Friday, November 10, 2006
Lunch with Tom - Bloody good fun
I've never had my hands so soaked in blood before. Gears of War is just a violent mess of a Third Person Shooter. Every battle in Gears is as immediate and pressing as a battle with the final boss. You can die at any time. There is no time to jump around and experiment. It's you versus your sworn enemy in a fight to the death. It doesn't matter if they are being controlled by an artificial algorithm created by some M.I.T. math wiz or the dexterous fingers of some 17 year old punk from West Philly, the fights all feel exactly the same. Each battle may only take a few seconds, never more than half a minute, but the amount of effort put into outmaneuvering your opponent and being quicker to the draw is just staggering. One slight mistake, a gun shot that hits the shoulder or a split second delay while you rip the cord to your chainsaw, and you will be dead. I have never played a shooter so full of emotion after each battle. You will either yell with glee that you overcame a worthy foe, or curse the gods for you stubby finger and slow-firing synapses. Gears of War does many things right, but the way they were able to elevate each individual battle to one of epic proportions just overwhelmed me at times.
The multiplayer mode really needs to be experienced to fully understand. Every second is hugely important. From the moment the round begins it is imperative to begin your offensive assault. You need to coordinate with your teammates to ensure you are on the same page. Some will run for the good weapons, others will form a slow-paced attack on the opposition. With only two teams and four players per side, each person, no matter what their skill level, is as important as the next. You cannot act on your own. You cannot run into the open, get gunned down, and leave the rest of your team a man short. They will be quickly overwhelmed. Gears feels like a more vicious version of Counter Strike. One in which position and tactics play as large of a role as pure shooting talent. To move your team into perfect position and overwhelm your enemy all at once is just pure bliss.
Basically, Epic has completely nailed the gameplay in Gears of War. I never thought a gritty, dark shooter could be this much fun. But there are flaws present that keep this from being the perfect game some publications have stated. First of all, I believe Epic has made a fatal flaw in the single player campaign. The majority of the campaign is a pure shooter. You progress through linear levels, taking out enemies while completing small tasks. Fundamentally, there is little difference between the level design and pacing of Gears of War compared to other shooters. This normally would not be a problem, but Gears has introduced a level of immersion that all but demands a strong departure from the norm. Epic seemed to only realize what they had during the Third Act of this game. The section begins in the middle of the night during a heavy thunderstorm. You are surrounded by water and rock in the middle of nowhere. The rain is so thick at times you cannot actually see structures and enemies ahead of you. It feels more like Resident Evil than a standard shooter. It is terrifying. Because each encounter could mean the end of your life, each step needs to be taken with care. You don't know what is ahead of you.
When you finally get out of the rain you find yourself in an abandoned factory. The wallpaper is peeling. Ceilings have caved in at places, forcing you to find alternate routes. The few lights flicker, obscuring your view even more. And there are the omnipresent sounds of imminent death reminding you what is at stake. This can be a truly terrifying game. The rest of the level offers gameplay twists that were not present in the first two acts of the game. For the first time, you and your buddy, who you have fought side-by-side with from the opening cinematic, must separate. No longer can you rely on your friend to shoot down a sneaking foe or help you when your gun jams. This is cooperative play done right. One in which you are not merely doubling firepower, but finding your own way through a dense level.
Gears of War should have been a horror game. It is at its best when the lights are out and you have no idea where to go. Because the combat is so visceral there is a constant feeling of dread as you turn every corner. The levels and story should have followed this theme throughout. Making you build up courage as you turned each corner. Unfortunately, only the Third Act is a truly memorable experience. The other Four Acts have very similar level design to each other - you battle through one section, clear out enemies, and then clear it out again when new threats emerge behind you. Every battle is fun and exhilarating, but subduing the fear element makes these battles seem lesser by comparison. It seems as though Epic tried to make the whole game truly scary - there is one mini boss who appears on two separate occasions who is just a blast to fight - but as a whole the level design sticks far too close to more traditional shooters.
Because GoW is able to elevate each fight to such a high level, I must recommend this game to anyone who loves shooters. You simply will not find better individual battles anywhere else in gaming. But the game as a whole is merely "Damn Good" instead of "Instant Classic." Now that the technology is built and the gameplay is solid, I hope Epic will be able to construct some truly fascinating levels in the inevitable sequel. Until then, I will be getting my thrills in the land of online multiplayer.
The multiplayer mode really needs to be experienced to fully understand. Every second is hugely important. From the moment the round begins it is imperative to begin your offensive assault. You need to coordinate with your teammates to ensure you are on the same page. Some will run for the good weapons, others will form a slow-paced attack on the opposition. With only two teams and four players per side, each person, no matter what their skill level, is as important as the next. You cannot act on your own. You cannot run into the open, get gunned down, and leave the rest of your team a man short. They will be quickly overwhelmed. Gears feels like a more vicious version of Counter Strike. One in which position and tactics play as large of a role as pure shooting talent. To move your team into perfect position and overwhelm your enemy all at once is just pure bliss.
