I was thinking about Half Life 3 or Half Life 2, Episode 3 whichever you prefer to think is coming out next. Everyone knows its taking a crazy amount of time to come out and I was thinking that the reason why is probably not anything to do with actually continuing the story or anything like that.
Both previous Half Life releases have been watershed moments for games. Half Life 1 set the standards for First Person games for years to come afterward and launched titles like Counterstrike and Day of Defeat which are still played by huge numbers today.
Half Life 2 sort of marked the end of PC First Person games. It launched the Source Engine, Steam and came out to huge reviews. Both subsequent episodes were well received. After that, the PC gaming started to decline in favour of console gaming.
But where is Half Life 3? I think that the title is more the victim of its own success than anything else. The next HL game must live up to the high bar set by its predecessors. But, how could Valve have achieved that in the markets that existed since HL2? PC gaming has gone through a huge trough lately and is only recently recovering with titles like StarCraft 2, Elder Scrolls V and Battlefield 3 making the PC a must have once again. Its been years since anything debuted that made the majority of people think that it was time to upgrade their PCs and get back in. So, all this to say that Valve, always a primary PC developer, can release a game that is supposed to redefine the genre when no one is paying attention. They had to wait till PC gaming came back around.
I think we're just at that point now, I would say that with Wii2 now confirmed, there's probably only about a year and half until Microsoft and Sony come out with their new consoles. For all that time, PC games will continue to lead in terms of graphics and gameplay.
Additionally, somewhere during the HL2 episodes, first person games took a huge shift. Titles like Halo, Call of Duty etc. changed the way the genre was played. These games focused purely on action, breathtaking moments, contain almost no in-game story and a very simple subset of actions and abilities of the player. This proved the winning formula to take to the console market and achieve unprecedented success. Success also means the market has gotten quite saturated with very similar looking and playing titles. The big innovators in the FPS field on consoles (Infinity Ward and Bungie) are both almost out of the picture (Halo Reach being Bungie's last title in that franchise and IW loosing a lot of its best talent), its likely that this genre has peaked for the time being.
Finally, I think that Valve's releases during the interim between Episode 2 and now are experiments in where to take the Half Life experience. If HL is know as part FPS, part puzzle, a great story with sci-fi and horror elements then Valve needed to take some time to explore where to take these elements without risking the HL brand name. Left 4 Dead takes HLs horror elements (ie. Ravenholm) and explore the genre and portal obviously looks at puzzle games in new ways. Both explore extensively how to tell a story through a first person perspective without use of a narrator, or even a speaking protagonist in some cases. All of these gameplay elements were introduced in HL and are being worked on in these titles. I think of them as safe places for Valve to experiment without jeopardizing its flagship brand. The last piece is what to do about the actual shooting elements, since this is where the genre has changed so much away from what HL uses - but both L4D and Portal explore this as well, with new ways of exploring health and and inventory management which are more in line with modern tastes. This is to say nothing of Team Fortress which is an amazing sandbox for testing FPS ideas.
Ok, so the big point is that Valve need Half Life 3 to be another major milestone in gaming - it needs to raise the bar for everyone and influence how the genre develops from then on. This is the only acceptable standard for Half Life 3. The reason for waiting so long is to wait for the genre to show signs of going stale, for PC gaming market to become the leader again and for the direction of the core elements in the HL experience to be perfected.
I believe all these elements are in place and that we'll see an announcement for HL3 sometime very soon. I'll even guess that it's teased at E3 this year.
J
Friday, April 29, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
2010 FPSs
Shooters definitely dominate the video game market and 2010 produced continuations in three of Xbox's most popular shooters: Call of Duty, Halo and Battlefield. I had the fortune to play all three and I thought it would be interesting to just look at the single player campaigns of all three titles to get an idea for where things might be going.
Each game comes at a different time in the developer's arc - Halo: Reach was produced by Bungie as their last title in this franchise. They are at the top of their game after making 5 Halo titles and ready to move onto other projects. Call of Duty is made by Treyarch, up until this year they have been the B-team of the Call of Duty franchise, always in the shadow of Infinity Ward. With IW's meltdown, this year was Treyarch's time to show they can be the lead developer in the franchise. Finally, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is Dice's 2nd full title on consoles and shows a developer with a lot of experience on PC looking to step into a leading role.
