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?

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.

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.

I've long held the belief that any single-player storyline in gaming takes precedence over even the greatest of online multiplayer gaming.  And this has served me well for a long time.  So, I've decided to dedicate a blog to examining just that.  I am more than willing to indulge in online play (it is an impressive and incredibly fun experience).  But I take issue with games that let the single player and a coherent story line fall by the wayside purely for the sake of online.

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.