I'm a big Xbox freak. I love my Xbox and the fact that I can keep in touch with old college buddies with it. And one of the best features it has is the XboxLive Arcade. There are some really fun games on there: Catan, Castle Crashers, and, the object of this post, Kingdom for Keflings. When I downloaded the demo, I was mainly interested in being able to move my NXE Avatar around and have him do things than just stand there and wave at me and burp. Ok, so the burping is fun too, but that's besides the point. The point is, KfF is a great way to spend hours building things.
Now, this game really has no major driving point. There's no score, no danger, no massive horde waiting to wipe out your way-to-happy little people; just you (as a giant) your little Kefling workers, and the urge to help them build a town. While on the surface this seems somewhat stupid and idiotic, once I fired up the game, I was pleasantly surprised by it.
The Good
I will freely admit, it's really cartoonish, whimsical, humorous, and relaxed, but sometimes you don't want to spend hours killing hordes of enemies, or beating the crap out of friends. Sometimes you just want to help people build homes. The graphics are fairly well done (about as on par with Cloning Clyde and the aforementioned Castle Crashers) for the size of the game. The interface is simple and fairly straightforward (and yes, the tutorial helps. I'll say why in a minute).
The best part of this is keeping track of resources and Keflings. Yeah, having them harvest every tree is all well and good, but you can't build everything in the game from the basic components. You need to build resource refining buildings, and have the Keflings to carry the goods from one place to another. In short order, things get complicated, and you, as the Gentle Giant, need to keep your little workforce on task. At the beginning, it's nice to have a helping hand telling you how to manage all these resources and the tutorial gets you started with little fuss. All of this makes the game quite cerebral, which is a nice change as well.
Plus, it's a lot of fun picking up the Keflings and watch them flail their arms and legs while you set them about their tasks; something as easy as bringing them to the resource, then bringing them to the destination. After this, they get the idea and start doing it all by themselves.
The Bad
So, this game isn't the most in-depth plot-driven game out there. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to play other than the joy of resource management and helping cute little townsfolk. Plus the framerate drags a bit when there are too many of them on-screen. The music gets a little repetitive, and there aren't many sound effects from your workforce. Other than that, things are fairly decent.
The fact that there is no rush to do things is really a blessing in disguise. It means that there is no feeling of "I have to beat this NOW to unlock the next big thing." You can easily set the game down, go out and fulfill your thirst for violence and action, then return and relax right where you left off.
The Final Word
I really feel this game is definitely worth the 800MSP to get it. It's a pleasant change of pace from a lot of games out there. It's simple, fun, and surprisingly addictive. And if you want, you can get three of your friends to help you out.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Need for Speed: Indifference
I'm not a newcomer to the Need for Speed series. My first introduction to this game series was Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed. It was great. Well done physics engine, an impressive damage modeling system, great graphics (for the time). I missed the Hot Pursuit iterations, but I heard really good things about them. I loved NFS: Underground and Underground 2. Skip forward a few years and one of the launch titles for the Xbox360 was Need for Speed: Most Wanted. I bought it based on the past few games in the series and the glory of an open-ended racing world.
Suffice it to say, Most Wanted kicked all kinds of ass.
This was, however, to be the peak of the series. After that, it all starts to go downhill.
NFS: Carbon had some redeeming qualities, namely a car lineup that was rather impressive, and it introduced the autosculpt feature (not cool enough to carry the game however).
NFS: Pro Street removed the free-roaming city and the "realistic physics" were a joke.
Now, we have the promised return of the open city with more miles of road than any previous installment. We are also told about the improved damage modeling and physics from Pro Street will be included. What we got wasn't nearly as fun or fulfilling as Most Wanted, and only slightly better than Carbon.
I'm not even going to start with the pile of lag-laden bullshit that is EA's online multiplayer system.
Where to start?