Each franchise is well established and have huge communities of players eager for the online component of their favourite games. For all the them, the single player game is really a secondary offering. The challenge is to offer something exciting and fresh for players, which showcases their game and gets people talking and hopefully draws them into the online component or sets them up to get invested in the franchise and hopefully buy more.
All shooters today live in the shadow of IW's Call of Duty 4, which set the standard on consoles this generation for getting people to sit up and take notice of a stunning single player campaign. For new console owners, its still the first game I recommend when they are looking for something action oriented. IW used a well crafted interface, a short, but exciting campaign punctuated by a series of unique and incredible scripted event or cut scene moments which kept the player engaged and excited throughout the game. All shooters from that point onward have sought to provide a similar mix.
First up, Halo: Reach. Bungie made several departures from the typical Halo story - changed the protagonist, introduced new characters, more emphasis on story and most interestingly, set it during an event that fans of the franchise know will end in a loss. To me, this provides some excellent opportunities for story-telling and characterization as Bungie first establishes a group of heroes that the player is interested and invested in, and then pays off the tragedy by having them slowly realizing that they are first - not going to win, and second, not going to survive. Reach also invites the player to become more invested by allowing them to customize their appearance throughout the game and leaving the character largely silent. In the end, the death of the player's character is an unexpected moment for a franchise which relies upon sequels and reoccurring characters.
In Call of Duty: Black Ops - Treyarch chose to also invest more in character and in story telling. Unlike most games of this franchise, it chose to focus largely on one character, giving him a name and voice and attempting to keep the story bound to his one set of experiences. Although an interesting change in the approach, the game also stays true to COD experience by offering the player an ever growing number of scripted events which attempt to create a series of 'wow' moments. To me, these two elements seemed to clash as it quickly became nonsensical how my one character could have been involved in so much outrageously over the top action - it made the story seem goofy and awkward. Also, in order to keep the player on track and to hit the scripted events - Black Ops extensively relies upon other 3rd party characters who constantly have the term 'Follow' floating above their heads. This reinforces the fact that you are very much locked on a given path through most of the game, and detracts from becoming drawn into your on screen character because the player is given little freedom.
Finally, Bad Company 2 splits the difference between both games - the player takes the role of one of the members of heroes squad, he has a voice and a name and participates in conversations with other characters. The story follows a progression of events and gives the player more freedom to explore. There's a less compelling overall story than in Reach and the more open gameplay isn't a well handled - sometimes characters jump to new locations, or dialogue doesn't trigger unless you wait a long time doing nothing. On the plus side, being more free and the inclusion the destructible environments made a huge difference for me. I found that 'wow' moments still occurred, but they were unique to my location and how I was playing. Also, when the dialogue works, its great. It can be funny and engaging and made me interested in the other characters of my squad. Dice took the super soldiers who typically appear in shooters and made them funny and likeable, that in itself is a feat.
Of the three games discussed, definitely Reach gets the nod for best single player campaign. There's a balance of story, character and action that shows that Bungie has learned a lot from its previous games and has really put it all into this title.
Personally though, I think I liked Battlefield the best - as Dice is still breaking into the console market, it showed the most innovations and changes over the other two established franchises. This is the one that I'm most interested in to see the sequel. With Bungie, it feels that the Halo franchise has probably peaked, and Treyarch has some good ideas but I'm not sure they can allow those to develop without risking the key elements that Call of Duty has become known for.
Overall, these three developers have all shown that there's room to grow in the shooter genre. Lots of action and huge 'wow' moments will still be the essential features, but the genre is continuing to advance by investing more in story and characterization. There's a lot of room to grow here, but it is exciting to see things developing in this direction and its interesting to think where things might go in the future.
J
Monday, April 11, 2011
Action Games
I was thinking about first person shooter games recently - I really like the Infinity Ward Call of Duty games and I was wondering how something like that can evolve. Perhaps the fallout from IW and Activision came from the conflict of wanting to continue to advance the genre at the risk of loosing the lucrative player base.
