I don't believe it. GoG have cut a deal with Blizzard. Thus we have not only Diablo but both Warcraft 1 and 2 now available on GoG.
Blizzard have certainly built up an impressive body of work over the years but their use of it has been frustrating. On one hand they officially release Lost Vikings and Black-throne onto Battle.net but on the other hand, whatever goodwill they may have built up is inexplicably ditched.
Personally, I don't know what kind of deal GoG brokered but it's one I'm grateful for.
So does this mean that more Blizzard titles may be available in future?
Showing posts with label Diablo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diablo. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2019
Monday, November 12, 2018
Colder than the coldest Blizzard was cold
I think it's fair to say that this moment is well and truly on it's way to gaming infamy:
Who would've guessed that silence could be so deafening?
Still, it is rare to see a big name, let alone Blizzard, make such a misstep. So it would be interesting to see how they will recover.
Original video located here. Accessed 12th November 2018
Who would've guessed that silence could be so deafening?
Still, it is rare to see a big name, let alone Blizzard, make such a misstep. So it would be interesting to see how they will recover.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Dark as the Darkest Night was Diablo
Lets talk about Diablo for a minute.
With the passage of time, I find Diablo something of an oddity: It was a huge hit in it's day but now no one seems to talk about it a lot. Okay so maybe the game has, in the years since, been surpassed by many RPGs, and Blizzard have made other games, but I still believe this is more to this franchise than it's most recent iteration.
I first played Diablo in 2002 - where I got my copy of a friend. I was to reluctant to play it at first (largely because I knew of the big twist that happens at the end of the game) but within time, I played Diablo all the way to the end (with both the Rogue and the Warrior) and it was quite enjoyable. As an action RPG it was a lot of fun but in the terms of atmosphere and art direction, the game was unbeatable. It was indeed engaging to have this mood of dread creeping throughout the game - the type that no other game has done since (with the possible exception of Eversion).
In fact maybe that's what I got the most out of the first Diablo: It does Dark Fantasy really well. These days Dark Fantasy seems to be a tag used to describe fantasy set in less-than glorious settings (ie Dragon Age and Game of Thrones). But I however subscribe to the traditional description of Dark Fantasy in that it's the combination between the genres of fantasy and horror. And it's that niche that Diablo fills nicely. It's not just slaughtering demonic enemies and slowly descending into Hell: It is, again, the atmosphere. It is the increasing discomfort that resonates the further progression is made. It is, again, that feeling of dread that drips throughout the game itself.
But really, the strengths of Diablo as a Dark Fantasy is best viewed through the intro:
To me this is Dark Fantasy done right: The ruined buildings, the use of shadows, the foreboding music, the monsters all accumulating to the scream at the end. Indeed, one can't not deny just how being constantly returned to that sword in the ground suddenly comes across as unsettling. Amazing how this intro is still compelling nearly twenty years later.
In fact i can just point tot that intro and say: "That's Dark Fantasy".
Which in turn makes me wonder why no one has ever done anything to match it. Sure anyone can use Dark Fantasy to describe certain fantasy settings but Diablo truly feels like a game that walks the walk. Perhaps no one has bothered to try an match it: because the first Diablo game it so well.
So have I bothered with the other Diablo games? No I haven't. I will admit that the afore-mentioned twist at the end of Diablo left me feeling cheated of victory that it was enough to put me off further explorations in the series. It may sound petty but I don't know: I spent all this time with this character so having them befall the fate that was handed to them does indeed feel like a rip off. But then again, maybe that is part and parcel of a Dark Fantasy.
I will admit that it would've been a cool idea to have the stats of the PC in Diablo being imported over into Diablo 2 (like in Mass Effect) but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Still, you can't say that the trailer to Diablo 2 broke from the Dark Fantasy template:
"....There's something dark within me now..."
With the passage of time, I find Diablo something of an oddity: It was a huge hit in it's day but now no one seems to talk about it a lot. Okay so maybe the game has, in the years since, been surpassed by many RPGs, and Blizzard have made other games, but I still believe this is more to this franchise than it's most recent iteration.