I know; the physics and damage. This was one of the most hyped parts of this game. The folks over at EA were nearly clawing themselves to death trying to tell us that they updated the physics engine (and car handling) as well as having a more realistic damage modeling. Ok, so I was thinking that it would be, not quite on par with the physics and damage of, say, Forza Motorsport 2, but maybe, hopefully, a step in that direction... Fail. The "improved" physics engine merely means that the cars now nose-dive when you catapult your car off of a 45-degree incline. I swear, you can now tell that the vast majority of a car's weight is located round-about where the engine is placed.
And the damage modeling appears just a superficial aesthetic added to make the cars look more smashed up. Any actual damage to the functioning of the car is still limited to running over spike strips at higher-than-possible speeds (I highly doubt that a stock Nissan GT-R body and frame can really be tuned enough to go 240+ without shredding the car to pieces. However, I'm willing to overlook that part because, well, it's just so damn fun).
Nuts and Bolts
Now, I don't want to just bad mouth the game. It does have some redeeming qualities; enough to make it a game worthy of renting and giving it a play through.
Granted that this is an arcade racer, so some liberties with physics and damage are allowable. And, truth be told, that isn't my main gripe with this game. I just felt the need to smack down the hype surrounding those aspects of the game.
For the most part, the game plays well. The controls are easy to learn and I've long been a fan of using the right thumbstick to shift gears (anyone who uses automatic mode should at least give it a try. It's really easy). I do have a few issues with the amount of analog input that exists, but I suspect that would be solved if I actually bought a racing wheel.
The graphics are another high point. The cars are well animated and the scenery (both urban and countryside) is very well detailed. Shading and lighting are handled very well and the shader effects are some of the best I've seen in the series. There are some graphical glitches and the texture loading times are a bit on the slow side. All in all though, not enough to really detract from it.
The Good
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the retarded civilian AI is the police AI (although they have their moronic moments too). I like how they've added the PIT maneuvers to their arsenal and they are much more aggressive at the higher wanted levels. That being said, their roadblock placement seems to be decided at random and with no real effective pattern. The only thing that makes them dangerous is the cop cars that are now more than willing to sacrifice themselves to push you into one.
Other than that, there's nothing really new here.
The Bad
Ok, time for another story. NFS: Underground 2, NFS: Most Wanted, NFS: Carbon all had these, but they are completely lacking for no good reason in NFS: Undercover. The answer: Garages. The place where you can tinker with your cars, get away from the cops, and take stock of your stats and all that good stuff. Now, I kind of understand doing away with them for the sake of expedience (which seems to be one of the watchwords around the Black Box offices when making this game, apparently). You just press the start button and choose "Cars" from the menu. They probably thought that this would be easier than having to drive all over the map to arrive at a safe house.
Which goes hand in hand with never having to drive anywhere to participate in races either. So, they pulled out what little strategy may have been involved with police chases, and the need to explore an incredibly big map, in order to "get into the action faster." Horseshit. Most people I've talked to miss the garage and the fact that in order to race the boss, you have to get the the race's starting point. Good Lord, how did we ever manage to get to those places in previous games? Oh, right, we're in Cars. No shit, you press on the accelerator and it gets you to those places faster than walking. Holy shit, it must be magic...
I liked the fact that I ran the risk of a police chase or two trying to make it to a safe house. It made the game fun and worth replaying. I had this one car in Most Wanted I called my "police buster." It was a Mustang GT that was maxed out on parts and looked aggressive as hell. There was satisfaction in ramming that sonofabitch through roadblocks. But, I digress.
The biggest, most irritating, and shitty thing they did; they removed the ability to have multiple careers on one account. You can't even name your character. you spend the entire game known as the "Player." And this is coming from EA! Makers of games like Def Jam: Fight for New York, Fight Night Round 3, and Rock Band 1/2 (for God's sake) where character creation is one of the joys of the game.
The Indifferent
Trying to find a good storyline in a Need for Speed game is like looking for excellent acting in The Fast and the Furious. It ain't gonna happen. However, the storylines in both Most Wanted and Carbon were, at least a little bit, engrossing enough to keep you playing. The reason (and here's a hint EA) they had plot; however shallow. Undercover seems to have random cut scenes thrown in that seem to be adding a hint of a plot, but are too disjointed and don't impart enough information to really do anything. Hell, Undercover 2 had more of a storyline.
