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:

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..."

Seemed like a good idea at the time

Following on from an earlier post about Steam achievements, I've been doing some comparisons between the achievements scored in the games I've played against everyone else.
It was then that I saw a pattern emerging: It seems the most unlocked achievements are those that detonate certain progress through the game itself. But in the terms of progress achievements, it's the first in a series.
What this means that it seems that people got part way through a game before giving up and not bothering to go back and complete it.

To back up this claim, let's take a look at the following:

Eversion:

Gemini Rue:

Secret of Monkey Island 2:

The Stanley Parable:

True my claim may be BS as I've been relying on games I've scored perfects on to base this theory. And again this theory is BS as I too have been guilty of playing a game so far before giving up on it completely. And finally, I've included The Stanley Parable here even though the achievements in that game aren't really designed to be unlocked without some near -insane level of commitment.

However there is some weight to the theory that there are so many games available on Steam and many of which are designed to be played quickly without the need for a massive time investment. Thus, one can expect, in amongst the Steam users, that there are the kind of users that download a game, give it a go before deciding the game wasn't for them and give up on it and then move onto the next game.
Indeed, one can imagine this to be a side-effect of having so many games readily available: With so much variety, the time committed to a game is subsequently on the wane. After all, why spend hour on a game when something potentially better is within easy reach?

Still I would like to think that the people who played Eversion only to gave up were traumatized victims of being broken by the game itself.

Don't look now

On the weekend, I was talking to someone who turned out to be something of connoisseur when it came to horror games. He spoke highly of Outlast, was aware of Slender: The Eight Pages and showed me Eyes upon his ipad. The latter was of particular note: It was claimed it was done by the same people who made Slender and, through a demonstration, Eyes revealed itself to be following the same formula of ‘run from a freaky creature with murderous intent’.

I myself am not into horror games – I myself play games to relax and it’s hard to relax when your Player Character is being chased by a psychotic with murderous intent. However I can see something of a formula begin to emerge through the games mentioned above.  Tell me if the following doesn’t sound familiar: Trapped in a confined space with limited lighting? Threats in the form of antagonists that are of a mysterious nature? Constant danger that is practically relentless? The only action a player can do is running? Little to no chance of victory? Indeed, once one realizes there seems to be a formula to the recent wave of horror games it now becomes impossible to ignore.

I suppose the source of this wave can be traced back to Amnesia: the Dark Descent. Whilst it is kinda nice that that game was a success (for an indy game) and showed up the posers of the survival horror genre, one gets the sense that everyone else has since been looking over Amnesia: the Dark Descent’s shoulder and copying their answers. It would be nice to think that an indy game has become the benchmark for other horror games to follow but I think it more a race to see who can freak out players the most.
But suppose Amnesia: the Dark Descent is the new benchmark. It raises a question: Where can we go from here? Gaming history is littered with games becoming big hits only to inspire clones in their wake. – two such examples being Street Fighter 2 and Final Fantasy 7. Both are regarded as the finest of their genre and nothing that has followed has really matched it (although Virtua Fighter and Soul Calibur may have a solid claim against Street Fighter 2). So if everyone seems intent on replicating Amnesia: the Dark Descent, does this mean the horror genre has nothing left to say?

Personally I think horror games work best when they sneak up from behind, pull the rug from underneath the player and gradually break the player’s will. Isn’t that right Eversion?

Two's Company and Three's a Crowd

An age-old debate: 2d platformers or 3d platformers?

Honestly this question isn’t something I really need to think about: 2d all the way. I grew up with eight bit and 16 bit games and, as far as I’m concerned, they did the job nicely and still do today.

My experience with 3d platformers has been varied: I recall the first time I played Super Mario 64 on the N64 and, having enjoyed both Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3, experiencing some kind of culture shock: I had no idea what I was supposed to do with Mario or where I was supposed to go. Consequently much of my time in Super Mario 64 was spent running around like a headless chook. Latter still I found many 3d platformers seemed unclear as to not only where to go but how to get there: At times my experience with 3d platformers was awash with difficulty in distinguishing what was a ledge and what was scenery – And anyone who tells me they haven’t slipped up a complicated jumping onto  something they thought they could hang onto is a liar.
I also didn’t appreciate the fact that much the graphics looked really ugly – a fact not helped years later as many fifth generation games have not aged well in the graphics department.  And matters were not helped by a wonky camera that seemed to refuse to go where the player wanted it to.

