The general consensus is that Batman: AA is a really good game and the consensus is broadly accurate. The atmosphere is brilliant, the plot is reasonable, the combat & stealth gameplay works well...
It's not a perfect game, though, and there are some problems with it that I haven't heard voiced, at least not on the mainstream review sites.
1) There's too much back tracking.
Batman is set out like an open world game in that there are huge open areas you traverse to get to the missions. However, this ends up feeling like the open world in No More Heroes - you've got an essentially linear game with some open areas shoved on as an afterthought. This means that after every mission you have to spend a good few minutes traversing the same areas you just did but in reverse and minus the enemies. This gets annoying.
2) The Scarecrow sections are too normal
Occasionally you get gassed by the scarecrow. You then get to play through a few minutes of nightmare gameplay. The first bit of these nightmares play very like the nightmares in Max Payne 2 - they're surreal, confused and deeply atmospheric.
Annoyingly, then the designers clearly thought people would get bored of this so the injected some gameplay elements. Basically, you play as Batman in a 2.5D landscape. A giant Scarecrow figure stands in the middle, his gaze is a searchlight that probes the landscape. If he sees you, you die.
These bits are... shit. The gameplay itself isn't too bad but they kill the briliant atmosphere set up by the preceding sections. The reason for this is simple: When you introduce gameplay into a nightmare section, you impose rules upon the nightmare. Max Payne 1 found this out and suffered for it.
Nightmares can't have rules because then they're not nightmares. Rules are rational, nightmares are not. Nightmares are deeply unfair where the thing creating the nightmare - your own brain - knows exactly what you're thinking, what you're trying to do and what terrifies you. As soon as you think you've sussed it, your subconscious changes the rules.
With this in mind, it changes what could be an absolute stand out section of the game to quite a dull game of linear one hit kill hide and seek.
3) The boss fights
I've talked about boss battles before in my golden rules of gaming and Batman fucking loves them. Now, granted, there is one boss battle in this game that is very good - specifically the Killer Croc one. It's atmospheric, tense and very satisfying. Why is this you ask? Well (spoiler warning) because you never actually *fight* Killer Croc, it's all about avoiding him and stunning him when he ambushes you.
Most of the other boss fights are variations around the theme of coming across a huge opponent like Bane, waiting for him to charge at you, throwing a batarang at him so he charges into a wall then pounding on him until he recovers. Repeat until one of you ceases to move.
This is not only unrealistic, it's incredibly derivative. Pretty much every melee based third person action game has had at least one of these fights and Batman has... well. More than a few of them.
Having said that, they're all better than the poisen ivy one, which is nothing but dodge, dodge, dodge, throw batarang at her weak point, beat up a few goons, repeat.
4) The Riddler Challenges
I say "challenges", that's giving them a lot more credit than they're due. Most of them boil down to using a different corridor to progress than the one you're supposed to or taking the time to break down a wall you don't need to. These aren't exactly brain teasers. They're bullshit gameplay lengthening fetch quests. At least you don't need to collect them to proceed through the game. Although I am faintly curious as to what happens if you collect them all. You are probably just shown something like this.
5) It's all been done better
Even at its best, Batman feels like a poor imitation of both Chronicles of Riddick games. The stealth isn't as satisfying, the combat isn't as brutal, the story isn't as interesting, the atmosphere isn't as pervasive, the characters aren't as intriguing, the gameplay isn't as fun, the levels aren't as varied...
Batman: Arkham Asylum is good, for a Batman game it's absolutely fantastic, but as a game, its main problem is that it's been done before and done better. Good try, guys. Maybe you'll be able to surpass your predecessors next time.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Monday, 28 September 2009
Surrogates (epic spoilers ahead)
So Surrogates is one of the most self involved and conservative films I've ever seen.
This will contain pretty severe spoilers by the way.
First of all watch this. It's the Surrogates trailer and it tells you pretty much everything that happens in the film.
Okay, so as far as Surrogates the film goes, it's actually reasonable. The design of the world is very good - the Surrogates themselves look quite realistic - real yet unreal. As close an approximation of human life as we're likely to get. The action scenes are also very good - as you'd expect from Jonathan Mostow.
Anyway, in the end none of the good points of this film matter because the plot is shit. Utter shit. Every time the film does something new or original, the 100% By The Numbers plot drags it down again.
So Bruce Willis is an FBI agent with a standard dose of Convenient Hollywood Angst. A dead kid in this case. He finds out that someone is able to kill people hooked up to the robotic avatars known as Surrogates.