Anyway, that's not what I wanted to write about. What I was thinking is that we are often asking how games can get more critical praise outside of gaming press. Basically, most non-gamers simply view games as mindless shooting rampages, which isn't terribly off base. Perhaps a good analogy is that if most current games are like action movies now. Then I would say, the best way to advance the art of games is not to try to reinvent them as dramas, but to just migrate them slightly over to the 'war movie' category.
War movies have no trouble earning critical praise, as war is a great setting to place characters and develop them from a storytelling point of view. Games can take a similar approach - keep the action, the setting, the characters, but add in those elements which distinguish the war film genre from action films. Character development, inner conflict, emotion and consequences. I think that last element is one of the most important. Actions have to have consequences, which means that players can't be the unstoppable hero anymore. What the player does can be exciting, but must be grounded too.
If you remember when Medal of Honour first came out, the first mission had you on the Normandy beaches. I remember that being such an amazing experience, but gradually that memory was tarnished when the game turned into a largely linear one many army campaign of the unstoppable hero. That's why I was so excited for Call of Duty, I think the early tag line was 'no one fought alone'. This opened the door to much more drama by creating other characters on your side who participated in all the events - giving them more realism, and more weight when allied characters were lost. There was a long way to go, but it was a great start. Gradually, the Call of Duty series seems to be shifting back to a one man army mode again.
I think action games could move back in this direction - shifting the focus off the player, and adding more plausibility to the events. Give enemies the power to surrender or retreat when the tide turns against them, have the player deal with supporting teammates or tending to wounded or scared allies not as a quick time event but as a equal component of any scenario. If the game was structured to limit the player to only shooting few enemies per level, would actions start to carry more weight? What if the loss of allied teammates was a permanent loss? What if there was down time where you could talk or interact with teammates between action sequences? I think these are interesting questions to consider.
Anyway, its not about changing the most popular games - we still have action movies. Its just about expanding into new areas that might offer new experiences.
Put Captain Price in here and let's see what happens.
J
Anyway, that's not what I wanted to write about. What I was thinking is that we are often asking how games can get more critical praise outside of gaming press. Basically, most non-gamers simply view games as mindless shooting rampages, which isn't terribly off base. Perhaps a good analogy is that if most current games are like action movies now. Then I would say, the best way to advance the art of games is not to try to reinvent them as dramas, but to just migrate them slightly over to the 'war movie' category.
War movies have no trouble earning critical praise, as war is a great setting to place characters and develop them from a storytelling point of view. Games can take a similar approach - keep the action, the setting, the characters, but add in those elements which distinguish the war film genre from action films. Character development, inner conflict, emotion and consequences. I think that last element is one of the most important. Actions have to have consequences, which means that players can't be the unstoppable hero anymore. What the player does can be exciting, but must be grounded too.
If you remember when Medal of Honour first came out, the first mission had you on the Normandy beaches. I remember that being such an amazing experience, but gradually that memory was tarnished when the game turned into a largely linear one many army campaign of the unstoppable hero. That's why I was so excited for Call of Duty, I think the early tag line was 'no one fought alone'. This opened the door to much more drama by creating other characters on your side who participated in all the events - giving them more realism, and more weight when allied characters were lost. There was a long way to go, but it was a great start. Gradually, the Call of Duty series seems to be shifting back to a one man army mode again.
I think action games could move back in this direction - shifting the focus off the player, and adding more plausibility to the events. Give enemies the power to surrender or retreat when the tide turns against them, have the player deal with supporting teammates or tending to wounded or scared allies not as a quick time event but as a equal component of any scenario. If the game was structured to limit the player to only shooting few enemies per level, would actions start to carry more weight? What if the loss of allied teammates was a permanent loss? What if there was down time where you could talk or interact with teammates between action sequences? I think these are interesting questions to consider.
Anyway, its not about changing the most popular games - we still have action movies. Its just about expanding into new areas that might offer new experiences.
Put Captain Price in here and let's see what happens.
J
Dead Space
Dead Space is a science fiction action horror game. It took some parts of survival horror, some action games, some science fiction references and married them all in what became a very successful title. I've tried to play this game many times over the last few months and for some reason I just can't seem to get into it.
