Welcome to my annual award show where I honor some of my favorite games of the year. We unfortunately didn't have the budget for musical numbers or body painted women but we'll just have to make do.
Like previous years the award show has been completely sold out, only games that I have played will be considered for an award. For those expecting a mention of the latest Call of Duty game or World of Warcraft expansion that last statement is all you're going to get. If you wish to complain about this please send a copy of your game and a generous bribe and your game may be considered for next year's award show.
Last year I started honoring games with bronze, silver and gold awards (with the most hideous looking trophies). We have ten games getting awards, five getting bronze awards, four getting silver and one lucky game going home with the gold. As a multi platform gamer the award show does not discriminate against console vs. pc, or console vs. handheld. The only platforms that will not be receiving any award mentions are mobile phone games and social games which goes back to my "only games I played will be considered" statement.
This has been a really tough list to put together for several reasons. First I played a lot of games this year and I still have a backlog of over thirty games to go. When I finally had my list narrow down I counted at least fifteen games which my expert mathematical skills tell me doesn't equal ten. There are still plenty of games which for all I know could have made the list but because they are somewhere in my backlog we won't know until sometime later.
Second is my fatal weakness of having no sense of time when it comes to years. For every game on my list I had to double check them to make sure they were actually released in 2010 (curse you Assassin's Creed 2).
And the Bronze winners are:
1. Super Mario Galaxy 2(Wii): A second helping of plat-forming greatness for the Wii doesn't hurt. While SMG 2 won't win awards for masterful storytelling, it does make the list for excellent game-play. When it comes to creating game-play that both novices and experts can enjoy Nintendo is one of the best as SMG 2 allows both kinds of players to progress in the game thanks to in game hints and going for the coveted 100% completion.
2. Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light (Multiplatform): A last minute entry if there ever was one as I started playing this last week and couldn't stop. What Left 4 Dead did for co-op games for a group of gamers, Guardian of Light does it for two players. A fantastic combination of puzzle solving and plat-forming wonderfully balanced for both single and co-op made this a blast to play. Not only that but this was the first game featuring Lara Croft that I actually enjoyed so extra kudos there.
3. Reccetear: An item shop's tale (PC): A surprising mix of action RPGs with economy management made Reccetear a surprised pick for me this year. Granted the game did have some obtuse mechanics but the constant draw of raising my merchant level kept me going.
4. Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey (NDS): By hardcore gamer law I am legally required to name at least one game published or developed by Atlus on my best of list lest I lost my membership to the club. SMT Strange Journey is the latest game in the main branch of SMT titles with the last game being Nocturne for the PS2. Strange Journey was a challenging game which did a lot to smooth out the difficulty curves of previous SMT titles while still delivering the complexity the franchise is known for.
5. Supreme Commander 2: (Multi Platform) Another game that came out of left field on to this list especially how I did not enjoy the first SC all that much. SC2's strategic view has forever spoiled me for future RTS titles and the skirmish AI may be one of the best I've seen in any RTS. SC 2 is great for having a team vs. AI fight with your friends.
And the silver winners are:
Just Cause 2 (Multi Platform): A perfect example of how to do open world games right, allowing the player to go crazy and comb every inch of the world for crazy stunts to pull; another game that knows how to keep the player progressing in the world with constant rewards and explosions. While it's not the most mentally challenging game on the list it is a great game to play when you need to relax.
Etrian Odyssey 3 (NDS): EO 3 once again provides a fresh take on old school CRPGS, featuring brand new classes that allow a variety of party combinations. The challenge level is high with this one and is one of those titles that requires the player to delve deep into the mechanics to succeed.
Pinball FX2 (360): With the lack of arcades in my area I thought that pinball would be dead to me but with Pinball FX 2 I have a more then capable replacement. Featuring well designed tables each with their own challenges and subtleties keeps things from getting stale. Xbox live integration with my friend's list offering that never ending challenge to reach the top and has also been the cause of the dramatic increase of my friend's list on XBL.
Alpha Protocol (multi platform): A flawed gem if there ever was one, AP turned out to be one of my favorite RPGs this year. The interactions with the various characters and their response to you gave the game a very personalized touch. While AP was far from perfect, the positives outweighed the flaws for this game. More RPGs need to take notes from AP branching paths and morality.
And like all award shows let's have an intermission before we reveal the winner. Here are the games that came close but didn't make it on to the list.
Honorable mentions go to:
Bayonetta (Multi Platform): Of the action titles released this year Bayonetta was one of the best, a crazy stylish game that made no sense whatsoever. While the combat system was the best I've seen this year it wasn't enough to upset my top three action games and why it did not get any awards.
Super Meat Boy (Multi Platform): An ode to the time when controller throwing was warranted. SMB was 2d plat-former gauntlet of challenge. Even though it didn't get an award doesn't mean that SMB was bad, it's just that I enjoyed my top ten lists more and it pushed SMB out of the running.
Sam and Max: Season three (Multi Platform): Telltale once again hit it out of the park with the latest Sam and Max season. Featuring a story so crazy it could only star a talking dog and rabbity thing. Where else can curses, clones and a mystical puppet can all come together and make perfect sense.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent (PC): Horror titles it feels like are coming few and far between. Amnesia building upon the craziness of the Penumbra series delivered with great puzzle solving and excellent atmosphere. I can't wait to see what terrors Frictional will deliver next.
Alan Wake (360): Alan wake was going to get an award but the last minute arrival of Lara Croft to the list bumped it down here. I found this to be a great start to hopefully a successful series and can't wait to see where the story goes next.
Stalker: Call of Pripiyat (PC): As a huge fan of the original Stalker it pains me to say that I started playing this today and I wanted to get this list done before the New Year. Given how much I loved Stalker S.O.C I have to mention it on my list.
Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker (PsP): One of the few times where slimmed down and fleshed out can both be used to describe a game. The mission structure works for Peace Walker allowing the designers to get more creative with Snake's objectives than in previous titles. With the inclusion of developing Snake's base gives players that hook of unlocking a new piece of equipment to use in the field.
Din's Curse (PC): Another indie PC game that falls into the same category as Gratuitous Space Battles for me as a game that would have scored higher on my list most likely if I spent more time with it. That's not to say that Din's Curse is a bad game but I just didn't give it a lot of time. Give Diablo a randomize world and a sense of urgency is a simple explanation of what makes Din's Curse an interesting RPG.
And the winner this year is:
MineCraft (PC)
At this point I know most people are debating if we can name Minecraft as best game of 2010 or if it reserves the spot for 2011. Still I'm counting it for this year as it was when the game technically went on sale. An ambitious project bringing back that old school feel of letting the player do what they want. Even with the open ended nature of the game it still allows gamers to give a personal touch to the game. You can't help but feel some pride after spending several in game day’s worth of time putting together your own house/cabin/castle/whatever and seeing the finished project.
What amazes me about Minecraft and where I have to shovel so much praise to Notch is that he was able to create a game that got the draw of open ended design so right compared to the big name companies who only managed to scratch the surface.
And that wraps things up for 2010 happy New Year everyone and I'll talk to you later.
Josh.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Smoothing out the wrinkles of game design.
One of the oldest arguments between older gamers and younger ones is that games these days are not as complex/good as they were back in the day. Having been on an old school binge this past week I have to disagree for the most part.
The main reason in my opinion why older gamers see things as dumb down would have to be how systems and mechanics these days have been streamlined to make them easier to understand. This for me personally is a great thing.
X-Com UFO Defense is considered by many PC gamers to be one of the best games around, with excellent game design that has not been bested since. With that said however X-Com features one of the worse user interfaces I've seen and is an example of what not to do.
You could honestly say the same thing for most classic games. I recently tried to play the original Might and Magic RPG I bought off of Good Old Games and for the life of me I could not figure out how to start the game without reading the manual. I got to the first fight and couldn't find a way to attack and gave up.
Contrast that to today's scene where most games don't even need the player to read the manual as the controls are easy to pick up and the game shows the player what to do. Now we can argue that we have moved away from completely non linear games which I'll come back to later in this entry.
In my opinion the following points are the major changes that have helped streamlined game-play.
1. Standardized controls: Back in the late 80s, early 90s every game had a different control scheme and this was not just limited to different genres. You could play five different CRPGs and have five completely different UIs to figure out. The first thing a gamer had to do would be to read the manual just to understand how to control their character.
These days, control schemes and UIs have become standardized to keep the learning curve low. How many fans of console shooters know before they even played the game that the right trigger is most likely the "shoot" button? Every Real Timed Strategy title to come out these days for the most part designates the "A" key as the attack move function as it is one of the most used commands in the game.