Basically, Epic has completely nailed the gameplay in Gears of War. I never thought a gritty, dark shooter could be this much fun. But there are flaws present that keep this from being the perfect game some publications have stated. First of all, I believe Epic has made a fatal flaw in the single player campaign. The majority of the campaign is a pure shooter. You progress through linear levels, taking out enemies while completing small tasks. Fundamentally, there is little difference between the level design and pacing of Gears of War compared to other shooters. This normally would not be a problem, but Gears has introduced a level of immersion that all but demands a strong departure from the norm. Epic seemed to only realize what they had during the Third Act of this game. The section begins in the middle of the night during a heavy thunderstorm. You are surrounded by water and rock in the middle of nowhere. The rain is so thick at times you cannot actually see structures and enemies ahead of you. It feels more like Resident Evil than a standard shooter. It is terrifying. Because each encounter could mean the end of your life, each step needs to be taken with care. You don't know what is ahead of you.
When you finally get out of the rain you find yourself in an abandoned factory. The wallpaper is peeling. Ceilings have caved in at places, forcing you to find alternate routes. The few lights flicker, obscuring your view even more. And there are the omnipresent sounds of imminent death reminding you what is at stake. This can be a truly terrifying game. The rest of the level offers gameplay twists that were not present in the first two acts of the game. For the first time, you and your buddy, who you have fought side-by-side with from the opening cinematic, must separate. No longer can you rely on your friend to shoot down a sneaking foe or help you when your gun jams. This is cooperative play done right. One in which you are not merely doubling firepower, but finding your own way through a dense level.
Gears of War should have been a horror game. It is at its best when the lights are out and you have no idea where to go. Because the combat is so visceral there is a constant feeling of dread as you turn every corner. The levels and story should have followed this theme throughout. Making you build up courage as you turned each corner. Unfortunately, only the Third Act is a truly memorable experience. The other Four Acts have very similar level design to each other - you battle through one section, clear out enemies, and then clear it out again when new threats emerge behind you. Every battle is fun and exhilarating, but subduing the fear element makes these battles seem lesser by comparison. It seems as though Epic tried to make the whole game truly scary - there is one mini boss who appears on two separate occasions who is just a blast to fight - but as a whole the level design sticks far too close to more traditional shooters.
Because GoW is able to elevate each fight to such a high level, I must recommend this game to anyone who loves shooters. You simply will not find better individual battles anywhere else in gaming. But the game as a whole is merely "Damn Good" instead of "Instant Classic." Now that the technology is built and the gameplay is solid, I hope Epic will be able to construct some truly fascinating levels in the inevitable sequel. Until then, I will be getting my thrills in the land of online multiplayer.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Classic Tom - I love rhythm games!
I actually wrote this way back in the beginning of 2006, though I never posted it on this site. After ripping through some tracks in Guitar Hero 2 I can feel my love affair with rhythm games sparking up again. Can't wait to play that Elite Beat Agents next week.
Have you ever watched someone try to play a video game for the first time? It doesn't matter how simple the controller is they will invariably hold it wrong. Once you get it situated in their hands properly, they will hold it like it's a glass baby or a spider. People who aren't accustomed to controllers will always hold a controller as if it is covered in Ebola. You tell them to hit A to jump, and then they stare dumbly down at the controller as the hit the button. The character on screen jumps as they stare down, so they can never even see what's going on. After a minute of this, they'll usually get frustrated and walk away.
Video games are an abstract concept for those who were not lucky enough to grow up with them. However, while trying to explain to someone why they should want to jump can be very difficult, there is one genre out there that taps into an innate ability that all humans possess. Rhythm games are the most pure genre because they are the only ones that are actually connected to actions we, as humans, perform every day of our lives.
Think about how important music is to you for a second. It's something that comes naturally to most people, something that is performed without any thought. From little people whistling while they work to the impatient cashier tapping out a beat while they wait for your order, it is an act that is so deeply embedded in our brains that stopping entirely is out of the question. Rhythm games merely take this need to create music and give a little structure to it. Provide a beat to follow and shiny visual indicators to make it simple. And because of this, rhythm games can be played and enjoyed by anyone in the world.
One of the fundamental principles of gaming is how they dish out punishment and reward. Many games present you with new weapons or abilities after completing an especially hard task. While that's all well and good for gamers, most people in the world aren't willing to invest the time it takes to earn the Master Sword. More importantly, they just don't care.
Rhythm games are able to avoid this problem completely. There is a constant and obvious stream of progress. While hitting A to jump in a platformer accomplishes nothing by itself, hitting A in a rhythm game produces a note. It can be easily recognized if that note was played at the correct time or in the right key. Different games obviously approach this concept differently, but all of them offer music as a reward and that is something anyone can understand.