I came to this console generation a bit late and there's a few titles that expectations were so high when I eventually was able to play them I just found it impossible to see what all the excitement was about. For me the big ones have been Bioshock and Half Life 2 - but both of those I pushed through and eventually saw what everyone loved about them. Dead Space I just couldn't find that.
I think progressed about half way through the game, and I just got so fed up with all the linearity, jump scares, and "keep moving the cheese" style of story telling that I've just given up on it altogether. I think I get that people really enjoy the setting, the interface style and some of the weapons or combat mechanics. But, all those things are shown in the first hour or so of the game, after that there's just more and more of it. I just don't think that the mechanics of the game, really give much credit to the player.
In Fallout 3, I found there was numerous instances with a similar theme to Dead Space. You could explore some abandoned, dark, semi-scary environment. Figuring out what horrible thing befell the people that used to live there - I never got tired of these and just kept on looking down these nasty little rabbit holes every chance I got. I think the appeal came from that the game let me explore them - I could always leave, but stayed because of curiosity or some other force compelled me to continue.
In Dead Space you just keep on going because there's nothing else to do. Even if you know there's a surprise coming from behind that panel, you can't do anything about it until the game chooses to reveal it, nor can you do anything about the monster its going to put right behind you even if you know its coming. The player is locked on that path.
Mind you, the environments are nice, everything looks appropriately cool or scary as necessary, there's the requisite picking up of audio-logs or other collectibles. I guess in a lot of ways I just felt that Dead Space didn't seem bad so much as it seemed old fashioned. Players have no choices (aside from weapons), interactions/encounters are rigid and there's no real dialog. Once you get a taste for those things in games, its hard to go back.
It felt really good to give Dead Space away and I carry its half-finished gamerscore with pride.
Enjoy your early retirement Isaac.
J
I came to this console generation a bit late and there's a few titles that expectations were so high when I eventually was able to play them I just found it impossible to see what all the excitement was about. For me the big ones have been Bioshock and Half Life 2 - but both of those I pushed through and eventually saw what everyone loved about them. Dead Space I just couldn't find that.
I think progressed about half way through the game, and I just got so fed up with all the linearity, jump scares, and "keep moving the cheese" style of story telling that I've just given up on it altogether. I think I get that people really enjoy the setting, the interface style and some of the weapons or combat mechanics. But, all those things are shown in the first hour or so of the game, after that there's just more and more of it. I just don't think that the mechanics of the game, really give much credit to the player.
In Fallout 3, I found there was numerous instances with a similar theme to Dead Space. You could explore some abandoned, dark, semi-scary environment. Figuring out what horrible thing befell the people that used to live there - I never got tired of these and just kept on looking down these nasty little rabbit holes every chance I got. I think the appeal came from that the game let me explore them - I could always leave, but stayed because of curiosity or some other force compelled me to continue.
In Dead Space you just keep on going because there's nothing else to do. Even if you know there's a surprise coming from behind that panel, you can't do anything about it until the game chooses to reveal it, nor can you do anything about the monster its going to put right behind you even if you know its coming. The player is locked on that path.
Mind you, the environments are nice, everything looks appropriately cool or scary as necessary, there's the requisite picking up of audio-logs or other collectibles. I guess in a lot of ways I just felt that Dead Space didn't seem bad so much as it seemed old fashioned. Players have no choices (aside from weapons), interactions/encounters are rigid and there's no real dialog. Once you get a taste for those things in games, its hard to go back.
It felt really good to give Dead Space away and I carry its half-finished gamerscore with pride.
Enjoy your early retirement Isaac.
J
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Co-operative Games, Difficultly and Teamwork
Turing back to co-operative gaming, during a previous post I had written a bit about how teamwork is essentially the key feature of co-op gaming. Its clear that these two terms aren't synonymous as there are many games which permit co-op playing but have little to no teamwork.
Today I'd like to address some elements which help to foster teamwork in games. Specifically here I'll discuss difficulty. So, all other elements aside, how does difficult build teamwork in a game and where is it used most successfully?
I'll begin with games in the military simulation genre for lack of better term. Games like GRAW, SOCOM and Operation Flashpoint etc. This genre introduces difficulty in how they (more or less) seek to model realism. Player characters are vulnerable to dangers and are also subject to the laws of physics when it comes to movement, weight etc. The environment, sounds, time, and enemy characters all contribute to the challenge as well.