UIs have also moved away from acting as borders around the screen and now either factor into the game (such as having the ammo display on the gun itself), or take up as little real estate on the screen as possible.
By keeping the interfaces and control schemes similar across games it allows gamers to begin any game with the base lessons learned which also removes the first barrier of entry. This allows gamers to transition to the next step in learning a game.
2. Moving the instructions from manual to game: Another aspect of older game design was leaving as much information off the game screens and putting it all in the manual. The player would never know what a power up does or the objective of the game is without reading the manual first. Important details such as what stats do or how to fight would also not be mentioned.
Today most games have all the information the player would need present in game, either through a tutorial level or showing the player as the game progresses. Tool tips and in game help menus are designed to give the player easy access whenever they are trying to understand something without having to resort to the manual.
Valve has gotten increasingly good at this to the point that games like Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead and Portal don't even have manuals for the player to read. Clever level design, tool tips and streamlined controls are all they need to show the player how to play their games.
The consequence of this has been a sizable reduction in game manual sizes. I remember a time where you could cause someone bodily harm by hitting them with a game manual. Today the worse you could do is a paper cut.
3. Giving a helping hand: For most old school games, they were all about just dropping the player into the world and saying "go". If the player wanders off into a section they weren't supposed to go and get killed, well that was a learning experience. Or having three towns in complete opposite directions of each other and the player has to figure out where to go first.
Today with in game maps, quest logs and more the player has a hard time getting lost now. One negative about this is that it does move us away from the wanderlust feel of open world games where the player can get lost and explore to their hearts content. However I think the reason why we don't see more games like this is that designers haven't found an effective compromise between knowing what to do and getting completely lost.
Even though I didn't like Fallout 3, I still liked the idea of having settlements and places to explore that the player could find while wandering around. Of course on the subject of letting the player do what they want I have to mention Minecraft as another great example.
I think one of the reasons why we played older games longer then games today was that the systems were so archaic and hard to decipher that we had to spend the extra time trying to understand how to play the game. On the subject of older game design and new design I want to stop for a second and talk about difficulty.
Another argument made by older gamers is that games have gotten easier and on one hand they are correct. However we need to look at what made the games difficult in the first place. If your game was hard because your UI or mechanics were hard to understand then that's not really making a good game. But if your game was hard due to challenging game play and requiring the player to learn the mechanics then that is in my opinion a good example of old school design.
Games like Might and Magic and other older RPGs, I could probably stop everything I'm doing and just focus on the one game to the point that I could understand it and start playing, but to be honest I really don't have the time or energy to spend learning something that I would use for just one game.
Recently the Etrian Odyssey series for the DS is a great example of touching up old school design with a fresh coat of paint. The series is all about brutally difficult RPG game-play however with the inclusion of in game maps, tool tips for the various powers and an easy to use control scheme does much to smooth out the learning curve and leave the player to focus on learning the game-play.
I think the notion that old school game-play and challenge should be filed as a niche concept is wrong. Great game-play is great game-play regardless of the year it was made. It's what the player will use to experience the game-play that can age poorly or well. On this regard the games industry has improved considerably, as it is far easier to pick up a game today than it is to go back to one, fifteen + years ago regardless of the game design. Demon's Souls was an amazing game using old school challenge and design but used a modern UI and control scheme and it turned out to be one of the best games of last year.
Would X-Com given just a graphical overall work as well today as it did back then? Personally I don't think so; however X-Com given a graphical overall and a retouched UI I think would sell like hotcakes. One of the reasons why games like the earlier Mario and Zelda titles are still regarded with high praise was because the game design was amazing and there wasn't a huge barrier of entry in the form of controls or UI. I could replay Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past without needing to read the manual.
The compromise between complexity and accessibility is always a difficult decision to make and not a lot of game companies get the balance right but when it does work we are usually left with excellent games.
Josh
P.S One last game plug, if you want something with an even more old school feel then Etrian Odyssey, The Dark Spire also published by Atlus may scratch your itch.
The main reason in my opinion why older gamers see things as dumb down would have to be how systems and mechanics these days have been streamlined to make them easier to understand. This for me personally is a great thing.
X-Com UFO Defense is considered by many PC gamers to be one of the best games around, with excellent game design that has not been bested since. With that said however X-Com features one of the worse user interfaces I've seen and is an example of what not to do.
You could honestly say the same thing for most classic games. I recently tried to play the original Might and Magic RPG I bought off of Good Old Games and for the life of me I could not figure out how to start the game without reading the manual. I got to the first fight and couldn't find a way to attack and gave up.
Contrast that to today's scene where most games don't even need the player to read the manual as the controls are easy to pick up and the game shows the player what to do. Now we can argue that we have moved away from completely non linear games which I'll come back to later in this entry.
In my opinion the following points are the major changes that have helped streamlined game-play.
1. Standardized controls: Back in the late 80s, early 90s every game had a different control scheme and this was not just limited to different genres. You could play five different CRPGs and have five completely different UIs to figure out. The first thing a gamer had to do would be to read the manual just to understand how to control their character.
These days, control schemes and UIs have become standardized to keep the learning curve low. How many fans of console shooters know before they even played the game that the right trigger is most likely the "shoot" button? Every Real Timed Strategy title to come out these days for the most part designates the "A" key as the attack move function as it is one of the most used commands in the game.
UIs have also moved away from acting as borders around the screen and now either factor into the game (such as having the ammo display on the gun itself), or take up as little real estate on the screen as possible.
By keeping the interfaces and control schemes similar across games it allows gamers to begin any game with the base lessons learned which also removes the first barrier of entry. This allows gamers to transition to the next step in learning a game.
2. Moving the instructions from manual to game: Another aspect of older game design was leaving as much information off the game screens and putting it all in the manual. The player would never know what a power up does or the objective of the game is without reading the manual first. Important details such as what stats do or how to fight would also not be mentioned.
Today most games have all the information the player would need present in game, either through a tutorial level or showing the player as the game progresses. Tool tips and in game help menus are designed to give the player easy access whenever they are trying to understand something without having to resort to the manual.
Valve has gotten increasingly good at this to the point that games like Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead and Portal don't even have manuals for the player to read. Clever level design, tool tips and streamlined controls are all they need to show the player how to play their games.
The consequence of this has been a sizable reduction in game manual sizes. I remember a time where you could cause someone bodily harm by hitting them with a game manual. Today the worse you could do is a paper cut.
3. Giving a helping hand: For most old school games, they were all about just dropping the player into the world and saying "go". If the player wanders off into a section they weren't supposed to go and get killed, well that was a learning experience. Or having three towns in complete opposite directions of each other and the player has to figure out where to go first.
Today with in game maps, quest logs and more the player has a hard time getting lost now. One negative about this is that it does move us away from the wanderlust feel of open world games where the player can get lost and explore to their hearts content. However I think the reason why we don't see more games like this is that designers haven't found an effective compromise between knowing what to do and getting completely lost.
Even though I didn't like Fallout 3, I still liked the idea of having settlements and places to explore that the player could find while wandering around. Of course on the subject of letting the player do what they want I have to mention Minecraft as another great example.
I think one of the reasons why we played older games longer then games today was that the systems were so archaic and hard to decipher that we had to spend the extra time trying to understand how to play the game. On the subject of older game design and new design I want to stop for a second and talk about difficulty.
Another argument made by older gamers is that games have gotten easier and on one hand they are correct. However we need to look at what made the games difficult in the first place. If your game was hard because your UI or mechanics were hard to understand then that's not really making a good game. But if your game was hard due to challenging game play and requiring the player to learn the mechanics then that is in my opinion a good example of old school design.
Games like Might and Magic and other older RPGs, I could probably stop everything I'm doing and just focus on the one game to the point that I could understand it and start playing, but to be honest I really don't have the time or energy to spend learning something that I would use for just one game.
Recently the Etrian Odyssey series for the DS is a great example of touching up old school design with a fresh coat of paint. The series is all about brutally difficult RPG game-play however with the inclusion of in game maps, tool tips for the various powers and an easy to use control scheme does much to smooth out the learning curve and leave the player to focus on learning the game-play.
I think the notion that old school game-play and challenge should be filed as a niche concept is wrong. Great game-play is great game-play regardless of the year it was made. It's what the player will use to experience the game-play that can age poorly or well. On this regard the games industry has improved considerably, as it is far easier to pick up a game today than it is to go back to one, fifteen + years ago regardless of the game design. Demon's Souls was an amazing game using old school challenge and design but used a modern UI and control scheme and it turned out to be one of the best games of last year.
