G-pinions

For a change, I think I'll write about actually playing games this evening. Instead of the usual writing about games that aren't out yet or came out seven years ago, or arguing with Tom or wetting myself over some non-sequitur a developer made over brunch last thursday.

So. Tom and I have been playing a fair amount of co-op (cooperative, for you brain morons out there) recently, in several different games, and I've been making some observations in each about my playing, and about the whole design philosophy of playing games together. Firstly, when Tom and I play, it's usually me forging ahead on the correct path, trying my best to follow the story and objectives, with Tom lagging behind on some "alternate" (read: wrong) path. I usually run into death first though, stupidly finding myself in a den of banjo-wielding scorpions without waiting for backup, while Tom finds the secrets and mini-guns. You'd think that these conflicting styles of play would fuck us, but it actually works pretty well in the end, even if it devolves into me yelling at Tom to follow his map while he figures out a new function on a sword I didn't even know I was carrying (except in Toejam & Earl III, where's he's the faster, sexier toejam - the bastard). I'd say together we could put up a good fight in any 2-on-2 game. I guess we'll find out when we both start using Live later this summer.

Oh, yes, I finally got an X-Box today. Big damn deal. I hate Microsoft, and hate the idea of giving them my money even more - BUT, I'm not going to run a legitimate website here and not buy Halo 2. Plus, I already owned three X-Box games (Breakdown at Target for $20, Morrowind at Disc Replay for $4, and Brute Force with credit at Gamecrazy for $13), and an S-Video cable and Live subscription cards, so I figure I should probably own the system. Y'know, it just seemed to make SENSE.

So, yes, we've been playing Toejam & Earl III, and now Brute Force as well, and have previously dabbled plenty in CoNorrath (as you might well know), along with some 007:EON, Halo, Contra: Shattered Soldier, Timesplitters 2, and a couple of others. I've always said that pretty much any game is fun co-op, and I stand by that, as those first two titles reek of mediocrity taken from any other perspective. Fun is almost always relative to the amount of other people in the room. Every when we played through Prince of Persia together, I think we got a lot more out of it having another mind to think and another set of eyes to stare wondrously.

With that said, even with the best of company, there is still a very specific set of unwritten rules that co-op games must follow to be truly exceptional. A very big part of it is balance and difficulty, much moreso than a typical single-player experience. The idea is to keep both players entertained, while letting them both go at their own pace. Getting stuck at a particularly tricky or dexterously straining section of a game is fine by yourself; it's part of the experience, and should be something you walk away from with a sense of accomplishment and desire to get even further. But when such a point is reached by two people playing alongside one another, the situation often kills whatever momentum that's been building between them. The same goes for finite lives and sparsely distributed weapons/power-ups, etc. These things just inevitably make it less enjoyable for one player, and take out the element of experiment completely.

Brute Force really seems to pretty clearly define all the flaws and benefits to co-op play. While I haven't played the game one-player yet, the chaos and near-constant action lends itself nicely to cooperative play, as does the mostly ample weaponry and multiple, very unique characters. The basis for the gameplay, the controls and the engine, are very solid, if not a complete-yet-inferior rip-off of Halo. However, lackluster level design is never fun, even with two people. The enemy A.I. is surprisingly good in most places, whereas the A.I. of a CPU-controlled player we had to protect on an escort mission made for a good twenty minutes of frustration. Playing by yourself, you have only yourself to blame for not protecting someone, but in co-op, it's just really frustrating when both people trying their asses off fail, only to have to sit through the same damn cut-scene over and over while the section restarts. The weapons management system and guns also aren't explained at all; in single-player, it would just be trial-and-error until you figured it out and figured out what you were comfortable. In co-op, besides having to constantly keep up, you sometimes miss out of a gun completely because your teammate snags it first. Then when the times comes for you to save the day with it later, you look like a douche. There are just a lot of little problems like this is almost every co-op game, and make it tricky to enthrall two people for an entire game. I'm not saying I haven't been having fun, because I have, I'm just saying that fixing the smallest issues of level layout and character and A.I. balancing go a looong way towards making a co-op game great, to a much larger degree than solo games. Halo is fun because even through the levels aren't great, everything in them is rock-solid from a literal and design standpoint, so overall, fun prevails.

Phew, enough ranting. Maybe I just needed to let off some steam after being torn from having so much fun with such mediocre games.

Quickly, here is a bunch of info and screenshots on/of GTA: San Andreas straight from the Penny Arcade forums. Enjoy.

Also, this game will no doubt be viewed as the most chauvinistic game yet, by a ridiculous margin. Sexy, sexy fun, I say.

Goodnight, moon.

