Max Payne 3

Its been a while since Max Payne was a popular video game.  The first two games were creative influences in many genres.  Max Payne has its signature time perception altering mechanic, and its harder edge storytelling which proved popular years ago.  Rockstar has brought Max back now, kept some ideas, brought in a bunch of new ones and polished it up to a blinding shine.  But is it still fun?

For my money, the answer is 'not really'.  As a complete package, Max Payne 3 is mechanically clunky and thematically jarring.  Max is convincing as a down and out cop, taking bodyguard work - a fresh setting, and interesting plot and the themes are  kept in tact by Rockstar's deft touch.  There's wonderful attention to detail in the graphics, and the characters look fantastic.  Voice acting is excellent.  Little touches are applied all over which show such care for the final product - just the way Max holds his weapons, or interacts with the environment are superb.  

However, the gameplay is where it falls apart for me.  The sheer amount of slaughter in this game is not just ridiculous but vaguely insulting.  At every turn Max is gunning down an order of magnitude more enemies than would make any sense in the plot.  He more or less single handedly takes down 

(1) 3 gangs, 

(2) a private security force 

(3) an entire police station and 

(4) an militarized airfield.  

There's no subtlety, no pacing, just and endless horde to butcher and move through.  The effect kills any sense of storytelling and removes all weight from Max's noire style soliloquies on how useless and pathetic he is.  He's the deadliest man with a gun the world has ever seen!  He should be getting paid millions to speak at NRA rallies.  

Ultimately, we have to conclude that the gore is all there for us to enjoy, since jumping around in bullet time, using cover, and contextual cinematics are supposed to be such fun.  But, on normal, the game is so hard that you have to give up on most of the freedom of movement and just methodically cut down your foes to move on the next stage.  

I tried for a while to think of it as a GTA style satire on violence, but it doesn't hold up - so much has gone into creating this twisting noire plot of secrets, lies and things gone horribly wrong that the action sequences just don't mesh.  Either would have been possible, but not both at once, at least not here.

In the end, this game isn't terrible, there are fun moments, and as I said above, it is amazingly well polished.  Its just disappointing how close it came to something really interesting.  

J

Spec Ops: The Line

In the off chance that you are actually reading this blog looking for opinions on video games, I submit that you should purchase and play Spec Ops: The Line at your earliest convenience.

Spec Ops is a console shooter, 3rd person, and uses a modern military setting.  It is made by a fairly unknown company Yager Interactive.  So far, nothing special - but here's the thing:  the campaign is incredible.

Why is it incredible?  Is it the gameplay - nope.  Spec Ops takes the tired gameplay settings and techniques which have become so common now (special forces team vs. incredible odds, turret sequences, helicopter sequences, helicopter crashing sequences, move forward and attack gameplay, hold and defend gameplay, pick up intel, whatever - the whole menu of ideas which are in everything.  Also - control airborne unit which fires upon enemies with incredible power from an infrared style view, sigh...)  Ok, that list is depressing, back to the reason you should play it - all these elements are in there, but its connected with a story that works these sequences in a way I haven't experienced since Bioshock.  The whole game plays out as this downward spiral in which some part of the way through you realize is going to end terribly for everyone and you just keep playing to find out how far down it goes.  And the icing on the cake is that throughout the game you participate in a series of interesting, non-repetitive decisions or actions which truly make you question the nature of the character you are controlling.

Case in point - you are mislead at one point in the game and cause the destruction of some pretty important humanitarian supplies.  The person who mislead you is trapped under a burning truck.  You can't free him, so he asks you to be merciful and kill him before he burns.  What you do matters here.  I started to walk away, then returned, felt bad, started to leave again - heard him screaming and shot him.  I still feel uncomfortable with the whole sequence, but I'm not sure I would change it or how I could make it any better.  The fact that a game in this genre even tries something like this is a gold star in my book.



I could talk about the setting (Dubai - isolated after a cataclysmic sandstorm), or that the game is inspired by Apocalypse Now,  but you can read that anywhere and the game does a good job of explaining everything.  For this genre, there isn't a huge requirement for plausibility so I won't judge it based on that.