Would X-Com given just a graphical overall work as well today as it did back then? Personally I don't think so; however X-Com given a graphical overall and a retouched UI I think would sell like hotcakes. One of the reasons why games like the earlier Mario and Zelda titles are still regarded with high praise was because the game design was amazing and there wasn't a huge barrier of entry in the form of controls or UI. I could replay Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past without needing to read the manual.
The compromise between complexity and accessibility is always a difficult decision to make and not a lot of game companies get the balance right but when it does work we are usually left with excellent games.
Josh
P.S One last game plug, if you want something with an even more old school feel then Etrian Odyssey, The Dark Spire also published by Atlus may scratch your itch.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
From Spore to Minecraft- An Evolution of open ended game design.
I recently played Spore for the first time thanks to the recent Steam sale. After reaching the space stage I concluded that Spore is an amazing editor tied to simple mini games which is a shame. After ending my recent save I started thinking about Minecraft and how both game strive to deliver open ended game play in much the same way. Yet Minecraft succeeded and the more I think about it, the greater understanding I have about its success.
At this point I think everyone knows what Minecraft and Spore are so I won't be giving a synopsis of them. Both games revolve around player interaction to expand the game play. In Spore you are given a blank slate to design creatures, buildings and more. The majority of parts have a secondary function of giving benefits to your creation, such as increase health or speed.
In Minecraft you are given Carte Blanche over the world. If you want to spend your time digging out an underground strong hold then go ahead. Or build a tower to the clouds and then build a mansion and so on. Like Spore you are limited by resources in terms of your impact on the world and as you play you'll be able to build new things.
However both games use that as a branching point. In Spore you are locked into stages of development with your creature and once you reach the next stage the previous stage is closed off. In Minecraft currently there is no objective, just do what you want within the confines of the game space. Yet with that said I would purpose that there is a sense of development in Minecraft like Spore, it's just that we're not told about it.
Playing Minecraft the player will go through different stages of development in my opinion. There was a Penny-Arcade strip from a few months back that was a perfect example of this . Starting out you will scramble trying to find suitable locations for materials or defense with the sun as the timer towards danger. If you survive you'll start to dig in at your location, setting up a base camp and deciding where to go from there. At some point you will developed your tools or base camp to the point that you are secured in your surroundings and can start experimenting with the world.
Now this is where the discussion gets interesting. While both games follow a path towards complete control over the game it's the philosophy and systems that separate the success of Minecraft from the failure of Spore in my opinion. In Spore each stage is self contained in the game play and usage. Once you complete the cell stage you will not come back there with that creature.
However in Minecraft it is possible to move through the various development stages at will and return to them based on your mood. Let's say the continent you are on has been completed mined out, just make a boat or swim to somewhere else and see what you find. Tired of your castle? Go to the ocean and create an undersea base. In Minecraft you are never locked into anything compared to Spore.
In Spore the game defines a goal of reaching the space stage with everything else building up to that stage. What hurt Spore was that the various stages before that were very simple and it felt like work reaching the final stage; also while you have a great deal of customization with your creature, very little of that will affect the game-play.
With Minecraft there is no goal set by the game only by the player. If you dream of building the Hollywood sign out of glass then there is your objective. If half way through you decide to change it into the statue of Liberty then that's fine. Because there are no goals it leaves the game-play up to the player's interpretation.
In this manner Minecraft has accomplished what Spore didn’t; deliver an open ended game in which the player's decisions shape the experience. On one hand I can't help but feel jealous of Notch (the creator) for coming up with Minecraft, yet I also have to give him a round of applause. With Minecraft he has created one of the best open ended games and a true sandbox experience. With the game finally hitting beta it really is the sky’s the limit for Minecraft for what it can become, both from the designer's standpoint and the players.
Josh
At this point I think everyone knows what Minecraft and Spore are so I won't be giving a synopsis of them. Both games revolve around player interaction to expand the game play. In Spore you are given a blank slate to design creatures, buildings and more. The majority of parts have a secondary function of giving benefits to your creation, such as increase health or speed.
In Minecraft you are given Carte Blanche over the world. If you want to spend your time digging out an underground strong hold then go ahead. Or build a tower to the clouds and then build a mansion and so on. Like Spore you are limited by resources in terms of your impact on the world and as you play you'll be able to build new things.
However both games use that as a branching point. In Spore you are locked into stages of development with your creature and once you reach the next stage the previous stage is closed off. In Minecraft currently there is no objective, just do what you want within the confines of the game space. Yet with that said I would purpose that there is a sense of development in Minecraft like Spore, it's just that we're not told about it.
Playing Minecraft the player will go through different stages of development in my opinion. There was a Penny-Arcade strip from a few months back that was a perfect example of this . Starting out you will scramble trying to find suitable locations for materials or defense with the sun as the timer towards danger. If you survive you'll start to dig in at your location, setting up a base camp and deciding where to go from there. At some point you will developed your tools or base camp to the point that you are secured in your surroundings and can start experimenting with the world.
Now this is where the discussion gets interesting. While both games follow a path towards complete control over the game it's the philosophy and systems that separate the success of Minecraft from the failure of Spore in my opinion. In Spore each stage is self contained in the game play and usage. Once you complete the cell stage you will not come back there with that creature.
However in Minecraft it is possible to move through the various development stages at will and return to them based on your mood. Let's say the continent you are on has been completed mined out, just make a boat or swim to somewhere else and see what you find. Tired of your castle? Go to the ocean and create an undersea base. In Minecraft you are never locked into anything compared to Spore.
In Spore the game defines a goal of reaching the space stage with everything else building up to that stage. What hurt Spore was that the various stages before that were very simple and it felt like work reaching the final stage; also while you have a great deal of customization with your creature, very little of that will affect the game-play.
With Minecraft there is no goal set by the game only by the player. If you dream of building the Hollywood sign out of glass then there is your objective. If half way through you decide to change it into the statue of Liberty then that's fine. Because there are no goals it leaves the game-play up to the player's interpretation.
In this manner Minecraft has accomplished what Spore didn’t; deliver an open ended game in which the player's decisions shape the experience. On one hand I can't help but feel jealous of Notch (the creator) for coming up with Minecraft, yet I also have to give him a round of applause. With Minecraft he has created one of the best open ended games and a true sandbox experience. With the game finally hitting beta it really is the sky’s the limit for Minecraft for what it can become, both from the designer's standpoint and the players.
Josh
Monday, December 20, 2010
Raw hide: Red Dead Redemption analysis.
This has been a banner year for open world titles for me, especially how I fell out of love with the genre last year. I've played through and enjoyed Assassin's Creed 2 along with Just Cause 2 and just finished Red Dead Redemption the other day along with the Undead Nightmare pack. For this analysis I'm just going to cover the base game of RDR as I'm working on another entry to talk about Undead Nightmare. Also note that I considered "the good, the bad and the ugly" for the prefix to the entry title but I figured it would be too easy.
RDR takes us back to the old west, as John Marston, a former gang member who has been called in to hunt his former gang in exchange for his wife and son. In standard Rockstar form this involves going on missions for a variety of locals.
To be fair the story is a step above most video game stories and I don't want to spoil it here. I'll just say that the first and last quarters of the game are the best story wise. Also I have to give credit to the ending, even though I knew something like that was going to happen I didn't expect how cinematic it truly was. The voice acting helps as well, John along with the main characters is expertly voiced.
Let's talk about the game-play as there is a lot here then just GTA with horses. Horseback riding was well done and just different enough so that you can't compare it to car driving in the GTA series. The gun play however I have some problems with. Another mainstay of Rockstar's games is a less than adequate shooting system, mainly due to the game controller.
In RDR the designers tried to mask this issue with being able to use cover, auto target to enemies' bodies and "dead eye" mode which is a more controllable take on bullet time from Max Payne. Even with these concessions I never fell in love with the gun play even though there is a variety of guns, rifles, shotguns and more. Enemies seem to be crack-shots from 30 yards away and many of the challenges throw multiple enemies coming at you from all directions. Fortunately there is a lot more to do then just shoot people in RDR.
There are a lot of side quests and mini-games available. Also as you are out in the wilderness the game may spawn random events or characters to spice things up, such as someone being attacked by wolves or a shoot-out. I think RDR has the most side content out of any past Rockstar open world title. However with that said it doesn't take care of my biggest beef with Rockstar's open world titles: interacting with the world.
My biggest complaint with Rockstar's open world games is that outside of the mission structure there is very little for the player to impact the world with. All the mini games and side quests don't mean much when there is nothing to reward the player with other then being closer to 100%. Rockstar is great at creating these huge detailed worlds to explore, but they can't seem to fill them with meaningful content.
