Tom and Jerry were onto something.

For those keeping track I have forbid myself from ever playing games on Steam, by Relic, and EA (although that's going to be hard with Spore coming). Yet another recent test of my resolve came when learning about Team Fortress 2. Since Steam is required to play it, I wiped it from my mind but I recently ran across the " Meet the..." videos on Valve's website. Just watching them has really hurt my stance and I'm really tempted to install Steam just for this game (yeah I know Portal supposedly rocks but that is for another entry).

I love it when a game truly has style , such as Okami or Killer 7 and Team Fortress 2 has it in spades. I really want to shake the hands of the designers and artists who came up and went with the less realistic look. I've been saying for years that aiming for a perfect realistic look to your games is the wrong way to go as a benchmark for if a game looks good or not. The style of Team Fortress 2 helps the game out in many ways not just on the visual side.


Lets face it designing and showing a tree that has perfect textures, and now showing a park made of all those trees requires alot of system resources and one very expensive computer to be able to run it. Lag in online games can be a killer, even more so in first person shooters where a split second can make all the difference. Using a less detailed style allows Valve to create a game that doesn't kill your computer and let people who haven't spent over 2k on a computer play.


Moving to aesthetics, Valve has made something that is both visually different and appealing compared to other games on the market. There is a sense of having a brand in Team Fortress 2 thanks to the look. It's hard to tell the difference between one muscle bound soldier to another in realistic FPS games, but here you can easily see the difference between the heavy weapons guy and the soldier for instance. I still can't imagine this game using a more realistic look now that I've seen this. The animation on the videos and style is so good I wouldn't mind them making more videos once they've covered all 9 classes. One other aspect Valve nailed is giving their characters a personality whether it's the smooth talking engineer, to the speak quietly and carry a huge mini gun of the heavy weapons guy.

Game play in Team Fortress 2 is based on the original which is team vs team matches where each person chooses a class that affects health, attack strength,and skills available. Valve has been supporting the game well with new weapons and achievements for classes by retouching the classes as time goes on. You can check out their blog here: www.teamfortress2.com . Unfortunately I don't have it so this is as far as I can really talk about the game play.

One common theme of the best video games is to have everything about it harmonize with one another. Where every part of this game belongs with everything else and you can't even think about the game missing any of these elements. I personality think that Team Fortress 2 nails this goal and I feel it's going to be harder to resist as more videos are released

Impressions .... FROM HELL!!

Well that was my dramatic entrance for the day. Anyway since my recent entry on Diablo 2 and the recent release of a patch that removed the cd requirement, I once again hopped on the train to Sanctuary to do a routine cleaning of hell. First off from my first entry some of my impressions were behind the rose tinted glasses of the past, but that doesn't mean Diablo 2 is in anyway bad.

As I updated in the entry, purple colored or super rare items don't exist anywhere in Diablo 2, so you'll just have to settled for gold color. Also being stuck at 800x600 resolution does take the sheen out of all that uber loot. One thing that I really miss from Titan Quest is the ability to auto sort your inventory so it's back to tetris again.

Yet the game play still hits that perfect blend of great classes, and rewards for players. In Diablo2 I know that at anywhere at anytime I could stumble across something amazing such as a rare item, or a new rune. In Titan Quest I was always left wandering hoping for a drop at a boss fight. The item variety is just staggering to behold, with new items added in by Blizzard and new rune words for ladder play. I would love to know the total number of rare,magic, and unique items in the world of Diablo 2 as just from playing with a few friends I've seen a huge variety.

Then we have the classes which are as diverse and amazing as they were 7 years ago, and I still think no one else has managed to create classes as great in that time. Building up my necromancer has been fun,as I watched my army lay waste to the minions of Diablo while my curses assist. Each skill point in Diablo 2 can have an huge effect on your skills and sets up a variety of diverse characters.

The only nitpick I have with Diablo2 is that re running the game on the higher difficulties does get boring after awhile, but with the amount of loot plus the randomization of the maps keeps things from getting too repetitive.

With the supposed (and hopefully true) announcement of Diablo 3 this week I know that I may have to call up the show "intervention" for my friend as he's already been obsessed with D2 for all these years. I'm not going to tell him this in game however as his character with all the best loot will wipe the floor with any of mine.

Josh

I ain't afraid of no FOE.

Crap I was going to use that joke for my horror analysis entry, but it fits here as well :)

Today I'm going to be looking at Etrian Odyssey 2 (or EO2 for this entry) for the Nintendo DS, at the time of this entry I'm about 30 or so hours in and finished the second stratum(group of floors)and on my way to finishing the third. In my entry on CRPGS and JRPGS I mentioned playing it and being a fan of EO1, and I think I'm far enough in to render a verdict.

For those that missed EO1, the EO series is about old school CRPGS, where its you, a team of adventurers, and a map that you created to get through the dangers of the dungeon. You were able to make a group of 5 out of the 9 classes available to take on the 30 floor dungeon. It bears mention again that this game is old school meaning the difficulty is on the high side, expect your team to die fast starting out and even faster when you run into FOES. The FOES are the highlight of the EO series, enemies that are visible on the map that move when you move, these powerful enemies are basically mini bosses throughout the game and will drop useful loot on defeat some times. The FOES in EO2 have learned some new tricks, including flying over low walls and some will not show up on the mini map which makes tracking them that much harder.

With the past out of the way let's talk about EO2. The biggest change from EO1 is that all but one of the 12 classes is available at start for your adventuring party. In EO1 two of classes became unlocked near the 30 or even 40 hour point depending on skill, which made them useless without having to spend time grinding out levels for them. Joining the party we have the gunner, a back row high utility character with low defense. The War Magus a combination of a warrior and healer without the high level skills of each. Lastly the beast which takes on the role of tanking for your party. Throughout the game you can see the various interface improvements, such as being able to scroll through the list of party members while selecting skills. To seeing who will equip new gear and the effects from it while shopping.

The other major change is with skills, the developers went back and rebalanced and alter the various skills of the original 9. Gone are some of the more overpowered skills and the weaker skills received a touch up.I've noticed that some skills have a higher chance of effecting boss and FOES now,and clever players can set up some excellent combos between their teammates. Now each class can activate a super skill once their "force" bar is filled from fighting, which are trump cards for the FOE and boss fights.