Rhythm games are also able to eschew those unwieldy controllers completely by offering peripherals that mimic objects everyone is familiar with. Guitar Hero comes packed with a guitar. Everyone knows what that is. Donkey Konga has a bongo drum. Heck, there are even games where you don't have to hit a controller at all. Karaoke Revolution has a microphone and Dance Dance Revolution has a dance pad. These are all games that are bought and enjoyed by people who don't even know who Solid Snake is.
The genre is so wide open that many titles in it hardly even qualify as games. Electroplankton just came out on the Nintendo DS and is getting average reviews because journalists are trying to comparing it to other games. This isn't fair because it isn't a game at all. Not to sound like a marketing tool, but it's an organic music experience. There is no goal. No right or wrong. No punishment even. You simply manipulate objects on screen to form your own unique sounds. This is a concept that reaches even farther than the previous games I mentioned. Without any sort of goal other than pleasing your ears, Electroplankton offers the ability to create music to those who may not have the coordination to play a real life instrument or video game facsimile.
The beauty of these games is how far they are able to reach. My focus has been on how accessible these are to non-gamers, but they are fantastic games that will push even hardcore gamers to their very limits. Have you ever played Amplitude for the PS2? This is my favorite rhythm game around, and one of the hardest games I have ever played. It starts out easy enough - notes come slow and sporadically - but the harder difficulty levels seem impossible without being able to slow down time. This game is immensely pleasing. You juggle playing six different instruments at once. If you mess up, one of the instruments will cut out completely until you get it going again. It's like a musical version of everyone's favorite pastime - spinning plates. While judging success in some games can be hard, it's obvious you're struggling if there aren't any drums or vocals in the song.
I know this may seem like an odd column, but I recently discovered this genre and cannot believe how rewarding it is. I have never been able to play an instrument in real life, so being able to hold a plastic guitar while I strum along to Iron Man is an experience I never thought I could have. For those of you who have ignored this genre for whatever reason, please give it a shot. If anyone is reading this who doesn't play games at all, these may tap into something buried within that has been waiting for years to burst out.
Have you ever watched someone try to play a video game for the first time? It doesn't matter how simple the controller is they will invariably hold it wrong. Once you get it situated in their hands properly, they will hold it like it's a glass baby or a spider. People who aren't accustomed to controllers will always hold a controller as if it is covered in Ebola. You tell them to hit A to jump, and then they stare dumbly down at the controller as the hit the button. The character on screen jumps as they stare down, so they can never even see what's going on. After a minute of this, they'll usually get frustrated and walk away.
Video games are an abstract concept for those who were not lucky enough to grow up with them. However, while trying to explain to someone why they should want to jump can be very difficult, there is one genre out there that taps into an innate ability that all humans possess. Rhythm games are the most pure genre because they are the only ones that are actually connected to actions we, as humans, perform every day of our lives.
Think about how important music is to you for a second. It's something that comes naturally to most people, something that is performed without any thought. From little people whistling while they work to the impatient cashier tapping out a beat while they wait for your order, it is an act that is so deeply embedded in our brains that stopping entirely is out of the question. Rhythm games merely take this need to create music and give a little structure to it. Provide a beat to follow and shiny visual indicators to make it simple. And because of this, rhythm games can be played and enjoyed by anyone in the world.
One of the fundamental principles of gaming is how they dish out punishment and reward. Many games present you with new weapons or abilities after completing an especially hard task. While that's all well and good for gamers, most people in the world aren't willing to invest the time it takes to earn the Master Sword. More importantly, they just don't care.
Rhythm games are able to avoid this problem completely. There is a constant and obvious stream of progress. While hitting A to jump in a platformer accomplishes nothing by itself, hitting A in a rhythm game produces a note. It can be easily recognized if that note was played at the correct time or in the right key. Different games obviously approach this concept differently, but all of them offer music as a reward and that is something anyone can understand.
Rhythm games are also able to eschew those unwieldy controllers completely by offering peripherals that mimic objects everyone is familiar with. Guitar Hero comes packed with a guitar. Everyone knows what that is. Donkey Konga has a bongo drum. Heck, there are even games where you don't have to hit a controller at all. Karaoke Revolution has a microphone and Dance Dance Revolution has a dance pad. These are all games that are bought and enjoyed by people who don't even know who Solid Snake is.
The genre is so wide open that many titles in it hardly even qualify as games. Electroplankton just came out on the Nintendo DS and is getting average reviews because journalists are trying to comparing it to other games. This isn't fair because it isn't a game at all. Not to sound like a marketing tool, but it's an organic music experience. There is no goal. No right or wrong. No punishment even. You simply manipulate objects on screen to form your own unique sounds. This is a concept that reaches even farther than the previous games I mentioned. Without any sort of goal other than pleasing your ears, Electroplankton offers the ability to create music to those who may not have the coordination to play a real life instrument or video game facsimile.