And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards 3d platformers: Unclear paths, hideous graphics and a resentful camera. Major problems that, to me, was more than enough as a deal-breaker. And having come from the 16-bit era, these flaws came across as being a major regressive step – why try and ruin that which was working so well already? Indeed, these problems were, and still remain, the reasons why I loved 3d platforms: The screen moved with the PC, they looked nice (some even hold up really well today) and it was always clear where the player was meant to go (not to mention the thrill of finding new paths to get to the exit). That and they were tremendous fun to play.

Now that’s not to say that I’ve found 3d platformers that I’ve enjoyed – Prince of Persia Sands of Time comes to mind – but that had a great narrative and a fun time-rewind mechanic to back it up. In fact I’ve found that when a 3d platformer is offering something else, I will latch onto the ‘something else’ and lo and behold, I find I can really enjoy the game itself (ie Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, NiGHTS and God of War).

As for the 2d platformers, I love them and I still do. And I suspect I’ll still be enjoying them ten years from now. I still finding some being made today (Eversion anyone?) and they are still as compelling as ever. I think that is how I feel about the conflict between 2d and 3d – I’ve become so accustomed on 2d so for 3d to grab my attention it had better offer something else on top.

Your move 3d platformers

Subversion

I'm not into horror games but I can enjoy them IF they are done right. For you see, unlike movies or books, horror games have a distinct advantage in that the player is an active participant. Thus horror that work are they type the eschew sudden shocks and emphasis mood. It's a platform where the age-old rule of 'it's what you don't see' is truly in it's element. Which is more scary in a horror game - being chased by an axe-murderer or the player thinking that they're being chased by an axe-murderer?
Better still are horror games that establish one perception and gradually pull the rug from underneath the player. Where everything looks friendly and inviting at first and eventually erodes away leaving a sense of despair, discomfort and unease. Thus if a game can make people physically look over their shoulders whilst playing then it is doing something right. If a game can make people uncomfortable enough to stop playing playing then it is doing something right. And if a game can build up such an intense mood without resorting to sudden shocks then it must be doing something right.

Anyway, yesterday I struck another game from my Hall of Shame: Eversion!
Boy, was that a fun game

Its been one week since you looked at me

So it's been a week since I made a return to Azeroth. So how do I feel about it?

Well I think the time away has done me well. When I left last year, I wasn't really enthused about playing World of Warcraft and, despite the myriad of things that can be done in it, somehow doing any of them felt hollow and dull. This time however I'm enthusiastic about doing the many activities again. Oh sure the professions have a degree of tedium attached to them but this time I know what I'm doing and as a result I don't find the profession duties at all prosaic. Subsequently I've made rapid progression in getting my skills up.

When I first left WoW I had three characters entering Outlands (plus there's my Death Knight who was/isn't too far away from there). And at that point I realized I'd be treading over the same ground thrice over. Again the threat of tedium reared it's head and was a good excuse as any not to progress further. This time around however, I've sent Beldrath into Tekkohar Forests and whilst Rithendal may have already been there, this time I'm finding the quests fun to do and have made some considerable progress (of course having the benefits from a level-1-guild-turned-level-9 has helped).

And there was my Hall of Shame. Since giving up World of Warcraft last year I've since struck numerous titles from my Hall of Shame - and thus built up enough karma points to justify a return to Azeroth. Only this time I (insofar) haven't allowed WoW to completely dominate my allotted gaming time - Why, I've recently been trying out Cave Story and Eversion (two games that couldn't be more worlds part).

I've heard of some people leaving World of Warcraft only to return some time later with fresh eyes and, having experienced it myself, there is indeed a lot of truth in that statement. Where once I was tired with WoW I'm now finding a renewed freshness. Of course, at my peak last year, I was playing WoW pretty much exclusively - which in retrospect is probably not the best way to go about playing WoW. Now, having spent some time away  and a reassment of the time allocated to WoW, another journey through Azeroth is looking pretty good at the moment.