Once again the touch screen is used to view and create your own map, this time there are new icons to make sure you have everything covered. I've read people on GameFaqs complain about drawing the maps but personality I enjoyed it. It gives a sense of completion and satisfaction upon completely mapping out a floor and can be a life saver when you get to some of the more maze like floors.

The game play of EO2 is pretty straightforward, as mentioned above the dungeon is split up by stratum or a series of five floors, at the top of each is a boss guarding the way. Each stratum will have its own tricks and such to keep your team on your toes while dodging the various FOES. The game is more about creating a team of your own choosing and completing the dungeon, and now with the rebalanced skills that is probable now (from where I'm at so far, that could change later on). Quests can be undertaken for rewards such as cash or items but you will be spending your time grinding out the various fights to gain the levels needed to get past the boss. Which leads to my main gripe with EO2.

The game requires an excessive amount of grinding to survive the various fights , and now that FOES don't give out experience , the amount of time needed to grind has practically doubled or tripled . Without FOEs giving out experience, it really hurts the risk/reward system of fighting them, as there is a chance that FOEs will not drop anything upon defeat which made the fight just about worthless. Chances are the time needed to grind should drop as you pick up and enhance the various skills of your team, but it does make the game pretty front loaded with difficulty and grinding.The game also breaks one of my pet peeves for RPGS, having conditional drops that quite frankly you would never know or find out about without blind luck or using a strategy guide. I would have perfered them telling you about it in game as opposed to relying on the internet or luck to find them. Also a common complaint from reviewers is that not much has changed and they're right, if the first game didn't interest you then avoid this one. I am left to wonder if an EO3 is in the works, what could they possibly add or tweak to make it a new experience?

My other complaint are the quests, quests in EO2 range from killing a specific creature, to collecting an item from spots in the dungeon. The problem is that with the exception of monatary rewards, the rewards given are basically useless, as there is a good chance that you will get a more powerful piece of equipment by the time you complete the quest. Alot of the quests task you with collecting specific items which increase the grinding time for a minimal reward. What they really need to do is to tie experience into the quest system to make it worth your while to finish quests. After the first stratum I gave up on accomplishing every quest in the game as it never seemed worth it for me to complete them.

Overall I like EO2 because I'm a fan of games that let me take my own group as opposed to the standard ones seen in other RPGS. While the difficulty of EO2 is higher then the first one, you won't have to worry about over powered monsters to fight. The new classes and rebalanced skills mean that veterans of EO1 have some studying to do to develop new tactics and combinations and that's just fine with me. People who were expecting a radical shift from EO1 are going to be disappointed however. I give Etrian Odyssey 2 an alternate blog entry title of "I pity the FOE".



Josh

No more zergling rush.

While talking to my friend the other night about my stance on turn base strategy games, he mentioned the same exact problem I have with real time strategy games, which was reassuring to hear that it's not just me that has a problem with RTS games. Consider this a follow up to the "No more turns" entry and my attack on the RTS genre.I've been playing the RTS genre since Command and Conquer and got into the genre with Starcraft. Over the past 3 years my interest has started to dwindle for the genre, and I know that if people from QT3 are reading this entry I'm going to piss off the RTS nuts, well here goes :)


The biggest difference in my opinion between RTS games in the 90s opposed to ones in recent years, is that games today focus more on the multiplayer angle instead of single as in the 90s. I think StarCraft with Battle.net really set the stage for online matches in RTS games and started the trend. I miss the days of having unique challenging levels to play instead of the usual rush the AI base or defend the hill sections. The most recent examples in my opinion of having excellent single player functionality are WarCraft 3 and Rise of Nations. Warcraft 3 went for a very cinematic experience with unique missions ,such as having the hero burn down an entire human village. Even the hold the fort style missions had a cinematic touch , such as the final mission where you must defend the world tree while the burning legion storms across the land.

On the other side there is Rise of Nations that went for an almost TBS like style to their RTS. The single player campaign was a map of the world and each turn you can move an army icon to another space. Landing on an enemy territory started a RTS battle , while not as cinematic it does provide a way of making battles fit into the scope of things. This technique has been attempted in games such as Dawn of War and the Battle for Middle Earth series, but I feel that Rise of Nations did it best. Now it's time to talk about my real beef with the genre.

There are three words that make me sick when I hear them mentioned in a RTS or TBS game (for those that read "no more turns" you know where I'm getting at) "build order lists". For people who don't play strategy titles, build order lists refers to playing the game by following a set of instructions as opposed to playing the game on your own. In Age of Empires 3, I remember reading second by second lists of how to survive rushing (I'll explain that next) or how to build a stable economy. To me this zaps the fun and game play of any game, and devolves the game into who can follow their shopping list first. In a few paragraphs I'll go into what steps I feel need to be taken to get rid of this, now it's time to charge.


Rushing is a statement as old as the genre itself, it is part of the 3 overall strategies of any RTS game. They are turtling, booming, and of course rushing, turtling is building up nothing but defenses and draining the opponents economy by trying to get rid of them and then taking him out. Booming is focusing on your economy and research and fighting with higher quality units to win. Rushing is ignoring your economy to build up a huge weak force and swarming the enemy base before units and defenses can be built. I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of the first two as it is abit too much for this thread but instead on rushing. The problem with rushing is that it figures right back into build order lists, as the best rushing comes from them and the only dependable defense against them are build order lists. In recent year I've seen RTS games provide a basic set of defenses to discourage base rushing which is a good step forward. Recently I've witness the zenith of my problem with the RTS genre with a game called Supreme Commander.


Supreme Commander talked alot of talk in previews, massive armies to lead, epic size maps, super units the size of buildings and I was looking forward to it. Playing the game however is far different then what previews suggested, the entire game is about carefully balancing your economy by building resource and power generators. Unit AI is as dumb as dirt and unless your watching them 24/7 they will get themselves killed. This a game where you can spend upwards of 20 minutes just assembling your base before any combat will begin. The game uses a queued system to allow you to plan your moves out in advance, allowing players to plan out every move for 30 minutes within seconds. Obviously this game is the epitome of build order list and eventually I got to the point that I gave up even trying to play the game as it felt too scripted and rigid to play.