I first played Diablo in 2002 - where I got my copy of a friend. I was to reluctant to play it at first (largely because I knew of the big twist that happens at the end of the game) but within time, I played Diablo all the way to the end (with both the Rogue and the Warrior) and it was quite enjoyable. As an action RPG it was a lot of fun but in the terms of atmosphere and art direction, the game was unbeatable. It was indeed engaging to have this mood of dread creeping throughout the game - the type that no other game has done since (with the possible exception of Eversion).
In fact maybe that's what I got the most out of the first Diablo: It does Dark Fantasy really well. These days Dark Fantasy seems to be a tag used to describe fantasy set in less-than glorious settings (ie Dragon Age and Game of Thrones). But I however subscribe to the traditional description of Dark Fantasy in that it's the combination between the genres of fantasy and horror. And it's that niche that Diablo fills nicely. It's not just slaughtering demonic enemies and slowly descending into Hell: It is, again, the atmosphere. It is the increasing discomfort that resonates the further progression is made. It is, again, that feeling of dread that drips throughout the game itself.
But really, the strengths of Diablo as a Dark Fantasy is best viewed through the intro:
Original video located here. Accessed 11th December 2015
To me this is Dark Fantasy done right: The ruined buildings, the use of shadows, the foreboding music, the monsters all accumulating to the scream at the end. Indeed, one can't not deny just how being constantly returned to that sword in the ground suddenly comes across as unsettling. Amazing how this intro is still compelling nearly twenty years later.
In fact i can just point tot that intro and say: "That's Dark Fantasy".
Which in turn makes me wonder why no one has ever done anything to match it. Sure anyone can use Dark Fantasy to describe certain fantasy settings but Diablo truly feels like a game that walks the walk. Perhaps no one has bothered to try an match it: because the first Diablo game it so well.
So have I bothered with the other Diablo games? No I haven't. I will admit that the afore-mentioned twist at the end of Diablo left me feeling cheated of victory that it was enough to put me off further explorations in the series. It may sound petty but I don't know: I spent all this time with this character so having them befall the fate that was handed to them does indeed feel like a rip off. But then again, maybe that is part and parcel of a Dark Fantasy.
I will admit that it would've been a cool idea to have the stats of the PC in Diablo being imported over into Diablo 2 (like in Mass Effect) but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Still, you can't say that the trailer to Diablo 2 broke from the Dark Fantasy template:
Original video located here. Accessed 11th December 2015
"....There's something dark within me now..."
Friday, November 27, 2015
Dragon Around
Recently I discovered that the arcade classic Dragon's Lair has been released (in a revamped format) on Steam, PSN and XBLA. So now would be a good time as any to talk about.
For those not in the know, Dragon's Lair was an arcade game originally released in 1983. It featured the player controlling a bumbling knight named Dirk the Daring going on a quest, through a castle, to rescue a princess, Daphne, from a dragon.
In it's day Dragon's Lair got a lot of attention on two fronts: Firstly, it made use of Laser Disc technology which made it more powerful than it's arcade peers. And secondly, it boasted full animation by the legendary Don Bluth. Thus the graphics and animation were beautiful to look at (and still do thirty plus years later) and looked like nothing else at the time.
However, whilst the animation was a key selling point, the game itself presented a challenge to the player: It was their job to guide Dirk through the castle but it did not involve controlling him directly. No, what would happen is that a scene of animation will play out and the player would need to tap in the right command (whether pressing the attack button or moving the joystick) at the right time. If they succeeded, the scene will move to next one but if they failed there would be a death scene.
So yeah Dragon's Lair was nothing more than a series of QuickTime events. And guess what? There were no prompts whatsoever: it had to be all worked out by the player through trial and error. That may sound brutal but keep in mind that the game itself was built around a grand total of twenty minutes worth of animation. As such a length would make for a short game, you don't want it to be easy now, right?
