And so, the curtain comes down on another year.
So....2017....How about that eh?
2017 was, for me, mostly me rediscovering Elder Scrolls Online. A game that i originally approached with reluctance is a game that I have played near exclusively in 2017. The funny thing is that the thing that turned me around was a skill re-spec for my first/main character. Since then I've made a few more characters. All of which, I have approached with a particular plan in mind. Funny thing that: I approach with a plan, and subsequently a better grasp of what I'm doing and suddenly the game becomes a lot more enjoyable. Still, it's no different from me of nearly two decades ago building a plan to work in Civ 2 and Heroes 2.
Other highlights was seeing the Conquest series appear on GoG; beating Nights into Dreams, Conquests of the Longbow and KOTOR 2 - all of which have been a long time coming; Going to PAX and Trying out Alien Swarm.
But you know what? If we go be feel alone, 2017 seems like something of a slump. Nothing came out this year that really grabbed my attention. Maybe it's me living in a backwards flowing bubble, maybe it's me having played games for so many years that it becomes harder for something to stand out of the pack, but somehow one gets the impression that gaming has reached it's zenith: There are no more frontiers to conquer, no one beyond the Steam indie crowd is prepared to make any risks and everything seems to be recycled. Funny thing how a industry that has moved at a lightning fast pace has now hit a point that resembles stagnation.
I've heard whispers that we may be due in for a second Gaming Crash but maybe we could do with one, just to shake things up a bit....
Still we can only hope that 2018 is better....
Anywho, thank you for reading this blog and i hope to speak to you again next year.
Showing posts with label Civilisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civilisation. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Friday, May 19, 2017
Strafed
Let's talk about Strafe for a moment.
Well it's here upon us. After a crowd-funding campaign and an advertising campaign we finally have it. And what do you know? It's getting a lot of bad press, what with glitches, stupid AI, restricting environments and presenting something different from the original promise. The latter in particular: It seems that when the trailer offered something along the lines of Doom or Quake, the finished product was more akin to a roguelike.
Not a good selling point eh?
Personally, looking back at the (in)famous advertising campaign, it seems more laughable than provocative. And therein lies the point where my interest dies down: Considering how much trouble the makers of this game, Bleeding Edge, went to with the adverting campaign, one can't help but feel that they put more effort into it than the actual game.
Personally, as someone who spent much of their teen years in the nineties, I am questioning whether Bleeding Edge really speak from experience. Did they really play the right games? Or are they selling a fantasy? You see, I can safely say that, back in 1996, whilst there was some strong interest in Doom and Quake, they weren't THE game. You know what I'm talking about: THE game that everyone had, and everyone was falling over themselves to get a hold of and play to death.
No, back in 1996, THE game was this:
Well it's here upon us. After a crowd-funding campaign and an advertising campaign we finally have it. And what do you know? It's getting a lot of bad press, what with glitches, stupid AI, restricting environments and presenting something different from the original promise. The latter in particular: It seems that when the trailer offered something along the lines of Doom or Quake, the finished product was more akin to a roguelike.
Not a good selling point eh?
Personally, looking back at the (in)famous advertising campaign, it seems more laughable than provocative. And therein lies the point where my interest dies down: Considering how much trouble the makers of this game, Bleeding Edge, went to with the adverting campaign, one can't help but feel that they put more effort into it than the actual game.
Personally, as someone who spent much of their teen years in the nineties, I am questioning whether Bleeding Edge really speak from experience. Did they really play the right games? Or are they selling a fantasy? You see, I can safely say that, back in 1996, whilst there was some strong interest in Doom and Quake, they weren't THE game. You know what I'm talking about: THE game that everyone had, and everyone was falling over themselves to get a hold of and play to death.
No, back in 1996, THE game was this:
Original video located here. Accessed 19th May 2017
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Hidden in the Summer for a million years
Earlier this week, some news of interest emerged for us Aussie's: For the first time in it's history, the Civilization series will have, for it's latest iteration (VI), Australia available as a playable faction.
It will be available as a Premium DLC but will feature advantages such as cities benefiting from coastal positioning, and the leader being John Curtin.
Well this is pleasing to me both as an Aussie and a fan of the civilization series. Nice to see some solid representation. And it might make people learn who John Curtin was - both here and overseas.
It will be available as a Premium DLC but will feature advantages such as cities benefiting from coastal positioning, and the leader being John Curtin.
Well this is pleasing to me both as an Aussie and a fan of the civilization series. Nice to see some solid representation. And it might make people learn who John Curtin was - both here and overseas.
Monday, October 20, 2014
War was declared but nobody showed
Recently I saw Crusader Kings 2 for sale on Steam. I was aware of this game - however that was largely through the mod available that transforms the game into a replica of Game of Thrones. No matter: That reason alone would be enough to fork over ten bucks for it - the fact that it was on sale was another damn good reason.