Speed has become another issue to me with RTS games, I was never fast at keyboard commands and since StarCraft it has almost become required to master hot keys of all those unit powers to have a chance online. If there is one thing I hate more then build order lists, is having to find my healer unit in a crowd to click on the heal button before everyone dies. Micromanagement should not dictate the winner of the match,and unit AI should be made smart enough that I can leave them alone without worrying about them getting themselves killed. I want to focus on tactics and strategy , not on my ability to baby sit what are supposed to be highly trained military personale . So that leaves us with what the solution is, and I've been thinking about a few myself.

I have two big ideas for the genre, one on the single player side and one for multi player. For single player I want to go back to the cinematic style and focus on a game built up for single player only. This title takes place on another planet during a period similar to either late 1800s or early 1900s of our history. You follow a person across eighty years as he rises to become the greatest military strategist on the planet. In the process he basically controls the evolution of the planet as just like in real life, winners writes the history and each conflict will effect subsequent conflicts. The player chooses after talking to the various leaders who he/she will support and will lead their armies into battle. By keeping this offline means there can be radically different sides , and each conflict sees the player leading a different army. The story of the game is the main character is writing a biography of his life and each chapter is another conflict that he lived through, and I've got a few of their stories almost done now. The ending of the game will be different depending on whose side you choose in each conflict, and I'm going to make sure that for the most part there aren't alot of good/evil fights but stay in the grey. I'm still not sure of how I want the personal aspect of the game to play, originally I thought you could have the character run around before battles but the more I think about it would become annoying fast.


Next is a game built for multi player only, and for those that read my entry on the CCG genre know what's coming. This is my toy box game idea, where players create their own side out of a collection of units, and buildings. Taking a cue from the CCG genre the whole concept of armor and health will be straight forward, units will have anywhere from 1 to 3 points of health and that's it. The difference is that there are few situations where a character will always be hit. In most RTS games ranged units have an advantage as they can whittle down an attacking army , here there is a huge chance in a 1 to 1 situation for the range unit to miss, and only by either having overwhelming force or attacking the flank will a range unit be able to quickly kill the enemy. One aspect I would love to see that I'm thinking about adding here, are stealth units that can be told to perform certain tasks and can not be readily seen by the enemy's radar. Each part of your side costs points and taking a cue from Armageddon Empires the better the unit the more points it cost, limiting your self to either a diverse group of units and researches or a select group of powerhouses. Buildings will provide numerous benefits depending on which ones you have , including providing armaments to help your characters survive.

Obviously I'm not going to go into perfect detail here, just enough to wet your appetites :) I think we need RTS games that get away from the rush centric professional gaming competition scene that has develop over the years. I don't want to have to follow a list of directions to have a chance at winning a match. Also as I mentioned in another entry there needs to be some form of customization present in strategy titles. I loved the idea in Age of Empires 3, but I want to see it developed further. Personality I believe the old additive that if a game is developed for both single and multi player , something is going to be left on the cutting room floor as opposed to if the game was focused on one or the other. Right now I have no idea where I stand with Starcraft 2, I can just sense the Korean gamers already have their rush strategies ready and I know the second I go online I'm going to get wiped out. Possibly by some kind of new "super zergling rush".


Josh

East meets west at the dice roll.

One trend I've noticed over the years is the split personality of the Role Playing Game Genre or RPG. When it comes to most genres you are guarantee to have a similar experience playing one game in the genre to another, not so when it comes to RPGS. Over the years the genre has really become several genres over the development styles around the world. For this entry I'm going to look at two of the more prominent sub genres of the RPG genre

First we'll look at the Western style(including Europe ) with Computer Role Playing Games or CRPGS. This genre is in no small part inspired by the Dungeons and Dragons game, and that influence is still seen today. In CRPGS plot and story development take a back seat in most cases to character development. Here players design a hero or team of heroes to embark on some quest which will most likely end with the world being saved. While the overall plot is basic, CRPGS allow alot of choices to effect the flow of the story. Encounters can be handled in different ways based on the skill sets of the characters or on dialogue choices available to the player. While the end of the game will remain the same the path to it should be different for each person. Another detail of CRPGS are multiple endings, most often we'll see a "good" ending and a "bad" ending to the tale. One of my favorite games in the genre is the GeneForge series which not only allows multiple solutions to encounters but keeps the game's morality choices firmly in the "grey" section. Still there are some problems I have with CRPGS.


As I mentioned, story development isn't the main focus for CRPGS which places the fun factor of a game squarely on the customization and character development. Balancing a game that lets you build a character is a tricky affair as well as creating adequate challenges. Some games like to throw in numerous skills that for the most part aren't needed or as vital as a select few, which leads to players shooting themselves in the foot if they create a character without at least one combat skill. Challenging situations in CRPGS are mostly going to be combat oriented and I've only seen a few cases where non combat related talents can be used to get through a situation (see Fallout 1 and the GeneForge series as two prime examples). Recently with Oblivion the game really messed up with the idea of scaled leveling (I should prepare a rant for Oblivion soon) which not only destroys any sense of challenging gameplay, but can screw the player if they place non combat skills as their prime skills. Still one of my main issues with CRPGS comes from the story side.

CRPGS have been trying to deal with issues of morality for some time now, and so far I've yet to see one game succeed perfectly in showing the merits and flaws with good and evil. I place the blame on BioWare personality, as it seems everyone has copied their bare bones system. In most BioWare RPGS the idea of good and evil boils down to being a complete gopher for people or being more of a jerk then an evil bad ass. The problem I think is that games are still being viewed as something for children and making a game where the protagonist can wipe out a village with his/her own hands is still a no-no. Then we have rpgs that mature means swearing and cleavage, I want to see a RPG where it is possible to hit pure evil, as well as being good. Keep this in mind as I'm planning an entry on morality and such in rpgs. Now moving on it's time we head to Japan to look at the next genre.


The Japanese Role Playing Game or JRPG of course hails from Japan, and does things abit differently. In a JRPG the story is the main focus with gameplay systems pushed into the background . JRPGs have been around for awhile and the two biggest are the Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy franchises, each one involves a group of people having to save the world some how. At this point I could make a joke about certain off the wall plot points *cough Final Fantasy 7 ,if I wasn't afraid of cos players coming to my house and beating me up. Recently a great trend has been surfacing with JRPGS that not only have interesting stories but unique combat systems to match, with the best examples from the Shin Megami Tensei franchise or SMT. Each game in the SMT series features a challenging combat system that requires mastery to deal with the bosses who can and will exploit the loopholes in it which you can do the same, not to mention a crazy story line that is sure to put some parents on edge. Take for example Nocturne, in it you play a boy who survives the end of the world to be turned into a demon and then set loose on the new world to remake it in your own image,along the way you will get a chance to fight the Christian version of God and Satan. Even with the rising popularity of the SMT series the majority of JRPGS follow in the same foot steps as Final Fantasy which leads me to my concerns with it.


