We don't need another God of War

I enjoyed the original God of War. It won me over on the strength of it’s action-packed pace, it’s reinvention of Ancient Greek Mythology and it’s compelling plot. Sure, the game-play formula has been duplicated many times ever since and sure the puzzles were annoying at times but God of War was indeed lot’s of fun and a great excuse to wreck some carnage. And Kratos, in all his psychopathic glory, was a welcome change of pace to a whole horde of whinging, whining girly heroes that proliferate certain games these days.

However I have a bone of contention with the sequels: As far as I’m concerned, they have no right to exist. Sure many critics are turning cartwheels over the technological aspects of the game but don’t they always do that? Sure there’s no denying that it looks great, the fun value and the reinvention of Ancient Greek mythology but I’m not buying that. As such I refuse to touch any God of War game that isn’t the first one.
The reason being is the plot: God of War presented a self-contained story that wrapped things up fairly nicely by the end. Kratos was given a decent motivation and enough characterisation and background for him to endear himself to the player in spite of the fact they were controlling a homicidal psychopath. And, like every other narrative protagonist, Kratos went through Hell/Hades (literally!), only to defeat Ares at the end, liberate himself from the curse (which was Kratos’ own stupid fault to begin with) and take the place of the God of War and inspire centuries of warfare forever afterward. That’s settled then!



However, come the sequel, Kratos is bored with being a god and being shunned by the other gods so he tries to start up a war on Earth. Zeus gets annoyed at this, strips Kratos of his powers and sends him back to Hades. This in turn, inspires Kratos to fight his way out of Hades swearing revenge on Zeus on his lips.
So just to recap: Kratos wants to get back at Zeus because Kratos was being a jerk. Riiiiiiiiiight.
Really though, from where I sit, it’s near impossible to build a sequel from a resolution offered by God of War 1. His family is avenged so what now? He’s just going to kill of a lot of things just because he feels like it? This does indeed come across as being a far cry from the complexity Kratos’ character got in the first game – and indeed puzzling that the designers made Kratos a psycho when he has previously been established as being more substantial than that. Sure he had a plausible motivation with revenge but when that’s fulfilled what next? Is he just going on revenge because that’s all he’s good at? Why would you complain about being a God? If you have powers beyond imagination and yet you STILL can’t extinguish the memory of your murdering past then what good are you?

And God of War 3 presents an even more nonsensical scenario as Kratos’ revenge-inspired, god-killing actions justifies the collapse of Greek Mythology. But really that just comes across as being sad: Kratos’ character is even further ruined and the distance between him and the players grows wider still. And having Kratos doing the same things, without any proper reason to do so, reeks of writers struggling to come up with something new. Indeed, it makes me wonder why they even bothered making a sequel – wouldn’t have been easier to come up with something new?

So that’s why I won’t touch the God of War sequels. Seriously, who would want to play a game controlling a dude whose one key achievement in the first game is repeated ever afterward?

Mass Effect 5

I recently read one critic compare Mass Effect 2 to, in relation to it's predecessor, The Empire Strikes Back. To me however, saying that seems to anticipate that the upcoming ME3 will be..... not as good.

Anyway, I recently read that whilst Mass Effect was originally planned as a trilogy, apparently EA are keen to expand the franchise and keep it going. Hardly surprising as franchises are the pretty much the lifeblood of games these days. However with this news, I can see some untapped potential.
This year I sat down and watched Babylon 5 - a long time coming true but well worth it in the end. And like most people, I was significantly impressed with how it was planned out from the very beginning and how things established earlier on become more important much later. It got me thinking, has anyone ever tried something of this multitude in a video game series?
Think about it: How awesome would be to keep using the same saved game over the one series, where the choices you made in the first game can ultimately effect the fifth and final game? You could even choose to keep the same character all the way through or change to someone else who has to deal with the decisions the first character made. The Quest for Glory series did it before with keeping the same character over a series, but with the processing power we have today, it may be possible to make decisions that can have much longer-lasting effects.

Sadly, as ambitious as the idea may seem, it may never happen: Bioware doesn't seem at all interested in going beyond a trilogy. And besides, who on earth actually SETS OUT to make a new game franchise in this day and age?

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 Denied

It seems the eventual arrival of Duke Nukem Forever is the talk of the town at the moment. Some people are angry that their long running joke won't be funny any more, some people are seething that the game just wouldn't lay down and die whilst other people are so furious, they're willing to put the boot in before the game has ever been released.

Personally, seeing people react to this (as yet) unreleased game for me is more interesting than the game itself. If anything, the amount of delays explained through using (seemingly) flimsy excuses is indeed the ultimate betrayal to many gamers. Thus, it is easier to dismiss the game, make jokes and strike up a meme then actually sitting down and giving it a chance - when it comes out of course.