But, the storyline that does exist offers enough incentive to continue playing since, really, that's all the game has to keep you playing. If not for my need to finish every story I start, I would have returned this game long ago. But, I'm a trooper, so I'll finish the story and then send it back and pick up a game that offers more than just a hyped-up feature piece; like Midnight Club: Los Angeles.
Overall
If you are a fan of the Need for Speed series, I would definitely recommend picking this game up as a rental. It deserves at least one play through. I would also highly recommend driving around the world a little instead of sitting in one place hitting down on the d-pad to get to the next race. Because, honestly, the world is very well designed.
Suffice it to say, Most Wanted kicked all kinds of ass.
This was, however, to be the peak of the series. After that, it all starts to go downhill.
NFS: Carbon had some redeeming qualities, namely a car lineup that was rather impressive, and it introduced the autosculpt feature (not cool enough to carry the game however).
NFS: Pro Street removed the free-roaming city and the "realistic physics" were a joke.
Now, we have the promised return of the open city with more miles of road than any previous installment. We are also told about the improved damage modeling and physics from Pro Street will be included. What we got wasn't nearly as fun or fulfilling as Most Wanted, and only slightly better than Carbon.
I'm not even going to start with the pile of lag-laden bullshit that is EA's online multiplayer system.
Where to start?
I know; the physics and damage. This was one of the most hyped parts of this game. The folks over at EA were nearly clawing themselves to death trying to tell us that they updated the physics engine (and car handling) as well as having a more realistic damage modeling. Ok, so I was thinking that it would be, not quite on par with the physics and damage of, say, Forza Motorsport 2, but maybe, hopefully, a step in that direction... Fail. The "improved" physics engine merely means that the cars now nose-dive when you catapult your car off of a 45-degree incline. I swear, you can now tell that the vast majority of a car's weight is located round-about where the engine is placed.
And the damage modeling appears just a superficial aesthetic added to make the cars look more smashed up. Any actual damage to the functioning of the car is still limited to running over spike strips at higher-than-possible speeds (I highly doubt that a stock Nissan GT-R body and frame can really be tuned enough to go 240+ without shredding the car to pieces. However, I'm willing to overlook that part because, well, it's just so damn fun).
Nuts and Bolts
Now, I don't want to just bad mouth the game. It does have some redeeming qualities; enough to make it a game worthy of renting and giving it a play through.
Granted that this is an arcade racer, so some liberties with physics and damage are allowable. And, truth be told, that isn't my main gripe with this game. I just felt the need to smack down the hype surrounding those aspects of the game.
For the most part, the game plays well. The controls are easy to learn and I've long been a fan of using the right thumbstick to shift gears (anyone who uses automatic mode should at least give it a try. It's really easy). I do have a few issues with the amount of analog input that exists, but I suspect that would be solved if I actually bought a racing wheel.
The graphics are another high point. The cars are well animated and the scenery (both urban and countryside) is very well detailed. Shading and lighting are handled very well and the shader effects are some of the best I've seen in the series. There are some graphical glitches and the texture loading times are a bit on the slow side. All in all though, not enough to really detract from it.
The Good
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the retarded civilian AI is the police AI (although they have their moronic moments too). I like how they've added the PIT maneuvers to their arsenal and they are much more aggressive at the higher wanted levels. That being said, their roadblock placement seems to be decided at random and with no real effective pattern. The only thing that makes them dangerous is the cop cars that are now more than willing to sacrifice themselves to push you into one.
Other than that, there's nothing really new here.
The Bad
Ok, time for another story. NFS: Underground 2, NFS: Most Wanted, NFS: Carbon all had these, but they are completely lacking for no good reason in NFS: Undercover. The answer: Garages. The place where you can tinker with your cars, get away from the cops, and take stock of your stats and all that good stuff. Now, I kind of understand doing away with them for the sake of expedience (which seems to be one of the watchwords around the Black Box offices when making this game, apparently). You just press the start button and choose "Cars" from the menu. They probably thought that this would be easier than having to drive all over the map to arrive at a safe house.