For the most part you're not going to be playing a JRPG for engaging and satisfying gameplay, as you will be too busy following the story line. On Zero Punctuation's review of The World Ends With You there is a brilliant imagery of the player carting around the character to each major plot point which sums up the experience perfectly. Both critics and fans compare JRPGS to reading a book as there is in most cases zero interaction between the player and the narrative. Also don't even think that JRPGS have multiple endings(with a few exceptions) as it would go against the plot the designers have created. One issue I've seen is that alot of RPGS have an epic (or try to make it epic) storyline and then have no idea how combat is supposed to play out. Which leaves us with a below average combat system to wade into with each fight while trying to get through the story. Take for example the Suikoden series, I love the story and worlds created for them but I detest the combat system, however there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

When we do get a JRPG that not only has a unique story, but also excellent combat and/or game systems it makes it that much better to play. Games like the SMT series or recently Square-Enix's latest hit The World Ends With You . In this regard it's in my opinion that the JRPG genre is evolving faster then the CRPG that still seems to be stuck somewhat in the 90s era of BioWare RPGs (in case you haven't guessed by now I'm not a fan of their RPGS). I do find it funny to mention that I'm playing the Japanese take of the CRPG genre in the form of Etrian Odyssey 2 . I'm seeing a trend these days of more unique JRPGS to come out , and with my DS and 360 on hand I'm ready to once again kick some leveled monster ass. Just remember this one rule about JRPGS, butterflies are evil death bringers out to destroy you.

Josh

Demons, cows, and set pieces oh my !

For this entry I'm going to go into detail about one of the greatest mysteries that has plagued mankind for ages and many a philosopher has spent years trying to solve... why hasn't anyone been able to successfully copy Diablo 2!? Oh sure we've seen games that have emulated it (Divine Divinity, Fate, Sacred) and some that came close to it (Titan Quest) but we have never heard a game get the title "Diablo 2 killer". Last year, developer's of Diablo 2 tried to create a spiritual successor with Hell Gate London and not only did it not live up to the hype, but was also blasted by critics and fans alike.(A pattern I'm seeing with spiritual successors). As a fan and self admitted Diablo 2 addict I feel it is my duty to break down Diablo 2 to see what makes it tick, and provide lessons for developers attempting to strike gold again.

Diablo 2 is made up of several carefully balanced systems that scratch that itch for action rpg fans. First is randomization which permeates the world of Diablo 2. Every section (minus boss and quest related chambers) is randomized in terms of overall space, treasure to be found, and chances of seeing unique monsters roaming the area. This keeps exploring the world from being too stale on repeat visits which is required to collect all that awesome loot (which will be talked about next). Playing Titan Quest which is my favorite Diablo clone, the one thing it lacked was randomization of that degree. Yes the background and settings were pretty but in action rpgs where you will be building numerous characters, it's better to have a fresh experience that doesn't look as detailed over going past the same waterfall every time you play the game. Which leads into the reason why your going to be going through those locales again and again.

The old carrot on a stick imagery is used perfectly for Diablo 2. While the game will have you believe that your quest is to kill Diablo and save the world, the real reason your playing is to collect bigger and shinier pieces of equipment to put on your character. Diablo 2 features an extensive amount of equipment for your characters to use. Playing on higher difficulty levels means scoring better items to deal with the stronger enemies. Gems and words of power were added to allow customization to your items further improving them, one of my friends who was basically a Diablo 2 god showed me some of his gear which had bonuses that went from the top of the screen all the way to the bottom. Set pieces customized to each character type provided a focused method of improving your characters opposed to the customization
options.

I will give the nod to Titan Quest for providing powerful loot to be found , including artifacts that can add new skills to your character. My problem was that they were made so rare and hard to obtain that chances are you won't be able to find them and it downplays their importance. In TQ rare loot became so hard to find that it was possible to go an entire act without finding something better. Then there is the fact that bosses are not always guaranteed to drop rare items on death which is just horribly unlucky when it occurs. In Diablo 2 most often you would change your equipment up several times in a single act depending on your luck. With all these items your characters had the proper tools for dealing with monsters of the land.


Diablo 2 featured a wide variety of beast,demon, and vermin for the player to go up against. Enemies had their own unique talents and were not afraid to use them from reviving dead pals to using your own skills against you. Elite versions of enemies add to the danger with resistances and special modifiers, who can forget getting killed by the eletroshock ability of elites. Boss fights in Diablo 2 were epic featuring enemies that towered over the player. The rewards for killing them were great with rare and powerful items to be fought over. My favorite (or least favorite) enemy were the swarms of insects in act 2 which brought back painful memories of being attacked by bees when I was younger(funny story that I should share at some point). Moving on it's time to talk about how your spreading the death and destruction to these beasties.

The character classes in Diablo 2 really showcase Blizzard's ability to create back stories and add depth to their worlds. Each class comes with their own unique background and abilities. What I love about the D2 classes is that they get away from the standard Warrior/Wizard/Archer archetype seen in most fantasy titles. Classes range from an Amazon skilled with both bow and spear, to my personal favorite the Necromancer which coincidentally started my love of using pet classes in RPGS. With the expansion we're given the druid and assassin classes that adds even more variety to the game and guarantees repeat playthroughs. Now in most action RPGS that would be it in terms of diversity, but D2 goes a step further by providing 3 unique skill trees for each class. Each one is self contained to turn your character into a demon killing bad ass, but it also allows you to try generalizing by going up 2 or all 3 trees evenly. A few years ago I believe Blizzard released a patch that added in synergy bonuses that each skill would give you for putting points in them further allowing you to develop unique characters. TQ is the second best with giving the player unique classes by allowing you to create a class out of two different skill trees, but I still give the nod to Diablo 2 for allowing diverse characters.