Make no mistake: I love me some strategy games - but at the same time I find them a daunting beast. A lot of strategy games have this complexity to them that can come across as intimidating. Yes there is a lot to the game that is just waiting to be unlocked by the player and yes they are the type of game that can ensnare hours of willing investment from the player - but it is not readily apparent. I find that strategy games can very unfriendly to the newcomer and the player is required to embrace the game on the game's own terms - even if such an undertaking is, more often than not, an uphill struggle.
I recall playing Civ 2 a LOT back in the day and being pretty good at it. Thing is, I can't recall how I got where I did: I can't recall when I found out one crucial piece of information that changed the game completely and made me rejig my playing style. True a lot of my information on Civ 2 came from playing Civ 1 but how I obtained that knowledge has been lost to me.
Thus to come across strategy games like Crusder Kings 2 and even Rome Total War, is to face a completely new challenge. A new challenge of unlocking a game that could be worth my time and effort but only after I get on top of it when it's beating me down into submission. The mechanics are waiting there to be utilized but only when I get into the swing of things. My foes aren't unbeatable but they still need to be crushed effectively. So to confront a new strategy game is to learn how the game works (in a genre not known for newcomer friendliness) and to build a new playing style to fit - it's pretty much building the wheel all over again.
Still I am interested in continuing with Rome Total War and Crusader Kings 2 - indeed there is something satisfying about facing down a beast and taming it.
Plus there's the Game of Thrones mod - how can one refuse? (I fro one am interested to see what will happen if I send Joffrey to The Wall...)
Make no mistake: I love me some strategy games - but at the same time I find them a daunting beast. A lot of strategy games have this complexity to them that can come across as intimidating. Yes there is a lot to the game that is just waiting to be unlocked by the player and yes they are the type of game that can ensnare hours of willing investment from the player - but it is not readily apparent. I find that strategy games can very unfriendly to the newcomer and the player is required to embrace the game on the game's own terms - even if such an undertaking is, more often than not, an uphill struggle.
I recall playing Civ 2 a LOT back in the day and being pretty good at it. Thing is, I can't recall how I got where I did: I can't recall when I found out one crucial piece of information that changed the game completely and made me rejig my playing style. True a lot of my information on Civ 2 came from playing Civ 1 but how I obtained that knowledge has been lost to me.
Thus to come across strategy games like Crusder Kings 2 and even Rome Total War, is to face a completely new challenge. A new challenge of unlocking a game that could be worth my time and effort but only after I get on top of it when it's beating me down into submission. The mechanics are waiting there to be utilized but only when I get into the swing of things. My foes aren't unbeatable but they still need to be crushed effectively. So to confront a new strategy game is to learn how the game works (in a genre not known for newcomer friendliness) and to build a new playing style to fit - it's pretty much building the wheel all over again.
Still I am interested in continuing with Rome Total War and Crusader Kings 2 - indeed there is something satisfying about facing down a beast and taming it.
Plus there's the Game of Thrones mod - how can one refuse? (I fro one am interested to see what will happen if I send Joffrey to The Wall...)
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Steam Inaction
Here's a theory I came across: As Steam has so many games that are readily available and for real cheap, the Steam user would actually spend more time collecting games than actually playing them.
Put simply: The Steam user will always have 36% of the games in their library unplayed.
So how does my Steam library look next to this theory? Well, at time of writing, I have 40 games. Half of which are unplayed. While that is far from the proposed 36% it does raise the question of why some games are unplayed. Well takes a look at some the games I have in my Steam library and try find an explanation or two as to why they've gone untouched:
Analogue: a Hate Story
I was curious about this game largely to it's reputation in having a strong narrative. However after I made the purchase, I found out it was a game made by a lesbian for the LBGT community - which kinda made me situated outside the intended audience. Oh well...
Counter-Strike (with Condition Zero)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. At least I take comfort in knowing I got it on sale...
Enclave
Purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon.
Half Life (with Blue Shift and Opposing Force)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have.
Hamilton's Great Adventure
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon (hey can you say no to a 90% discount?!).
Larva Mortus
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon
Left 4 Dead 2
In a case of being in the right place at the right time, I have those purely out of being offered as a freebie one time
Papers Please
Heard it was awesome but have yet to get around to playing it...
Psychonauts
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon
Quake (with Ground Zero and The Reckoning)
Again, purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. Mind you, i did play this a lot back in the day most likely I'll have a tough time taking it seriously now....
Sid Meier's Civilisation 4
Because when you buy the PC verison, for some reaosn you get the Mac version as well for some reason
Sid Meier's Civilisation 5
Unplayed largely due to it's reputation for being forever doomed to remain in it's predecessors' shadow
Looking back at what I've written, it seems a pattern has emerged: A large number of the games mentioned above have been purchased out of obligation. So is this is where gaming is headed? A sense of obligation? Where owning big library is more important than making use of it's contents? Where by making sure you use one product (however so) to a point where all else is of little consequence (World of Warcraft anyone?)?