Which goes hand in hand with never having to drive anywhere to participate in races either. So, they pulled out what little strategy may have been involved with police chases, and the need to explore an incredibly big map, in order to "get into the action faster." Horseshit. Most people I've talked to miss the garage and the fact that in order to race the boss, you have to get the the race's starting point. Good Lord, how did we ever manage to get to those places in previous games? Oh, right, we're in Cars. No shit, you press on the accelerator and it gets you to those places faster than walking. Holy shit, it must be magic...
I liked the fact that I ran the risk of a police chase or two trying to make it to a safe house. It made the game fun and worth replaying. I had this one car in Most Wanted I called my "police buster." It was a Mustang GT that was maxed out on parts and looked aggressive as hell. There was satisfaction in ramming that sonofabitch through roadblocks. But, I digress.
The biggest, most irritating, and shitty thing they did; they removed the ability to have multiple careers on one account. You can't even name your character. you spend the entire game known as the "Player." And this is coming from EA! Makers of games like Def Jam: Fight for New York, Fight Night Round 3, and Rock Band 1/2 (for God's sake) where character creation is one of the joys of the game.
The Indifferent
Trying to find a good storyline in a Need for Speed game is like looking for excellent acting in The Fast and the Furious. It ain't gonna happen. However, the storylines in both Most Wanted and Carbon were, at least a little bit, engrossing enough to keep you playing. The reason (and here's a hint EA) they had plot; however shallow. Undercover seems to have random cut scenes thrown in that seem to be adding a hint of a plot, but are too disjointed and don't impart enough information to really do anything. Hell, Undercover 2 had more of a storyline.
But, the storyline that does exist offers enough incentive to continue playing since, really, that's all the game has to keep you playing. If not for my need to finish every story I start, I would have returned this game long ago. But, I'm a trooper, so I'll finish the story and then send it back and pick up a game that offers more than just a hyped-up feature piece; like Midnight Club: Los Angeles.
Overall
If you are a fan of the Need for Speed series, I would definitely recommend picking this game up as a rental. It deserves at least one play through. I would also highly recommend driving around the world a little instead of sitting in one place hitting down on the d-pad to get to the next race. Because, honestly, the world is very well designed.
Monday, October 20, 2008
In Honor of Halloween!
In the past two days I picked up a copy of Dead Space. Now that I’ve finally had some sleep, I was inspired to write about it. First off, this game is exactly the horror game fix that I have been salivating for. After several miserable attempts (Alone in the Dark anyone?), or with certified hits in the distance (Resident Evil, why must you keep me waiting…), it seemed that the market was a little bare-ish, so to speak.
The Good:
We have to go old-school for this one. One of the lost gems of gaming, System Shock and its sequel, were both ahead of their time in terms of control (the first one, at least) and intricate storyline integration. System Shock 2 even managed to work in a decent RPG element into the mix. The way you interact with your surroundings and pick up scattered clues as to the fate of the different environments; not to mention one of the greatest video game villainesses of all time…
The Bad:
Ok, so maybe that’s a little misleading. Maybe “ill-conceived, half-assed, poorly written departure from the original concept” is a better way of stating it. When I was first introduced to the Alone in the Dark series, I was immediately taken in by the world it portrayed. Stuck securely in the world of H.P. Lovecraft, the AitD series was the stuff that nightmares were made of. This series was one of the foundations on which the likes of Resident Evil were built.
The Best:
Ok, as much as I may love System Shock 2 and hold it up as one of the pinnacles of the survival-horror ideal, in terms of sheer mind-numbing, spine shuddering, pee-inducing horror, Silent Hill takes the prize. Talk about a game that does almost everything right. I’m not calling this a flawless game, far from it. What I am saying is that it happens to be one of the best examples of the survival horror genre. The chilling storyline, creepy setting, the nerve-wracking enemy detection system, and the fact that our protagonist, Harry Mason, can’t hit the broad side of a barn, makes this game one of the most horrifying games I have ever played.