To cut a long story short - the creator of the Surrogates technology was forced out of his own company by the board of directors for remarkably vague reasons. He gets pissed off and decides to create an anti surrogate movement by using a surrogate who looks remarkably like Ving Rhames as a Human Messiah. The company get pissed off at him for this and, rather than (for example) finding HIM and killing HIM, they invent a weapon that can kill the humans connected to their surrogates and accidentally kill this guys son.
This would all be convoluted if the plot moved at any decent pace but these revelations take so damn long that it all makes a certain amount of (completely nonsensical) sense.
So the creator of surrogates gets really pissed off, finds the guy who killed his son, nicks the weapon (how he does this is never really explained) and plugs it in to a magical hub that every surrogate on the planet is plugged into. Bruce Willis gets wind of this, tracks down the creator and asks him why the hell he's preparing to kill billions of people because he has become a little bit angry with some technology that he created.
James Cromwell plays the creator and, bless him, he tries to come across as completely insane, saying "they were dead the moment they plugged into those surrogates" but his heart clearly isn't in it.
Oh, I should also point out that Bruce Willis has a wife who doesn't love him any more. He blames this on the Surrogate she uses. Hm. Deflecting a little, there Brucey?
Anyway, Bruce manages to save the lives of all the users connected to the Surrogates but choses to let the Surrogates themselves die. He agonises about this for a while before making this decision before chosing to set humanity free from this curse, as he sees it.
Now.
Now then.
This is American logic at its best.
The thought process behind it appears to be:
"I have decided that the life that these people are leading is wrong. They are not going to change. I will force them to change and their lives will be better. I will make sure that there is no possibility of reversing this decision in the incredibly unlikely event that it turns out a 55 year old depressed FBI agent doesn't magically know what people want or what's best for society as a whole."
Put simply, it's the typically American desire to save the world, whether it needs saving or not.
Let us not forget that this world was a world without murder or crime of most sorts. And the best thing about it was - no-one was forced to take part. If people wanted to not use a Surrogate, they could just not use a Surrogate.
Everything started going wrong when James Cromwell decided to save the world from the deamon he created and got worse when Bruce Willis decided the same thing.
The message the film is trying to get across is:
Live your own life, connect with people, consequences are there for a reason.
The message the film actually gets across is:
Technophobic people are dicks and there is nothing more dangerous to peoples happiness than people convinced the world needs saving from something.
As messages go, that's fairly accurate. See George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin etc. etc.
This will contain pretty severe spoilers by the way.
First of all watch this. It's the Surrogates trailer and it tells you pretty much everything that happens in the film.
Okay, so as far as Surrogates the film goes, it's actually reasonable. The design of the world is very good - the Surrogates themselves look quite realistic - real yet unreal. As close an approximation of human life as we're likely to get. The action scenes are also very good - as you'd expect from Jonathan Mostow.
Anyway, in the end none of the good points of this film matter because the plot is shit. Utter shit. Every time the film does something new or original, the 100% By The Numbers plot drags it down again.
So Bruce Willis is an FBI agent with a standard dose of Convenient Hollywood Angst. A dead kid in this case. He finds out that someone is able to kill people hooked up to the robotic avatars known as Surrogates.
To cut a long story short - the creator of the Surrogates technology was forced out of his own company by the board of directors for remarkably vague reasons. He gets pissed off and decides to create an anti surrogate movement by using a surrogate who looks remarkably like Ving Rhames as a Human Messiah. The company get pissed off at him for this and, rather than (for example) finding HIM and killing HIM, they invent a weapon that can kill the humans connected to their surrogates and accidentally kill this guys son.
This would all be convoluted if the plot moved at any decent pace but these revelations take so damn long that it all makes a certain amount of (completely nonsensical) sense.
So the creator of surrogates gets really pissed off, finds the guy who killed his son, nicks the weapon (how he does this is never really explained) and plugs it in to a magical hub that every surrogate on the planet is plugged into. Bruce Willis gets wind of this, tracks down the creator and asks him why the hell he's preparing to kill billions of people because he has become a little bit angry with some technology that he created.
James Cromwell plays the creator and, bless him, he tries to come across as completely insane, saying "they were dead the moment they plugged into those surrogates" but his heart clearly isn't in it.
Oh, I should also point out that Bruce Willis has a wife who doesn't love him any more. He blames this on the Surrogate she uses. Hm. Deflecting a little, there Brucey?