The missions are incredibly linear with no margin for being creative. Other people have commented on how the mechanics in the missions are just a onetime deal such as stealth or hand to hand which is the same problem I've seen in the GTA series. What pisses me off more than just having linear missions is having linear missions with a pseudo choice. Some missions have parts where John can choice from one of two options such as killing someone or doing something else, however these choices do not alter the game-play or story at all. Coming off of playing Alpha Protocol where every choice matter made this even worse.
To be fair it seems like Rockstar is learning as they have two systems of rewards in RDR. First are outfits, some are just cosmetic while others offer a bonus when dealing with certain groups. It works like this; each outfit has a list of objectives to complete, such as killing certain # of animals or beating a mini game. Once you've found one of the tasks the entire list becomes visible from the pause menu and you can accomplish them in any order. Complete the entire list and the outfit is yours. This I think was a smart move by the designers, as it gives you a reason to play the mini games or go hunting.
However the second system is where I have a problem with. As you play the game and hunt, gather and do other activities you'll unlock ambient challenges. Each challenge is made up of ten ranks each with an objective related to it, such as hunt five deer. When you complete the goal you'll move up in rank and unlock the next challenge.
These challenges look good on paper but once again Rockstar has gone against the open world feel of the game with how these challenges work. My problem is that you cannot do these challenges out of order even if you are able to accomplish or start another rank in a challenge. Basically if I'm stuck at rank two of a challenge and by going on accomplish ranks three, four, and five they will not count because I didn't finish two. This goes against one of the main draws of open world games, giving the player a reason to explore and progress.
In Assassin's Creed 2 and Just Cause 2, everything that I do will progress the game in some way. For example in Just Cause 2 every building I destroy puts me one step closer to unlocking the next story mission and working towards overall game completion. In Assassin's Creed 2, every item I buy will serve as improving the villa's value and earning more money and of course working towards game completion. In RDR however the player is punish for going outside the lines if they don't do everything in the order set by the designers.
What would have been a better fit for the ambient challenges would be if once you unlock the challenge you'll get a ten item long checklist for the challenge. For each item you complete gets you a rank up in that challenge. That way the player can move up in rank any way they choose and at the same time will be constantly progressing in the game. Speaking about progression I wish there was a greater use for money in RDR. Health, ammo and dead eye usage are easily replenish-able and the majority of the guns you'll get come from missions.
With all these complaints said I still enjoyed RDR and think that this is Rockstar's best open world title since Bully. However in a year that I played Assassin's Creed 2 and Just Cause 2 which both really understood the draws of an open world game, it does put RDR into a bronze position for best open world title. Rating the games on atmosphere and storytelling would put RDR on top but an open world is about letting the player go crazy in the setting not following a linear set of directions.
Josh
RDR takes us back to the old west, as John Marston, a former gang member who has been called in to hunt his former gang in exchange for his wife and son. In standard Rockstar form this involves going on missions for a variety of locals.
To be fair the story is a step above most video game stories and I don't want to spoil it here. I'll just say that the first and last quarters of the game are the best story wise. Also I have to give credit to the ending, even though I knew something like that was going to happen I didn't expect how cinematic it truly was. The voice acting helps as well, John along with the main characters is expertly voiced.
Let's talk about the game-play as there is a lot here then just GTA with horses. Horseback riding was well done and just different enough so that you can't compare it to car driving in the GTA series. The gun play however I have some problems with. Another mainstay of Rockstar's games is a less than adequate shooting system, mainly due to the game controller.
In RDR the designers tried to mask this issue with being able to use cover, auto target to enemies' bodies and "dead eye" mode which is a more controllable take on bullet time from Max Payne. Even with these concessions I never fell in love with the gun play even though there is a variety of guns, rifles, shotguns and more. Enemies seem to be crack-shots from 30 yards away and many of the challenges throw multiple enemies coming at you from all directions. Fortunately there is a lot more to do then just shoot people in RDR.
There are a lot of side quests and mini-games available. Also as you are out in the wilderness the game may spawn random events or characters to spice things up, such as someone being attacked by wolves or a shoot-out. I think RDR has the most side content out of any past Rockstar open world title. However with that said it doesn't take care of my biggest beef with Rockstar's open world titles: interacting with the world.
My biggest complaint with Rockstar's open world games is that outside of the mission structure there is very little for the player to impact the world with. All the mini games and side quests don't mean much when there is nothing to reward the player with other then being closer to 100%. Rockstar is great at creating these huge detailed worlds to explore, but they can't seem to fill them with meaningful content.
The missions are incredibly linear with no margin for being creative. Other people have commented on how the mechanics in the missions are just a onetime deal such as stealth or hand to hand which is the same problem I've seen in the GTA series. What pisses me off more than just having linear missions is having linear missions with a pseudo choice. Some missions have parts where John can choice from one of two options such as killing someone or doing something else, however these choices do not alter the game-play or story at all. Coming off of playing Alpha Protocol where every choice matter made this even worse.
To be fair it seems like Rockstar is learning as they have two systems of rewards in RDR. First are outfits, some are just cosmetic while others offer a bonus when dealing with certain groups. It works like this; each outfit has a list of objectives to complete, such as killing certain # of animals or beating a mini game. Once you've found one of the tasks the entire list becomes visible from the pause menu and you can accomplish them in any order. Complete the entire list and the outfit is yours. This I think was a smart move by the designers, as it gives you a reason to play the mini games or go hunting.
However the second system is where I have a problem with. As you play the game and hunt, gather and do other activities you'll unlock ambient challenges. Each challenge is made up of ten ranks each with an objective related to it, such as hunt five deer. When you complete the goal you'll move up in rank and unlock the next challenge.
These challenges look good on paper but once again Rockstar has gone against the open world feel of the game with how these challenges work. My problem is that you cannot do these challenges out of order even if you are able to accomplish or start another rank in a challenge. Basically if I'm stuck at rank two of a challenge and by going on accomplish ranks three, four, and five they will not count because I didn't finish two. This goes against one of the main draws of open world games, giving the player a reason to explore and progress.
In Assassin's Creed 2 and Just Cause 2, everything that I do will progress the game in some way. For example in Just Cause 2 every building I destroy puts me one step closer to unlocking the next story mission and working towards overall game completion. In Assassin's Creed 2, every item I buy will serve as improving the villa's value and earning more money and of course working towards game completion. In RDR however the player is punish for going outside the lines if they don't do everything in the order set by the designers.
What would have been a better fit for the ambient challenges would be if once you unlock the challenge you'll get a ten item long checklist for the challenge. For each item you complete gets you a rank up in that challenge. That way the player can move up in rank any way they choose and at the same time will be constantly progressing in the game. Speaking about progression I wish there was a greater use for money in RDR. Health, ammo and dead eye usage are easily replenish-able and the majority of the guns you'll get come from missions.
With all these complaints said I still enjoyed RDR and think that this is Rockstar's best open world title since Bully. However in a year that I played Assassin's Creed 2 and Just Cause 2 which both really understood the draws of an open world game, it does put RDR into a bronze position for best open world title. Rating the games on atmosphere and storytelling would put RDR on top but an open world is about letting the player go crazy in the setting not following a linear set of directions.
Josh
Friday, December 17, 2010
Spies like us : Alpha Protocol analysis
Sometimes it really sucks to be late to the party. I avoided Alpha Protocol due to bad word of mouth and copy protection woes. A steam sale a few weeks ago added the game to my backlog and the recent removal of the copy protection via patch bumped the game up on my play list. Now with the year almost up I can't believe I waited this long to play what could be close to my game of the year and perhaps favorite CRPG since The Witcher.
Alpha Protocol is a blend of spy movies with a good old choose your own adventure game. Like any good spy movie within the first few hours you will be betrayed and left for dead and have to uncover a massive global conspiracy, you know day one stuff.
What separates AP from other CRPGs is the breadth and depth of the choices you make. First during conversations you can choose what kind of mood you will respond to the question which is becoming popular with CRPGs. You normally have three choices, suave or cocky, aggressive or threatening and professional or straight. Depending on any Intel you bought or found you may have access to a fourth special option.
Conversations will determine how someone will respond to you, either negatively or positively which will affect their mood to you and if they become your handler during a mission the bonus they provide to you. The game features numerous decisions that affect the plot such as choosing who you will side with along with sparing or killing specific characters.
Like The Witcher, you will not see the outcome of your choices until later on in the game. Because of this AP has a lot of replay ability going for it. The middle of the game is made up of you choosing the order of the missions or countries you'll visit. Not only does each mission have numerous choices to be made but the order of the missions you choose will also affect your choices as well. For example a choice I made at the end of one mission came back to bite me in the next mission when one person heard what I did and refused anything to do with me.