The Endgame:
Ok, I realize that I certainly have my biases. I definitely prefer my horror to be more psychological than physical and there are so many I didn’t mention. Plus there are games I would throw into the mix that aren’t strictly survival horror (I have No Mouth and I Must Scream comes to mind first), but the point that I am, hopefully, trying to make, is that each person is frightened of different things, and the best horror games will frighten you in the ways that most scare you.
Now, I have been following the production of Dead Space ever since I read about it, and I was itching to get my hands on a copy, I was also gearing up for another trip to Silent Hill, when I started thinking about what, exactly, makes the best horror games. So, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to analyze one of the good, the bad, and best horror games and see what that particular “je ne sais quoi” is that separates the men from the boys…
The Good:
We have to go old-school for this one. One of the lost gems of gaming, System Shock and its sequel, were both ahead of their time in terms of control (the first one, at least) and intricate storyline integration. System Shock 2 even managed to work in a decent RPG element into the mix. The way you interact with your surroundings and pick up scattered clues as to the fate of the different environments; not to mention one of the greatest video game villainesses of all time…
For those who missed these two, the premise of the games is fairly similar. In the first, you play a hacker who wakes up on a space station to find that the AI system has gone completely nuts and has either killed or modified the entire station population. In the second, you’re a military recruit who wakes up to find the crew killed or mutated by zombie-inducing worms. It’s up to the protagonist to figure out what happened and stop the malevolent forces therein.
What makes them good: Since this is about what makes them good horror games, I’ll focus on that. First and foremost is the sense of isolation. “You’re the only one left” is one of the classic tropes in horror fiction, and it works. There is outside communication with someone, but at best they are almost an ethereal voice with no real connection to your events. They watch with an almost all-seeing eye and shout down to you. The second is a feeling of claustrophobia. You can’t escape because you’re on an isolated space station. You can’t risk leaving and having whatever it is that destroyed the crew free to do what it wants, so you’re stuck there.
But, those simply apply a base coat. What truly makes these games frightening is the constant scarcity of ammo, the inhuman sounds emanating from all corners, and the really messed up storylines that have you shuddering almost from the get-go. You can see and hear and read all the small ways in which things will go horribly wrong in these messages left behind.
The Bad:
Ok, so maybe that’s a little misleading. Maybe “ill-conceived, half-assed, poorly written departure from the original concept” is a better way of stating it. When I was first introduced to the Alone in the Dark series, I was immediately taken in by the world it portrayed. Stuck securely in the world of H.P. Lovecraft, the AitD series was the stuff that nightmares were made of. This series was one of the foundations on which the likes of Resident Evil were built.
So, when I heard that, after several years of nothing from that series, they were making a new one, I was thrilled! The series that got me started on survival horror was coming back. Ever since the one for the Dreamcast came out, I was patiently waiting for the next one. I died a little inside when I heard Uwe Boll was making a movie out of this beloved series, and I hoped the new game would be a return to sanity (and yes, I do realize how ironic saying that is).
Alas, my hopes were dashed when the second part of the game turned out to be a glorified car chase. I was reminded of a quote by one of the writers that Uwe turned down when he said that his script wasn’t chosen because it “didn’t have enough car chases.” The newest Alone game is a perfect example of a good franchise gone bad.
It wasn’t that it didn’t have its redeeming qualities (the graphics were really well done) or that it was difficult to play (the controls were pretty standard fare). But it just refused to be frightening. It was an action/platformer given a horror-esque topcoat. The parts that should have/could have been frightening, scary, and a challenge, were just irritating and trite. The entire time you labor through this game it feels like a chore. Even the parts that one would think are really cool, simply pound another nail into the coffin of this game. It may be an ok action game, but it’s horrific for in all the wrong ways.
The Best:
Ok, as much as I may love System Shock 2 and hold it up as one of the pinnacles of the survival-horror ideal, in terms of sheer mind-numbing, spine shuddering, pee-inducing horror, Silent Hill takes the prize. Talk about a game that does almost everything right. I’m not calling this a flawless game, far from it. What I am saying is that it happens to be one of the best examples of the survival horror genre. The chilling storyline, creepy setting, the nerve-wracking enemy detection system, and the fact that our protagonist, Harry Mason, can’t hit the broad side of a barn, makes this game one of the most horrifying games I have ever played.
