Zero'd In

Nope, I was wrong: Yahtzee did a review of Duke Nuke Forever anyway. Still, I doubt he's got far less important things to do than pay attention to the rantings of a nutter in this barren corner of cyberspace.

Mind you, I can only imagine how many were hoping he'd tear into it with unbridled fury - and were no doubt disappointed when the assessment came out more genuinely disappointed.
But personally I got more out of the real DNF review than the fake one. Maybe it was the surprise of hearing Yahtzee sounding saddened with the outcome. Maybe it was him saying something different when everyone else is too busy putting the boot in.

But whatever the reason, what happens to the fake review now? Has it lost it's luster now the game is finally completed? Do people still think it funny? Will everyone vote for it in the event a New Best ZP poll emerges? Or will it still be held in high esteem by those bitter souls wishing for the days when DNF was never going to released?

Zero Hour

I would hate to be in Yahtzee's shoes right now: Since Duke Nukem Forever has turned out to be rather unspectacular, I can imagine everyone will be chomping at the bit to have him give an unfavorable assessment in Zero Punctuation.

It's well known that when DNF was announced as abandoned in 2009, Yahtzee did a satirical review of the fictitious game - a review that ended up being voted as the best one he'd ever done.
Personally, I thought that review was more weird than funny - and I think Mr. Croshaw has done better in the past - which makes me wonder why the fictitious review turned out to be such a hit. One would say that a game of a fictitious nature (at the time) meant that no one had an opinion of it to counter Yahtzee's. Another theory is that after so much delays and frustration, people were more than eager to see the (then) unfinished game get a right mauling. Indeed, it is indeed ironic that the Gearbox acquisition happens AFTER the fake review - those making me wonder if someone is going to an awful lot of trouble just to show Yahtzee up.
And I suspect it's all those "I told you so" types who are now pestering Yahtzee do a new review of the now-finished game. But as a long time fan I hope Mr. Croshaw doesn't give in to those braying mules. He has mentioned before he's not the type to do so here's hoping he sticks to his guns.

Besides, considering the many problems DNF has, writing a bad review would be too easy, right?

Did Not.....Flabbergast?

Well it's been less than a week since Duke Nukem Forever was finally unleashed on a suspecting world and already the knives are out. Common criticisms range from loading times, a structure made from an incoherent jumble of ideas, inane jokes, nothing new to offer the FPS genre and being outpaced by it's older brethren (Half Life and Halo being two such examples)
I've read quite a few negative reviews and it seems everyone is more than willing to put the boot in. Indeed, the only good positive review I've seen came from Good Game - and I was indeed waiting for Bajo and Andrew Hansen to suddenly turn around and say "Just Kidding: THIS is what's really like."

It may be too soon to deem the eventual product/conclusion of the DNF saga to be a complete failure but, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to do it anyway. You see, looking at the divisive opinions of DNF it seems that everyone is angry by the fourteen years of inaction and, as a result, can't escape that fact - thus leaving many critics more than willing to put the boot in. It's as if the development time was more important than the game itself - but me, conversely, I find the fan reaction more important than the game itself. I'm intrigued that people can feel so hurt and betrayed that they are ready to dismiss the game before it has a chance to prove itself. I'm fascinated with the idea that people can make jokes for so long about this game and can get angry with the idea of their joke being taken away from them. I'm enthralled that people can get so worked up about a game. I'm amazed that people can be delighted that it turned out rubbish and get so infuriated with the idea that it might actually be good (and before you say a prolonged development couldn't possibly yield a great game then I suggest you retreat back to the bosom of Team Fortress 2).
Indeed, I myself will admit I have yet to play DNF - becuase in all honesty I find the venomous fan reaction far more entertaining. And if the fans garner more attention than the game itself then something has gone very wrong.

That being said, with this saga coming to such an anti-climatic ending, who are the real winners here? Is it 3d Realms? No, they had a hit with Duke3D but the momentum afterward fell apart. Is it Gearbox? No, they just took, what seems to be, a mess and tried to make it go. Is it Duke himself? No, he seems now more like an anachronism. Is it the franchise? No, it seems it won't go any further following this debacle and it's unlikely an attempt to be a better job the second time around a sequel will emerge.
No, I think the real winners are the fans: Those who felt betrayed to a point where they were more than eager to dismiss the game as rubbish. Those who got their wish of an irredeemable disaster. Those who refuse to forgive and forget. Those who have been shouting "I told you so", are shouting "I told you so" and, I suspect, will continue to shout "I told you so" for the next fourteen years. And those who are no doubt waiting eagerly to hear Yahtzee tear into it with the next Zero Punctuation.