So how did this game play out? Well, here's a playthrough of the recent revamp:
Personally, when I was a kid I never got to play Dragon's Lair but I did know of it through reputation. Aside from the art direction, the animation and Princess Daphne, a lot of that reputation rested on the brutal difficulty and how it is never clear on what the player needs to do and when they need to do it. But considering that this was an arcade game and arcade games thrive on draining the change from the player's pockets, having an arcade game that is too easy is out of the question.
Whilst I was unable to play Dragon's Lair that didn't stop me from admiring it from afar. But the earliest impression I got from Dragon's Lair was this is a dark fantasy. Now, these days the phrase "dark fantasy" is used to describe fantasy set in a rather less-than-spectacular setting (ie Dragon Age) - I however subscribe to the traditional use of "dark fantasy" in that it is used to describe the genre hybrid of fantasy and horror (ie Diablo).
And strange as this may sound, I always associated Dragon's Lair as being something of a horror game. Maybe it was because the eighties was a golden time for fantasy/horror hybrids (ie Jim Henson's The Storyteller and Return to Oz). Or maybe it was that ominous opening screen to Dragon's Lair itself:
Needless to say, upon viewing that play-through posted above, for the first time, I was really surprised to see the game was actually quite humorous and made heavy use of slapstick comedy. I suppose that the use of humor may ease the player's frustration of failing a move but when you fail plenty of Dragon's Lair (which you will inevitably do) the humor becomes less humorous and more annoying.
And even mocking.
Years later, I have no interest in playing Dragon's Lair - yes it is not the dark fantasy I was expecting and yes I'm not keen in QuickTime events. But at the same time I will will admit an admiration for the game series. Because it is undeniable it has animation and art direction that most game artists will kill for. Plus it is trying something new and certainly looks unique for it's era. And if it's truly the exercise in animation that Don Bluth claims it is then it has achieved such a goal and it's done so with flying colors.
And then there's the sequel:
.......I.......I've got nothing.
For those not in the know, Dragon's Lair was an arcade game originally released in 1983. It featured the player controlling a bumbling knight named Dirk the Daring going on a quest, through a castle, to rescue a princess, Daphne, from a dragon.
In it's day Dragon's Lair got a lot of attention on two fronts: Firstly, it made use of Laser Disc technology which made it more powerful than it's arcade peers. And secondly, it boasted full animation by the legendary Don Bluth. Thus the graphics and animation were beautiful to look at (and still do thirty plus years later) and looked like nothing else at the time.
However, whilst the animation was a key selling point, the game itself presented a challenge to the player: It was their job to guide Dirk through the castle but it did not involve controlling him directly. No, what would happen is that a scene of animation will play out and the player would need to tap in the right command (whether pressing the attack button or moving the joystick) at the right time. If they succeeded, the scene will move to next one but if they failed there would be a death scene.
So yeah Dragon's Lair was nothing more than a series of QuickTime events. And guess what? There were no prompts whatsoever: it had to be all worked out by the player through trial and error. That may sound brutal but keep in mind that the game itself was built around a grand total of twenty minutes worth of animation. As such a length would make for a short game, you don't want it to be easy now, right?
So how did this game play out? Well, here's a playthrough of the recent revamp:
Original video located here. Accessed 27th November 2015
Personally, when I was a kid I never got to play Dragon's Lair but I did know of it through reputation. Aside from the art direction, the animation and Princess Daphne, a lot of that reputation rested on the brutal difficulty and how it is never clear on what the player needs to do and when they need to do it. But considering that this was an arcade game and arcade games thrive on draining the change from the player's pockets, having an arcade game that is too easy is out of the question.
Whilst I was unable to play Dragon's Lair that didn't stop me from admiring it from afar. But the earliest impression I got from Dragon's Lair was this is a dark fantasy. Now, these days the phrase "dark fantasy" is used to describe fantasy set in a rather less-than-spectacular setting (ie Dragon Age) - I however subscribe to the traditional use of "dark fantasy" in that it is used to describe the genre hybrid of fantasy and horror (ie Diablo).