The catch is not necessarily new, finding your lost daughter, but there the catch becomes something wholly more dangerous. The town is shrouded in fog, the roads out are all destroyed, and it’s snowing in the middle of September. The first time I played through this game I missed a lot of story elements, namely because I was just trying to keep Harry alive. In subsequent play-throughs, however, I managed to glean much more of the story. It is nowhere near as simple as it appears on the surface, and the town of Silent Hill has a way of trapping the unwary.
What makes this my ultimate example is the combination of all of the elements; setting and atmosphere, storyline, all bound up with periods of claustrophobia punctuated by periods of fear of the unknown (Yeah, you may be outside, but you’re alone, you have no ammo, and you can’t see more than 15 feet in front of you. It’s almost like the town is sarcastically sneering “Good luck, asshole”). Also, this game makes references to all kinds of horror fiction writers, so that’s an added bonus.
The Endgame:
Ok, I realize that I certainly have my biases. I definitely prefer my horror to be more psychological than physical and there are so many I didn’t mention. Plus there are games I would throw into the mix that aren’t strictly survival horror (I have No Mouth and I Must Scream comes to mind first), but the point that I am, hopefully, trying to make, is that each person is frightened of different things, and the best horror games will frighten you in the ways that most scare you.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Diablo Curse: Why Can't Lightning Strike Twice?
Hey this is SilverKnight's contributing buddy Jeremy here. Today I'd like to talk a little bit about Diablo-like games and the "curse" of scifi hack-n-slash.
Any gamer worth his or her salt should instantly have memories pop up when you say the word "Diablo". Of countless hours spent grinding to get your Necromancer just a few more points in Corpse Explosion, of linking up with friends and making new ones on Battle.net as you went for a raid against Duriel in Hell difficulty, and how fun a simple hack-n-slash could be when done right.
Diablo was, itself, a revival of an even older computer game tradition; that of the Roguelike game. So named for Rogue, one of the more famous of this iteration of ASCII games low in technological sophistication, but high in fun and enemy-killin' goodness. Diablo gave the Roguelike tradition a graphical interface, good sound, and brought it into the modern era...it was a winning formula.
Since Diablo II, dozens of games have tried to copy the formula, earning the name Diablo clones among the industry. Some have been somewhat successful and enjoyable in this venture (Dungeon Siege 1+2, Titan's Quest), but none have quite achieved the same success. Of special note, I'd like to briefly discuss what seems to be the Sci-Fi curse regarding Diablo-likes (or neo Roguelikes if you prefer).
Case in point, let's look at the recent release of two anticipated science fiction hack-n-slash type games; Space Siege (by makers of the successful Dungeon Siege games) and Too Human, the highly-hyped scifi take on the Nordic Ragnarok cycle for the Xbox 360. Both of these games, but notably Too Human, received positive press and hype before their release; with the PC game coming from a company (Gas Powered Games) that had proven its abilities in the hack-n-slash market before, and the Xbox 360 one having stunning visuals, addictive gameplay, and a great storyline in its previews.
The buzz reached a crescendo when both were released a couple weeks back and gamers such as myself anxiously awaited critical reaction. Could this finally be the scifi rpg answer to a GOOD hack-n-slash? The verdict? A resounding "meh". Unbalanced, repetitive, lacking in character development, these were some of the terms used for both games. Space Siege, especially, was critically panned receiving an IGN score of an embarrassing 6.4. Too Human did a bit better but overall the mood seems to be one big let-down. So I ask you to comment; why does the scifi side of hack-n-slash seem to be cursed? Is it a setting not conducive to that type of gameplay, or have companies just not put the effort into design that they have into the hype?
Any gamer worth his or her salt should instantly have memories pop up when you say the word "Diablo". Of countless hours spent grinding to get your Necromancer just a few more points in Corpse Explosion, of linking up with friends and making new ones on Battle.net as you went for a raid against Duriel in Hell difficulty, and how fun a simple hack-n-slash could be when done right.