Anyway, Bruce manages to save the lives of all the users connected to the Surrogates but choses to let the Surrogates themselves die. He agonises about this for a while before making this decision before chosing to set humanity free from this curse, as he sees it.
Now.
Now then.
This is American logic at its best.
The thought process behind it appears to be:
"I have decided that the life that these people are leading is wrong. They are not going to change. I will force them to change and their lives will be better. I will make sure that there is no possibility of reversing this decision in the incredibly unlikely event that it turns out a 55 year old depressed FBI agent doesn't magically know what people want or what's best for society as a whole."
Put simply, it's the typically American desire to save the world, whether it needs saving or not.
Let us not forget that this world was a world without murder or crime of most sorts. And the best thing about it was - no-one was forced to take part. If people wanted to not use a Surrogate, they could just not use a Surrogate.
Everything started going wrong when James Cromwell decided to save the world from the deamon he created and got worse when Bruce Willis decided the same thing.
The message the film is trying to get across is:
Live your own life, connect with people, consequences are there for a reason.
The message the film actually gets across is:
Technophobic people are dicks and there is nothing more dangerous to peoples happiness than people convinced the world needs saving from something.
As messages go, that's fairly accurate. See George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin etc. etc.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Star Trek is shit
So I used to be a massive fan of Star Trek. Not the original series, I'm not a moron, but TNG, Voyager and DS9 were all on my watch list, when I was still living with my parents. They had Sky TV.
Anyway, now I'm older and slightly less cynical about the world, I thought I'd return to these series and see if they're any good on the re-watch.
Sadly, no. None of them are.
Voyager is easily the best of the main three. It's hard to say whether I dislike DS9 or TNG more... I think I have to say DS9 because I still have a nostalgic soft spot for TNG which makes me more sympathetic to it's flaws.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. What could have caused me to turn against Star Trek: The Next Generation...
It's important to point out which episodes I watched, as well. I watched the first two episodes ever (Encounter at Farpoint) and, supposedly, the best episodes ever, the borg ones (Best of Both Worlds).
So, what did I hate?
1) There aren't any characters.
This is the big one. In any decent show, you can pick any character and say a good number of things off the top of your head about his character. Take Parker from leverage. We know she's loyal, slightly psychotic, has a childish sense of humor, has no real understanding of relationships and somewhat paranoid.
Contrast this with TNG. Whilst Riker, Picard and (in the Borg eps) commander Shelby have *some* characterization... the rest of them really don't. What, for example, can you say about Geordi LaForge's character, other than the fact that he's blind?
2) If there were characters, you couldn't tell them apart.
In the Borg episodes, all the characters ever did was state facts. "The Borg are approaching." "Shields have dropped to 29%." "If we re-routed power through the deflector dish..." Any character could say any of those things and it wouldn't make any difference.
Supposedly, you've got a good script if you can remove the character names from the dialogue and still tell who's saying what lines. Star Trek does not have a good script.
3) They never shut up about the prime directive
Seriously, they don't.
4) A good third of the run time consists of reaction shots
They have an action, cut to (in TNG) Riker, Geordi, Worf, Picard, Crusher, Troi, Wesley, Data, Riker again, then change the scene. It wouldn't be so bad if the characters expressions were interesting but they all look like they're either concerned, concentrating or constipated.
5) The battles, when they do happen, are very dull
"Fire phasers" then a shot of a ship firing the phasers. This isn't exactly nail biting stuff.
I could go on but this is the problem - you can criticize just about everything in every series of Star Trek. This often isn't a problem. Often a show is terrible in many ways but it has a certain charisma or soul that keeps it alive for the viewer. Star Trek is not one of these shows.
Sadly.
Anyway, now I'm older and slightly less cynical about the world, I thought I'd return to these series and see if they're any good on the re-watch.
Sadly, no. None of them are.
Voyager is easily the best of the main three. It's hard to say whether I dislike DS9 or TNG more... I think I have to say DS9 because I still have a nostalgic soft spot for TNG which makes me more sympathetic to it's flaws.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. What could have caused me to turn against Star Trek: The Next Generation...
It's important to point out which episodes I watched, as well. I watched the first two episodes ever (Encounter at Farpoint) and, supposedly, the best episodes ever, the borg ones (Best of Both Worlds).
So, what did I hate?
1) There aren't any characters.
This is the big one. In any decent show, you can pick any character and say a good number of things off the top of your head about his character. Take Parker from leverage. We know she's loyal, slightly psychotic, has a childish sense of humor, has no real understanding of relationships and somewhat paranoid.