Lastly is multi player, I've been saying this for years now but I believe Blizzard owes a huge debt to the people behind Battle.Net, Blizzard's online service. Every game in Blizzards lineup has benefited from this service and offers features that I rarely see other companies use. Such as cross game chat, and a variety of ways of finding people to play. Diablo 2 was set up so well that I never played a single player character as it was so easy to create characters for online play. Action rpgs thrive on the chaos of multi player and Diablo 2 is no exception, combine that with the diverse ways of creating characters and you have a formula for a game that can be played for a long time.


So after that long praise of a game that is about 7 years old what lessons should be taken from this? Customization, randomization, unique classes, and lastly easy to use multi player are the foundations of a great action rpg. As of this writing I feel the itch to reinstall D2 to see if I can put that bastard and his annoying brothers in their place once again.


Josh


06/23 update it seems I was wrong, items have purple stats, but there are not any purple ranked items.

No more turns

While I'm on what seems to be a never ending quest to find a job, I thought a good use of my time would be to try one of the many turn base strategy (or TBS) titles I have in my library and attempt to play one almost competently. So I pulled out the manual of Civilization 4 and prepared to read it when I remember all the work and frustration that went into learning it the first time and I decided to put the manual away again. Before I start this little rant against the TBS genre I'll give a little prologue to my stance. The real time strategy genre was my first major foothold into pc gaming, and I didn't start looking at the TBS genre until around 2003 with Civ 3 that was on sale.

Looking at my game library for TBS titles, I have what is considered the whos who of the genre, I have Galactic Civilizations 2,Alpha Centauri, Civilization 4 (and 3), Age of Wonders 2, Dominions 2,both Rome and Medieval Total War , and lastly Europa Universals 3 and yet I cannot stand playing any of them anymore(I still haven't purchased Armageddon Empires, it's still on my list). I have tried to get into each game on this list in the past and each time I've met with failure, hopefully through this entry I can see what went wrong with each game and hopefully help out the various designers in improving their games.

Lets begin with the essence of a TBS game, or otherwise known as the 4Xs . The 4X stands for the 4 major game mechanics featured in any TBS game and they are, eXplore,eXpand,eXterminate,and eXploit. The first 3 are pretty self explanatory while the last one figures into a diplomacy model and ways to interact with the AI to take them down easier. In case you haven't figured it out by now, TBS games are played almost like a board game with each person or AI taking a turn and moving on to the next player. With the basics out the way now to turn to my beef with the genre.


First is the amount of energy required to even play these games, I know they're turn base strategy titles meaning that they're supposed to be slow. Yet I hate to have to play 10+ losing games before I'm suppose to "get it" and everything will click magically and I'll have everything understood. It doesn't help that each game is practically its own genre with different nuisances and hidden rules to learn. Unlike other genres there is very little carry over in terms of skills from playing multiple games like Galactic Civilizations 2 and going onto Civilization 4. While the general idea of game play remains the same(the 4Xs again) the execution of those mechanics will require you to start from scratch to play the game well. Chances are some hard core fans of the genre will come after you if you ever dare say that another TBS game is like their favorite. Trying to play Europa for the first time was impossible for me and I read through both the manual and the huge strategy guide that came with it, to no avail. Hurting this genre even more for me is the interface design.


Creating an interface for a TBS title has got to be a nightmare, as they are some of the most complicated games out there. The old rule of having everything important on the main screen is impossible as there are so many game systems to keep track of that the screen would become a jumbled mess without multiple sub screens. On one spectrum we have Europa with dozens of little buttons of various uses which open up sub screens with yet even more little buttons to click on. Then we have a game like Dominions 2 (and 3 from what I've seen) which has to have the worse interface ever to introduce people to it. All you have is are a few numbers on screen and the game map , that's it. Civilization 4's interface was halfway decent and is the easiest one in my opinion to understand from a first glance. Now that I've talked about looking at the game, it's time to talk about what happens when all those little units meet.

Combat plays a huge role in TBS games , obviously as it is one of the Xs. There are 3 popular systems for combat in a TBS game, first is zero control by the player. In this combat plays out with no interaction by the player, two armies clash with each other and the winner is based completely on the combat system, Civ 4 popularizes this
system. Next is small control over combat, the player controls combat in the sense of directing fire or adjusting a slider. Winning comes from the player making the right decisions and of course having the right units under control. Europa and Armageddon Empires are two examples of this. Lastly is taking the player into a completely new system for combat. Here combat plays out almost like another game, with the success or failure gauge primarily on player skill and units controlled. The total war franchise and Age of Wonders 2 are fine examples of this style.

The majority of my problems stem from the first and third style. Combat to me needs to have the player invested in it to make it matter, playing Civilization 4 the combat felt very plain to me. It was hard to figure out how I would lose battles and attacking cities was a nightmare as one archer was able to kill 5 warriors at one time. On the other side, with combat moving to another system there is too much investment in my opinion with combat. I hate to have to spend 30 minutes fighting one battle that may or may not mean anything in the scope of things and then fighting another one right after it. Also the fact that you have to learn yet another game system makes things even more complicated for a new comer to grasp. The 2ND option is my favorite, as it provides the right amount of user input and gives battles a sufficient lasting impression without having to spend a long time on one battle.

Moving on it's time to talk about the AI. Playing a TBS game is a complicated endeavor for human players, and it can be even harder to program an AI to play the game at equal skill. Many TBS titles instead of programming intelligent AIs, instead level the playing field by tweaking the rules against the player and for the AI. This drive me crazy as I hate this kind of balance, and it seems more like kicking the player in the crotch instead of giving the player a meaningful challenge. Fortunate not all TBS titles suffer from this, and I have to commend Galactic Civilizations 2 and Armageddon Empires on delivering intelligent challenging AI. Which were most likely created using some form of voodoo from my understanding :) .
The other side of this is diplomacy or the eXploit system, this is where the facade of playing against actual opponents is shown. In many titles with a diplomacy system , it feels very mechanical and never really plays out requiring a tactical skill by the player. I never feel that I could really bluff or trick my opponents with it, and I eventually never go to the diplomacy screen.