The beauty of these games is how far they are able to reach. My focus has been on how accessible these are to non-gamers, but they are fantastic games that will push even hardcore gamers to their very limits. Have you ever played Amplitude for the PS2? This is my favorite rhythm game around, and one of the hardest games I have ever played. It starts out easy enough - notes come slow and sporadically - but the harder difficulty levels seem impossible without being able to slow down time. This game is immensely pleasing. You juggle playing six different instruments at once. If you mess up, one of the instruments will cut out completely until you get it going again. It's like a musical version of everyone's favorite pastime - spinning plates. While judging success in some games can be hard, it's obvious you're struggling if there aren't any drums or vocals in the song.
I know this may seem like an odd column, but I recently discovered this genre and cannot believe how rewarding it is. I have never been able to play an instrument in real life, so being able to hold a plastic guitar while I strum along to Iron Man is an experience I never thought I could have. For those of you who have ignored this genre for whatever reason, please give it a shot. If anyone is reading this who doesn't play games at all, these may tap into something buried within that has been waiting for years to burst out.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Lunch with Tom - MULA, or how to cash in on a hot license
Gears of War is out right now. Nick and I played through the first act last night. It was incredible. A vicious, dark shooter unlike anything else I have played. Just a fantastic game any way you look at it. Of course, I am not here today to talk about the biggest Xbox 360 game released thus far. That would be far too easy. Every other site is pimping this game, why would The G blindly follow suit? Rather, I am going to offer my opinion on Marvel: Ultimate Alliance. I know Nick already complained last week about this putrid, licensed crapfest, but I am not Nick. I actually played through the entire game - all five mind-numbing acts - to bring you the most insightful look at this travesty in all the land. Whereas Nick was scared to even mutter the acronym for fear of bringing even more publicity to this abomination, I plan to yell about its incompetence to all who will listen. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is a bad video game. Please avoid at all costs.
I do not read comic books. I think the only one I have ever made it through was a Kool-Aid Man adventure a former roommate procured through, I am told, some very difficult circumstances. The story in MULA may or may not be standard comic book fair. I would not know. I do know that it is, unequivocally, a bad story. Activision went out of their way to mention how many characters they crammed onto the silicon. There are more than 144 heroes, villains and butlers in this game. When you combine them all together it's every bit as gross as you would imagine. See what I did there? But I've spoken enough. Maybe J.D. Salinger could draw a little insight into the creative process of this game:
"Then he and old Sally started talking about a lot of people they both knew. It was the phoniest conversation you ever heard in your life. They both kept thinking of places as fast as they could. Then they'd think of somebody that lived there and mention their name. I was all set to puke when it was time to sit down again. I really was."
Remember, I have an English degree. I not only read Pilgrim's Progress but I was able to keep track of all the crappy characters and ridiculous settings. Heck, I even read Kafka for fun. But Marvel's story was completely beyond my grasp. A new character would be introduced every five minutes. Sometimes their allegiance would be clear. Other times they would appear with no exposition, making me guess who they were and why they were wasting my time. Most times I was left to fill in the holes myself.
Check out this baffling scenario: Loki was a bad Viking who was up to no good. His father, Odin, was the ruler of Valhalla and Loki wanted that land for himself. Thor is Odin's other son, a humble superhero who didn't want the responsibility of ruling an entire world. But somehow, even though they share a father, Loki and Thor are not related. I'm not really sure how that happened. After I killed Loki to get back the land he stole, I went back to the base to receive new orders from my commander, Nick Fury. I was to unfreeze this giant armored knight for some reason. So I dutifully did it, having to chase down four separate swords during a twenty-minute stretch of my life I will never get back.
After I unleashed this monster, Nick Fury turned into Loki and proceeded to mock me for being so trusting. I can understand this amateurish, Mission: Impossible-level of deception. It's a technique uncreative folks use to twist plots. But some things were never answered. Or even questioned. First of all, where was the real Nick Fury during all of this? Wouldn't Wolverine have been able to tell the difference between the real Fury and Loki wearing a Fury wig just by smell? Did any of the other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents know about this switch? Couldn't they have given me a heads up? Furthermore, if Loki was really sitting comfortably in my base the whole time, who did I kill? Did Loki make a clone of himself? Did some shmuck put on a Loki mask, unaware that angry mutants were out to kill him? Did we send a sympathy card or sad turkey to the widow when we found out we killed an innocent man?