Diablo was, itself, a revival of an even older computer game tradition; that of the Roguelike game. So named for Rogue, one of the more famous of this iteration of ASCII games low in technological sophistication, but high in fun and enemy-killin' goodness. Diablo gave the Roguelike tradition a graphical interface, good sound, and brought it into the modern era...it was a winning formula.
Since Diablo II, dozens of games have tried to copy the formula, earning the name Diablo clones among the industry. Some have been somewhat successful and enjoyable in this venture (Dungeon Siege 1+2, Titan's Quest), but none have quite achieved the same success. Of special note, I'd like to briefly discuss what seems to be the Sci-Fi curse regarding Diablo-likes (or neo Roguelikes if you prefer).
Case in point, let's look at the recent release of two anticipated science fiction hack-n-slash type games; Space Siege (by makers of the successful Dungeon Siege games) and Too Human, the highly-hyped scifi take on the Nordic Ragnarok cycle for the Xbox 360. Both of these games, but notably Too Human, received positive press and hype before their release; with the PC game coming from a company (Gas Powered Games) that had proven its abilities in the hack-n-slash market before, and the Xbox 360 one having stunning visuals, addictive gameplay, and a great storyline in its previews.
The buzz reached a crescendo when both were released a couple weeks back and gamers such as myself anxiously awaited critical reaction. Could this finally be the scifi rpg answer to a GOOD hack-n-slash? The verdict? A resounding "meh". Unbalanced, repetitive, lacking in character development, these were some of the terms used for both games. Space Siege, especially, was critically panned receiving an IGN score of an embarrassing 6.4. Too Human did a bit better but overall the mood seems to be one big let-down. So I ask you to comment; why does the scifi side of hack-n-slash seem to be cursed? Is it a setting not conducive to that type of gameplay, or have companies just not put the effort into design that they have into the hype?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Fear the Unknown
In this installment, I would like to talk about one of my favorite genres with regards to single-player gaming; Survival Horror. The good ones make you cringe when you hear things, and frighten you when zombies burst through a door. The truly great ones make you fear turning the game on for the fear of learning more about the game world.
"Why start with survival horror?" I can hear you asking. Simply put, survival horror games show that while a story may have some plot holes (or outright chasms- Extermination, I'm looking at You!), the telling of the story can be the thing.
Take, for example, what I call the original Resident Evil games (1, 2, and 3). You have, typically, a group of police officers thrown into a situation where zombies have begun to run amok and it is up to them to find out why and, at the same time, keep from becoming some brain-muncher's next meal. All the while played with pre-rendered 2D backgrounds and fixed camera angles. The others in the series (Code Veronica, RE4, the upcoming RE5, the Gun Survivor series, etc) may have the same thematic elements, but they have all changed the original formula; such as dynamic camera angles, real-time 3D backgrounds, completely revamped control schemes, etc. But that is besides the point. What I'm getting at is that RE 1-3 all seemed to have the same basic escape plan ("Of course the sewers make the best getaway system... Ever!"). However, in the telling of the story, the presentation, and the execution, the games are great. After the third run through any one of them they stop being frightening, but that's ok, they are still fun (pointing a shotgun up and shooting when a zombie gets close enough is always cool).
On the other side of things, where a survival horror game combines both an amazing story and top-notch storytelling, you get games like the first and second Silent Hill games. I swear, the first one still scares the shit out of me. It has one of those stories that becomes more frightening the more you uncover. The deeper into it you get, the more that icy grip of fear latches around your heart and your stomach. With a unskilled protagonist, a creepy enemy detection system, and a very low-powered flashlight, the game only cranks up the fear once you start reading into the backstory.
There are so many good examples of this genre out there. Some skirting under the radar, particularly in the US. Games like the Fatal Frame series, the first four Alone in the Dark games, The Thing, System Shock 1 & 2. And there are going to be even more coming out- Dead Space, RE5, Left 4 Dead (Granted, this will be multiplayer, but it looks cool nonetheless).