Put simply: The Steam user will always have 36% of the games in their library unplayed.
So how does my Steam library look next to this theory? Well, at time of writing, I have 40 games. Half of which are unplayed. While that is far from the proposed 36% it does raise the question of why some games are unplayed. Well takes a look at some the games I have in my Steam library and try find an explanation or two as to why they've gone untouched:
Analogue: a Hate Story
I was curious about this game largely to it's reputation in having a strong narrative. However after I made the purchase, I found out it was a game made by a lesbian for the LBGT community - which kinda made me situated outside the intended audience. Oh well...
Counter-Strike (with Condition Zero)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. At least I take comfort in knowing I got it on sale...
Enclave
Purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon.
Half Life (with Blue Shift and Opposing Force)
Purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have.
Hamilton's Great Adventure
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon (hey can you say no to a 90% discount?!).
Larva Mortus
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon
Left 4 Dead 2
In a case of being in the right place at the right time, I have those purely out of being offered as a freebie one time
Papers Please
Heard it was awesome but have yet to get around to playing it...
Psychonauts
Again, purchased largely out of me having the discount coupon
Quake (with Ground Zero and The Reckoning)
Again, purchased purely on the grounds that this seems to be one of those games that every PC owner has to have. Mind you, i did play this a lot back in the day most likely I'll have a tough time taking it seriously now....
Sid Meier's Civilisation 4
Because when you buy the PC verison, for some reaosn you get the Mac version as well for some reason
Sid Meier's Civilisation 5
Unplayed largely due to it's reputation for being forever doomed to remain in it's predecessors' shadow
Looking back at what I've written, it seems a pattern has emerged: A large number of the games mentioned above have been purchased out of obligation. So is this is where gaming is headed? A sense of obligation? Where owning big library is more important than making use of it's contents? Where by making sure you use one product (however so) to a point where all else is of little consequence (World of Warcraft anyone?)?
Friday, November 1, 2013
One Tribe to Rule Them All
Recently I revisited an old classic: Civilization 2! Yep, I played this a lot back in the day and I managed to get it working for my present-day PC! Okay, so I can’t spare the money for Civ 4 (the best in the series as is my understanding) but I’m content to blow dust off a classic and fire it up again (for now).
I played the Civ games a lot during my high school years: The first game was great and a lot of fun. And then came Civ 2 – and at the time it was recognized as something of a revelation. It had all the trappings of Civ but it was in isometric 3d! It expanded the game features dramatically! It even incorporated FMV and photo-realistic images! (or whatever you call it) Indeed, Civ 2 was highly regarded and suddenly became the game that everyone owned, everyone played and everyone loved. I didn’t bother with the Civ series afterward Civ 2 because a) I didn’t like Test of Time and b) as far as I was concerned, improving Civ 1 was a tall order but improving Civ 2 was looking more or less impossible (of course I could be wrong…).
Anywho I managed to get Civ 2 working through finding a fan-made patch. And it’s great to play Civ 2 again – after all, I’ve sunk several hours into this game already which should provide a testament to it’s addictive nature (World of Warcraft can go sit in the corner). Yet the patch has a drawback – it inspires the AI to be more hostile to me the human player. This does create problems that are funny when one thinks about it: The opposing civilizations break peace treaties and declare war at a drop of a hat and then afterwards they treat me like it was all my fault. And my Freight don’t have an easy time as they have to evade the enemy forces and any successful trade route established is usually an excuse for the opposition to declare war. And why is it that I get a reputation whilst the opposition doesn’t? Why are they allowed to get away with being aggressors when I can’t?
And now that I think of it, I wonder if this problem is resolved in the more recent Civ games – Do the other Civ games, Civ 3-5, have reputations akin to the player? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I think I may scrape the cash together for one of the more recent Civ games…
I played the Civ games a lot during my high school years: The first game was great and a lot of fun. And then came Civ 2 – and at the time it was recognized as something of a revelation. It had all the trappings of Civ but it was in isometric 3d! It expanded the game features dramatically! It even incorporated FMV and photo-realistic images! (or whatever you call it) Indeed, Civ 2 was highly regarded and suddenly became the game that everyone owned, everyone played and everyone loved. I didn’t bother with the Civ series afterward Civ 2 because a) I didn’t like Test of Time and b) as far as I was concerned, improving Civ 1 was a tall order but improving Civ 2 was looking more or less impossible (of course I could be wrong…).
Anywho I managed to get Civ 2 working through finding a fan-made patch. And it’s great to play Civ 2 again – after all, I’ve sunk several hours into this game already which should provide a testament to it’s addictive nature (World of Warcraft can go sit in the corner). Yet the patch has a drawback – it inspires the AI to be more hostile to me the human player. This does create problems that are funny when one thinks about it: The opposing civilizations break peace treaties and declare war at a drop of a hat and then afterwards they treat me like it was all my fault. And my Freight don’t have an easy time as they have to evade the enemy forces and any successful trade route established is usually an excuse for the opposition to declare war. And why is it that I get a reputation whilst the opposition doesn’t? Why are they allowed to get away with being aggressors when I can’t?