And strange as this may sound, I always associated Dragon's Lair as being something of a horror game. Maybe it was because the eighties was a golden time for fantasy/horror hybrids (ie Jim Henson's The Storyteller and Return to Oz). Or maybe it was that ominous opening screen to Dragon's Lair itself:
Original image located here. Accessed 27th November 2015
Needless to say, upon viewing that play-through posted above, for the first time, I was really surprised to see the game was actually quite humorous and made heavy use of slapstick comedy. I suppose that the use of humor may ease the player's frustration of failing a move but when you fail plenty of Dragon's Lair (which you will inevitably do) the humor becomes less humorous and more annoying.
And even mocking.
Years later, I have no interest in playing Dragon's Lair - yes it is not the dark fantasy I was expecting and yes I'm not keen in QuickTime events. But at the same time I will will admit an admiration for the game series. Because it is undeniable it has animation and art direction that most game artists will kill for. Plus it is trying something new and certainly looks unique for it's era. And if it's truly the exercise in animation that Don Bluth claims it is then it has achieved such a goal and it's done so with flying colors.
And then there's the sequel:
Original video located here. Accessed 27th November 2015
.......I.......I've got nothing.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Diabolical
It's official: Diablo 3 is on it's way, expecting to touch down sometime next year. Personally I'm a bit surprised that Blizzard were actually making a Diablo 3: One would expect that with the monumental success of World of Warcraft they would just pack it in and retire.
But I find interesting is that Diablo 3 has apparently been in development since 2001 - that's ten years. Seeing as the gaming industry moves at such a mind-blowing pace, ten years would be an eternity: Technological advancements happen, investors get worried with lack of action and the many of potential buyers have to satisfied lest they get frustrated and take their money elsewhere.
But strangely everyone seems rather cool with this: Blizzard run by the policy of taking their time with their products and doing the best job possible - and they can get away with this purely out of their previous successes. More astonishingly the fans of Blizzard, of which there are many, are very understanding and accepting of this and will hold onto the undying hopes (not to mention faith in Blizzard) without question.
Geez, how good do you have to be to enable this to happen!?
But the unflinching acceptance to the long development cycle of Diablo 3 makes an interesting counterpoint to the debacle that was Duke Nukem Forever. Both games were/are being released on the premise of when it's done - yet whilst the Diablo fans quietly accepted this, the Duke Nukem fans got angered. And whereas everyone kept indefatigable faith in Blizzard, everyone made countless jokes at DNF's MIA status. When the hopes for DNF eventually crumbled, the hopes for Blizzard remain high and untouched as ever. And when everyone was so keen to put the boot into the DNF before it was released, Blizzard are still able to escape such a fate unscathed.
And whereas the constant delays of DNF was a sin beyond forgivable, Blizzard, as well as Valve, are allowed to work at their own pace and we allow it to happen without any thoughts of anger or betrayal.
We're a hard mob to please us gamers aren't we?
But I find interesting is that Diablo 3 has apparently been in development since 2001 - that's ten years. Seeing as the gaming industry moves at such a mind-blowing pace, ten years would be an eternity: Technological advancements happen, investors get worried with lack of action and the many of potential buyers have to satisfied lest they get frustrated and take their money elsewhere.
But strangely everyone seems rather cool with this: Blizzard run by the policy of taking their time with their products and doing the best job possible - and they can get away with this purely out of their previous successes. More astonishingly the fans of Blizzard, of which there are many, are very understanding and accepting of this and will hold onto the undying hopes (not to mention faith in Blizzard) without question.
Geez, how good do you have to be to enable this to happen!?
But the unflinching acceptance to the long development cycle of Diablo 3 makes an interesting counterpoint to the debacle that was Duke Nukem Forever. Both games were/are being released on the premise of when it's done - yet whilst the Diablo fans quietly accepted this, the Duke Nukem fans got angered. And whereas everyone kept indefatigable faith in Blizzard, everyone made countless jokes at DNF's MIA status. When the hopes for DNF eventually crumbled, the hopes for Blizzard remain high and untouched as ever. And when everyone was so keen to put the boot into the DNF before it was released, Blizzard are still able to escape such a fate unscathed.