At last it's time to talk about my biggest issue with the TBS genre in general. In one interview by Sid Meier (the creator of the Civilization series) he describes a turn base strategy title as a set of interesting choices (paraphrasing here), my problem is that in most titles that is a complete lie. There are alot of choices, but only a few that are right. I remember reading a build order list for newcomers to play Civilization 4, for those that don't know me those are the bane of my existence for strategy titles as it takes out the strategy. When trying to play Civ 4it's very easy to not have that worker built in time, or you spent one turn too long getting a technology research and that could screw you up completely by the AI. Worse is when you play for 10 hours to find out that you probably should have zigged at hour 5 instead of zag and now the AI's army is going to decimate you. For some people they find that fun and a learning experience, to me that is a punch in the face. I don't like to play video games as a shopping list experience (ok build 2 warriors, now research fishing, now build a worker, etc) I want to be able to improvise, if plan A fails I shouldn't be screwed I should work on plan B which comes around 5 seconds after plan A fails. I can take losing if it's the eventual outcome of a war gone wrong, or they built the better economy, I don't want to lose because of one very fast blitzkrieg that came about out of no where.

Three TBS titles that avoid this fate are Alpha Centauri, Galactic Civilizations 2, and Armageddon Empires(this from my time played with the demo). One reason is the degree of customization, in Alpha and Galactic you can customize your units and build new ones to your liking. Not only does this add extra personality to the game, but it helps avoid those quick losses,if the enemy is attacking me with X I can create Y to fight them effectively. While in Armageddon Empires you create your entire army from your deck which adds personality and allows for interesting choices. Also by limiting your army (and the AI's) in that manner it adds a degree of importance to battles while still providing chances for hell mary plays with stealth units. Personality , customization in some manner should be a prerequisite system in any strategy title (which goes back to my love of CCG based systems: http://chronicgamedesigner.blogspot.com/2008/04/ace-of-spades.html ).

To be honest I'm not sure what the perfect solution would be, one part would be making titles more user friendly and providing an extensive manual and tutorial. Still alot of these problems I will admit are more of my opinion then anything else, which makes me wonder if I create a TBS game in a style I like, how popular would it be? Lastly I just want to say I have nothing against the designers behind the games I've mention or the fans of their respected games,it's just I've yet to find a TBS game that I really enjoyed.



Josh

The five faces of war.

When I was first thinking of character relationships in games nothing amazing came to mind as the same story seems to be told over and over again with rare exception (look at Shadow of the Colossus and ICO). Still while thinking about it, one other game came to mind that had excellent story telling was almost Shakespearean in style. For this entry I'm going to look at Odin Sphere, as I think it was considered a niche hit for the PlayStation 2. Unfortunately in order to discuss why the story was amazing I'm going to have to spoil some of it, I've been thinking about the right way to do this and I've decided on this method. If your not going to play Odin Sphere look for a spoiler filled section at the bottom of this entry past my signature. There will be some light spoilers for the game in the rest of this entry but I'll try to keep the major plot points a secret.


Now onto to the game, Odin Sphere takes place in yet another fantasy world driven by conflict. The prologue talks about an ancient cauldron which has all kinds of power in it and two sides are fighting for it. The game starts with a battle between these two sides: Ragnanival a kingdom that is inspired by Norse Mythology, and RingFord a forest army (think fairies and such from Mid Summers Night Dream). You begin in control of the Norse army ruler's daughter and begin cutting through the various enemies when your attacked by the mysterious "shadow knight", the battle ends with the Norse army victorious and the "evil" forest army in ruins. Now if the story just continue like that I wouldn't be writing an entry on it now would I?

Odin Sphere has two amazing elements to it's story that makes things interesting compared to other titles. First is that your really playing the game as 5 different characters in the world. Each one behaves differently and will experience the game from a different viewpoint, and I do mean different. A few chapters down the line and you'll be controlling the daughter of the forest army and see the events that led up to the conflict but from her view point, and see how "evil" the Norse army is.

Next is the timeline of events, in most games that have multiple characters the chain of events progress linearly as you switch characters. For example in a game that takes place across a week , character A would be in control for days 1-3 and character B would take over for days 4-7. Instead in Odin Sphere each character's story takes place over the same relative stretch of time. So while that conflict is going on another character could be on another continent at that time, this lets us watch a variety of events over the same time line giving us a more complete picture of the world. There is abit of weirdness having to repeat boss fights again with different characters but the game does a good job in explaining the rationale behind it. It doesn't hurt that the game has an amazing art style to boot.

Normally I don't like to call graphics beautiful in games as that is a very subjective description, but Odin Sphere is one of those rare exceptions. The art style comes across as a storybook come to life, with some of the most amazing character design I've seen on the PlayStation 2. Some of the boss fights are truly epic as they can take up multiple screens, in fact the graphics engine is so powerful that it causes slowdown during some of the more intense fights. The music also goes the distance of providing an excellence ambiance to the events. I also have to give props for having the cutest dragon I've seen that can also incinerate you within seconds.

By now you've notice that I haven't mentioned gameplay yet, and that is because it is where Odin Sphere stumbles abit. Odin Sphere is an action RPG in the truest sense, and the gameplay is very repetitive even though each character has a different style of attacking. The game's alchemy system requires you to grind out ingridents to make the most of it. The finale of the game requires an inordinate amount of grinding out the necessary levels and items to stand a chance against the final bosses, but for people who like a great story with their games, it's easy to grit your teeth and bear with it.



Josh

Mega super spoiler warning, this section I'm going to be discussing my favorite relationship in Odin Sphere in which I'll be spoiling the plot of two chapters of the game. If you have any intention of playing Odin Sphere I would not read on, if not or the gameplay isn't to your liking then here is my favorite story relationship in the game.







This relationship is between the daughter of the king of Raganival, Gwenendolyn (or Gwen for the rest of this) and Oswald the Shadow Knight. Halfway through Gwen's story she attacks and kills one of Raganival's generals and in doing so earns punishment from her father the king. The punishment is to be stripped of her ranking and given to the Shadow Knight, and to be magically effected to be forever in love with him, she is then put to sleep by a spell and told that when she wakes up she will be under the love spell. So we the player and Gwen find her in a castle and assume that she is now cursed with feeling love towards Oswald. He gives her a powerful ring as proof of their love and goes to fulfil an oath he made. Gwen says that she'll stay in the castle if he orders her to, which he responds by saying that she is not an object and will not stand for anyone to treat her that way.(Keep a note on that as it will come back later). The oath he made was the king of another land who was promised to be Gwen's husband before Oswald and so Oswald made a deal to fight for him in exchange for Gwen. Eventually through numerous events Gwen realizes that it doesn't matter if she is forced to love Oswald as she couldn't bear to live without him.