Other notable features - great use of music, good voice acting and dialogue between teammates - their responses change depending on your setting and (get this) as your collective situation becomes more and more horrible their responses to your orders become more and more insubordinate.  The character models of all the main characters changes to reflect all the nastiness they've endured, by the end you look like a walking corpse.  Good controls, the usual assortment of weapons but good flow from one sequence to the next.  A few tricky spots but nothing too bad.  There's a whole sand mechanic in which it can be dumped on people, blind them and occasionally you get caught in sandstorms which mixes things up.  Enemy AI is OK and controls are decent.  Also, load screen quotes are fantastic and compliment the story and mood.  Finally, there are multiple endings which will really stick with you.

All in all, I hope this makes you interested in picking this game up.  I feel that the publisher and developer need to be rewarded for taking so many risks with this game. I don't want a sequel, but I want this type of game to continue and to influence the development in this genre.

Thanks for reading, hope you decide to check it out.

J

Battlefield 3: Multiplayer

Battlefield 3 multiplayer is a well crafted experience which is always enjoyable and occasionally reaches truly amazing heights of entertainment.


BF3 begins by taking many of the best elements from the Bad Company series and tweaking them slightly to add new gameplay dimensions.  There's a huge round of improvements from sound, to visuals, to level design, to in game options such as vehicles, weapons and abilities.  There's no reason to run through the list of improvements here, but it is suffice to say that everything has been improved to the point where the console hardware definitely appears to be straining to keep up.


This is an easy multiplayer game to recommend.  The classes, vehicles, maps, abilities and unlocks all come together here.  There are so many ways to participate beyond being the best with a given weapon - players can revive, heal, replenish ammo, and spot for each other, or they can pilot vehicles and support or transport their teammates into combat.  Special weapons talents like the mortar, sniper rifle or gadgets like remote respawn points or bomb diffusal bots can all aid in the effort.  The game rewards teamwork and encourages players to work together but not overtly requiring it.  Those that work together will simply find the game deeper and more varied than those that don't.

Add to this some well crafted maps (particularly the Karkland maps), the building destruction mechanic and the simple yet effective rulesets for games like conquest and rush.  Put all those things together and setting the physics to play just a little south of realistic and somehow  DICE manages to make it all work beautifully.  


The final ingredient is only to play with a friend or two and the output becomes a regular payoff of what can only be called 'Battlefield Moments'.  Anyone who plays this game for more than a few hours will begin to experience them - a Battlefield Moment is just when some sort of unscripted and truly insane moment spontaneously occurs.  They are unique to each player and to each game but they occur again and again and  act as hook to keep the player coming back. 


Watching two planes clip wings in midair while rolling into battle on the back of a Humvee; smashing your APC through the wall of a enemy strong point; single handedly reviving and healing your squad while they hold out against the last tickets of a determined enemy onslaught are jaw dropping.  The best way to describe it is to say that those favourite scenes from a movie or toy soldier game from when you were a kid which other games try to capture in scripted sequences happen here - totally unscripted and so much more thrilling because of it.  It has to be experienced to be fully grasped.


Battlefield 3 multiplayer is highly recommended (particularly with friends and voice chat).


J

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Film noir and steampunk come together in interesting ways in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.  This game from Eidos Montreal has many positive credits to its name, but none more so than to say that it is a worthy successor to the Deus Ex legacy.


This time, the player is Alex Jenson, a man who finds himself gradually "augmenting" himself with more and more advanced abilities while pursing leads in a web of murder and corporate warfare.  The setting is a distopian near future where society is gradually fraying as people either embrace or resist the new possibility of bio-mechanical enhancements.  As is key to the genre, Alex rapidly learns that there are no innocent parties and no one can be completely trusted.

This is a compelling setting and an excellent plot.  It is well realized through great voice acting and solid pacing.


The game mechanics give the player a variety of ways to interact with the environment.  Sneaking around via hacked computers or helpful air vents permits the player to learn more about the goings on by reading email or other documents.  There's an excellent persuasion mechanic which plays out during verbal confrontations and is much more integrated and functional than the similar methods in LA Noire.  When all else fails, combat is well supported but is challenging enough to be used a last resort in most situations.  Each of these areas can be deepened by investing in augments which provide new or improved options.  However, in the end, none of the mechanics function precisely as well as one might hope and occasionally dip into frustrating territory (particularly 'boss' battles or early stealth/hacking where few augments are available).  A hybird approach is usually the best path to a smooth game experience.


