the StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty cutscenes on youtube. Yeah I know that’s cheating when compared to actually playing the game but fuck it: I’ve got a laundry of list of games to play, and subsequently beat, so any time saved is worth it (or something). Besides I’m only in it for the story – all gameplay is probably best left to the nation of Korea.
So what did I think of the Wings of Liberty story? Well to begin with the characters: The StarCraft universe has certainly had its fair share of fascinating characters and here the roster is expanded. I liked Dr Ariel Hanson (why didn’t you stick with her Raynor?!), Nova was cool and I also enjoyed Matt Horner. Matt in particular is of note for I’d heard people think of him as whiny bitch but that didn’t seem to be the case – just as well as he didn’t for he WAS the PC character in the first Terran campaign in StarCraft 1. Tychus was fun with his constant hulking presence but one gets the feeling he had a story that didn’t (or has yet to be) told. Gabriel Tosh too made for an interesting presence – although what is it with Blizzard and Rastafarians? The UNN news crew, Kate and Donny, were also fun to watch.
It’s just a shame that many of the familiar faces don’t seem be handled properly: Arcturus is a far cry from the political sliminess he exhibited in the first game being reduced with little to do. Kerrigan doesn't fare better doing nothing more than sneering as if it’s the only thing she can really do. Even Raynor seems nowhere near the depressed drunk he was originally made out to be. Indeed, one gets the feeling that the Blizzard writing staff have taken these characters as far as they could in the first game – therefore is there anything left for them to do now?
Still this is but the first installment of a trilogy. Considering Blizzard’s love for producing unpredictable narratives, it would be interesting to see how this would pan out. It is possible that some faces may reappear and some questions may be resolved – but then again they said the same thing about the Star Wars prequel trilogy and look how well that turned out.
But again the question: Is there anything left for these characters to do? Granted Duran has yet to reappear, there’s the possibility that Earth may make another move following the failure of the UED (to not do so wouldn’t make a lot of sense) and it be interesting to see the balance of power shift away from the Zerg (the victors at the end of Brood War). But somehow playing WoL there is a sense that the stakes have already peaked. If anything StarCraft 1 had its dinner and the members of the StarCraft 2 trilogy are left to fight over the table scraps.
Throughout the original StarCraft there was the underlying theme that the conflict between the three factions, Terran, Zerg and Protoss, is meaningless and the only way either of them will get anywhere is through the assistance of the one of the others. I can see traces of it in the WoL narrative but Kerrigan doesn’t strike me as someone who’d willing help – she’d rather force someone to help her.
Ultimately though, this is the first part of a trilogy – two more are, of course, on their way. Only time will tell how things will end up……
So what did I think of the Wings of Liberty story? Well to begin with the characters: The StarCraft universe has certainly had its fair share of fascinating characters and here the roster is expanded. I liked Dr Ariel Hanson (why didn’t you stick with her Raynor?!), Nova was cool and I also enjoyed Matt Horner. Matt in particular is of note for I’d heard people think of him as whiny bitch but that didn’t seem to be the case – just as well as he didn’t for he WAS the PC character in the first Terran campaign in StarCraft 1. Tychus was fun with his constant hulking presence but one gets the feeling he had a story that didn’t (or has yet to be) told. Gabriel Tosh too made for an interesting presence – although what is it with Blizzard and Rastafarians? The UNN news crew, Kate and Donny, were also fun to watch.
It’s just a shame that many of the familiar faces don’t seem be handled properly: Arcturus is a far cry from the political sliminess he exhibited in the first game being reduced with little to do. Kerrigan doesn't fare better doing nothing more than sneering as if it’s the only thing she can really do. Even Raynor seems nowhere near the depressed drunk he was originally made out to be. Indeed, one gets the feeling that the Blizzard writing staff have taken these characters as far as they could in the first game – therefore is there anything left for them to do now?