Now I'm going to skip alot of the story as it wouldn't make sense if you didn't play it and I'm not going to turn this thread into even more of a book. Turning our attention to Oswald's chapter we learn of his past, he was adopted by one of the higher ups in RingFord . His adopted father sold Oswald's soul to the queen of the underworld in exchange for his shadow knight powers and to serve his adopted father. For all his life he was not in control of his life and was just and object by his adopted father, until a failed coup kills him and Oswald is free. He fell in love with Gwen the first time he saw her while spying on the other kingdom. After the failed coup Oswald was sent to the netherworld as per the contract his adopted father made and ran into Gwen's father the king who infiltrated the land for his own purpose and was ordered to kill him. The king begs Oswald to spare him in exchange for a castle, and Gwen's hand in marriage which he agrees to. He tells Oswald that she has been put into a deep sleep and when she is awaken she will be forever in love with him.

This isn't right to Oswald, as he detests anyone being used as an object(like him by his adopted father) even it means that she will never love him he decides to break the love spell before waking her up. Which sends him across the world finding a way to break the spell, leading him into a fight with a king who was promise Gwen's hand and stole her from Oswald's castle to use the love spell on her. After defeating him in combat Oswald made an oath to fight for the king in exchange for letting Gwen go. After all that and with the knowledge on how to break the love spell he decides to wake her up. The best part is that the player at the time with Gwen thought that it was within a few days that Gwen went from sleep to being awaken, but instead all this happened between those two events and she eventually no longer cares if she is under a spell or not and loves Oswald. Now that is a love story if you ask me with action, adventure, and so on which should be no wonder why as I'm also a fan of the movie " The Princess Bride".

The ninja has left the building.

I'm not going to create entries based on every bit of news in the gaming industry but I'm going to have to make an exception with this one. As of this week the creator behind the Ninja Gaiden, and Dead or Alive series Tomonobu Itagaki has not only quit Tecmo but is suing them for not paying bonuses promised to him and emotional distress caused by Tecmo's president.This comes after two recent entries I did, one on the action genre and one on the importance of game designers and royalties.

In my entry regarding the action genre I placed Ninja Gaiden Black on top of my pedestal as the best designed action title I've played. Now I do believe that there is no I in team when it comes to creating a game, but you cannot deny the involvement Itagaki had on the franchise and the structure of the game. Like I mentioned in my entry on style, we all have our own way of doing things and this gets translated into the games we're working on. I'm now left to wonder how this will effect future games in the Ninja Gaiden and Dead or Alive franchises, even after Tecmo released a statement saying Team Ninja (Itagaki's team) will continue making games. Which is even more distressing when we look at his status in the industry.

As I mentioned in another entry, game designers are our industry's celebrities and the high profile ones are really the face of our industry. Itagaki has always held a rock star like persona, he's known for being very candid about his principles,design decisions, and competition. We also know that he is not exactly a well mannered person, news reports of him gambling, drinking, and even a sexual harassment suit have been released over the years about him. I'm not going to defend his actions or manner as my only experience with him are the games I've played that he designed. Asking if designers should adhere to some moral standing for the industry is something way too big for one little entry. With that said however he has since the release of Ninja Gaiden become the face of Tecmo, and without him will no doubt strike a huge blow against Tecmo in the coming months.

I've read comments about his departure on both ends of the spectrum, some are sad that he's leaving and hope he finds work and gets compensation from Tecmo. Others are glad he's gone and are slamming him for his various vices. I don't know where I stand on this, as a gamer(and hopefully future game designer) I am sad (and quite frankly shocked) at this turn of events, but I don't know him enough personality to defend him. Other reports have said that he has been out spoken about his company and has really developed a massive ego due to the success of his games which translated into him talking over the head of Tecmo. Which is abit odd as I've never read anything about that with designers over here (or those stories were never leaked). I am wondering if his ego will stand in the way of getting work and how much will a new company tolerate from him? He is one of the few designers thanks to the Ninja Gaiden series to back up his huge ego, but he has built up a pretty bad reputation for PR. Still, for fans of Tecmo or the Ninja Gaiden franchase in general this is a huge deal and something to keep your eyes on for awhile.

Josh


06/07 update: At the end of this week it was reported that Tecmo is already feeling the blow from Itagaki's departure, as their stock dropped $10 in price this week. Which leads me to wonder what else can happen to Tecmo in the coming weeks.

Will you stop following me !?!?

So my friend Corvus has started his round table for June and I'm going to chime in on it. Unfortunately it would be too easy to just discuss how great ICO was at character relationships, so I'm going to go in another direction. When a game designer forces a relationship onto the player otherwise known as *drum roll* the poorly designed escort mission.





The escort mission which is primarily seen in action titles (although I've seen a few in RTS games) goes as follow. You must protect a person or group of people until an objective is met, sounds easy right? Some times we're given the suicidal warrior who loves to charge into groups ahead of everyone else. The only positive is that he/she can hold their own in a fight for a short time which is more then I can say about option two.

Next we have the complete weakling who cannot fight at all and their only discernible talent is opening a door and sometimes no talent at all . Some games your required to carry him/her while enemies are tearing into your expose side, other times they just move really slowly towards the goal as you play the role of body guard. Bonus points to game designers when they make the weakling as suicidal as the warrior minus any and all combat prowess. Extra points to designers when the partner can be harmed by your weapons as nothing says "Doh!" more as killing the person while trying to defend them.




Recently in God of War 2 you needed to guide someone to an altar, and after he gets there you need to protect him while he performs some task. The problems arise when you realize that his health does not regenerate meaning any lucky hits before you reach the goal could leave you screwed, and his presence spawns enemies so no going ahead and clearing the path first. Of course this person has no combat abilities whatsoever and I don't think he even had a name. For those that viewed my entry on the action genre and remember when I talked about God of War 1, yes this already annoying section in 2 features enemies that can spawn new enemies just to make life worse for you Finding a game that did escort missions right is a challenge but there is one that always comes to my mind.