And now that I think of it, I wonder if this problem is resolved in the more recent Civ games – Do the other Civ games, Civ 3-5, have reputations akin to the player? Can anyone confirm this? If so, I think I may scrape the cash together for one of the more recent Civ games…
Friday, May 3, 2013
We don't need no education
Some thought about the thorny issue of educational games:
To begin with: Do educational games have any purpose? Yes I can understand the value of presenting an learning activity in a new and exciting way that connect with the kids – but at the same time there is the idea of an educational game come across as an intrusion into something that the kids love. Indeed, take away the escapism that’s leagues away from school lessons and the kids will start smelling bullshit.
And that pretty much sums up the notion of educational games. I can imagine many kids retreating to their game devices at the end of a school day to forget everything they learned (I know I did) so to force them to think may result in resentment.
During my primary school years (1987-1993) I did play some computer games of educational value. I didn’t mind at the time because micro-computers were a ‘new thing’ at the time and it was fun learning how to use one. In addition, the games I used were simple BBC programs. One program I used was one that tested me on naming the locations of Tasmania. I enjoyed it, got a lot out of it, and never once did I feel like I was being preached to – indeed that was the only game that really succeeded in its goal but some of the other games at the time were either rubbish or of questionable educational value.
If anything, for an educational game to work it must present the educational value in a decent matter and be fun to play – a balancing act that is nothing short of tricky to pull off. But can it work? Well as long as the educational values aren’t shoved down the children’s throat, it challenges them to think and is fun to play it can.
Are there any games I can think of that achieve this balancing act?
Well the Civilization series is a prime example of presenting material in a manner that never feels patronizing. Indeed, reading up on the Civilopedia on the Wonders of the World and the scientific advancements was fascinating and never once was dull. It also helped that the game itself was heaps of fun to play, insanely addictive and encouraged my mind to work on a strategic level.
Peacemaker is another game worthy of mention. Through playing this game I learned more about the conflicts between Israel and Palestine than any news program and just how difficult making decisions for a nation can be. Okay sure there isn’t much of a game to speak of but when you’re waiting for an outcome with a mixture of anticipation and dread, you know you’ve done something right.
And continuing with the strategic theme, through playing Pharaoh I learned a lot about the history of ancient Egypt and made me keen to explore some more beyond what I already knew – a sign of success if ever there was one.
If anything for an educational game to work it would first need to come across as something fun and not as a pure educational exercise. And, based on what I‘ve written above, it would seem that strategic games are the best approach with making a game of educational value: It encourages the player to think and offers an opportunity to get one’s message across in a subtle manner.
I mean you wouldn’t use Gears of War as a basis for a game to convey mathematics….
To begin with: Do educational games have any purpose? Yes I can understand the value of presenting an learning activity in a new and exciting way that connect with the kids – but at the same time there is the idea of an educational game come across as an intrusion into something that the kids love. Indeed, take away the escapism that’s leagues away from school lessons and the kids will start smelling bullshit.
And that pretty much sums up the notion of educational games. I can imagine many kids retreating to their game devices at the end of a school day to forget everything they learned (I know I did) so to force them to think may result in resentment.
During my primary school years (1987-1993) I did play some computer games of educational value. I didn’t mind at the time because micro-computers were a ‘new thing’ at the time and it was fun learning how to use one. In addition, the games I used were simple BBC programs. One program I used was one that tested me on naming the locations of Tasmania. I enjoyed it, got a lot out of it, and never once did I feel like I was being preached to – indeed that was the only game that really succeeded in its goal but some of the other games at the time were either rubbish or of questionable educational value.
If anything, for an educational game to work it must present the educational value in a decent matter and be fun to play – a balancing act that is nothing short of tricky to pull off. But can it work? Well as long as the educational values aren’t shoved down the children’s throat, it challenges them to think and is fun to play it can.
Are there any games I can think of that achieve this balancing act?
Well the Civilization series is a prime example of presenting material in a manner that never feels patronizing. Indeed, reading up on the Civilopedia on the Wonders of the World and the scientific advancements was fascinating and never once was dull. It also helped that the game itself was heaps of fun to play, insanely addictive and encouraged my mind to work on a strategic level.
Peacemaker is another game worthy of mention. Through playing this game I learned more about the conflicts between Israel and Palestine than any news program and just how difficult making decisions for a nation can be. Okay sure there isn’t much of a game to speak of but when you’re waiting for an outcome with a mixture of anticipation and dread, you know you’ve done something right.
And continuing with the strategic theme, through playing Pharaoh I learned a lot about the history of ancient Egypt and made me keen to explore some more beyond what I already knew – a sign of success if ever there was one.