The overall goal is that by being more realistic, the challenge is elevated. For the right player, the reward is greater too since it feels like more of an accomplishment to achieve the goal having been given a more "everyman" type character. In a co-op environment, teamwork is fostered by players having to play cautiously, communicate well and pool resources to accomplish tasks. Teams need to cover each other, call out enemies, support one another's actions in order for success to be achieved. These usually aren't built in commands, but tactics the team must bring themselves. The simulation nature of the game allows them the freedom to develop their own ideas. The punishment for failure is harsh however, as "dead" players need to sit out for long periods of time while the team moves on.
Personally, I really enjoy the teamwork found in these games. They call for deeper strategy, and more measured play and strong teamwork definitely elevates the experience for all participants. For my friends, its hit and miss - playing an hour long mission and then getting the team wiped out because of 5 minutes of poor planning can be a motivator to some, but to others its a drag. These types of game remain niche games for us and we pull them out sometimes, but rarely stay with them.
These types of games always walk a fine line: become too much of a simulation and the audience becomes smaller, go too general and you loose what distinguishes your game from the rest of the mainstream. Let's turning now to look at a particular mainstream success - Gears of War 2, Horde mode and see how it achieves teamwork through difficulty.
In this game, up to five players compete in fending off waves of enemies. There's regenerating health, ridiculous weapons and death is usually only a minor inconvenience. There are 50 ways and many difficulty settings but in any long game the players will eventually get to a point where they need to rely on each other to survive and continue. There are no classes, but I find that in my games, players naturally take on roles within the team - some ferry heavy weapons around, others focus on front line defense and others take to sniping or overwatch roles to protect the team. Additionally, some of the level designs really support these concepts - giving spaces with changing heights, multiple entry points which are natural redoubts. Items are also spread thin, encouraging players to conserve and specialize. This is an excellent example of how a mainstream game can stay accessible, but still be deep enough to support and reward high level team play
Finally, Xbox gives a great example of game difficulty and teamwork breaking down - Left 4 Dead 2 on the console appears oddly unbalanced compared to its PC equivalent. During the end of each story the four co-op players face a challenging finale section which can be incredibly difficult to all survive even on low settings. I'm aware that one of the mechanics of the game is weighing the risks of trying to save a team mate vs. getting overwhelmed yourself. However here we typically found that team death game too quickly and there was little to no opportunity to act together. We would just reach a point were everyone realized that the team was a complete loss and they'd run for the escape hoping that at least one person would be saved. We tried this game many times, but the difficulty always reached a point was such that it rendered any compelling team play impossible. This issue for me us was limited to the finale portions, but it affects the entire game and eventually we just decided that our time was better spent elsewhere.
So, what the final thought? Difficulty can be used to foster team play in a co-op environment, but not exclusively. It must be balanced with pacing and the design of the play experience. Simply pounding on the co-op players won't make them work as a team together (Left 4 Dead 2). The difficulty must be ramped up, in the right environments to allow these tactics to naturally come out (Gears) or the game must be structured to allow the players to control the environment and pacing themselves (GRAW) and develop their own teamwork.
J
Today I'd like to address some elements which help to foster teamwork in games. Specifically here I'll discuss difficulty. So, all other elements aside, how does difficult build teamwork in a game and where is it used most successfully?
I'll begin with games in the military simulation genre for lack of better term. Games like GRAW, SOCOM and Operation Flashpoint etc. This genre introduces difficulty in how they (more or less) seek to model realism. Player characters are vulnerable to dangers and are also subject to the laws of physics when it comes to movement, weight etc. The environment, sounds, time, and enemy characters all contribute to the challenge as well.
The overall goal is that by being more realistic, the challenge is elevated. For the right player, the reward is greater too since it feels like more of an accomplishment to achieve the goal having been given a more "everyman" type character. In a co-op environment, teamwork is fostered by players having to play cautiously, communicate well and pool resources to accomplish tasks. Teams need to cover each other, call out enemies, support one another's actions in order for success to be achieved. These usually aren't built in commands, but tactics the team must bring themselves. The simulation nature of the game allows them the freedom to develop their own ideas. The punishment for failure is harsh however, as "dead" players need to sit out for long periods of time while the team moves on.