And whereas the constant delays of DNF was a sin beyond forgivable, Blizzard, as well as Valve, are allowed to work at their own pace and we allow it to happen without any thoughts of anger or betrayal.
We're a hard mob to please us gamers aren't we?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Bad to the Bone
(EDIT: Since publishing this post, a friend has pointed out problems with this post. That being said, what may follow may be weird and unnecessary to some readers. So pointing that out doesn't make you a genius...
....Becuase I beat you to it! Ha!)
Had a laugh in watching these week’s Zero Punctuation. Far be it from me to recommend someone away from these words but seeing Yahtzee tear into World of Warcraft Cataclysm was a treat indeed. Somehow, I can’t help but think the declaration of ‘Fuck the Alliance’ may be cause for Blizzard to consider some incentive to make people reconsider joining the Horde.
I’ve never played Wow and I don’t see any reason to start – personally I like games that have at least some kind of goal to make all the hours invested in the game worth it in the end. To do the same thing over and over again (which is pretty much what RPG’s usually entail) but no destination in mind doesn’t really sit well with me.
Of course, this may make me the wrong choice to talk about WOW but sometimes, an outsider’s view can make a whole world of difference (pun most certainly intended).
As is my understanding, players of Wow are divided into two groups: Alliance and Horde. The former are ‘goodies’ and the latter are ‘baddies’. As a result, the Horde commands the larger number of players and anyone in the Alliance is considered a pansy.
Many games these days usually present the option to players, through their actions, be a good guy or a bad guy. But it would seem that no game commands more appeal to be a bad guy than World of Warcraft. Thus the Horde outclasses the Alliance in Warrior Classes, Weaponry and Spells. Seems the Devil really does have the better toys.
True playing the bad guy in a video game is escapism at work offering the player to do things they wouldn’t normally do in their real life but I’m not sure what offering the option of doing either is meant to accomplish: Some games expect you to be the bad guy whilst other games have offered better rewards/power-ups for being a bad guy over a good guy (Infamous being one example). But in WOW, it would seem that being in the Horde means you can cleanly get away with being a prick – being one of the Horde means you don’t have to deal with any moral choices (ie Mass Effect) and you aren’t forced into some guilt-trip bollocks for the things you do (ie Shadow of the Colossus).
Thus it would seem that in Blizzard’s world being a good guy just plain sucks: Diablo ended with your warrior serving as vessel for demonic possession and Starcraft ends with the player siding with the Zerg and destroying the factions they previously worked hard to build up – both effectively ruining the work the player put into the game. Does someone in Blizzard have a prejudice against good guys? Maybe – but it would seem that many WOW players think so.
But I don’t: I enjoy playing both the good guy and the bad guy in equal amounts. I prefer to see things in shades of grey as opposed to black and white. Unfortunately for me though, the moral systems that proliferate games these days think otherwise.
And this is the problem I have with moral choices: It’s one or the other. You can either be 100% good or 100% bad with no room for any middle ground whatsoever.
But why not? I like heroes, and villains, to have some depth to them. I like heroes that do more than be heroic just for the sake it (By way of example I prefer Batman over Superman). Thus, the heroes that appeal to me are those who do good things however reluctantly or have some kind of weight on their shoulders, ie Solid Snake and Vincent Valentine. On the flipside, villains that appeal to me are those who show some degree of humanity even with blood on their hands, ie Magneto and Shishio Makoto (Rurouni Kenshin). I mean just because a villain shows some emotion doesn’t make him a pussy – it shows he has some depth.
So yes, the moral choices only work for me when there is some middle ground to add some grey into the mix. Being entirely white or entirely black may be all good and well but ultimately it’s so damn boring! Indeed, I would like to see a Commander Shepard score more than a few Renegade points on their way to becoming a Paragon. It makes for a more interesting character that way.