If anything for an educational game to work it would first need to come across as something fun and not as a pure educational exercise. And, based on what I‘ve written above, it would seem that strategic games are the best approach with making a game of educational value: It encourages the player to think and offers an opportunity to get one’s message across in a subtle manner.
I mean you wouldn’t use Gears of War as a basis for a game to convey mathematics….
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The Uncanny Xcom
Another game I had a go at over my Christmas break was Xcom: UFO Defense. Not the recent remake (although I've heard a lot of good things said about it), but the original from way back in 1994.
I recall my high school years, 1994-1997, to be something of a golden age for strategy games. Everyone I knew played Civilization 2, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Dune 2 and, eventually, Starcraft. Even Syndicate and Heroes of Might and Magic 2 had it's fans. But strangely, I can't recall anyone ever playing Xcom or, as it was known in Europe and Australia, UFO: Enemy Unknown (incidentally now that I think of it I'm not sure if this game was ever released in Australia).
I was only aware of it through being an Amiga owner and even then I thought it had a really bizarre image for the box art:
Still, with absolutely no idea what to expect, I took the plunge and played Xcom: UFO Defense.
And to be honest I was really surprised: This was completely different from the strategy games I'd grown up with. The flow of time could be altered, resources weren't in easy reach and required proper management, solider deaths actually mattered and something was always happening - even if the player wasn't aware of it. It wasn't enough buying soldiers: I had to provide guns and amour as well as engineers to build it and scientists to discover it.
And the combat sections were indeed tense affairs with the aliens suddenly appearing, dreading that every shot might miss and the loss felt when a soldier died (for the record: I kept an Xcom tradition with naming all my soldiers after people I know).
One thing I found tricky was the handling of the income: As I found out, it takes a lot of money to establish a base and fit it out with the necessities required. But, of course, you're expected to have an eye on every location on the glove and if one nation isn't getting the necessary attention - most likely because you're trying get a base going to deal with potential aliens - they will cut their funding. And this will make the task of organizing the defense even more tougher. Indeed, far too often I would find myself sitting on my thumbs wondering what to do and even advancing the time to get to the monthly payout - only to find that something else was already happening beyond my notice.
Still this is indeed game that grabbed me by the throat and refused to let go. Sure it may have had it's slow moments but somehow, the accolades of the 'Greatest PC game EVAH' somehow seem justified.
Needless to say, I do feel excited to one day tackle the remake but, I suspect, it won't be for a while yet. Why? Because I'm far too busy playing the original!
I recall my high school years, 1994-1997, to be something of a golden age for strategy games. Everyone I knew played Civilization 2, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Dune 2 and, eventually, Starcraft. Even Syndicate and Heroes of Might and Magic 2 had it's fans. But strangely, I can't recall anyone ever playing Xcom or, as it was known in Europe and Australia, UFO: Enemy Unknown (incidentally now that I think of it I'm not sure if this game was ever released in Australia).
I was only aware of it through being an Amiga owner and even then I thought it had a really bizarre image for the box art:
Still, with absolutely no idea what to expect, I took the plunge and played Xcom: UFO Defense.
And to be honest I was really surprised: This was completely different from the strategy games I'd grown up with. The flow of time could be altered, resources weren't in easy reach and required proper management, solider deaths actually mattered and something was always happening - even if the player wasn't aware of it. It wasn't enough buying soldiers: I had to provide guns and amour as well as engineers to build it and scientists to discover it.
And the combat sections were indeed tense affairs with the aliens suddenly appearing, dreading that every shot might miss and the loss felt when a soldier died (for the record: I kept an Xcom tradition with naming all my soldiers after people I know).
One thing I found tricky was the handling of the income: As I found out, it takes a lot of money to establish a base and fit it out with the necessities required. But, of course, you're expected to have an eye on every location on the glove and if one nation isn't getting the necessary attention - most likely because you're trying get a base going to deal with potential aliens - they will cut their funding. And this will make the task of organizing the defense even more tougher. Indeed, far too often I would find myself sitting on my thumbs wondering what to do and even advancing the time to get to the monthly payout - only to find that something else was already happening beyond my notice.
Still this is indeed game that grabbed me by the throat and refused to let go. Sure it may have had it's slow moments but somehow, the accolades of the 'Greatest PC game EVAH' somehow seem justified.
Needless to say, I do feel excited to one day tackle the remake but, I suspect, it won't be for a while yet. Why? Because I'm far too busy playing the original!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Blessed are the Peace Makers
Last week I heard about a game called Peace Maker - a project done by a bunch of univeristy students that made it's way into a fully-fledged game. But what got my attention was it was billed as a strategy game where peace solutions were the only way to win. Now I like my strategy games having played both Starcraft and Civilization to death so hearing someone propose a new entrant to the genre where actual conflict is the quickest way to lose? That sound downright awful on paper but hey, if someone has the balls (or stupidity) to go against the grain than that's fine by me.