Still this is but the first installment of a trilogy. Considering Blizzard’s love for producing unpredictable narratives, it would be interesting to see how this would pan out. It is possible that some faces may reappear and some questions may be resolved – but then again they said the same thing about the Star Wars prequel trilogy and look how well that turned out.
But again the question: Is there anything left for these characters to do? Granted Duran has yet to reappear, there’s the possibility that Earth may make another move following the failure of the UED (to not do so wouldn’t make a lot of sense) and it be interesting to see the balance of power shift away from the Zerg (the victors at the end of Brood War). But somehow playing WoL there is a sense that the stakes have already peaked. If anything StarCraft 1 had its dinner and the members of the StarCraft 2 trilogy are left to fight over the table scraps.
Throughout the original StarCraft there was the underlying theme that the conflict between the three factions, Terran, Zerg and Protoss, is meaningless and the only way either of them will get anywhere is through the assistance of the one of the others. I can see traces of it in the WoL narrative but Kerrigan doesn’t strike me as someone who’d willing help – she’d rather force someone to help her.
Ultimately though, this is the first part of a trilogy – two more are, of course, on their way. Only time will tell how things will end up……
Friday, April 5, 2013
A Tribute to LucasArts
As you all may have heard by now, something terrible has happened: LucasArts has been closed by parent company Disney due to disappointments with not much happening.
Sad news to be sure. Okay true LucasArts haven't really done anything of note in recent years but for a moment there, these guys were at the top of their game, delivering games that were lot's of fun and have stood strong against the march of time.
The LucasArts I knew were makers of superb adventure games. They were both real written and imaginative in their premises. They boasted puzzles that actually made sense and had a sense of humor that worked even when humor in gaming tends to fall flat on its face all too easily. These games had brilliant graphics complimented with gloriously rendered backgrounds and presented wonderfully realized worlds. And these games were designed by people who truly loved their craft and knew exactly what made a great game. Finally, LucasArts took chances with new IP - most of them paid off in dividends. They fostered talent and proved they were bursting at the seams with genuine creativity.
I spent this summer playing a lot of LucasArts adventures - namely Day of the Tentacle, the Dig, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Sam and Max Hit the Road and, of course, Monkey Island 1,2 and 3. Some of these I played for the very first time. From the perspective of twenty years, these games still hold up remarkably well and they certainly are impressive - even to someone who spent the early nineties as a one-eyed console devotee. What worked originally still works very well and it's a testament to building games that are well-designed. Indeed, these games were made by people who are genuinely passionate about what they do and it shows.
And whilst the LucasArts adventures may have been a mainstay of PC gaming twenty years ago, even if I wasn't aware of it at the time, it's hard to imagine PC gaming without the Midas Touch LucasArts has provided.
So here's to LucasArts and the adventure games they made. We've never seen anything like them and we probably never will again.
Sad news to be sure. Okay true LucasArts haven't really done anything of note in recent years but for a moment there, these guys were at the top of their game, delivering games that were lot's of fun and have stood strong against the march of time.
The LucasArts I knew were makers of superb adventure games. They were both real written and imaginative in their premises. They boasted puzzles that actually made sense and had a sense of humor that worked even when humor in gaming tends to fall flat on its face all too easily. These games had brilliant graphics complimented with gloriously rendered backgrounds and presented wonderfully realized worlds. And these games were designed by people who truly loved their craft and knew exactly what made a great game. Finally, LucasArts took chances with new IP - most of them paid off in dividends. They fostered talent and proved they were bursting at the seams with genuine creativity.
I spent this summer playing a lot of LucasArts adventures - namely Day of the Tentacle, the Dig, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Sam and Max Hit the Road and, of course, Monkey Island 1,2 and 3. Some of these I played for the very first time. From the perspective of twenty years, these games still hold up remarkably well and they certainly are impressive - even to someone who spent the early nineties as a one-eyed console devotee. What worked originally still works very well and it's a testament to building games that are well-designed. Indeed, these games were made by people who are genuinely passionate about what they do and it shows.