Game-play is a mixed bag. On missions you have access to whatever weapons, gadgets and skills you've obtained through leveling or buying. The enemy AI is average, they understand enough not to run straight at you. For hacking, lock picking and getting through electronic locks there are mini-games you can play. While they won't tax your mental power they serve as an ok diversion.
Stealth is where unfortunately the system starts to break down. The stealth aspects of AP swing too far between too powerful and too weak. At the start without any points in the stealth skill enemies can see you from very far and once one enemy sees you every enemy and his brother for a hundred miles knows where you are. On the other side of things, put enough points into stealth and the game goes into easy mode as you gain the ability to see enemy positions along with a skill that makes you invisible.
With all the choices available to the player I hate to say it but it doesn't feel that everything was balanced out. I did not need to use any gadgets and just using my silenced pistol along with stealth got me through every level of the game. Boss fights are unusual as you will be fighting humans who have developed the ability to survive multiple gun shots to the head.
One nice touch in AP is that the characters will react to your play style, as I kept myself as stealthy as possible, people would remark on how well I was at avoiding setting off alarms.
I must have gotten lucky as I didn't run into any major bugs but of course that does not mean they don't exist. I played AP using a keyboard and mouse and found the controls to be adequate. The only tricky parts were with the hacking mini game and using the mouse to control one of the choices.
The level design walks a thin line between giving the player options and being linear. Many levels offer alternate paths if you look close enough, however all paths lead to the same objective. Overall the actual game-play is just there to highlight the choices of the game.
As I mentioned at the start AP reminds me of The Witcher with the choices presented to the player. There are no morality sliders or choices marked "good" or "bad", there are just choices. The more games that get away from immediate outcomes from making a choice the better in my opinion; even at the end of the game I found choices that I made at the start were being commented on which I thought was a great touch.
Alpha Protocol was a shot in the dark for me and I came out enjoying the game, a revised touched up version of AP could be something amazing. Sadly it has been announced that there would not be a sequel to AP and I have to blame myself along with everyone else as I waited for the game to be on sale before I bought it. At this point I'm still making up my games of the year list but AP has definitely judo chopped its way to the top.
Josh.
Alpha Protocol is a blend of spy movies with a good old choose your own adventure game. Like any good spy movie within the first few hours you will be betrayed and left for dead and have to uncover a massive global conspiracy, you know day one stuff.
What separates AP from other CRPGs is the breadth and depth of the choices you make. First during conversations you can choose what kind of mood you will respond to the question which is becoming popular with CRPGs. You normally have three choices, suave or cocky, aggressive or threatening and professional or straight. Depending on any Intel you bought or found you may have access to a fourth special option.
Conversations will determine how someone will respond to you, either negatively or positively which will affect their mood to you and if they become your handler during a mission the bonus they provide to you. The game features numerous decisions that affect the plot such as choosing who you will side with along with sparing or killing specific characters.
Like The Witcher, you will not see the outcome of your choices until later on in the game. Because of this AP has a lot of replay ability going for it. The middle of the game is made up of you choosing the order of the missions or countries you'll visit. Not only does each mission have numerous choices to be made but the order of the missions you choose will also affect your choices as well. For example a choice I made at the end of one mission came back to bite me in the next mission when one person heard what I did and refused anything to do with me.
Game-play is a mixed bag. On missions you have access to whatever weapons, gadgets and skills you've obtained through leveling or buying. The enemy AI is average, they understand enough not to run straight at you. For hacking, lock picking and getting through electronic locks there are mini-games you can play. While they won't tax your mental power they serve as an ok diversion.
Stealth is where unfortunately the system starts to break down. The stealth aspects of AP swing too far between too powerful and too weak. At the start without any points in the stealth skill enemies can see you from very far and once one enemy sees you every enemy and his brother for a hundred miles knows where you are. On the other side of things, put enough points into stealth and the game goes into easy mode as you gain the ability to see enemy positions along with a skill that makes you invisible.
With all the choices available to the player I hate to say it but it doesn't feel that everything was balanced out. I did not need to use any gadgets and just using my silenced pistol along with stealth got me through every level of the game. Boss fights are unusual as you will be fighting humans who have developed the ability to survive multiple gun shots to the head.
One nice touch in AP is that the characters will react to your play style, as I kept myself as stealthy as possible, people would remark on how well I was at avoiding setting off alarms.
I must have gotten lucky as I didn't run into any major bugs but of course that does not mean they don't exist. I played AP using a keyboard and mouse and found the controls to be adequate. The only tricky parts were with the hacking mini game and using the mouse to control one of the choices.
The level design walks a thin line between giving the player options and being linear. Many levels offer alternate paths if you look close enough, however all paths lead to the same objective. Overall the actual game-play is just there to highlight the choices of the game.
As I mentioned at the start AP reminds me of The Witcher with the choices presented to the player. There are no morality sliders or choices marked "good" or "bad", there are just choices. The more games that get away from immediate outcomes from making a choice the better in my opinion; even at the end of the game I found choices that I made at the start were being commented on which I thought was a great touch.
Alpha Protocol was a shot in the dark for me and I came out enjoying the game, a revised touched up version of AP could be something amazing. Sadly it has been announced that there would not be a sequel to AP and I have to blame myself along with everyone else as I waited for the game to be on sale before I bought it. At this point I'm still making up my games of the year list but AP has definitely judo chopped its way to the top.
Josh.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Just checking in.
A quick entry, for those wondering where my blog posts are I seem to have come down with a virus last week. It’s affecting my nose, throat and eyes right now which unfortunately I use the latter to type up these entries.
I think it's almost out of my system but it has set me back by at least a week. Hopefully I can get back to business as usual next week.
Josh.
I think it's almost out of my system but it has set me back by at least a week. Hopefully I can get back to business as usual next week.
Josh.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Fight or flight in horror games.
What seems to be a never ending theme for me, I'm going to once again offer my opinion on the horror genre (I should consider grouping all my horror entries into one super post at some point).
Recently I played both Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Amnesia: The Dark Descent, both titles remove the option to fight and instead force the player to run when facing any foes. Once again linking back to my previous entries on horror titles, I am an insane individual who no longer gets scared when playing games so the games I just mentioned did nothing for me. Personally I find this trend of removing combat is an overreaction to the poor combat mechanics of earlier horror titles. I can't help but feel that designers these days went overkill with this decision and I'm going to explain why using a basic psychological response.
"Fight or flight" refers to the basic survival response most animals have to a dangerous situation. They make a decision to either run away from the situation or fight their way out and the brain releases the corresponding chemical stimulants. My problem with horror titles these days that remove combat is that they effectively remove half of our available options when facing a dangerous situation.
What this means is that no matter what situation that the player runs into in a game their only option is to run. Removing the freedom of choice also removes the unpredictability of the situation. In Amnesia I knew that there were only two options whenever I was caught by a monster, run or die. Because of that I did not feel any tension when hiding in the dark nor did I get scared when I saw a monster.
By having combat as an option it forces the player to weigh the pros and cons of getting into a fight. Do they have enough ammo? Can they effectively stop the threat? Will they have enough ammo for the next fight? These are important questions that the player must answer and will add a layer of complexity to a game as opposed to just running away.
One challenge is to give the player enough power that they have the strength to fight back but not make them so powerful that it removes the horror. In Resident Evil 4 by the time the player has reached the half way point they will be loaded with upgraded weapons, items and ammo and won't need to worry about the next fight. What causes this is another stable of older horror games: the boss fight. For games about running away from foes, there are always parts that the player is locked in a room with a boss which requires all that ammo the player has been hoarding.
That last statement fits with the second challenge giving the player a reason to run. When you have sections that the player is forced to kill all enemies even if you are dealing with scary monsters it won't be scary in my opinion. The reason goes back to my comment on choice, if the only options available are to "fight" or "die" then that is just as bad as only having "run" or "die". An example of this was with Dead Space which the final level was made up of gauntlets of locked rooms with necromorphs to fight.
One game that came close to delivering "fight or flight" was Alan Wake. With most of the fights you have to weigh the decision to stand your ground or run away. The lack of enemy variety did hurt the game as even with having the options to run or fight you knew how most fights would play out.
Also I have to mention the opening of Resident Evil 4 where Leon is attacked by the entire village and must survive for X amount of minutes. I thought this was an excellent section and wish that there were more like it in the game.
In my opinion there are two types of enemy design that work best in a horror title. Either mobs of enemies who attack in groups or powerful larger enemies who attack one at a time. Both force the player to question if it is better to run or to try and fight them. A common pitfall in design is basing the fight or flight mechanics on the type of enemy, meaning the smaller enemies the player will always fight and the larger enemies the player will always run from. The more the designer mixes up these encounters the better as it will keep the player on their toes.
