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