In the end, I don’t see a point for prejudice against good guys: You need them to keep the bad guys in line, to give an opposing force to add to conflict and, ultimately, a reason for the bad guys to be bad guys.
So perhaps Blizzard could add some more incentive for Alliance players?
Some cheaper thrills maybe?
....Becuase I beat you to it! Ha!)
Had a laugh in watching these week’s Zero Punctuation. Far be it from me to recommend someone away from these words but seeing Yahtzee tear into World of Warcraft Cataclysm was a treat indeed. Somehow, I can’t help but think the declaration of ‘Fuck the Alliance’ may be cause for Blizzard to consider some incentive to make people reconsider joining the Horde.
I’ve never played Wow and I don’t see any reason to start – personally I like games that have at least some kind of goal to make all the hours invested in the game worth it in the end. To do the same thing over and over again (which is pretty much what RPG’s usually entail) but no destination in mind doesn’t really sit well with me.
Of course, this may make me the wrong choice to talk about WOW but sometimes, an outsider’s view can make a whole world of difference (pun most certainly intended).
As is my understanding, players of Wow are divided into two groups: Alliance and Horde. The former are ‘goodies’ and the latter are ‘baddies’. As a result, the Horde commands the larger number of players and anyone in the Alliance is considered a pansy.
Many games these days usually present the option to players, through their actions, be a good guy or a bad guy. But it would seem that no game commands more appeal to be a bad guy than World of Warcraft. Thus the Horde outclasses the Alliance in Warrior Classes, Weaponry and Spells. Seems the Devil really does have the better toys.
True playing the bad guy in a video game is escapism at work offering the player to do things they wouldn’t normally do in their real life but I’m not sure what offering the option of doing either is meant to accomplish: Some games expect you to be the bad guy whilst other games have offered better rewards/power-ups for being a bad guy over a good guy (Infamous being one example). But in WOW, it would seem that being in the Horde means you can cleanly get away with being a prick – being one of the Horde means you don’t have to deal with any moral choices (ie Mass Effect) and you aren’t forced into some guilt-trip bollocks for the things you do (ie Shadow of the Colossus).
Thus it would seem that in Blizzard’s world being a good guy just plain sucks: Diablo ended with your warrior serving as vessel for demonic possession and Starcraft ends with the player siding with the Zerg and destroying the factions they previously worked hard to build up – both effectively ruining the work the player put into the game. Does someone in Blizzard have a prejudice against good guys? Maybe – but it would seem that many WOW players think so.
But I don’t: I enjoy playing both the good guy and the bad guy in equal amounts. I prefer to see things in shades of grey as opposed to black and white. Unfortunately for me though, the moral systems that proliferate games these days think otherwise.
And this is the problem I have with moral choices: It’s one or the other. You can either be 100% good or 100% bad with no room for any middle ground whatsoever.
But why not? I like heroes, and villains, to have some depth to them. I like heroes that do more than be heroic just for the sake it (By way of example I prefer Batman over Superman). Thus, the heroes that appeal to me are those who do good things however reluctantly or have some kind of weight on their shoulders, ie Solid Snake and Vincent Valentine. On the flipside, villains that appeal to me are those who show some degree of humanity even with blood on their hands, ie Magneto and Shishio Makoto (Rurouni Kenshin). I mean just because a villain shows some emotion doesn’t make him a pussy – it shows he has some depth.
So yes, the moral choices only work for me when there is some middle ground to add some grey into the mix. Being entirely white or entirely black may be all good and well but ultimately it’s so damn boring! Indeed, I would like to see a Commander Shepard score more than a few Renegade points on their way to becoming a Paragon. It makes for a more interesting character that way.
In the end, I don’t see a point for prejudice against good guys: You need them to keep the bad guys in line, to give an opposing force to add to conflict and, ultimately, a reason for the bad guys to be bad guys.
So perhaps Blizzard could add some more incentive for Alliance players?
Some cheaper thrills maybe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)