I believe Pat from http://socksmakepeoplesexy summed it up best in his assessment of Final Fantasy VIII:

Let's face it: gamers are a tough audience to please, especially when it comes to sequels. Case in point: Street Fighter. (Yes, the only games I know anything about are 2D fighters and JRPGs, thanks for asking.) Street Fighter II was a megahit. It changed video games, revitalized the arcade scene, and pleased just about everybody - excluding, I suppose, fanatical Karate Champ loyalists. Naturally, fans craved more. Capcom took an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to following it up, releasing Street Fighter II: Champion Edition and then Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting. Each new version included additional moves, playable boss characters,and minor game-balancing changes, but they weren't really new games. They were tweaks meant to make a good game even better. And for a while, fans bought it. Champion Edition and Hyper Fighting were well-received in the arcades, and SNES owners who'd already bought Street Fighter II's 16-bit port happily shelled out another fifty bucks for Street Fighter II Turbo. But by the time Capcom unveiled Super Street Fighter II Turbo, many fans were turned off. "Just more of the same," they grumbled, and went to place their quarters on the Mortal Kombat and Samurai Shodown cabinets. Capcom took heed and released Street Fighter Alpha. It was a fine game, and a good starting point for a new 2D fighting series, but I don't recall it turning many heads. "Sure, the new graphic style is nice," we said. "But there aren't enough characters, and most of them are just the same people, anyway. It's still too much of the same old, same old. When is Street Fighter III coming out already?" A couple years later, Capcom released III, and nobody even cared. "It's too different," we whined this time. "Who are all these new people? What happened to the old ones? What's with only being able to pick one Super Art? And besides, 2D games are practically antiques at this point. 3D games - now those are the wave of the future!" Recently, when Capcom announced Street Fighter IV would contain most or all of the old cast from Street Fighter II and would be 3D, gamers were already tearing their hair out and wailing that it was definitely going to suck. I would hate to have an audience like us.

Couldn't have put it more succinctly myself.

Ultimately, I would like to see Duke Nukem Forever turn out to be a great game. Not just for the sake of having a 'fun' shooter when nearly all of them these days are 'serious' (as mentioned in a previous blog post) - No, I want the game to be awesome just to silence all the many detractors. Considering the frustration that went into the overlong development phase, it would be delight for DNF to be awesome - unlike a lot of other games that took too long in development *coughTooHumancough*.
On a personal level, I champion the underdog and I favor anyone who stands defiant against the majority - after all, what do you do when the majority seem to be acting like complete prats?

Of course, there is the chance that a failure may cause some gamers to pause and reassess their tastes and the demands they make but what's the chances of that happening?

Keys to the Kingdom Hearts

I know next to little with Kingdom Hearts: As far as I'm concerned, it's Disney meets SqueeEnix with legions upon legions of scary fangirls chomping at the bit for some mansex. As such, Kingdom Hearts goes no further with me than acknowledgment of it's existence.

Still, I have to admit that I was interested to learn that with the latest incarnation of Kingdom Hearts, a female character was been included in the playable party: Aqua.
Again, I know little of Kingdom Hearts but I have very good ideas as to what makes an compelling gaming heroine. So having a courageous heroine who can rough 'n tumble with the best of them is welcome in my book. She looks cool too.

But then again, this is Kingdom Hearts we're taking about, where the entire male cast already look girly enough as it is. So I assume there is a reason to Aqua's existence....

My Game is Damaged

As I said before, Good Game is a mixture of the informative and the rubbish - to sit through the latter to get to the former is a chore indeed. Yet it is the only game program on TV so we Australians are stuck with it.
I personally would like to see Game Damage be granted a full-blown show. As is my understanding, there was some interest for a while but nothing has emerged since. I have seen the trailer and it certainly looks entertaining with information being well-presented and funny asides that are actually funny. I've seen some people compare it the trailer to Top Gear and that's hardly a bad thing: Top Gear succeeds through three distinct personalities bouncing off of each other and Game Damage appears to be operating on the same principle - and is all the better for it. Indeed, it actually looks like it was made by genuine gamers and not those who look great on camera.



So yes, I would like to see more Game Damage and hope it really gets made into a decent show. The way I see it, there's not much in the way of competition.

All in Good Time

Another game has been struck down from my Hall of Shame: Prince of Persia Sands of Time.

This one has been a long time coming in completion: I have played this game on and off at random intervals since 2006. Call it a long time between drinks yes but not without good reason. Like most people, I enjoyed the platforming jumping, the time-shifting mechanic, the puzzle-solving, the well-realised script and the interactions between the Prince and Farah. But at the same time, again like most people, I found the combat to be complete rubbish.

Indeed, this is worth dwelling on becuase for me it was a game killer: The combat sections are stiff, dull and come across as a chore to play. It is particularly irritating that, with each sequence, you keep killing the same guys over and over again as they keep coming back for whatever reason. It's also annoying that you get swamped quite easily by the baddies and getting knocked down only once leaves you unable to prevent a second, or third, blow coming down and beating you into a pulp. Particular contempt is held in the 81% mark where the Prince and Farah are attacked whilst riding a elevator. In such a confined space, the Prince needs to defeat the baddies and make sure they don't take out Farah at the same time. This was a particularly infuriating moment for me and many failed attempts to clear it turned me off the game for many months.

Ultimately though, this assessment is doing nothing more than reiterating what has been said before: The combat in PoP:Sot is crap but everything works well. But for me, the combat failing is a such a fatal error. True, I enjoyed Sands of Time on numerous levels but I don't see myself rushing back to play it again (and I'm not touching the sequels either).

Oh well, easy come easy go.