There's also a number of interesting side quests throughout the game, which help expand the world and are well written.  My only regret was that there wasn't more of such content or it wasn't more blended into the background of each location Alex visits.  I found that most of content was presented directly to the player - there was little need for going off the path or talking to unnamed NPCs.  As mentioned above, there's are usually a choice of sneaky or strong arm ways of getting something done, but it often seemed like these options were a little too apparent.  There was always a vent or a sewer leading to where I needed to go, an never one that didn't lead to something useful.  There's always a huge number of PDAs lying around with important passwords on them and guards endlessly walk in easily predicted patterns.  It seemed as though the world just needed more 'noise' to make finding the right path feel more like a discovery than an inevitability.


This quibble aside, Deus Ex Human Revolution is a very entertaining game and well worth the asking price.  Strongly recommended.


J

Dark Souls

Dark souls is one of the best games to ever be released.  At the same time, it breaks convention with so many established elements in the RPG genre that on paper one would expect it to be an instant failure.


It demonstrates that by establishing a strong game world and excellent mechanics it can create a new relationship with the player.  Most RPGs give the player an immense game world, an epic story, huge amounts of side content and some player agency in the sense of morality or choice.  These mechanics are built into dialogue trees and into the NPC reactions to make the player feel more immersed and influential in the game world.    


Dark souls strips out many of these things - there's still a large world, but excellent level design can make getting from place to place relatively quick. 


There's almost no side content and no baked-in morality.  Instead, players carry out their own morality by taking on the roles of watchful defenders, merciless avengers or opportunistic griefers.  The game's currency of souls is offered in large quantities to anyone willing to take on these roles - and more souls lead to better equipment and abilities.  There's no need for side quests, when players create their own by persecuting invaders to the Darkroot garden, or helping each other battle the screen filling bosses.  And no preset game element or enemy AI can achieve the timing or surpass the thrill of actual other players interacting within these mechanics.


There's no epic story here either.  More like an odyssey, Dark Souls is the single journey of the player  trying to undo their own state of undeath.  Its not about saving the world, just saving yourself.  And this journey takes the player to some truly memorable moments and environments.  There's an dark and oppressive underworld, a decayed and crumbling castle, a shining city and a suffocating tomb all awaiting the player.

Unlike any other game, Dark Souls empowers the player base to take the task of instructing each other on how to get through the world.  The player learns about their world by reading notes left by their predecessors, watching the phantoms of the living or dead flit past briefly and by participating in each other's quest.  Directly and indirectly one player passes on to the next knowledge about builds, secrets, paths, weaknesses and items and all participants are rewarded in the processes.  


Weapons, spells, armor and abilities are all interlinked in an ingeniously deep system of character customization.  Everything can build on or compensate for other elements so it is possible to develop thousands of viable end game characters which are then influenced by the preferences and gameplay style of the person actually holding the controller.  There is no one best build, nor one best weapon.


In the end, Dark Souls is a game made for people who play games.  It one of the most memorable, challenging, engaging and refreshing titles this or any generation, and is a must play for all gamers.


J

Warhammer 40K: Space Marine

Warhammer 40K: Space Marine puts the player in the role of Captain Titus.  In the violent and fantastic future of the Warhammer universe, the space marines are the tip of the spear in the human war effort.  They are huge, beefy, near-immortal, ultra violent and undoubting in their own righteousness.  A perfect avatar for a modern action game.  


Outside the game, the Warhammer universe is a melting pot of all things science fiction and wargaming.  But the dedication of its designers and a huge fan base has kept it engaging and current.  The main complaint with this game is that it hasn't embraced this enough.  There's around a dozen playable factions in tabletop Warhammer or in the Dawn of War series - only 4 make and appearance here, and only 2 are playable (one being a reskin of the other).  In the  Space Marine chapter itself, there's a unnecessary absence of some of the most iconic elements such as dreadnoughts and terminators.  

The game itself establishes the core mechanics and demonstrates that there's more than enough room in the crowded 3rd person shooter market.  Innovative mechanics and interesting changes are spread throughout the game and it plays out smoothly.  Combining healing with melee is a novel mechanic which is mostly successful here, as is the various weapon mechanics and jet packs which pop up from time to time.  The story does an adequate job of establishing the crusader mentality of the marines but the major traits of their bloodthirsty opposition, but little more.  