Another selling point is the fact this is a 'serious' game and working to convey a genuine point: The game itself is set in the Gaza Strip and aimed at bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians to a peaceful resolution. 'Inspired by real events' the game blurb proclaims. Well I'm all for games actually working to say something worthwhile (not to mention looking for ammunition to use against the anti-gaming crusaders) so my curiosity was piqued: I went to the Peace maker homepage and downloaded the game for myself.
Needless to say, I was not sure what to expect out of the final product.
To begin with, unlike other strategy games, the player does not assume the role of an army commander - no, instead the player's role is more akin to that of a politician. There are no armies to build up - instead it's a simple matter of making decisions and seeing how they play out. Again, it sure sounds like a concept that shouldn't work - but somehow it does. With each player turn, a decision needs to be made in order to progress - decisions such as construction projects and negotiations with the other factions. But what is interesting is just how these decisions work: The outcome of each decision is indeed unpredictable and there's no guarantee they will yield the desired result. More often than not, good new (e.g educational programs being implemented) walks hand in hand with bad news (e.g. people being killed by a suicide bomber). And if that isn't enough, each decision results in a reaction from the opposition and the world so maintaining a balance is trickier than it sounds.
I played the Palestinian campaign for my first play-through and achieved victory within the space of an evening. And I was impressed by how such a simple game can have such an effect on me as the player: Often I found myself bearing witness to some setbacks and thinking 'What Do I Do now?'. And the unpredictable nature of the decision outcomes often left me in a state of nervous anticipation/dread in seeing how they'd play out. And such was this effect that each small step of progression felt like a victory and winning was an ultimate triumph.
The game is billed as being inspired by real-life events and it shows with use of real-life footage and images. Indeed, I felt like I had learned a lot about the Middle East conflicts from the exeprience - perhaps more than any news program could ever hope to. And having played Peace Maker, it really seems that a peaceful resolution between the Israelis and the Palestinians can be possible - now if only the right people will listen....
Mind you, one thing Peace Maker makes clear is just how difficult being a Politician is when you have to please everyone and the rest of the world is watching. And for a gem to do that is indeed something.
So to wrap this up, I enjoyed Peace Maker and for a game to reach me to some degree of an emotional level is indeed an impressive feat. I have wondered in the past if peaceful solutions could work in a strategy genre, where guns and blood dominate, and it would now seem possible.
Needless to say, I've always wanted games to be able to convey ideas and possibilities beyond shooting people in the head so Peace Maker is indeed a step in the right direction.
Now if only more people would put down that sniper rifle long enough to play it....
Another selling point is the fact this is a 'serious' game and working to convey a genuine point: The game itself is set in the Gaza Strip and aimed at bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians to a peaceful resolution. 'Inspired by real events' the game blurb proclaims. Well I'm all for games actually working to say something worthwhile (not to mention looking for ammunition to use against the anti-gaming crusaders) so my curiosity was piqued: I went to the Peace maker homepage and downloaded the game for myself.
Needless to say, I was not sure what to expect out of the final product.
To begin with, unlike other strategy games, the player does not assume the role of an army commander - no, instead the player's role is more akin to that of a politician. There are no armies to build up - instead it's a simple matter of making decisions and seeing how they play out. Again, it sure sounds like a concept that shouldn't work - but somehow it does. With each player turn, a decision needs to be made in order to progress - decisions such as construction projects and negotiations with the other factions. But what is interesting is just how these decisions work: The outcome of each decision is indeed unpredictable and there's no guarantee they will yield the desired result. More often than not, good new (e.g educational programs being implemented) walks hand in hand with bad news (e.g. people being killed by a suicide bomber). And if that isn't enough, each decision results in a reaction from the opposition and the world so maintaining a balance is trickier than it sounds.
I played the Palestinian campaign for my first play-through and achieved victory within the space of an evening. And I was impressed by how such a simple game can have such an effect on me as the player: Often I found myself bearing witness to some setbacks and thinking 'What Do I Do now?'. And the unpredictable nature of the decision outcomes often left me in a state of nervous anticipation/dread in seeing how they'd play out. And such was this effect that each small step of progression felt like a victory and winning was an ultimate triumph.
The game is billed as being inspired by real-life events and it shows with use of real-life footage and images. Indeed, I felt like I had learned a lot about the Middle East conflicts from the exeprience - perhaps more than any news program could ever hope to. And having played Peace Maker, it really seems that a peaceful resolution between the Israelis and the Palestinians can be possible - now if only the right people will listen....
Mind you, one thing Peace Maker makes clear is just how difficult being a Politician is when you have to please everyone and the rest of the world is watching. And for a gem to do that is indeed something.
So to wrap this up, I enjoyed Peace Maker and for a game to reach me to some degree of an emotional level is indeed an impressive feat. I have wondered in the past if peaceful solutions could work in a strategy genre, where guns and blood dominate, and it would now seem possible.