One game did escort missions right (ironic as the entire game was an escort mission) was ICO. A good reason why it worked so well was that combat in ICO was toned down compared to other titles with escort missions. No need to worry about long range attacks or cheap shots, and a lack of any health bars means I don't have to worry about not having enough health to reach a checkpoint. Also the game does an excellent job of making Yorda (your partner in crime ) more then just a stupid suicidal AI follower as seen in other titles. While your required to guide Yorda across the length of the castle , you can still leave her alone for a period of time before she is automatically snatched by the monsters after her which allows you to go on your own and not worry about her There are a lot of emotional scenes and mannerisms in ICO but I think someone else can do a much better job of talking about them .The game does an admirable job of providing the player with new environments (and at the same time new puzzles) to explore. Sometimes however you need a partner who can do more then just stand there when things go south.





Resident Evil 4 has the player guiding the president's daughter (Ashley) all across a zombie plagued village. Unlike Yorda she doesn't really serve a purpose in progression but she does have a few more brain cells. Firing into crowds of zombies is a frantic affair and it's nice to have a partner smart enough to duck when a shotgun is pointed at her face. The real revolutionary game mechanic is the ability to stash her in a storage chest while the fighting is being done, and then call her out when the coast is clear. I can't tell you how many games with escort missions I wish would have that feature. Still it's not perfect, while fighting waves of enemies Ashley will just stand around waiting for someone to snatch her and I love having to use various switches and objects while defending myself and defending her, and all she does is stand there waiting for the work to be done. Now it's time for doctor Josh to open up the heads of these idiotic partners and take a look in there to figure out a solution.








There are many easy solutions to the problem of bad escort missions, first just stop making them... ok I'll come up with a few more. Giving me some form of control over my follower is helpful, such as ordering them to run away or head straight for the exit. Next is providing them with some way of avoiding combat, either the RE 4 stash technique or having the AI just avoid enemies while I'm busy. One mechanic that needs to die is the old spawn enemies around the player and AI at certain sections. Recently playing a TBS game called Rondo of Swords gave me an idea. Provide some kind of way of attracting aggro (MMO term for enemy attention) away from the weaker partner and have them focus on me. Another step in the right direction is giving the AI some usefulness by either helping with whatever I'm doing or actively avoiding the enemies. I think another problem with escort missions (or games that copy ICO) is that it's hard to create original missions and puzzles for escort levels. Every game with an escort mission is obligated to have a puzzle where both characters need to stand on a switch at the same time or pull 2 different levers to open a door, so as designers what can we do?





This is a harder problem to fix, with advances in AI technology perhaps we could move onto games where the AI partner is a worthwhile ally. Smart enough to go on their own to solve puzzles and can still hold up in a fight next to the player. One way of cultivating relationships could be to have the player and AI perform actions together, such as advance combat attacks or having them both perform different tasks together. I just had an idea, the AI could coax the player into an impromptu race through sections of the level for no purpose but to build this sense of friendly competition between them. Imagine for a second a game like the Prince of Persia series where the player is being helped at all times by a partner as smart and agile as him, I think that could produce camaraderie between the player and the partner and provide gamers with challenges above stepping on two switches at the same time.





With next gen technology in place I think the time of the old school escort missions is about finished, I want to deal with intelligent realistic partners that follow me into deadly situations instead of brain dead lack luster idiots who follow me into deadly situations :)





Josh

Competitive vs Creative

Like most gamers my first idea to become big in the video game world was to become an expert gamer. Overall I'm a good gamer I have two world records over at Twin Galaxies and I can beat most single player games I get my hands on. As time went on I figured out that high scores and competitive gaming aren't my thing, I would rather design game ideas and mechanics which I seem to be better at. I've tried a few times over the years to get into competitive gaming, played in a Halo tournament, Smash Brothers tournament each time with failure. Since then I've come to realize that there is a huge difference between designing video games and mastering them on a competitive level.

Basically different skill sets are used in these two professions with some overlapping. To become a designer the key skills are being analytical, creative, attention to detail, critical thinking and what ever professional skills you've learned(ex: typist, programmer, writer, etc). However for professional gaming you would need these skills : attention to detail, excellent hand eye coordination, analytical, pattern recognition and an excellent memory for all those tactics you've discovered. I have the analytical skills to figure out patterns and such, but my mind works faster then my hands to keep up to perform all these complex patterns.

The other factor is something hard to describe, I wouldn't say patience or determination, as that is present in both professions, but the ability to focus on a task like playing a game for many hours straight to figure out every single little exploit and bug you can use for your advantage. I play a lot of video games, but I really can't play the same game day in and day out as it would become too derivative for me and it loses the fun. At the Smash Brothers tournament I was a great player among friends and people at the local Gamestop, but playing against people at the competitive level was something else entirely. There is a technique called "wave dashing" that I never heard of until this tournament which is considered a bug the developers left in that became some kind of exploit tactic used by competitive gamers. I do not have the patience to sit and play a game for 20 hours to find and learn all these little bugs to become a competitive gamer.

Still I would not ask MLG (Major league gaming) players to be apart of my design team. Like I mentioned earlier there is just a completely different skill set required for these positions that most competitive gamers don't have. Designing a game is not about discovering every little bug and exploit to win at games but to create something new that people can play and enjoy. The difference is about being active (creating levels/ gameplay) against being reactive (going through a level to find all the best weapon drops that someone else created) .Let me stop here and say that I have nothing against the people at MLG or any competitive or high score gaming tournaments I'm just stating that there is a difference between what someone like Sid Meier or Shigeru Miyamoto does and something the FragDolls do (I'm really sorry for that comparison but their the only competitive gaming team I can remember off the top of my head). In all seriousness, if designing a game was the same as playing it, then shouldn't Shigeru Miyamoto be the absolute King of Kong at this point?

The time I've spent learning about the industry and working on my own skills at design, have further cemented these ideas into my head. Playing a lot of video games is different then just playing Halo 3 all day long. I analyze games I've played looking for mechanics I like and dislike, good and bad interfaces , and see what I would change to make the games better. I don't play video games to find that little tear in the wall you can use to climb a pillar to get into an optimal sniping position. The lesson for this entry is to rise to the top of either profession requires dedication specifically to it and nothing else. Which is also why if I ever do decide to get into professional gaming competitions I don't think I would ask Sid Meier, Suda 51, and Brad Wardell to be apart of my MLG team :)

Josh