Overall, the game feels like a solid effort to begin building a new franchise, but that is also its main detraction - it sticks too closely to the mainstream of the genre and fails to tap into the most captivating and interesting parts of the warhammer fiction.   Much like the Dawn of War titles - Relic has only played a small part of the universe here, giving itself lots of room for future sequels. I can't help but feel that this strategy is wrongly timed - at the end of the console cycle, in a crowded genre and with a strong fan base already established I would have liked to have seen a lot more here.  Space Marine appears thin compared to similar titles and difficult to justify at the same price.  


I recommend this game for anyone interested in a new take in this genre and at a more appropriate pricing.  Established fans will have something to enjoy here for now and we can all hope for a strong sequel to this debut.

The Witcher

On the surface, The Witcher is a game set in a fantasy world, about a mysterious, gifted warrior who battles evil forces.  


Look deeper and the fantasy races are just different classes of society, the gifted warrior is  someone who doesn't quite fit in with anyone; a necessary but unsightly hero and those forces of evil seem to be present, but perhaps not quite where you expected.  In short, the Witcher is a game about challenging expectations and about that grey area which is so often overlooked yet so much more interesting than the black and white of most fantasy games/fiction.

We follow Geralt.  A man who has undergone mutations to become an adept at dealing with monsters.  An absolute necessity in a place where dark creatures prowl at night, graveyards are haunted by the restless dead and the forest looks back at you from a dozen different eyes.  But, as men civilize the world, there's less and less room for goblins and elves.  They are driven to the edges, sometimes forgotten.  The Witcher becomes an unwanted reminder of a different time.  Slowly their place in the world is receding as well, but they're not quite gone yet.


Having lost his memory, Geralt slowly puts the pieces back together as he follows a quest to hunt down some men who have stolen the last things of value to the Witchers, the secrets of their mutations.  The main story takes its time developing, letting Geralt learn about the world and rediscover his relationships with past allies and friends.  He picks up odd jobs as he travels, remove some ghouls here, a spectre there.  But sometimes the monsters at the crossroads are men, driven by lust and greed.  How does Geralt deal with them? Or when monsters beg for his need his mercy and even assistance?


Geralt's dealings with his world build over the course of the game, like a pot slowly coming to a boil.  There's a feeling of containment everywhere: items are derived from fallen enemies, weapons are improved by friendly smiths, books teach Geralt about this world leading him to new areas, everything leads him further on, but nothing seems forced.  Friendships are forged, tested and altered.  Politics moves everyone, motivations sometimes only hinted at.   


At first, Geralt must balance between these forces and then eventually, inevitably things come to a boil and Geralt must make difficult and costly decisions.  At the end, things are different, peace is restored but one expects that things have only been postponed.  The players have shifted, nothing more.


A must buy.


J

Mass Effect

I love the Mass Effect series and I'm really excited to see how the story ends.  Anyway, I have one quick thing I want to say about the games up till now - for me, having to choose between two characters (Ashley and Kaiden) in Mass Effect 1 was one of the highlights in the series.  My game is forever altered because of that one choice.  In Mass Effect 2, knowing that there was an achievement for "saving everybody" just pushed me to make sure I got that even though I think it took 2 or 3 tries to properly do it.  And there's no question that will be the save I carry through to ME3.  Overall, I think the game suffers for that.  If Mass Effect is defined by great characters and these sort of 'good' or 'bad' decisions, then there's no better way to show this off then by giving you these types of Sophie's choice style situations.







For Mass Effect 3, I am really hoping for some more of these game altering and grey area decisions.  Imagine  having to choose between Mordan or Wrex.  Or worse, picking 3 or 4 characters to go on a real suicide mission.  I think there's some opportunity there to create some unforgettable moments and really send the series out on a powerful note.










J

I must be missing something: Volume 2

Let's call this post on Dead Space the first "I must be missing something" post, because everyone seems to love that game but I really don't get it.  To me it just seems like an endless exercise in going from A to B.  Just follow the line on the ground and wait for the monsters to pop out of the vents.  Spoiler: there's always a monster in the vent.  


I'm sure we all have games like that, and my shelf seems full of them these days.  Maybe as we get older we get more particular, or grumpy or something.  But, I don't get the appeal of dead space.  


Until very recently, I thought I was missing something huge in Half Life Episode 2.  Everyone says that game is just the most incredible thing since Tetris.  But, I played it on xbox and it was a total chore to finish.   It just seemed like endless sewers, followed by an endless boat part, followed by a long driving part.  I got to the end but I couldn't even finish episode 1 and never touched episode 2.  Add Portal to that list as well, although I eventually finished it on my xbox after a long hiatus.