I've thought up three different game ideas in the past to go with my logic. The first one was something along the lines of Shadow of The Colossus but in a horror setting. You are trapped with several boss creatures and you must try to escape and at the same time deal with the creatures. Weapons can incapacitate them long enough to get away but supplies are limited. You must complete specific objectives which along the way will give you the tools needed to permanently stop them.
The next idea is based on one of the few IPs I would like to work on: Evil Dead, Something along the lines of Evil Dead 2 in which the player must fight off deadites while trying to complete objectives. They have to decide between running away from fights and using their limited supply of ammo to deal with them.
The final one which is the most complete one is a melting pot of several ideas I've had in the past. The player has been marked as a target for a demon in an open world setting. The goal is to find out who did this and how to stop it with the demon showing up at completely random times and different forms to attack the player. The player can either try to do enough damage to force the demon away or run and hide long enough for the demon to return to its dimension.
Since the game takes place in an open world the player must weigh the options of fighting or running away in regards to where they are, what weapons they have available and their current health situation. With the demon being immortal the player is never safe as it can show up at any time with longer intervals if the player managed to hurt it and shorter intervals if they run.
It seems like in my opinion that we moved from one design rut in horror titles with lousy combat, to another with this preoccupation of just running away. With the end of the year coming soon it will be interesting to see if any changes are made to the formula in 2011.
Josh.
Recently I played both Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Amnesia: The Dark Descent, both titles remove the option to fight and instead force the player to run when facing any foes. Once again linking back to my previous entries on horror titles, I am an insane individual who no longer gets scared when playing games so the games I just mentioned did nothing for me. Personally I find this trend of removing combat is an overreaction to the poor combat mechanics of earlier horror titles. I can't help but feel that designers these days went overkill with this decision and I'm going to explain why using a basic psychological response.
"Fight or flight" refers to the basic survival response most animals have to a dangerous situation. They make a decision to either run away from the situation or fight their way out and the brain releases the corresponding chemical stimulants. My problem with horror titles these days that remove combat is that they effectively remove half of our available options when facing a dangerous situation.
What this means is that no matter what situation that the player runs into in a game their only option is to run. Removing the freedom of choice also removes the unpredictability of the situation. In Amnesia I knew that there were only two options whenever I was caught by a monster, run or die. Because of that I did not feel any tension when hiding in the dark nor did I get scared when I saw a monster.
By having combat as an option it forces the player to weigh the pros and cons of getting into a fight. Do they have enough ammo? Can they effectively stop the threat? Will they have enough ammo for the next fight? These are important questions that the player must answer and will add a layer of complexity to a game as opposed to just running away.
One challenge is to give the player enough power that they have the strength to fight back but not make them so powerful that it removes the horror. In Resident Evil 4 by the time the player has reached the half way point they will be loaded with upgraded weapons, items and ammo and won't need to worry about the next fight. What causes this is another stable of older horror games: the boss fight. For games about running away from foes, there are always parts that the player is locked in a room with a boss which requires all that ammo the player has been hoarding.
That last statement fits with the second challenge giving the player a reason to run. When you have sections that the player is forced to kill all enemies even if you are dealing with scary monsters it won't be scary in my opinion. The reason goes back to my comment on choice, if the only options available are to "fight" or "die" then that is just as bad as only having "run" or "die". An example of this was with Dead Space which the final level was made up of gauntlets of locked rooms with necromorphs to fight.
One game that came close to delivering "fight or flight" was Alan Wake. With most of the fights you have to weigh the decision to stand your ground or run away. The lack of enemy variety did hurt the game as even with having the options to run or fight you knew how most fights would play out.
Also I have to mention the opening of Resident Evil 4 where Leon is attacked by the entire village and must survive for X amount of minutes. I thought this was an excellent section and wish that there were more like it in the game.
In my opinion there are two types of enemy design that work best in a horror title. Either mobs of enemies who attack in groups or powerful larger enemies who attack one at a time. Both force the player to question if it is better to run or to try and fight them. A common pitfall in design is basing the fight or flight mechanics on the type of enemy, meaning the smaller enemies the player will always fight and the larger enemies the player will always run from. The more the designer mixes up these encounters the better as it will keep the player on their toes.
I've thought up three different game ideas in the past to go with my logic. The first one was something along the lines of Shadow of The Colossus but in a horror setting. You are trapped with several boss creatures and you must try to escape and at the same time deal with the creatures. Weapons can incapacitate them long enough to get away but supplies are limited. You must complete specific objectives which along the way will give you the tools needed to permanently stop them.
The next idea is based on one of the few IPs I would like to work on: Evil Dead, Something along the lines of Evil Dead 2 in which the player must fight off deadites while trying to complete objectives. They have to decide between running away from fights and using their limited supply of ammo to deal with them.
The final one which is the most complete one is a melting pot of several ideas I've had in the past. The player has been marked as a target for a demon in an open world setting. The goal is to find out who did this and how to stop it with the demon showing up at completely random times and different forms to attack the player. The player can either try to do enough damage to force the demon away or run and hide long enough for the demon to return to its dimension.
Since the game takes place in an open world the player must weigh the options of fighting or running away in regards to where they are, what weapons they have available and their current health situation. With the demon being immortal the player is never safe as it can show up at any time with longer intervals if the player managed to hurt it and shorter intervals if they run.
It seems like in my opinion that we moved from one design rut in horror titles with lousy combat, to another with this preoccupation of just running away. With the end of the year coming soon it will be interesting to see if any changes are made to the formula in 2011.
Josh.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Bad Mother- Metroid: Other M analysis
Have you ever had that feeling that you knew something was going to be bad but didn't think it would be that bad? That's what I had when loading up Metroid: Other M for the Wii, talking to friends online and watching a few YouTube videos of cut scenes; I had an idea of what to expect. A Black Friday sale prompted me to pick this up out of morbid curiosity and thirty minutes in and I was already screaming "what the f#$k".
Normally when I do these analysis I talk about the story before getting into the game-play, however with the story being one of the biggest problems I have with Other M I decided to skip it for now.
Other M is the 2nd re-imagining of Metroid's game-play, the first being the excellent Metroid Prime trilogy done by Retro Studios. Other M was created by Team Ninja and you easily see their influence with the game play. Samus is a lot more agile this time around able to jump, dodge and even perform finishing moves on enemies.
With that said however as you start to dig deeper the flaws in the game begin to show. Samus automatically targets enemies when moving around, this presents a problem when you want her to focus on something specific. While the idea of performing finishing moves is different, every enemy fight follows the same pattern. Now in previous Metroid titles you did basically just blast every enemy to bits, but you weren't forced to spend several minutes fighting an enemy with exception to boss fights.
Missile aiming to be frank is where the designers screwed up bad. For those that didn't watch previews, you control Samus with just the Wii-mote, keeping it horizontal will allow you to control Samus normally. Turning the Wii-Mote towards your TV puts Samus in aiming mode. This is first person and is the only way for Samus to use missiles.
I knew from the first moment I saw this that this was going to be trouble and I was right. While in first person Samus is immobile with exception to a dodge move you can use. Not only do you have to be in first person but you also have to lock on to a moving enemy. This presents two problems, first is that Samus enters first person in the direction she is facing, meaning that you have to spend an extra second or two adjusting Samus before you even go into aiming mode.
Second with the enemy constantly moving you have to adjust Samus' aim in first person by slowly turning her in hopes of locking on to the enemy to get a missile off. With just about every boss fight and large enemy encounter requiring missiles this becomes annoying fast. Fortunately you won't have to worry about running out of missiles thanks to one very confusing mechanic present in Other M.
For reasons never explained Samus has the ability to auto regenerate her missile supply and even her health as well. Point the Wii-Mote up and hold A and she will regain her stock. There is no other way to recover missiles or health other then the save stations that are scattered throughout the station. The problem with this is that this mechanic is completely against Metroid's game-play and removes the reason to explore.
In previous Metroids the player was encouraged to explore the environment for missile and energy tanks. This gave gamers an easier time while fighting the bosses. In Other M by making Samus' health and missile supply renewable there is no reason to explore the areas. Why do I need missile tanks when I can just regenerate them at will? Granted there are power-ups that decrease charge time for weapons but once again going back to your recharge ability, why bother?
Why the designers decided to forgo the use of the nun-chuck is beyond me as it would have made controlling Samus at least tolerable. Sadly arbitrarily bad mechanics seem to pile up as the game goes on, such as sections that have Samus walking very slowly for no apparent reason. Or having to scan something in the environment to continue but you have to put your cursor on it just right for the game to acknowledge it.