So, apparently I haven't updated in a couple of days. My head is still kind of reeling from following all the E3 coverage elsewhere (I can just imagine what it must be like to be there...wait, no I can't), and from watching videos of pretty much every game that was shown. I decided against doing a wrap-up, since I had already written a good 10,000 words on the subject during the show. I'll just say now that I'll be buying Halo 2, Fable, GTA: San Andreas, Final Fantasy XII, MGS3, and R&C:UYA on the day they're released, and probably another ten or twenty other games within that time. And while both look amazing, I'm still not sold on either the PSP or the DS. Outside of the Big 3, Capcom gets best showing, while Ubisoft gets the most disappointing (in relation to what went down over there last year). So, there you have it. Once again, if you want me to further discuss anything shown at E3, let me know. Otherwise, that's it for E3 hogging my posts.

So, big news today. Sammy (Guilty Gear, Seven Samurai 20XX) apparently decided to finally prove all the rumors right by outright buying Sega (Typing of the Dead, Arnold Palmer Tournament Golf). Well, it's being called a merger, but with Sammy having a 95% stake in the resulting holdings company, I think it's closer to a complete takeover if anything. The biggest changes can only be good for Sega, and good for us. Sega will be integrating it's various bits and pieces (Sonic Team, Smilebit, Amusement Vision, etc) back into itself, which I think will help the quality of their games stay more consistent (consistently good, that is). No more shitty trucking games. Also, I think Sammy is planning to steer Sega away from their newfound commitment in arcade games, an obviously thriving industry.

In other more shocking, breaking news, the videogame industry and movie industry are working together more than ever. Actually, the article is pretty decent, especially for an outsider to get acquainted with said relationship. The only thing I have to say is: An ER game? They're either grossly misinformed, or I am. What are you going to do, hit on Luka in a rhythm-based mini-game? Take control of Anthony Edwards in an epic battle over time and space to avoid the dreaded 'cancer of the brain'? Throw helicopters off of hospital roofs as a scantily-clad Maura Tierney? Don't Touch the Edges Operation Game (uses both analog sticks)? I mean, c'mon, can this game get any more awesome?

In more real news, the film rights to GTA have finally been picked up, and Michael DeLuca is the culprit. He's no writer (Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Judge Dredd), but he's produced some gems (Dark City, Pleasentville, American History X, Blade II). As I said to Tom, it's more suited for a film adaptation than most videogame movies (see: the upcoming live Pac-Man movie, or the in-production Crazy Taxi film), but as he pointed out to me, it's just a Scarface ripoff (also true). So, we'll see if it actually gets made. All I know is, as long as Uwe Boll isn't behind it, we're somewhat safe. Well, unless it's a comedy. That man is hilarious.

In completely non-videogame-related news, check this shit out. Apparently, a man was planning on fighting hordes of zombies in hand-to-hand combat. At least, that's what I can only assume based on the article.

And, not to flog a previously mentioned horse, but here's a great new trailer for Destroy All Humans! that highlights a lot of great parts that I was discussing a couple of days ago. So watch it, chum....p. Also, watch this trailer for Neo Contra. Running on spinning helicopter blades while fighting = awesomeness.

Finally, see Napoleon Dynamite when it comes out by you. Tom and I are both wearing shirts for it today, so you know it must be good. Either that, or we're dorks. And we're not dorks.

Ok, this is not a topic out to bash all that is sacred in our world. Honestly, it’s not. But there are just certain things that video games should not even attempt to embrace and the Bible is most certainly one of them. I mean, come on, it’s the Bible! Who thought it was a good idea to incorporate Bible characters such as David in Bible Adventures or Moses in Exodus and turn them into action heroes? Come forward, please, and receive your punishment for making me play a religiously themed video game.

Granted, there are certainly ideas, sacrilegious and blasphemous ideas, but ideas nonetheless, in which it could be sickly entertaining to make a game with Bible figures. To just throw a random idea out there... how about a Super Smash Bros. Melee - God Vs the Apostles? But, of course, I, as a good, moral man, would never endorse something so sadistic and twisted.

But, since we do live in a society with certain unspoken rules, such as don’t make a game in which Jesus can hit Doubting Thomas with a happy hammer, we will never see a game that lets the Bible be fun. So, I propose that any publisher who wants to make a game starring Biblical characters think about the potential fun factor of rounding up sheep for Noah’s Ark. Doesn’t sound life fun, does it? Sounds almost like a job, right? Right. So don’t make the darn thing, please. Oh, and for those of you who didn’t get a chance to play Exodus, let me fill you in a little bit about how this game works so you can try to muster the hate that I have for this game: levels consisted of you collecting Manna. To fulfill this task you must frantically slam on the B button which produces, and I am not making this up, the Word of God. Yup, you can attack enemies with the Word of God. By the way, for the truly baffled here who are using logic to understand this, stop. The Word of God, contrary to what you might assume, is actually just a floating ‘W’ that kills opponents as if it was a bullet. And, after you pass a level, you are forced to answer 5 Bible related questions. And not just simple things like “Who was that guy who was born on Christmas” (answer: Jesus). But hard stuff. Gah... terrible memories. The marketing department must have geared this one exclusively towards the Flanders.