Contrast this with TNG. Whilst Riker, Picard and (in the Borg eps) commander Shelby have *some* characterization... the rest of them really don't. What, for example, can you say about Geordi LaForge's character, other than the fact that he's blind?
2) If there were characters, you couldn't tell them apart.
In the Borg episodes, all the characters ever did was state facts. "The Borg are approaching." "Shields have dropped to 29%." "If we re-routed power through the deflector dish..." Any character could say any of those things and it wouldn't make any difference.
Supposedly, you've got a good script if you can remove the character names from the dialogue and still tell who's saying what lines. Star Trek does not have a good script.
3) They never shut up about the prime directive
Seriously, they don't.
4) A good third of the run time consists of reaction shots
They have an action, cut to (in TNG) Riker, Geordi, Worf, Picard, Crusher, Troi, Wesley, Data, Riker again, then change the scene. It wouldn't be so bad if the characters expressions were interesting but they all look like they're either concerned, concentrating or constipated.
5) The battles, when they do happen, are very dull
"Fire phasers" then a shot of a ship firing the phasers. This isn't exactly nail biting stuff.
I could go on but this is the problem - you can criticize just about everything in every series of Star Trek. This often isn't a problem. Often a show is terrible in many ways but it has a certain charisma or soul that keeps it alive for the viewer. Star Trek is not one of these shows.
Sadly.
Leverage II
I just got some good news. Leverage, one of my favourite shows, has been renewed for a second series.
This is especially good news as, whilst the second series hasn't been quite as strong as the first, it's had more top quality episodes. The Hunt For The Truth and Two Live Gang episodes were especially brilliant. However, for the last two episodes, we've had no new episode. What the hell? We're three episodes away from the end of the series, here. Has the show been canceled? Are they pulling an Arrested Development with the Scheduling?
No, no. Apparently not. Apparently:
They're taking the piss aren't they?
I've blogged about the Americans and their stupid fucking TV scheduling before but this is getting fucking ridiculous. Partly because this is a 13 episode series, so there's no reason to have a gap, partly because they're airing the two parts of the series in summer and winter respectively, so referring to series 2 as a "season" is monumentally inaccurate and partly because you've only got *three* fucking episodes left.
Can you not just *run* the fucking series, guys? Can you not play these bullshit network games? Has anyone sat down to consider that if the Americans ran their series in a sensible way, maybe more people would be able to work out when they're on, more people would watch and fewer good shows would get canceled?
I don't like much British TV (with the exception of our comedies) but at least we broadcast our series' one after the other.
This is especially good news as, whilst the second series hasn't been quite as strong as the first, it's had more top quality episodes. The Hunt For The Truth and Two Live Gang episodes were especially brilliant. However, for the last two episodes, we've had no new episode. What the hell? We're three episodes away from the end of the series, here. Has the show been canceled? Are they pulling an Arrested Development with the Scheduling?
No, no. Apparently not. Apparently:
"...the summer season finale airs on September 9, and returns in the winter to finish out its second season."
They're taking the piss aren't they?
I've blogged about the Americans and their stupid fucking TV scheduling before but this is getting fucking ridiculous. Partly because this is a 13 episode series, so there's no reason to have a gap, partly because they're airing the two parts of the series in summer and winter respectively, so referring to series 2 as a "season" is monumentally inaccurate and partly because you've only got *three* fucking episodes left.
Can you not just *run* the fucking series, guys? Can you not play these bullshit network games? Has anyone sat down to consider that if the Americans ran their series in a sensible way, maybe more people would be able to work out when they're on, more people would watch and fewer good shows would get canceled?
I don't like much British TV (with the exception of our comedies) but at least we broadcast our series' one after the other.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Inglorious Bastards
I would like to sum up Inglorious Bastards for any of you who haven't seen it. The first twenty minutes are like this:
The rest of it is like this:
I wish I was fucking kidding.
The main problem with it is, when Tarantino isn't being Tarantino, it's very good. The opening is fraught with tension, the acting and camera work are nothing short of masterful. When the bastards (sorry, "basterds") show up, everything goes horribly wrong. Everything can be nicely summed up by Eli Roth as "The Bear Jew" who prances around the set, exactly like the Scout from TF2, whooping and yelling, screaming baseball lines and walloping people with his bat.
The Americans really don't help their image sometimes. This is exactly how I'd expect a slightly racist insular American to make a film about a bunch of Americans who go over to France and win the war for the allies.
The thing is- I KNOW Tarantino isn't especially racist. His favourite film of the last ten years is Battle Royale. There are several Korean, Japanese, French and German films in his top twenty. So where did all this apple pie, baseball, love my country americanised bullshit come from?