Gordon, don't hit me.  I'm just being honest...


After finishing the Witcher this summer (play it!), I tried HL2 Episode 1 again on my PC and I realized what I was missing.  These games are made for PC, and finally I got what everyone loves!  It wasn't slow, or dull anymore.  It played fluidly, I loved the characters, the environments and the puzzles.  I got IT! Finally.  Episode 2 was just completely awesome.  I'm looking forward to replaying Portal on my PC just to finally enjoy it.  


I've found this with all my valve games: they play way better on PC.  I'm putting off getting Portal 2 until I upgrade my PC, so that I can experience it the proper way.  It also helps that valve gives away their products on Steam for next to nothing all the time, and they support them so well.  Its PC all the way for me on those titles.


Plus, the Half Life episodes are so good.  Episode 2 is probably still better than 95% of all FPSs out there and its many many design cycles old now.  Its incredible how developers won't even try to approximate it, when they will gladly copy COD4 over and over.


Anyway, as I said at the beginning, we all have our things that we just can't understand the appeal. I bet those things say more about us than any list of favourite games ever would.


Here's a challenge to review sites - put up a list of games you just don't understand why people like.  I would love to read that, but - leave Dark Souls alone.


J

Call of Duty 8: Modern Warfare 3

Lots of publications will say that people play Call of Duty only for the multiplayer, but I think there's a lot of us out there who are just playing it for the single player.  I'm definitely one of these people.

I really liked Call of Duty 4. To me, this is one of the best games of all time.  I played the latest installment, not because I am really attached to Price and Soap but because I wanted to see how they could tie up a story about world war 3.  To me, they pulled it off well enough.  The game play draws you in and keeps you engaged point by point.  Not Call of Duty, but specifically Infinity Ward seems to know the secret sauce in keeping you in the campaign and that "just one more mission" rationalizing to yourself.   I played Black Ops and Battlefield 3 and both of those campaigns, although at times fun, are more like a chore to get through.   I would say that Bungie too seems to know this secret sauce, perhaps there's a post in there about what exactly makes them so.

Anyway, more to the point - I'm a fan of the single player campaigns and I was happy with this latest installment.  I think it told a thrilling story of a global conflict and for me it was a satisfactory end to this trilogy.  

Now that its done, I hope this signals the beginning of the end of this wave of modern military games.  Naturally there's still the 2012 crowd to get through, but Infinity Ward is the master and hopefully they will move on and the others will follow.  Or, if we're really lucky - Bungie's or Respawn's next will be shown at E3 and we can all get excited a new genre that's fresh and not yet overdeveloped.  

This is all Respawn Entertainment has shown of the their next game.  I don't see any UAVs... yet.

In the modern military vein, there might be a little life left - I'm intrigued by what SpecOps the Line is showing, and the promise of Homefront seemed to open a crack into another facet which might be intriguing.  Bring some more realism, bring some better characterisation, lower the scope a bit and things could open up again.  

Anyway, that's what I think.  What do you think?

J

Halo Reach

Hey again,


Earlier this month I went for the achievement in Halo Reach to complete the whole game on legendary alone .  I have never been the biggest Halo fan, but I have a few friends who went for this one and everyone said it was a really rewarding experience. 


Having finally completed it I really recommend it.  The designers at Bungie have made a game that is deep and engaging.  There's no cheap difficulty spikes throughout the campaign, everything is challenging yet achievable given some patience and attention to tactics.  I found that throughout the campaign I'd find little weapon stashes or health packs tucked away for players who were obviously playing defensively.  I never saw these on my solo run on heroic or on a co-op legendary in the past.  I was just passing those areas too quickly, now I see they understood that some players would have to adopt different strategies, and they've given me the tools to succeed.


If you have Halo, and you haven't popped it in for a while - why not try out this challenge.  I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did.


J

Indie Glut

Hey there,


I just dove into the indie games scene head first and picked up the humble bundle 3.  So far I'm really enjoying everything that has to offer.  I've played a lot of Revenge of the Titans, and a little of Cogs and Atom Zombie Smasher.  After that, I picked up Frozen Synapse during a steam sale.  Split the cost with my friend and we each got a copy.  


What a breath of fresh air the indie games scene is - low prices, great ideas, engaging concepts.  A perfect counter point to one too many big name console releases.  You'll forgive a lot for a cheap product, and the freedom to be imperfect or to have only niche appeal opens up so much for these indie designers.  I love the art style in both Titans and Zombie.  Synapse is so deep its scary - but the on screen images are pretty basic.  