Personally, I really enjoy the teamwork found in these games. They call for deeper strategy, and more measured play and strong teamwork definitely elevates the experience for all participants. For my friends, its hit and miss - playing an hour long mission and then getting the team wiped out because of 5 minutes of poor planning can be a motivator to some, but to others its a drag. These types of game remain niche games for us and we pull them out sometimes, but rarely stay with them.
These types of games always walk a fine line: become too much of a simulation and the audience becomes smaller, go too general and you loose what distinguishes your game from the rest of the mainstream. Let's turning now to look at a particular mainstream success - Gears of War 2, Horde mode and see how it achieves teamwork through difficulty.
In this game, up to five players compete in fending off waves of enemies. There's regenerating health, ridiculous weapons and death is usually only a minor inconvenience. There are 50 ways and many difficulty settings but in any long game the players will eventually get to a point where they need to rely on each other to survive and continue. There are no classes, but I find that in my games, players naturally take on roles within the team - some ferry heavy weapons around, others focus on front line defense and others take to sniping or overwatch roles to protect the team. Additionally, some of the level designs really support these concepts - giving spaces with changing heights, multiple entry points which are natural redoubts. Items are also spread thin, encouraging players to conserve and specialize. This is an excellent example of how a mainstream game can stay accessible, but still be deep enough to support and reward high level team play
Finally, Xbox gives a great example of game difficulty and teamwork breaking down - Left 4 Dead 2 on the console appears oddly unbalanced compared to its PC equivalent. During the end of each story the four co-op players face a challenging finale section which can be incredibly difficult to all survive even on low settings. I'm aware that one of the mechanics of the game is weighing the risks of trying to save a team mate vs. getting overwhelmed yourself. However here we typically found that team death game too quickly and there was little to no opportunity to act together. We would just reach a point were everyone realized that the team was a complete loss and they'd run for the escape hoping that at least one person would be saved. We tried this game many times, but the difficulty always reached a point was such that it rendered any compelling team play impossible. This issue for me us was limited to the finale portions, but it affects the entire game and eventually we just decided that our time was better spent elsewhere.
So, what the final thought? Difficulty can be used to foster team play in a co-op environment, but not exclusively. It must be balanced with pacing and the design of the play experience. Simply pounding on the co-op players won't make them work as a team together (Left 4 Dead 2). The difficulty must be ramped up, in the right environments to allow these tactics to naturally come out (Gears) or the game must be structured to allow the players to control the environment and pacing themselves (GRAW) and develop their own teamwork.
J
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Vanquish
Let's be clear from the get-go, Vanquish is a single player only, 3rd person cover based shooter with a short campaign. At full price, this is a difficult game to recommend. That said, I picked this game up on ebay for $40, and I'm extremely happy with it.
Vanquish presents the player as the typical protagonist, and is bound by a loosely explained science fiction story. The reason I'm happy with it, is because this game is just so much fun to play. The gameplay is all based around speed - moving quickly and slowing down time. The environments are typically large open totally chaotic battlefields with allied and enemy characters filling the air with a ridiculous amount of weapon fire. It reminded me of 80's GI Joe cartoons where everyone just seems to be blasting away with wild abandon. The weapons reinforce this with all the usual suspects being here, but also multi-targeting lasers, EMP devices, disc launchers and others that encourage you to experiment and treat you to surprising effects.
The disincentive to getting too wild is that taking damage causes the player to loose his ability to move quickly - requiring you to shelter to recover before you can join in again. On higher difficulties I found the game mechanics to be well balanced, the challenge is there and the controls and tactics are deep enough to reward you for taking it on.
On the topic of enemies I really enjoyed their design here. There's little guys and huge bosses but they all present their own challenges. I especially liked the various mid-sized robots known as Romanovs. I kept being surprised at all the tricks they could pull out. Often in these games there's one tactic for each enemy - but the enemies here seemed to again invite you to try different approaches and to experiment.
Most importantly in all this - the game is fun. There's a sense that the designers themselves were having fun when they made this game. There are jokes here, a script that his so corny it seems that it must have been intentional, there's a robot dance party and even an homage to DeGrassi High! Best of all, there's a tactic by which your character takes a smoke break mid-battle. Its goofy - I mean look at this:
You need a sense of humour to want to play as this guy.