The portrayal of Hitler doesn't help either.
As Yahtzee said, back when he used the be good, as evil as the real nazis were, I don't think they were quite evil enough for these guys. Tarantino takes some of the most despicable human beings ever created and turns them into cliched comic book villains. Der Untergang this is not.
Golden rules of gaming
Section 8 has inspired me to finally compile a list of absolute You Must Adhere To These Or Your Game Will Be Shit game rules. I'll even put them in order.
1) When the player dies, it must be because it was the players fault, not the games fault.
Platform games suffer from this the most, because they seem to think that jumping puzzles are only fun if there is a tiny tiny tiny margin for error. I've lost count of the number of platform games I've played where I've made a perfectly reasonable jump and missed the ledge or whatever by a whisker. FPS's do suffer from this as well but a game really worthy of mention is Zack and Wiki, where on several occasions you die from normal adventure game curiosity, which is a massive dick move.
2) Normal enemies should die from a headshot or 2-4 body shots. If we're talking melee games, they should die from one counter or 2-4 normal hits.
Easily the worst offender here is Oblivion, naturally, but pick any game where melee combat is the focus apart from the few exceptions like Assassins Creed & the Riddick games and you'll find yourself slashing at opponents until you're blue in the face and THEY JUST WON'T DIE.
Little ruins a game more than enforced repetition and this is especially true in the one activity you'll be doing the most in these games - killing.
This isn't a skill thing, either. Crysis' enemies are fantastic to fight against, as are the ones in Far Cry 2 and Dark Athena - all these enemies die from one headshot and they're all a challenge to fight against. More importantly, they're fun to fight against.
This rule especially applies to Boss Battles. PC gaming gave up on boss battles many years ago (with a few notable exceptions) but the consoles love sticking you in front of some gargantuan enemy with a massive health bar and watch you shoot the three weak points, then the fourth one that gets exposed, then repeating this sequence six times. Seriously, fuck boss battles, I hate them.
3) Don't pad the game
I'm preaching to the choir here, somewhat, but it does need saying. Adding in arbitrary goals to increase the length of the game is a staple of RPG's but at least RPG's have the decency to not force you to do them. Unlike, for example, The Legend of Zelda: Twightlight princess, where you couldn't start a mission until you had collected ten whatevers, every single fucking time.
4) Finish the game, guys
This one doesn't exactly break the game but in games that arguably don't end (like Crysis) and in games that literally don't end (Assassins Creed) you've got no real motivation to replay them to completion.
A very important part of any game is the atmosphere and story. I wouldn't have completed Portal as many times as I have were the atmosphere not top notch. It keeps me hooked right to the end, I get a fantastic pay off, I leave satisfied.
So when games don't end, I don't feel satisfied, I feel angry. Very angry. The developers have given us a completely unfinished product. Grrrr.
5) Have a colour palette that's not just brown and grey
A big, big reason why I gave up on Fallout 3 was because the world was so horrible to look at. I get that they were going for a nuclear wasteland but a nuclear war doesn't turn everything BROWN surely?
Seriously, look at this fucking game:
Brown and grey, grey and brown. I'm guessing most of you live in a city. Look out of your window. If you don't have a window, imagine you do have one and then look out of that. There is a very high chance that you'll see some grey out there. There's a also a very high chance that there will be at least one building out there that is red or white or black or painted some weird colour etc. etc. etc. I have been to many cities in my time, including London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, New York, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Madrid etc. etc. and I have never seen a city anywhere near as grey, brown and dull as they are in Fallout 3, Gears Of War etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and by the way, no, it doesn't build atmosphere it makes things feel artificial. Real artists use colour to great effect. Portal, for example, is mostly white, until you get behind the scenes where the decay is starting to show. It also makes the red lights of the turrets more alarming and the pale pink hearts on the companion cube more alluring.
6) In open world games, make exploration fun
Fallout 3 is the worst offender here, I'd be wandering around that world, minding my own business, when I'd come across a massive pile of debris, blocking my way. Okay, I think, I'll go round it. I walk to the left. Building, building, building, building, pile of rubble, building, building, then there's another pile of rubble so I have to detour around my detour. I get fed up and try the right and find the same thing, but there's a subway tunnel for me to grind my way through. HUZZAH!
For an example of a game where exploration is fun, I simply have to point you at Far Cry 2. I love just driving around in that game. The scenery is stunning, varied and lovely to look at and the fights you get into at regular intervals mean you can never fully relax.