And whilst the LucasArts adventures may have been a mainstay of PC gaming twenty years ago, even if I wasn't aware of it at the time, it's hard to imagine PC gaming without the Midas Touch LucasArts has provided.
So here's to LucasArts and the adventure games they made. We've never seen anything like them and we probably never will again.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Back in the 90s
This week’s episode of Good Game was an analysis between the three great gaming generations: 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. So inspired by this, may I offer my two cents:
My favorite gaming generation out of the afore-mentioned three? The 1990’s without question. If the 1980s were represented by building ideas from practically out of nothing and the 2000s were defined by breaking down whatever restrictions were left standing, then the 1990’s seem to combine the best of the two: technology was advancing, admittedly at an alarming rate, but the limitations of the era encouraged developers to be smart in conveying what they were trying to get across.
One could argue that the first time is always the best time – and in such a case, those who champion the generation they got into gaming as the first time. Indeed I can imagine the kids playing the PS3 will, ten/twenty years from now, maintain that it was the best generation of the lot.
But that isn’t the case here: As previously established I started with the Commodore 64 and was already into gaming well before I set my young and impressionable mind first set eyes on a Sega Megadrive. That being said, the nineties may not have been the beginning but it certainly was the key to the Promised Land (or whatever you want to call it).
So what makes the nineties so special? Well then:
• I recall declaring loyalty to Sega while so many others swore devotion to Nintendo – and hey, of people are forming tribes around something then you must be doing something right.
• I recall going to friend’s places and having a bash on the console – true that could be done before and since but to me the nineties was where it happened to me first. Indeed, there something satisfying to have a friend or cousin who liked the same stuff you liked.
• I recall hanging around people who liked gaming and talking about them with barely restrained enthusiasm.
• I recall the first time a gamer specific store opened up in Hobart and I thought it was the best thing ever
• I recall watching the Zone religiously on a Saturday morning and thinking it was ace to see a show for people who spoke my language
• I recall reading the various magazines of the day and being impressed with both gaming developments and the latest games (even if most of the games featured were beyond the capabilities of my (t)rusty Commodore 64)
• I recall the excitement of a LAN. Indeed was something special sneaking into a computer lab at school with some friends and using up one’s lunch hour blowing each other away in Doom.
• I recall going into arcade game parlors and salivating like a Pavlovian dog at all the wonders around me. Okay sure some may lament the evolution of such parlors from seedy/dark places to family-friendly-environments but I tell you, there was no greater thrill than blowing so much change in a wide variety of games.
Looking back at what I’ve written it seems there is a common thread between these points: If anything the nineties proved to me that there truly was a world of gamers beyond what I’d previously experienced in my basement with my Commodore 64. Suddenly I realized there were people who liked what I liked and I wasn’t as alone as I originally thought I was. Whether it was visiting friends to play games, setting up LANs or reading various gaming publications; all of these indicated that there was a world of gaming that I was a part of and my interest were to be celebrated. Thus, whilst the eighties may have established the niche, the nineties saw the niche expand – to where it is today well beyond its original niche limitations.
And I don’t believe that this sense of belonging has been replicated. How? Well people nowadays may go on about how online gaming is great with being able to play against people from all corners of the globe and having games & DLC readily available to download. Yes that may be true but at what expense? Sure it may be easier to find people who like what you like online but it’s nowhere near as satisfying as meeting a similar someone in the flesh. You may reach more people online but it’s hardly a substitute for going to a friend’s place, hijacking their couch and duke it out in a fighting game.
So here's to the nineties. And what finer way then to conclude this post with some music from that glorious decade?
All together now:
"Gonna get the girl
Gonna kill the baddies
And save the entire planet!
Gonna get the girl
Gonna kill the baddies
And save the entire planet!"