Personally, considering the troubled development DNF had, I wanted it to get a happy ending - but there's always the thought of how many people genuinely wanted it to fail.

Damaged Beyond Repair

I recently heard that Yahtzee's proposed TV show, game Damage, sadly, kinda died and won't be coming around as a full blown TV show.

I'm disappointed to say the least. Judging for the pilot, there was a lot of potential here. I heard some people compare said pilot to Top Gear and there is some truth there: Top Gear works becuase it has three hosts of three distinctive personalities and seeing them interact is part of the fun. Having that formula transfer into a gaming show would've worked a treat.

When i first saw the pilot I thought it was great as came across as being put together by people who knew exactly what they were talking about. They had humorous asides but there was a lot of red-hot info that wasn't clogged down by odd moments that were a) puzzling or b) lame attempts at humour. Having being disillusioned with Good game (at the time) for this reason, i was all set to support Game Damage.

But sadly it looks like it won't be happening. Ironically however, recently Good Game is getting better - even more watchable - with more emphasis on the gaming and less emphasis on the bullshit. Looks like Bajo and Hex get the last laugh....

History Forever Repeats

The countdown to the arrival of Duke Nukem Forever ticks further away. This live footage of a demo recently surfaced:



Seeing as every man and his dog will be dissecting every last scrap of evidence to the finished product as it emerges, I offer my thoughts:

To be blunt, I'm unimpressed: I see a lot of piss-farting around at the start and a revamp of the final confrontation of the original Duke 3D only with nicer graphics. And suddenly I don't really seem as hopeful I thought I was.
However I did enjoy the end sequence with the breaking of the fourth-wall. Now, if the rest of the game is like that then we might be onto something.....

But I don't know: I'm beginning to wonder do we really want this? Do we want a game that's awesome or do we just want a punching bag? For me, DNF has been running on promises for so long that people are seeing it as the ultimate betrayal - you know, one that's beyond forgivable. The gamers left waiting are getting angry and more than keen to put the boot in - perhaps THAT'S why Yahtzee's fictitious review of DNF was voted the best Zero Punctuation by his audience.

Forever is too long

Apparently, it's true: A release date has finally been set for Duke Nukem Forever. Suddenly, the game that has been a laughing stock will finally see the light of day, after so many years in development.
So some thoughts on this revelation:

- Does anyone really care? The development has gone on for so long and, as such, Duke 3D has been forgotten or dismissed as tainted. I enjoyed Duke 3D when I was in high school and I liked it for it's sense of humor and character: Something that Quake and Doom seemed to lack. Indeed, seeing as FPS these days seem bound rigid to the notion of realism, an FPS with kooky weaponry and jokes would be more than welcome. So it may be far to say that DNF's time has come but are we ready to hand over the money for it?

- The reason 3D Realms used to explain the delays with DNF was: "When it's Done" Funny thing is, Valve and Blizzard use the same principal with their own games - only thing is, when a game from those camps is finally released, everyone falls head over heels in love with it and eagerly goes along with the developer's ambitions (I'm looking at you Starcraft 2!)

- Why did Gearbox take over? It's easy to imagine a huge sigh of relief upon the project's termination after years of delays and frustration. That being said, are Gearbox acting on the frustration that enough is enough? Or do they sincerely believe there is a good game just waiting to get out?



- Does anyone know what they're doing? Following the history of the development hell that has been DNF, it seems it's been a clutter of ambition, ideas looted from other games and a continual race to keep up with graphical advancements. Do the few remaining on DNF's team know what they're doing? Does anyone at Gearbox know what they're doing? I can easily imagine someone from Gearbox coming down and establishing order with loud shouting, proper guidance and a decent sense of direction. Is that what's happening? After all, it would be a shame to deliver a lousy product after a long wait (Too Human anyone?)

- Comparisons to the Guns N Roses album Chinese Democracy seem rather inescapable: Two projects that spent an incalculable time in development to the point where only the devoted few were the only one's keeping record. Thus, when Chinese Democracy finally got released opinions were divided. Sure some may dismiss and defend Chinese Democracy in equal measures but in the end, the Chinese Democracy Guns N Roses is indeed a completely different beast to the Appetite For Destruction Guns N Roses who had won millions over twenty years earlier.