Now that I got everything said about the game-play it's time to talk about the story and how not only does it drag the game down further, but this could be one of the worse stories I've played this year.
Other M is the first Metroid game to feature Samus talking and after the first cinematic I wish that she would shut up. Someone needs to tell the writers that having your character say big words don’t make her intelligent if the sentences don't make sense. Samus is constantly rambling on about something that would take a normal person 5 seconds to say. Her description of her relationship with Adam (her CO) seems less like something an intelligent woman would say and instead sounds like something a teenage girl would pour into her diary after the cute jock casually glanced at her during lunch.
Sadly the horrible story also slithers its way into the game-play. Samus for reasons we can only fathom decides to forgo the use of all her weapons and abilities until Adam says that it is ok to use them. Now I can understand that it does seem foolish for Samus to have a major accident at the start of every Metroid game recently but at least it makes sense with the game-play. Here I see a power up that could help me but Samus refuses to simply push a button on her suit to activate the power needed to get it because Adam doesn't say so.
Samus is constantly made to look like an idiot and a baby with no mind of her own. The infamous Ridley cut scene is a great example of it. Another example comes early in the game where Adam talks down to Samus for one minute explaining why she can't use her power bombs. What is utterly stupid about this is why does Adam know more about Samus's abilities then Samus herself? Another good question is why do I spend the majority of the game with a weapon that takes forever to kill enemies when I could just activate the plasma beam and lay waste to everyone?
I could probably rant on for about two more pages detailing every little thing that I find wrong with Other M but I won't. When reviews first came out there was some controversy about the game being insulting to women with Samus' depiction. I'm not going to talk about that because (spoiler alert) I am not a woman. Instead I'm going to say that I found Other M insulting as a fan of Metroid, good game-play, and storytelling which Other M managed to fail on all three parts.
I'm placing the blame equally between Team Ninja and Nintendo for how this turned out. The only good thing about Other M is that I think the 2.5 D view works for Metroid and I hope this doesn't dissuade further development away from it. I can honestly say that Metroid: Other M is the worse game I've played this year with Dante's Inferno #2 on that list. Now if you'll excuse me I'm debating on replaying Metroid Fusion, Metroid Zero Mission or Super Metroid again to cleanse myself of this crap.
Josh.
Normally when I do these analysis I talk about the story before getting into the game-play, however with the story being one of the biggest problems I have with Other M I decided to skip it for now.
Other M is the 2nd re-imagining of Metroid's game-play, the first being the excellent Metroid Prime trilogy done by Retro Studios. Other M was created by Team Ninja and you easily see their influence with the game play. Samus is a lot more agile this time around able to jump, dodge and even perform finishing moves on enemies.
With that said however as you start to dig deeper the flaws in the game begin to show. Samus automatically targets enemies when moving around, this presents a problem when you want her to focus on something specific. While the idea of performing finishing moves is different, every enemy fight follows the same pattern. Now in previous Metroid titles you did basically just blast every enemy to bits, but you weren't forced to spend several minutes fighting an enemy with exception to boss fights.
Missile aiming to be frank is where the designers screwed up bad. For those that didn't watch previews, you control Samus with just the Wii-mote, keeping it horizontal will allow you to control Samus normally. Turning the Wii-Mote towards your TV puts Samus in aiming mode. This is first person and is the only way for Samus to use missiles.
I knew from the first moment I saw this that this was going to be trouble and I was right. While in first person Samus is immobile with exception to a dodge move you can use. Not only do you have to be in first person but you also have to lock on to a moving enemy. This presents two problems, first is that Samus enters first person in the direction she is facing, meaning that you have to spend an extra second or two adjusting Samus before you even go into aiming mode.
Second with the enemy constantly moving you have to adjust Samus' aim in first person by slowly turning her in hopes of locking on to the enemy to get a missile off. With just about every boss fight and large enemy encounter requiring missiles this becomes annoying fast. Fortunately you won't have to worry about running out of missiles thanks to one very confusing mechanic present in Other M.
For reasons never explained Samus has the ability to auto regenerate her missile supply and even her health as well. Point the Wii-Mote up and hold A and she will regain her stock. There is no other way to recover missiles or health other then the save stations that are scattered throughout the station. The problem with this is that this mechanic is completely against Metroid's game-play and removes the reason to explore.
In previous Metroids the player was encouraged to explore the environment for missile and energy tanks. This gave gamers an easier time while fighting the bosses. In Other M by making Samus' health and missile supply renewable there is no reason to explore the areas. Why do I need missile tanks when I can just regenerate them at will? Granted there are power-ups that decrease charge time for weapons but once again going back to your recharge ability, why bother?
Why the designers decided to forgo the use of the nun-chuck is beyond me as it would have made controlling Samus at least tolerable. Sadly arbitrarily bad mechanics seem to pile up as the game goes on, such as sections that have Samus walking very slowly for no apparent reason. Or having to scan something in the environment to continue but you have to put your cursor on it just right for the game to acknowledge it.
Now that I got everything said about the game-play it's time to talk about the story and how not only does it drag the game down further, but this could be one of the worse stories I've played this year.
Other M is the first Metroid game to feature Samus talking and after the first cinematic I wish that she would shut up. Someone needs to tell the writers that having your character say big words don’t make her intelligent if the sentences don't make sense. Samus is constantly rambling on about something that would take a normal person 5 seconds to say. Her description of her relationship with Adam (her CO) seems less like something an intelligent woman would say and instead sounds like something a teenage girl would pour into her diary after the cute jock casually glanced at her during lunch.
Sadly the horrible story also slithers its way into the game-play. Samus for reasons we can only fathom decides to forgo the use of all her weapons and abilities until Adam says that it is ok to use them. Now I can understand that it does seem foolish for Samus to have a major accident at the start of every Metroid game recently but at least it makes sense with the game-play. Here I see a power up that could help me but Samus refuses to simply push a button on her suit to activate the power needed to get it because Adam doesn't say so.
Samus is constantly made to look like an idiot and a baby with no mind of her own. The infamous Ridley cut scene is a great example of it. Another example comes early in the game where Adam talks down to Samus for one minute explaining why she can't use her power bombs. What is utterly stupid about this is why does Adam know more about Samus's abilities then Samus herself? Another good question is why do I spend the majority of the game with a weapon that takes forever to kill enemies when I could just activate the plasma beam and lay waste to everyone?
I could probably rant on for about two more pages detailing every little thing that I find wrong with Other M but I won't. When reviews first came out there was some controversy about the game being insulting to women with Samus' depiction. I'm not going to talk about that because (spoiler alert) I am not a woman. Instead I'm going to say that I found Other M insulting as a fan of Metroid, good game-play, and storytelling which Other M managed to fail on all three parts.
I'm placing the blame equally between Team Ninja and Nintendo for how this turned out. The only good thing about Other M is that I think the 2.5 D view works for Metroid and I hope this doesn't dissuade further development away from it. I can honestly say that Metroid: Other M is the worse game I've played this year with Dante's Inferno #2 on that list. Now if you'll excuse me I'm debating on replaying Metroid Fusion, Metroid Zero Mission or Super Metroid again to cleanse myself of this crap.
Josh.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Adding an asterisk to game reviews.
It's been awhile but this will be one of the few entries I type up that is not game design related but instead this will focus on game reviews. To begin with I have a few of my stories to tell.
At the beginning of 2010 Supreme Commander 2 was released for the PC. At the start the game did not receive a lot of praise and had around a C+ to B average from game reviews. Issues with the AI and campaign design were some of the chief concerns raised by game reviewers. It was these issues that stopped me from buying the game when it was released. With most games that would have been all she wrote but Gas Powered Games (the developers) had a different idea.
Since the game has been released there have been numerous patches to improve the AI and update the UI along with balancing units. The recent DLC redid the tech trees for the sides for skirmish play along with adding more units.
I bought Supcom 2 about five or six months ago when it was on sale with Steam and did not touch it till about three weeks ago. I found the skirmish AI to be excellent and gave my friends and I a run for our money with how well it works together to create a challenge. I found the UI for the most part to be really good with a few little issues which I won't mention here.
Next example I want to mention is Elemental: War of Magic, this 4x strategy title was released at the start of September and came out with a host of problems. The street date was broken forcing Stardock (the developers) to play catch up with patching the game to be playable and their first true patch sadly was not up to snuff. Many strategy fans including yours truly did not fall in love with the game like we planned. I cited UI, performance and even design issues that kept me from enjoying the game.