My favorite gaming generation out of the afore-mentioned three? The 1990’s without question. If the 1980s were represented by building ideas from practically out of nothing and the 2000s were defined by breaking down whatever restrictions were left standing, then the 1990’s seem to combine the best of the two: technology was advancing, admittedly at an alarming rate, but the limitations of the era encouraged developers to be smart in conveying what they were trying to get across.
One could argue that the first time is always the best time – and in such a case, those who champion the generation they got into gaming as the first time. Indeed I can imagine the kids playing the PS3 will, ten/twenty years from now, maintain that it was the best generation of the lot.
But that isn’t the case here: As previously established I started with the Commodore 64 and was already into gaming well before I set my young and impressionable mind first set eyes on a Sega Megadrive. That being said, the nineties may not have been the beginning but it certainly was the key to the Promised Land (or whatever you want to call it).
So what makes the nineties so special? Well then:
• I recall declaring loyalty to Sega while so many others swore devotion to Nintendo – and hey, of people are forming tribes around something then you must be doing something right.
• I recall going to friend’s places and having a bash on the console – true that could be done before and since but to me the nineties was where it happened to me first. Indeed, there something satisfying to have a friend or cousin who liked the same stuff you liked.
• I recall hanging around people who liked gaming and talking about them with barely restrained enthusiasm.
• I recall the first time a gamer specific store opened up in Hobart and I thought it was the best thing ever
• I recall watching the Zone religiously on a Saturday morning and thinking it was ace to see a show for people who spoke my language
• I recall reading the various magazines of the day and being impressed with both gaming developments and the latest games (even if most of the games featured were beyond the capabilities of my (t)rusty Commodore 64)
• I recall the excitement of a LAN. Indeed was something special sneaking into a computer lab at school with some friends and using up one’s lunch hour blowing each other away in Doom.
• I recall going into arcade game parlors and salivating like a Pavlovian dog at all the wonders around me. Okay sure some may lament the evolution of such parlors from seedy/dark places to family-friendly-environments but I tell you, there was no greater thrill than blowing so much change in a wide variety of games.
Looking back at what I’ve written it seems there is a common thread between these points: If anything the nineties proved to me that there truly was a world of gamers beyond what I’d previously experienced in my basement with my Commodore 64. Suddenly I realized there were people who liked what I liked and I wasn’t as alone as I originally thought I was. Whether it was visiting friends to play games, setting up LANs or reading various gaming publications; all of these indicated that there was a world of gaming that I was a part of and my interest were to be celebrated. Thus, whilst the eighties may have established the niche, the nineties saw the niche expand – to where it is today well beyond its original niche limitations.
And I don’t believe that this sense of belonging has been replicated. How? Well people nowadays may go on about how online gaming is great with being able to play against people from all corners of the globe and having games & DLC readily available to download. Yes that may be true but at what expense? Sure it may be easier to find people who like what you like online but it’s nowhere near as satisfying as meeting a similar someone in the flesh. You may reach more people online but it’s hardly a substitute for going to a friend’s place, hijacking their couch and duke it out in a fighting game.
So here's to the nineties. And what finer way then to conclude this post with some music from that glorious decade?
All together now:
"Gonna get the girl
Gonna kill the baddies
And save the entire planet!
Gonna get the girl
Gonna kill the baddies
And save the entire planet!"
Monday, April 1, 2013
Seeing Scarlet
Here's something that caught my eye: A new MMORPGer called Scarlet Blade. The hook for this one is that it is set in a world entirely populated by women.
Okay that's not a bad idea for a set up but the execution seems to suggest a lot of pandering to teenaged boys who have one hand on their mouses and the other between their legs.
Take a look at these and draw your own conclusions:
Seriously, it's as if they're daring Anita Sarkeesian to tear this game a new one....
Okay that's not a bad idea for a set up but the execution seems to suggest a lot of pandering to teenaged boys who have one hand on their mouses and the other between their legs.
Take a look at these and draw your own conclusions:
Seriously, it's as if they're daring Anita Sarkeesian to tear this game a new one....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)