And, as sort of a final note. Survival Horror games seem to have defied the idea that a game requires a multiplayer mode to make it big. On that note; the games of the Resident Evil series that seemed to do the worst were the online ones. I guess we'll have to see how well Left 4 Dead holds up.
P.S. I haven't included Dead Rising because, technically, it isn't survival horror... It's zombie massacre fun time.
"Why start with survival horror?" I can hear you asking. Simply put, survival horror games show that while a story may have some plot holes (or outright chasms- Extermination, I'm looking at You!), the telling of the story can be the thing.
Take, for example, what I call the original Resident Evil games (1, 2, and 3). You have, typically, a group of police officers thrown into a situation where zombies have begun to run amok and it is up to them to find out why and, at the same time, keep from becoming some brain-muncher's next meal. All the while played with pre-rendered 2D backgrounds and fixed camera angles. The others in the series (Code Veronica, RE4, the upcoming RE5, the Gun Survivor series, etc) may have the same thematic elements, but they have all changed the original formula; such as dynamic camera angles, real-time 3D backgrounds, completely revamped control schemes, etc. But that is besides the point. What I'm getting at is that RE 1-3 all seemed to have the same basic escape plan ("Of course the sewers make the best getaway system... Ever!"). However, in the telling of the story, the presentation, and the execution, the games are great. After the third run through any one of them they stop being frightening, but that's ok, they are still fun (pointing a shotgun up and shooting when a zombie gets close enough is always cool).
On the other side of things, where a survival horror game combines both an amazing story and top-notch storytelling, you get games like the first and second Silent Hill games. I swear, the first one still scares the shit out of me. It has one of those stories that becomes more frightening the more you uncover. The deeper into it you get, the more that icy grip of fear latches around your heart and your stomach. With a unskilled protagonist, a creepy enemy detection system, and a very low-powered flashlight, the game only cranks up the fear once you start reading into the backstory.
There are so many good examples of this genre out there. Some skirting under the radar, particularly in the US. Games like the Fatal Frame series, the first four Alone in the Dark games, The Thing, System Shock 1 & 2. And there are going to be even more coming out- Dead Space, RE5, Left 4 Dead (Granted, this will be multiplayer, but it looks cool nonetheless).
And, as sort of a final note. Survival Horror games seem to have defied the idea that a game requires a multiplayer mode to make it big. On that note; the games of the Resident Evil series that seemed to do the worst were the online ones. I guess we'll have to see how well Left 4 Dead holds up.
P.S. I haven't included Dead Rising because, technically, it isn't survival horror... It's zombie massacre fun time.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
First Ever Post
So, who am I and what the hell is this all about. Well, let me start with a little story.
Back in August of 1999, a game was released that had a near-perfect combination of features. Graphics (for the time), storyline, gameplay, and out-and-out cool factor (in this case, scaring the shit out of people). The game was System Shock 2. All of the reviews stated that the game was one of the best of the year, and that it was a great purchase. However, it failed to catch on in the mainstream. It survives now because of a rather small group of die-hard fans that loved it to death. The reason it died: it lacked an online multiplayer mode. So, at a time when Counter Strike and Team Fortress were dominating, a game that should have been much more visible on the radar, passed by relatively unnoticed.
There will be people out there who disagree, and say that it is rather visible. Well, now it is, looking back. People have been searching for jewels from the past and it is now recognized by a much larger audience. At the time, however, it was a relative unknown.
So, this blog will celebrate those games that manage to restore my faith that people will play games for story line: Games like Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, System Shock, and The Elder Scrolls. As well as those that combine online play and story line: Games like Halo 2 and 3, Half Life, the Call of Duty series, and Gears of War.
That is its primary purpose. But, if websites of the past have taught me anything, it's that doing such a narrowly focused concept doesn't last long. So, I will also share my particular views (reviews, previews) of games of all stripes. This may be limited at first, but I will endeavor to expand constantly and play many different games and let you all here how someone from the front lines views games.
I will catch you all on the flipside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)