I'm saving most of the other titles for play on my netbook between novels at the cottage.


Overall, I'm really happy I finally discovered so many of these titles.  I will try to post some reviews of the games as I finish them.  


I'll be eagerly awaiting Humble Bundle 4.  


Thanks,
J

Co-operative Games: Co-operative Elements

Another aspect of co-operative games which can help add to the teamwork aspects is the use of co-operative elements.  This is basically commands or abilities the player is given to directly influence the ability of other players on the same team.  A good example is the 'downed' mechanic in Gears of War 2.  Basically, a downed player can not compete anymore, and can only move about the field by crawling slowly.  They are incredibly vulnerable to the opposing team at these times.  The only way to be revived is by being touched by a teammate (I think a timer is a second way to be revived actually).  Its a simple mechanic that adds a boost of teamwork - by staying close together, multiple players can have a great impact by reviving each other.  They should perform better than two single players, simply because being 'downed' by the enemy is not necessarily the end of their game.  


There's lots of games out there that use these mechanics successfully and I've been trying to find one that uses them but fails.  I haven't really struck one of these, but I think its more because when these mechanics fail, then players simply play as individuals - the game doesn't fail, just the teamwork aspects.  So, I've been playing Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising co-op with my friends, and so far there's lots of aspects where teamwork is not happening.  There's  a waypoint mechanic, a mechanic to give orders, or to spot enemies for each other but we never use any of these.  The only mechanics we use are the health and resupply abilities, and even those aren't used a lot.  


Now, to contrast - two successful co-op games with co-operative elements: right now I can't get enough of Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light or Battlefield Bad Company 2 (online).  Lara GOL has some nice co-op elements: players can revive each other and they can use unique items to each character to help their teammate reach different points on the map which are otherwise inaccessible.  Since this is a puzzle game, its great to play through with a friend and solve the puzzles together by each working out how their character contributes to the ultimate solution.  The puzzles are often layered too - requiring one player to utilize the other to reach some mid point, and  then a reversal or some new mechanic to get to the ultimate goal.  Having a single player campaign as well, its easy to see how the addition of a 2nd player, and these elements brings out a much more entertaining and exciting experience.  


In Battlefield (online), players take on different classes, each of which can support the other through unique and shared abilities.  Unique abilities include healing, resupplying and repairing and shared abilities include respawning on teammates, spotting enemies and giving some very general tactical commands to other teammates.  After playing loads of online time in BF, its easy to see how well balanced teams which make use of these elements are elevating the shared experience.  Playing online with my friends, with some teamwork and good communication we've often turned the tide on a stronger opposing team.  Playing alone, I've often found that these mechanics lead to teamwork even among online strangers.  This is a pretty impressive feat to pull off.




So, overall, co-operative elements can really take a typical co-op experience and bring out some impressive teamwork.  When they fail, the games don't become unplayable, they just remain as largely co-playing experiences.  


What are the keys to successful co-operative element design.  Seems like ease of use has to be one of them, all the mechanics in Battlefield and Lara Croft are one button, instant selections.   For BF, this is key, because the online games are typically faced paced and so complex commands would not be utilized.  For Lara, the trial and error nature of some of the puzzles can easily lead to frustration if the commands are not quick and easy to use.  Also the levels are designed such a way that early failure typically does not lead to the team being wiped out, but just a slight setback.  This encourages players to continue working together.


Secondly, there must be something that these elements grants the team over individuals working alone.  Scores can be boosted by working together (BF), but also individual success in terms of accessing new areas of the map (Lara) can be a motivator.  


I think a good example to end with is again from Battlefield, but I think Halo also works.  In BF, there's the option to command vehicles.  Many of these have slots for multiple players.  Additionally, BF uses vehicles which are all sort of like mini co-op elements in one.  A helicopter is an excellent example.  They require pilots, gunners and mechanics all working together to be truly successful.  When they fail, they just end of being co-playing elements.  You might use a helicopter to get from A to B, but if the pilot isn't sharp enough, or no one's repairing, defending etc. then the whole experience ends rather quickly and usually violently.  In the end, vehicles become a kind of high level reward for teams who invest the time in learning how to use them properly.

Half Life 3: Where and Why?

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

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

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

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

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