I know video games are rarely played because of story, but that does not mean you can toss out crap like this and expect me to sit through it, drooling and nodding like the one million unwashed masses who actually bought this game. Just like a good comedy needs a strong narrative structure to bind the movie together, a plot driven game needs plausible scenarios and realistic characters to do the same. What is my motivation to save the world from Dr. Doom if I'm not sure who Dr. Doom is? Speaking of Dr. Doom, at one point he realized he could take control of superheroes, forcing them to turn on the people who trusted them. So he kills Colossus and Cyclops and resurrects them to do his bidding. That's all fine and good. I'm sure this phenomenon has been explained elsewhere in the Marvel universe. But then things break down as they invariably do when logic is involved. Along with fighting an evil version of the Fantastic Four, I had to fight Bad Peter Parker and Captain UnAmerican as well. The problem? Captain America was in my party. Since the evil versions of these characters were resurrected corpses of my fallen comrades, how was Captain America tossed into the mix? And, since the evil characters are merely palette-swapped versions of the real superheroes, why couldn't Activision just have me fight a character I wasn't controlling?
I know these gripes seem small, but I think it showcases just how little time was spent in the creation of this game. The graphics are as uneven as a first generation X360 title. Sometimes they look like a shiny coat of paint has enveloped the Xbox original, other times it looks exactly like the now outdated original. There is nothing about this game, other than the $60 price tag, that makes it a next gen title. Even worse, the gameplay is as old school as you can get. The characters are all identical to one another. Captain America throws his shield while Iron Man tosses an energy beam, but the moves don't feel different from one another. This is the worst example of a licensed game. They simply tossed famous characters into the same gameplay structure that has existed for more than a decade. They refused to include problems actual superheroes face. I still have to find a keycard to open a locked door? Even Ms. Marvel is strong enough to knock down a mere door. And why do I have to push blocks around a room like I'm Lara Croft? Has Electra ever pushed a block in her life? Come on! Give me some real super hero problems!
It infuriates me that Activision published this, Ravensoft developed it, reviewers are handing out good grades, and gamers are buying this. Basically, everyone involved in the creation or enjoyment of this title is on my list. You know my list. Until they prove otherwise, Activision is now sitting alongside Electronic Arts in the pantheon of companies whose game I should avoid. They simply do not care one iota about quality.
I do not read comic books. I think the only one I have ever made it through was a Kool-Aid Man adventure a former roommate procured through, I am told, some very difficult circumstances. The story in MULA may or may not be standard comic book fair. I would not know. I do know that it is, unequivocally, a bad story. Activision went out of their way to mention how many characters they crammed onto the silicon. There are more than 144 heroes, villains and butlers in this game. When you combine them all together it's every bit as gross as you would imagine. See what I did there? But I've spoken enough. Maybe J.D. Salinger could draw a little insight into the creative process of this game:
"Then he and old Sally started talking about a lot of people they both knew. It was the phoniest conversation you ever heard in your life. They both kept thinking of places as fast as they could. Then they'd think of somebody that lived there and mention their name. I was all set to puke when it was time to sit down again. I really was."
Remember, I have an English degree. I not only read Pilgrim's Progress but I was able to keep track of all the crappy characters and ridiculous settings. Heck, I even read Kafka for fun. But Marvel's story was completely beyond my grasp. A new character would be introduced every five minutes. Sometimes their allegiance would be clear. Other times they would appear with no exposition, making me guess who they were and why they were wasting my time. Most times I was left to fill in the holes myself.
Check out this baffling scenario: Loki was a bad Viking who was up to no good. His father, Odin, was the ruler of Valhalla and Loki wanted that land for himself. Thor is Odin's other son, a humble superhero who didn't want the responsibility of ruling an entire world. But somehow, even though they share a father, Loki and Thor are not related. I'm not really sure how that happened. After I killed Loki to get back the land he stole, I went back to the base to receive new orders from my commander, Nick Fury. I was to unfreeze this giant armored knight for some reason. So I dutifully did it, having to chase down four separate swords during a twenty-minute stretch of my life I will never get back.
After I unleashed this monster, Nick Fury turned into Loki and proceeded to mock me for being so trusting. I can understand this amateurish, Mission: Impossible-level of deception. It's a technique uncreative folks use to twist plots. But some things were never answered. Or even questioned. First of all, where was the real Nick Fury during all of this? Wouldn't Wolverine have been able to tell the difference between the real Fury and Loki wearing a Fury wig just by smell? Did any of the other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents know about this switch? Couldn't they have given me a heads up? Furthermore, if Loki was really sitting comfortably in my base the whole time, who did I kill? Did Loki make a clone of himself? Did some shmuck put on a Loki mask, unaware that angry mutants were out to kill him? Did we send a sympathy card or sad turkey to the widow when we found out we killed an innocent man?