Like with Supcom 2 Stardock has committed themselves to improving the game, they hired the lead designer behind the Fall From Heaven mod from the Civilization games to take over as lead designer. They have also promised the first two expansion packs free for anyone who played the game from the start and have said that they will work on Elemental for to get the game up to code. At the time of this entry their first big content patch: version 1.1 is set to be released soon which will restructure a lot of the game mechanics.
The point of talking about these two games is how both titles have been altered considerably from their initial reviews. Supcom2 managed to fix some of the big problems it had at launch and Elemental is set to undergo major changes. The reviews for Supcom 2 are not completely accurate anymore and hopefully the same will be said for Elemental at some point. Which leads me to the point of this entry, should games that are changed drastically since release should be offer a re- review?
Many titles these days receive patches or updates after their release. Most often they fall into minor balance changes or bug fixes. However there are rare exceptions when we have games that are changed to the point that they aren't the same game when they were released. There is one game that could be the poster child for this concept and that would be Team Fortress 2.
TF 2 was released in 2007 and I have been playing the game on and off since 2008 after the heavy update. It has been altered dramatically since release to the point that the original reviews could be considered no longer valid for the game. Here is a brief list of things that have been added to TF 2 since it was released:
New equipment for all classes
New maps and modes
Crafting
In game store
Cosmetic items for all classes.
Achievements
What I just mentioned was not mentioned in any reviews since of course they weren't created yet. For the people who still have not played the game if they tried to get a fair assessment from the reviews they will be greatly mistaken.
One benefit of re-reviewing games is that it can give a game that didn't do well at launch a second chance at making sales and providing free publicity if the game has been improved greatly. However even with this being my idea I can find three big faults that have to be mentioned.
1. Call me a cynic but chances are someone will find a way to exploit this. Such as releasing a game and telling reviewers specifically not to play the game until patch three where everything will be fixed. This could be used to allow designers to release intentionally buggy products to make a quick profit then time the re-review to release a different edition of the game. Will everyone do something like this? Of course not but it has to be mentioned as a potential problem.
2. What would be considered the cut off point for patches? One of the best reasons for games to be reviewed at launch is that all reviewers will be on equal footing with patches. If you wait for a game to be patched at what patch will the game be reviewed?
For example let’s say reviewer A plays the game at patch 15 and finds it bug free and great and gives the game a good score. Then we have reviewer B playing the game at patch 17 which introduced a memory leak and a save game bug. They say that the game is buggy and doesn't perform well and marks the game down for it. If not done correctly this could create a logistical nightmare as reviewers try to time everything to play the game at the correct patch.
Another angle of this issue is that what type of patch constitutes a re-review? Do we wait for a patch that removes DRM or one that adds new features to the UI? This is another grey area as different reviewers may value certain updates more than others and this goes back to the logistical challenge of everyone being on the same page.
3. Lastly is what exactly do we do with the original review scores? It's not like the reviewer was wrong when giving it out at release, they just did not play this version of the game. Erasing the score doesn't seem fair as many gamers based their perception of the game on the original review and telling them six months later that the game is now game of the year material seems like a slap in the face. I could just see the nightmare for game of the year awards when we have updated games added to the mix.
That last point brings us to the title of the entry, for those that don't know what I'm referring to, in MLB if a player who has made it into the record books was confirmed to have been on steroids then their records will be marked with an asterisk to show that there was something involved with getting that record.
For a game review the asterisk would mean something far less damaging but will still show that the latest review score for the game was not played with the original design of the game. As many of us know the age of digital distribution content is here to stay and we are seeing more than just simple patches released for games. Chances are games like Elemental, Team Fortress 2 and Supreme Commander 2 will not be the norm but it does raise this issue.
With that said what do you think? Should we give a second look to games or should we stick to a one shot deal?
Josh
At the beginning of 2010 Supreme Commander 2 was released for the PC. At the start the game did not receive a lot of praise and had around a C+ to B average from game reviews. Issues with the AI and campaign design were some of the chief concerns raised by game reviewers. It was these issues that stopped me from buying the game when it was released. With most games that would have been all she wrote but Gas Powered Games (the developers) had a different idea.
Since the game has been released there have been numerous patches to improve the AI and update the UI along with balancing units. The recent DLC redid the tech trees for the sides for skirmish play along with adding more units.
I bought Supcom 2 about five or six months ago when it was on sale with Steam and did not touch it till about three weeks ago. I found the skirmish AI to be excellent and gave my friends and I a run for our money with how well it works together to create a challenge. I found the UI for the most part to be really good with a few little issues which I won't mention here.
Next example I want to mention is Elemental: War of Magic, this 4x strategy title was released at the start of September and came out with a host of problems. The street date was broken forcing Stardock (the developers) to play catch up with patching the game to be playable and their first true patch sadly was not up to snuff. Many strategy fans including yours truly did not fall in love with the game like we planned. I cited UI, performance and even design issues that kept me from enjoying the game.
Like with Supcom 2 Stardock has committed themselves to improving the game, they hired the lead designer behind the Fall From Heaven mod from the Civilization games to take over as lead designer. They have also promised the first two expansion packs free for anyone who played the game from the start and have said that they will work on Elemental for to get the game up to code. At the time of this entry their first big content patch: version 1.1 is set to be released soon which will restructure a lot of the game mechanics.
The point of talking about these two games is how both titles have been altered considerably from their initial reviews. Supcom2 managed to fix some of the big problems it had at launch and Elemental is set to undergo major changes. The reviews for Supcom 2 are not completely accurate anymore and hopefully the same will be said for Elemental at some point. Which leads me to the point of this entry, should games that are changed drastically since release should be offer a re- review?
Many titles these days receive patches or updates after their release. Most often they fall into minor balance changes or bug fixes. However there are rare exceptions when we have games that are changed to the point that they aren't the same game when they were released. There is one game that could be the poster child for this concept and that would be Team Fortress 2.
TF 2 was released in 2007 and I have been playing the game on and off since 2008 after the heavy update. It has been altered dramatically since release to the point that the original reviews could be considered no longer valid for the game. Here is a brief list of things that have been added to TF 2 since it was released:
New equipment for all classes
New maps and modes
Crafting
In game store
Cosmetic items for all classes.
Achievements
What I just mentioned was not mentioned in any reviews since of course they weren't created yet. For the people who still have not played the game if they tried to get a fair assessment from the reviews they will be greatly mistaken.
One benefit of re-reviewing games is that it can give a game that didn't do well at launch a second chance at making sales and providing free publicity if the game has been improved greatly. However even with this being my idea I can find three big faults that have to be mentioned.
1. Call me a cynic but chances are someone will find a way to exploit this. Such as releasing a game and telling reviewers specifically not to play the game until patch three where everything will be fixed. This could be used to allow designers to release intentionally buggy products to make a quick profit then time the re-review to release a different edition of the game. Will everyone do something like this? Of course not but it has to be mentioned as a potential problem.
2. What would be considered the cut off point for patches? One of the best reasons for games to be reviewed at launch is that all reviewers will be on equal footing with patches. If you wait for a game to be patched at what patch will the game be reviewed?
For example let’s say reviewer A plays the game at patch 15 and finds it bug free and great and gives the game a good score. Then we have reviewer B playing the game at patch 17 which introduced a memory leak and a save game bug. They say that the game is buggy and doesn't perform well and marks the game down for it. If not done correctly this could create a logistical nightmare as reviewers try to time everything to play the game at the correct patch.
Another angle of this issue is that what type of patch constitutes a re-review? Do we wait for a patch that removes DRM or one that adds new features to the UI? This is another grey area as different reviewers may value certain updates more than others and this goes back to the logistical challenge of everyone being on the same page.
3. Lastly is what exactly do we do with the original review scores? It's not like the reviewer was wrong when giving it out at release, they just did not play this version of the game. Erasing the score doesn't seem fair as many gamers based their perception of the game on the original review and telling them six months later that the game is now game of the year material seems like a slap in the face. I could just see the nightmare for game of the year awards when we have updated games added to the mix.
That last point brings us to the title of the entry, for those that don't know what I'm referring to, in MLB if a player who has made it into the record books was confirmed to have been on steroids then their records will be marked with an asterisk to show that there was something involved with getting that record.
For a game review the asterisk would mean something far less damaging but will still show that the latest review score for the game was not played with the original design of the game. As many of us know the age of digital distribution content is here to stay and we are seeing more than just simple patches released for games. Chances are games like Elemental, Team Fortress 2 and Supreme Commander 2 will not be the norm but it does raise this issue.
With that said what do you think? Should we give a second look to games or should we stick to a one shot deal?
Josh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)