I hope that gives you the idea of why I really like this game. It reminded me of playing games like Contra for my NES years ago. At that time they could be frantic, difficult, stunning and thoroughly enjoyable experiences. To me, Vanquish is all these things. If you have the chance I recommend you check this one out.
J
Vanquish presents the player as the typical protagonist, and is bound by a loosely explained science fiction story. The reason I'm happy with it, is because this game is just so much fun to play. The gameplay is all based around speed - moving quickly and slowing down time. The environments are typically large open totally chaotic battlefields with allied and enemy characters filling the air with a ridiculous amount of weapon fire. It reminded me of 80's GI Joe cartoons where everyone just seems to be blasting away with wild abandon. The weapons reinforce this with all the usual suspects being here, but also multi-targeting lasers, EMP devices, disc launchers and others that encourage you to experiment and treat you to surprising effects.
The disincentive to getting too wild is that taking damage causes the player to loose his ability to move quickly - requiring you to shelter to recover before you can join in again. On higher difficulties I found the game mechanics to be well balanced, the challenge is there and the controls and tactics are deep enough to reward you for taking it on.
On the topic of enemies I really enjoyed their design here. There's little guys and huge bosses but they all present their own challenges. I especially liked the various mid-sized robots known as Romanovs. I kept being surprised at all the tricks they could pull out. Often in these games there's one tactic for each enemy - but the enemies here seemed to again invite you to try different approaches and to experiment.
Most importantly in all this - the game is fun. There's a sense that the designers themselves were having fun when they made this game. There are jokes here, a script that his so corny it seems that it must have been intentional, there's a robot dance party and even an homage to DeGrassi High! Best of all, there's a tactic by which your character takes a smoke break mid-battle. Its goofy - I mean look at this:
You need a sense of humour to want to play as this guy.
I hope that gives you the idea of why I really like this game. It reminded me of playing games like Contra for my NES years ago. At that time they could be frantic, difficult, stunning and thoroughly enjoyable experiences. To me, Vanquish is all these things. If you have the chance I recommend you check this one out.
J
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The Original Survival Horror Game
With the recent release of Dead Space 2, there's been a bit of talk wondering if it can or can not be classified as "survival horror". The net effect is that since it presents the player with many options and encourages them to engage and defeat the enemy that it can not be.
True survival horror must constrain the player in a seemingly inescapable environment, isolate them, and give them no or only very limited tools to which they may engage their undead pursuers (or other such enemies).
After thinking about the above, I realized that I've just described Pacman.
Trapped in a maze, pursued by ghosts and only given very limited opportunities to engage his enemies (with the help of cherries). Pacman must be considered one of the original survival horror protagonists.
Pacman and Leon: the teacher and the student?
The real question now is, when can we get an unlockable Pacman character for mercenaries mode?
J
True survival horror must constrain the player in a seemingly inescapable environment, isolate them, and give them no or only very limited tools to which they may engage their undead pursuers (or other such enemies).
After thinking about the above, I realized that I've just described Pacman.
Trapped in a maze, pursued by ghosts and only given very limited opportunities to engage his enemies (with the help of cherries). Pacman must be considered one of the original survival horror protagonists.
Pacman and Leon: the teacher and the student?
The real question now is, when can we get an unlockable Pacman character for mercenaries mode?
J
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Co-operative Games
I have a regular group of friends and we try to play co-op games together fairly regularly. We've played the co-op content for most major xbox360 games and I really enjoy this aspect of gaming. I've found that we won't stick to every game the same, some we keep coming back to over and over while others are tried and then get put aside. Right now, we're playing through some really cheap copies of Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising ($10/ea) and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light.
The games which are the most successful for our group are definitely Gears of War 2 - Horde mode, Modern Warfare 2's specops and Battlefield Bad Company 2 online multiplayer.
More surprisingly I guess is the titles that don't work - Halo Campaign and Firefight, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead and the co-op modes of Call of Duty World at War, Black Ops, Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.