Needless to say, I've always wanted games to be able to convey ideas and possibilities beyond shooting people in the head so Peace Maker is indeed a step in the right direction.
Now if only more people would put down that sniper rifle long enough to play it....
Friday, May 28, 2010
Spike vs Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy 7. There I've said it. It must be one of the biggest, most acclaimed, most best-selling and indeed, most enduring game ever made. It sold the Sony Playstation, introduced many to RPGs and, thirteen years on, still has more staying power than many other games/franchises.
Yet to the newcomer, all of this may seem intimidating. It has, in recent years become a trend to dismiss FF7 with spinoffs that didn't quite work, the entire franchise being milked for all it's worth, age being quite clear and many of it's devotees no longer in their teens.
So last year, I actually sat down and played FF7 with fresh eyes.
So why has it taken me this long? Well, personally I have been suspicious of anything attracting a large following as a) I feel that people should find things in their own time and come to their own conclusions, b) if experience has taught me anything is that anything supposedly awesome can easily turn out to be a massive disappointment and c) following a crowd like a sheep would rob me of my identity and individuality. That being said, I paid little attention to FF7. Additionally, I felt that i had picked up all I needed to know about the game through, by chance, reading an article on Advent Children in Anime Insider. Finally, it became all too clear that the game's reputation seemed to rely solely on one moment (I think you know what it is)
For many, Final Fantasy 7 was the first RPG their ever played - which in effect contributes to the never-wavering devotion form the fans. And in that sense, I am an interesting candidate to play FF7. You see, the first Final Fantasy I played was number 10 - a great game yes but it's not my favorite. The first JRPG I played was Secret of Mana which I think is one of the best games I ever played (I am so looking forward to having a three player game of it on the Wii). BUT! The first RPG I played on ANY computer/video game system was Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64. As such, I find western RPG's a more attractive prospect than JRPGs (Baldurs Gate 2 FTW!!!!). So there is indeed a lot of truth to the notion that the first time you encounter something new is the most memorable.
Similarly, I don't consider myself a Final Fantasy fan: In my mind there are fans, those who have played EVERY FF game made, and non fans, those who played none of them. This places me in the middle - yet out of all FF games I have played, I have found something to enjoy: 10 was great, 4 was great, 5 and 9 were both fun to play even if underrated, and 6 is the one where they got everything right and is thus one of the best games I have ever played (in case you haven't heard those words a thousand times before).
But in the end, it was my own principles that got me: Everyone should discover something in their time and arrive at their own conclusions. I sought the negative opinions and, although a minority, I felt they brought up something interesting points. But no matter, I should least play it enough to form my own opinion. I had the game lying untouched on my shelf for Lord knows how long so there is no point in talking about something I haven't even played. Also, I have a Cloud cosplay planned (Kath's idea) so I may as well conduct some research. Who knows? I might be surprised....
At this point in time, I am halfway through the game and, surprise surprise, I am actually having fun.
Yeah I couldn't believe it myself. Try as I might to find an excuse to hate this game, I couldn't help but actually enjoy it. Sure the graphics looked antique by today's standards, sure the music sounds horribly midi for a Playstation game (or maybe that's me being biased after spending many hours playing Castlevania: SOTN), sure the character have little in the way of actual distinction, sure there are too many villains sure Sephiroth has got NOTHING on Kefka (don't like it? Bite me) and sure the story is absurdly complex, leaning on incomprehensible.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. I am willing to ignore all of the above when one considers the game's strengths: The backdrops and settings still manage to hold up pretty well - even if the rest of graphics don't. I also really like how the cyperpunk setting works wonders in a game where it's predecessors have all been based on a medieval/fantasy setting. The ideas that drive the game are compelling with the theory that the planet would be much better off without us humans (perhaps more so considering Al Gore's environmental campaigning has gathered more attention in recent times than ever before). The mini-games have been fun and the tasks to find some of the bonuses have so fun been enjoyable rather than frustrating *coughFFXcough*. The game seems less interested in forcing story progression onto the player and simply steps back and lets them go and bonk some heads - and that's what matters: The game is FUN.
There is a lot of joy to be had in going around and killing some monsters. It doesn't get tedious and the player is allowed to progress the story at their own pace. I thought I would abandon the game once my fav character was out of the picture but somehow I feel compelled to keep going onward (and whatever feelings of bitterness spawned from my paranoid mind (I might elaborate on this in a later note)). There is much to enjoy this game, and in a way it seems like an accumulation of all the elements spawned from previous FF's - but still making room for FF7 to say something of it's own. Now I'm not going to going to declare it one of the best I've played (Ico, Metal Gear Solid, Baldur's Gate 2, Civ2 and FF7's younger brother FF6 are still rated higher) but FF7 in it's own right turns out to pretty damn good.
In short, I came into FF7 with an open mind and I found it really fun to play.