- Does this mean Yahtzee's joke assessment of DNF would now rendered irrelevant? Would this also mean that the Zero Punctuation fans who voted in DNF as the best ZP would end up looking kinda silly? And, now that I think of it, did Gearbox take over DNF development purely for the sake of showing up Yahtzee?

- Would the wait be worth it? I suppose it would be easy to dismiss the game after the long wait but somehow, the idea that the game would be a triumph to end all triumphs is hard to imagine.

Sad but true.

Shadow of the Yahtzee

Today on Zero Punctuation, I saw Yahtzee give a glowing review to Shadow of the Colossus. He may not do many positive reviews but when he takes a break from dishing out the bile to praise something, that's certainly reason enough to take notice. It's particularly satisfying when the game in question is something you love.

Funny thing is, I once sent Yahtzee an e-mail asking if he would consider reviewing Ico. I never got a reply but I wasn't really expecting one anyway: my understanding is that he's been swamped by so many requests he's gotten tired and irritated by them. So in a way, I'd like to think Yahtzee's comments on Ico was an indication that maybe my e-mail managed to slip through the net.

But, as they say, each to their own XD

Put on a trenchcoat

Today I installed Deus Ex to my hard drive with the intention of playing it (not that's much else you can do with a game). Funny, it's been sitting on my shelf for a very long time and it's only now I've decided to take a look. Of course, it's not easy to take a game boasting ten year old graphics seriously but I'm still keen.

Strangely enough, when the title came up, along with that unforgettable opening theme, I immediately began singing along using the words Yahtzee came up with (see the Zero Punctuation review of Guitar Hero World Tour if you have no idea what I'm talking about). It's strange: I had not played the game before and yet I was already connected with it through the satirical videos of a grumpy web critic. It was one of those things that just happen - and I'm certain I'm not the only one who has done this.



All together now:

"...Put on a trenchcoat
and fight some conspiracies
Get experience
and level up abilities
Will you pick rifles
or computers?
Don't pick swimming, because
it's fairly useless
It's a shooter
and a role-playing game
The levels are ugly
and everyone looks the same
We're not the same Ion Storm
that made Daikatana
Our games are good
and they
stay on schedule

We made a sequel
that no-one liked
'cos we dumbed it down too much
'cos we're thick..."

You and me against the world

I've been a regular viewer of Zero Punctuation for quite a while now. I mean who isn't? It's fun to see Yahtzee tear into game and have the balls to say things that seem to escape the view of other game critics. I've also had the pleasure to meet Yahtzee and got him to sign my walkthrough of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.

Anyway his latest review, Dead to Rights: Retribution, brought forth an interesting point: The moments when the player is controlling Shadow are far more interesting than when the player is controlling Jack Slate. Now, I won't say that Yahtzee's opinions have that great an influence on my perception towards games in general but what I see is a classic case of squandered potential.



Dead to Rights: Retribution seems to part of a recent clutch of games based on the concept of 'two dudes taking on a whole army' (or in DtRR's case one dude and a dog). Other such games of this caliber include Army of Two and Resident Evil 5. Both games however seemed to have stumbled in executing this concept with dodgy AI no real sense of uniqueness between the characters being controlled.
That being said, there is only one game I have seen to have done this concept the best and that's the Chaos Engine: A game released in 1993 on the Amiga (later ported to the PC, Megadrive and SNES). It works as follows: The player works in team of two with another human or the computer. The player(s) selects a team of two mercenaries from a group of six and they go mow down a bunch of mutants. The thing is, each mercenary has they own unique weapon and set of abilities. Sure there are three sets of stats between the three but they develop in their own unique way. Sure some abilities are shared by characters but that's at different points in the game. The point is, the two player mechanic works because the characters are unique and only by working together can victory be achieved. Even in one player mode, the player still has a degree of control over what abilities are used by the team itself. It also encourages careful thought into what mercenaries are selected, based on what they can do and their rate of reliability in the battlefield.

In short, the two player mechanic can work when the AI is reliable enough and the two characters each have a degree of uniqueness that, when combined, can succeed. As indicated above, it can be done so there's really no excuse.



So what would I have done in Dead to Rights: Retribution? I would've had the player control Shadow and have Jack being controlled by the computer/2nd player. I mean think about it: Here, we have a team of two who have unique approaches to solving a problem. They play completely differently and it may offer an interesting spin on how the story is told: Through the eyes of Shadow.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with controlling a dog: Just look at Okami.