I know video games are rarely played because of story, but that does not mean you can toss out crap like this and expect me to sit through it, drooling and nodding like the one million unwashed masses who actually bought this game. Just like a good comedy needs a strong narrative structure to bind the movie together, a plot driven game needs plausible scenarios and realistic characters to do the same. What is my motivation to save the world from Dr. Doom if I'm not sure who Dr. Doom is? Speaking of Dr. Doom, at one point he realized he could take control of superheroes, forcing them to turn on the people who trusted them. So he kills Colossus and Cyclops and resurrects them to do his bidding. That's all fine and good. I'm sure this phenomenon has been explained elsewhere in the Marvel universe. But then things break down as they invariably do when logic is involved. Along with fighting an evil version of the Fantastic Four, I had to fight Bad Peter Parker and Captain UnAmerican as well. The problem? Captain America was in my party. Since the evil versions of these characters were resurrected corpses of my fallen comrades, how was Captain America tossed into the mix? And, since the evil characters are merely palette-swapped versions of the real superheroes, why couldn't Activision just have me fight a character I wasn't controlling?
I know these gripes seem small, but I think it showcases just how little time was spent in the creation of this game. The graphics are as uneven as a first generation X360 title. Sometimes they look like a shiny coat of paint has enveloped the Xbox original, other times it looks exactly like the now outdated original. There is nothing about this game, other than the $60 price tag, that makes it a next gen title. Even worse, the gameplay is as old school as you can get. The characters are all identical to one another. Captain America throws his shield while Iron Man tosses an energy beam, but the moves don't feel different from one another. This is the worst example of a licensed game. They simply tossed famous characters into the same gameplay structure that has existed for more than a decade. They refused to include problems actual superheroes face. I still have to find a keycard to open a locked door? Even Ms. Marvel is strong enough to knock down a mere door. And why do I have to push blocks around a room like I'm Lara Croft? Has Electra ever pushed a block in her life? Come on! Give me some real super hero problems!
It infuriates me that Activision published this, Ravensoft developed it, reviewers are handing out good grades, and gamers are buying this. Basically, everyone involved in the creation or enjoyment of this title is on my list. You know my list. Until they prove otherwise, Activision is now sitting alongside Electronic Arts in the pantheon of companies whose game I should avoid. They simply do not care one iota about quality.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Why I stopped playing Final Fantasy XII
There comes a point in incredibly hyped games where you ask yourself whether you're truly, legitimately enjoying it solely for what it is, or if the excitement and peer pressure, often the weight of the entire internet, is influencing your tastes just a bit. It happens in film and literature too of course, but oh how harsh and divisive the gaming community can be. I fell victim to such a circumstance over the last week, plunging headfirst into an experience I just ultimately wasn't desirous of - Final Fantasy XII.
I unequivocally adored Final Fantasy 7, 8, and 9. Outside of Symphony of the Night, they are the only PS1 games that I actually remember playing, you know? The physicality of experiencing such epic adventures, in parts as well as I remember any of the many countries that I traveled to as a culturally spoiled adolescent. They provided characters and storytelling that I could fall in love with in a medium I was utterly open to experience in it's fullest. Final Fantasy X was enjoyed immensely as well (as my 74-hour saved game which I still hang on to would indicate), but partially just because of how fascinating it was to watch someone push the PS2 so far so early in it's lifespan - ultimately, it didn't provide any more of a generational experience than 9 did outside of the presentation.
Here we are at a nice round dozen, the long-due arrival of a game whose mere somatic existence arouses the spirit of adventure in my languid, Hexic-addled brain. Though I had just finished Okami (a tearful, indescribably rewarding experience which I won't get into now), I was ready to throw sensibility to the wind and start up a brand-new, lengthy adventure on the first day of perhaps the biggest month in gaming ever. And after ten hours of character-leveling, cactuar-smacking, sewer-exploring quasi-nostalgia, I came to a very sudden and decisive realization that I just wasn't into it.
I'm not sure if it's the game or if it's me. The new battle system is certainly a big change, a drastic switch to non-random, real-time battles. It's certainly a relief knowing whether a battle will break out or not for every inch of screen you explore, but the system seems frustratingly half-realized - you can't truly avoid most enemies, you still need to do a hell of a lot of fighting simply to level up, and when your movements are fully analog and real-time, it's annoyingly archaic to still have to choose 'attack' and wait for it to happen, rather than just tap the button to swing the sword yourself. I know I'm sounding like I just want an Action-RPG, but really I just want something that feels complete and instantly rewarding in whichever direction it's imagined.
I very much appreciate what they were trying to do with the License Board (buy licenses to use spells/equipment as you level up) and Gambit system (program your party to run their own turns and actions based on situational priorities which you set up), but both unintentionally rob the characters of their inherent individuality and battle role unless you purposefully fight it for the sake of doing so (not what's easiest).