Which is what a video game should do
So in the end, I played a game I have been reluctant to play and it turned out to be pretty damned good. Sure this opinion may be subject to change as my progress continues but ultimately what this goes to show that sometimes finding something out on your own, when thousands have come before you, can actually turn out some magic in it's own way.
Yet to the newcomer, all of this may seem intimidating. It has, in recent years become a trend to dismiss FF7 with spinoffs that didn't quite work, the entire franchise being milked for all it's worth, age being quite clear and many of it's devotees no longer in their teens.
So last year, I actually sat down and played FF7 with fresh eyes.
So why has it taken me this long? Well, personally I have been suspicious of anything attracting a large following as a) I feel that people should find things in their own time and come to their own conclusions, b) if experience has taught me anything is that anything supposedly awesome can easily turn out to be a massive disappointment and c) following a crowd like a sheep would rob me of my identity and individuality. That being said, I paid little attention to FF7. Additionally, I felt that i had picked up all I needed to know about the game through, by chance, reading an article on Advent Children in Anime Insider. Finally, it became all too clear that the game's reputation seemed to rely solely on one moment (I think you know what it is)
For many, Final Fantasy 7 was the first RPG their ever played - which in effect contributes to the never-wavering devotion form the fans. And in that sense, I am an interesting candidate to play FF7. You see, the first Final Fantasy I played was number 10 - a great game yes but it's not my favorite. The first JRPG I played was Secret of Mana which I think is one of the best games I ever played (I am so looking forward to having a three player game of it on the Wii). BUT! The first RPG I played on ANY computer/video game system was Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64. As such, I find western RPG's a more attractive prospect than JRPGs (Baldurs Gate 2 FTW!!!!). So there is indeed a lot of truth to the notion that the first time you encounter something new is the most memorable.
Similarly, I don't consider myself a Final Fantasy fan: In my mind there are fans, those who have played EVERY FF game made, and non fans, those who played none of them. This places me in the middle - yet out of all FF games I have played, I have found something to enjoy: 10 was great, 4 was great, 5 and 9 were both fun to play even if underrated, and 6 is the one where they got everything right and is thus one of the best games I have ever played (in case you haven't heard those words a thousand times before).
But in the end, it was my own principles that got me: Everyone should discover something in their time and arrive at their own conclusions. I sought the negative opinions and, although a minority, I felt they brought up something interesting points. But no matter, I should least play it enough to form my own opinion. I had the game lying untouched on my shelf for Lord knows how long so there is no point in talking about something I haven't even played. Also, I have a Cloud cosplay planned (Kath's idea) so I may as well conduct some research. Who knows? I might be surprised....
At this point in time, I am halfway through the game and, surprise surprise, I am actually having fun.
Yeah I couldn't believe it myself. Try as I might to find an excuse to hate this game, I couldn't help but actually enjoy it. Sure the graphics looked antique by today's standards, sure the music sounds horribly midi for a Playstation game (or maybe that's me being biased after spending many hours playing Castlevania: SOTN), sure the character have little in the way of actual distinction, sure there are too many villains sure Sephiroth has got NOTHING on Kefka (don't like it? Bite me) and sure the story is absurdly complex, leaning on incomprehensible.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. I am willing to ignore all of the above when one considers the game's strengths: The backdrops and settings still manage to hold up pretty well - even if the rest of graphics don't. I also really like how the cyperpunk setting works wonders in a game where it's predecessors have all been based on a medieval/fantasy setting. The ideas that drive the game are compelling with the theory that the planet would be much better off without us humans (perhaps more so considering Al Gore's environmental campaigning has gathered more attention in recent times than ever before). The mini-games have been fun and the tasks to find some of the bonuses have so fun been enjoyable rather than frustrating *coughFFXcough*. The game seems less interested in forcing story progression onto the player and simply steps back and lets them go and bonk some heads - and that's what matters: The game is FUN.
There is a lot of joy to be had in going around and killing some monsters. It doesn't get tedious and the player is allowed to progress the story at their own pace. I thought I would abandon the game once my fav character was out of the picture but somehow I feel compelled to keep going onward (and whatever feelings of bitterness spawned from my paranoid mind (I might elaborate on this in a later note)). There is much to enjoy this game, and in a way it seems like an accumulation of all the elements spawned from previous FF's - but still making room for FF7 to say something of it's own. Now I'm not going to going to declare it one of the best I've played (Ico, Metal Gear Solid, Baldur's Gate 2, Civ2 and FF7's younger brother FF6 are still rated higher) but FF7 in it's own right turns out to pretty damn good.
In short, I came into FF7 with an open mind and I found it really fun to play.
Which is what a video game should do
So in the end, I played a game I have been reluctant to play and it turned out to be pretty damned good. Sure this opinion may be subject to change as my progress continues but ultimately what this goes to show that sometimes finding something out on your own, when thousands have come before you, can actually turn out some magic in it's own way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)