When I really consider it, most co-op games are really just offering a mode for co-playing. All members are in the same game, and there's a small amount of interacting between them. There's some small elements, like helping downed allies which might be present but that's about it.
What makes co-op truly successful? I think it comes down to the co-op players being dependent on one another. Both in reducing negative situations, like giving a downed ally a new chance by reviving them, but also there's a positive boosting element; that the combination of each player's game allows everyone to perform to a higher level. This is essentially the definition of teamwork.
Over some subsequent posts I'd like to continue to discuss how teamwork is and isn't implemented in games and what makes it successful.
The games which are the most successful for our group are definitely Gears of War 2 - Horde mode, Modern Warfare 2's specops and Battlefield Bad Company 2 online multiplayer.
More surprisingly I guess is the titles that don't work - Halo Campaign and Firefight, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead and the co-op modes of Call of Duty World at War, Black Ops, Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon.
When I really consider it, most co-op games are really just offering a mode for co-playing. All members are in the same game, and there's a small amount of interacting between them. There's some small elements, like helping downed allies which might be present but that's about it.
What makes co-op truly successful? I think it comes down to the co-op players being dependent on one another. Both in reducing negative situations, like giving a downed ally a new chance by reviving them, but also there's a positive boosting element; that the combination of each player's game allows everyone to perform to a higher level. This is essentially the definition of teamwork.
Over some subsequent posts I'd like to continue to discuss how teamwork is and isn't implemented in games and what makes it successful.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Mass Effect 2 - The Arrival DLC
I don't usually play games right when they come out but since I liked Mass Effect 2 so much and this was their last DLC I thought I would. My short notes are that this is good quality piece of content, on par with any of the loyalty missions of the first game.
From my perspective, the only drawbacks are ones that come from having been so impressed by the core game and especially the final few hours of that game, that whenever the extra content fails to deliver a decision with heavy consequences or some truly memorable gameplay I feel a bit disappointed.
The Arrival contains some excellent set up and there's lot of material here to make some great storytelling. By the half way point I wasn't sure I could trust anything that I had been told by the characters and I was ready to make a Sophie's Choice style decision that would carry through into the next game. Unfortunately, this potential wasn't really capitalized upon, and it unfolds as a largely linear fighting experience in the second half with most decisions made for you.
However, as just a linear story and fighting there is some new innovations here that keep it fresh and present some new takes on storytelling - using an typical combat death to actually lead into a new part of the adventure, and some fun stealth and 1st person control stuff at different times which are creative and new to this series. I'm always happy when we get fresh ideas in DLC and you get a little of that here.
So, in the final analysis - I'm pleased with this DLC but there's no reason not to wait till the inevitable price cut before the third game launches.
As a side note, I'm ready for Mass Effect 3 to give up on some of the hand holding and open up the world a bit more. Instead of telling me there's a PDA over here with some credits - please just let us explore the environments and find these things out for ourselves. Or maybe I've just been playing too much Witcher... (told you I don't usually play new releases).
J
From my perspective, the only drawbacks are ones that come from having been so impressed by the core game and especially the final few hours of that game, that whenever the extra content fails to deliver a decision with heavy consequences or some truly memorable gameplay I feel a bit disappointed.
The Arrival contains some excellent set up and there's lot of material here to make some great storytelling. By the half way point I wasn't sure I could trust anything that I had been told by the characters and I was ready to make a Sophie's Choice style decision that would carry through into the next game. Unfortunately, this potential wasn't really capitalized upon, and it unfolds as a largely linear fighting experience in the second half with most decisions made for you.
However, as just a linear story and fighting there is some new innovations here that keep it fresh and present some new takes on storytelling - using an typical combat death to actually lead into a new part of the adventure, and some fun stealth and 1st person control stuff at different times which are creative and new to this series. I'm always happy when we get fresh ideas in DLC and you get a little of that here.
So, in the final analysis - I'm pleased with this DLC but there's no reason not to wait till the inevitable price cut before the third game launches.
As a side note, I'm ready for Mass Effect 3 to give up on some of the hand holding and open up the world a bit more. Instead of telling me there's a PDA over here with some credits - please just let us explore the environments and find these things out for ourselves. Or maybe I've just been playing too much Witcher... (told you I don't usually play new releases).
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)