I'm sure that there are many layers of strategy I would have discovered had I ventured a dozen hours more into the affair, but it's just not something I'm willing to do these days. That's probably a big part of the problem - if a game doesn't do something incredibly compelling or unique or fun in the first few hours (never mind ten), it's tough to justify risking more precious gaming time with it just to see if it starts entertaining you regularly at some point. Not to say that FFXII wasn't entertaining - the characters, voice acting, setting, story, graphics and general aesthetic were completely enthralling and phenomenally well-done, and it's unfair to mention them only in passing as I'm doing right now - it just wasn't fun for more than five out of every fifteen minutes. And when Oblivion lies a mere foot away from where I'm playing, a waiting world of immediate gratification, consequence and the afore-mentioned physicality, well, it makes the few archaic remnants of Japanese RPG conventions stand out all the more.
So it's over. The FF games don't ever really date themselves, so I'll pick it back up again when it's $10 and it's the dead summer days of 2011 waiting for the Adventures of Cookies and Cream MMO and Onimusha: Yet Again. I can now sink my teeth and my soul into Gears of War, Zelda, and by god possibly Resistance, without fear that I missed a must-play, immediately relevant Final Fantasy game. It will be waiting for me down the line when I'm good and ready, ever enjoyable when I'm in the mood/mindset for it - and that I'm truly willing to compliment Square Enix on.
I unequivocally adored Final Fantasy 7, 8, and 9. Outside of Symphony of the Night, they are the only PS1 games that I actually remember playing, you know? The physicality of experiencing such epic adventures, in parts as well as I remember any of the many countries that I traveled to as a culturally spoiled adolescent. They provided characters and storytelling that I could fall in love with in a medium I was utterly open to experience in it's fullest. Final Fantasy X was enjoyed immensely as well (as my 74-hour saved game which I still hang on to would indicate), but partially just because of how fascinating it was to watch someone push the PS2 so far so early in it's lifespan - ultimately, it didn't provide any more of a generational experience than 9 did outside of the presentation.
Here we are at a nice round dozen, the long-due arrival of a game whose mere somatic existence arouses the spirit of adventure in my languid, Hexic-addled brain. Though I had just finished Okami (a tearful, indescribably rewarding experience which I won't get into now), I was ready to throw sensibility to the wind and start up a brand-new, lengthy adventure on the first day of perhaps the biggest month in gaming ever. And after ten hours of character-leveling, cactuar-smacking, sewer-exploring quasi-nostalgia, I came to a very sudden and decisive realization that I just wasn't into it.
I'm not sure if it's the game or if it's me. The new battle system is certainly a big change, a drastic switch to non-random, real-time battles. It's certainly a relief knowing whether a battle will break out or not for every inch of screen you explore, but the system seems frustratingly half-realized - you can't truly avoid most enemies, you still need to do a hell of a lot of fighting simply to level up, and when your movements are fully analog and real-time, it's annoyingly archaic to still have to choose 'attack' and wait for it to happen, rather than just tap the button to swing the sword yourself. I know I'm sounding like I just want an Action-RPG, but really I just want something that feels complete and instantly rewarding in whichever direction it's imagined.
I very much appreciate what they were trying to do with the License Board (buy licenses to use spells/equipment as you level up) and Gambit system (program your party to run their own turns and actions based on situational priorities which you set up), but both unintentionally rob the characters of their inherent individuality and battle role unless you purposefully fight it for the sake of doing so (not what's easiest).
I'm sure that there are many layers of strategy I would have discovered had I ventured a dozen hours more into the affair, but it's just not something I'm willing to do these days. That's probably a big part of the problem - if a game doesn't do something incredibly compelling or unique or fun in the first few hours (never mind ten), it's tough to justify risking more precious gaming time with it just to see if it starts entertaining you regularly at some point. Not to say that FFXII wasn't entertaining - the characters, voice acting, setting, story, graphics and general aesthetic were completely enthralling and phenomenally well-done, and it's unfair to mention them only in passing as I'm doing right now - it just wasn't fun for more than five out of every fifteen minutes. And when Oblivion lies a mere foot away from where I'm playing, a waiting world of immediate gratification, consequence and the afore-mentioned physicality, well, it makes the few archaic remnants of Japanese RPG conventions stand out all the more.
So it's over. The FF games don't ever really date themselves, so I'll pick it back up again when it's $10 and it's the dead summer days of 2011 waiting for the Adventures of Cookies and Cream MMO and Onimusha: Yet Again. I can now sink my teeth and my soul into Gears of War, Zelda, and by god possibly Resistance, without fear that I missed a must-play, immediately relevant Final Fantasy game. It will be waiting for me down the line when I'm good and ready, ever enjoyable when I'm in the mood/mindset for it - and that I'm truly willing to compliment Square Enix on.
Lunch with Tom - Fantasic new releases
Gears of War - God I hope this game turns out to be good. It has to be good, right? It's not only the biggest X360 title coming out this year, it's pretty much the only one. It's the only one that's relevant to X360 owners at least. It has guns and co-op, so it should be at least fun. But I've had so many issues with every other X360 game in the last year that I just can't imagine GoW will live up to the hype. But I'm holding out hope. The co-op sounds too good to be true, with the ability to drop in and out of games whenever you want, but what if it has connection issues like every other X360 title? The team-based multiplayer sounds like a blast, but it's limited to 8-player. Will it offer the variety and sheer enjoyment that Halo 2 did? Gears does have chainsaws and curb-stomping. It looks great. But I'm just praying for a quality title at this point.
Guitar Hero 2 - Now this game will definitely be good. How could it not be? The first Guitar Hero had certain issues, but the gameplay was flawless. I would play until my hands cramped up and then eek one more song out of them. I expect the sequel will be just as amazing. This time we have co-op play and new instruments (bass!) and even a practice mode. And did you check out the set list? It has Institutionalized! Now there's a blast from my past.
"All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, but she wouldn't give it to me."
As poignant today as it was when it was written. And, since GHII has adjustable difficulty when two people jam together, I can finally play with Nick. I can't think of any reason why this game will not rock.
Elite Beat Agents - Early word is that this is even better than Ouendan. Since Ouendan is already one of the best NDS games, I can only assume EBA will be the very best game on the system. That seems like a fair weight to place on this game, right? Playing a miniaturized, plastic rendition of a real instrument is great fun, but there is something special about these funky fresh rhythm games. Can you really turn away from a game that lets you help a puppy find his way home with some inspirational dancing? I would hope not. Should I raise a warning flag? Something that might hold this game back from greatness? Well, it has a questionable set list. I'm sure you've read Nick's rant about how they ruined the game by including Ashlee Simpson. I haven't played it yet but I can say this - no rhythm game is built on a set list alone. If the play mechanics are fun and the game is engaging, it will not matter if you are rocking to Hoobastank or Pearl Jam.
Viva Pinata - I still have no idea what to expect from this game. I'm not even sure it's coming out this week. But it seems like it is coming out a few days after Gears of War and it seems like it should be really fun. But I'm just not sure. Will it be engaging enough to make me want to visit my garden every day? Will the gameplay be deep enough to keep me playing after I've grown tired of the pretty graphics? Will Rare rape us with microtransactions? I don't know the answer to any of these, but I am still optimistic. PDZ was fun and Kameo was really good. Rare never "lost it," as detractors will have you believe, but Star Fox Adventures and Grabbed by the Ghoulies were lacking the Rare magic. I think they have it back now. But, if you are apprehensive, I'll be the guinea pig with this game. When I give word, though, you must run to your nearest store, credit card in hand, and buy it. And an X360 if you are currently lacking. I know current X360 owners sure as heck don't care about raising Pinatas.
Guitar Hero 2 - Now this game will definitely be good. How could it not be? The first Guitar Hero had certain issues, but the gameplay was flawless. I would play until my hands cramped up and then eek one more song out of them. I expect the sequel will be just as amazing. This time we have co-op play and new instruments (bass!) and even a practice mode. And did you check out the set list? It has Institutionalized! Now there's a blast from my past.
"All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, but she wouldn't give it to me."
As poignant today as it was when it was written. And, since GHII has adjustable difficulty when two people jam together, I can finally play with Nick. I can't think of any reason why this game will not rock.
Elite Beat Agents - Early word is that this is even better than Ouendan. Since Ouendan is already one of the best NDS games, I can only assume EBA will be the very best game on the system. That seems like a fair weight to place on this game, right? Playing a miniaturized, plastic rendition of a real instrument is great fun, but there is something special about these funky fresh rhythm games. Can you really turn away from a game that lets you help a puppy find his way home with some inspirational dancing? I would hope not. Should I raise a warning flag? Something that might hold this game back from greatness? Well, it has a questionable set list. I'm sure you've read Nick's rant about how they ruined the game by including Ashlee Simpson. I haven't played it yet but I can say this - no rhythm game is built on a set list alone. If the play mechanics are fun and the game is engaging, it will not matter if you are rocking to Hoobastank or Pearl Jam.
Viva Pinata - I still have no idea what to expect from this game. I'm not even sure it's coming out this week. But it seems like it is coming out a few days after Gears of War and it seems like it should be really fun. But I'm just not sure. Will it be engaging enough to make me want to visit my garden every day? Will the gameplay be deep enough to keep me playing after I've grown tired of the pretty graphics? Will Rare rape us with microtransactions? I don't know the answer to any of these, but I am still optimistic. PDZ was fun and Kameo was really good. Rare never "lost it," as detractors will have you believe, but Star Fox Adventures and Grabbed by the Ghoulies were lacking the Rare magic. I think they have it back now. But, if you are apprehensive, I'll be the guinea pig with this game. When I give word, though, you must run to your nearest store, credit card in hand, and buy it. And an X360 if you are currently lacking. I know current X360 owners sure as heck don't care about raising Pinatas.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]