1) When the player dies, it must be because it was the players fault, not the games fault.
Platform games suffer from this the most, because they seem to think that jumping puzzles are only fun if there is a tiny tiny tiny margin for error. I've lost count of the number of platform games I've played where I've made a perfectly reasonable jump and missed the ledge or whatever by a whisker. FPS's do suffer from this as well but a game really worthy of mention is Zack and Wiki, where on several occasions you die from normal adventure game curiosity, which is a massive dick move.
2) Normal enemies should die from a headshot or 2-4 body shots. If we're talking melee games, they should die from one counter or 2-4 normal hits.
Easily the worst offender here is Oblivion, naturally, but pick any game where melee combat is the focus apart from the few exceptions like Assassins Creed & the Riddick games and you'll find yourself slashing at opponents until you're blue in the face and THEY JUST WON'T DIE.
Little ruins a game more than enforced repetition and this is especially true in the one activity you'll be doing the most in these games - killing.
This isn't a skill thing, either. Crysis' enemies are fantastic to fight against, as are the ones in Far Cry 2 and Dark Athena - all these enemies die from one headshot and they're all a challenge to fight against. More importantly, they're fun to fight against.
This rule especially applies to Boss Battles. PC gaming gave up on boss battles many years ago (with a few notable exceptions) but the consoles love sticking you in front of some gargantuan enemy with a massive health bar and watch you shoot the three weak points, then the fourth one that gets exposed, then repeating this sequence six times. Seriously, fuck boss battles, I hate them.
3) Don't pad the game
I'm preaching to the choir here, somewhat, but it does need saying. Adding in arbitrary goals to increase the length of the game is a staple of RPG's but at least RPG's have the decency to not force you to do them. Unlike, for example, The Legend of Zelda: Twightlight princess, where you couldn't start a mission until you had collected ten whatevers, every single fucking time.
4) Finish the game, guys
This one doesn't exactly break the game but in games that arguably don't end (like Crysis) and in games that literally don't end (Assassins Creed) you've got no real motivation to replay them to completion.
A very important part of any game is the atmosphere and story. I wouldn't have completed Portal as many times as I have were the atmosphere not top notch. It keeps me hooked right to the end, I get a fantastic pay off, I leave satisfied.
So when games don't end, I don't feel satisfied, I feel angry. Very angry. The developers have given us a completely unfinished product. Grrrr.
5) Have a colour palette that's not just brown and grey
A big, big reason why I gave up on Fallout 3 was because the world was so horrible to look at. I get that they were going for a nuclear wasteland but a nuclear war doesn't turn everything BROWN surely?
Seriously, look at this fucking game:
Brown and grey, grey and brown. I'm guessing most of you live in a city. Look out of your window. If you don't have a window, imagine you do have one and then look out of that. There is a very high chance that you'll see some grey out there. There's a also a very high chance that there will be at least one building out there that is red or white or black or painted some weird colour etc. etc. etc. I have been to many cities in my time, including London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, New York, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Madrid etc. etc. and I have never seen a city anywhere near as grey, brown and dull as they are in Fallout 3, Gears Of War etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and by the way, no, it doesn't build atmosphere it makes things feel artificial. Real artists use colour to great effect. Portal, for example, is mostly white, until you get behind the scenes where the decay is starting to show. It also makes the red lights of the turrets more alarming and the pale pink hearts on the companion cube more alluring.
6) In open world games, make exploration fun
Fallout 3 is the worst offender here, I'd be wandering around that world, minding my own business, when I'd come across a massive pile of debris, blocking my way. Okay, I think, I'll go round it. I walk to the left. Building, building, building, building, pile of rubble, building, building, then there's another pile of rubble so I have to detour around my detour. I get fed up and try the right and find the same thing, but there's a subway tunnel for me to grind my way through. HUZZAH!
For an example of a game where exploration is fun, I simply have to point you at Far Cry 2. I love just driving around in that game. The scenery is stunning, varied and lovely to look at and the fights you get into at regular intervals mean you can never fully relax.
Section 8 - first impressions
So the trailer for Section 8 intrigued me. It intrigued me a lot. A super soldier dropping into battle, hallucinating about his childhood. That's interesting, that's mature, that sets up some nice conflict which may lead to some deep characters.
Yeah, like hell it does.
I'm being overly cynical - I've only played about an hour of this game and the plot hasn't really started yet but this game is very damn consoley and the day the consoles start producing deep games of their own volition... well, then I'll start taking them seriously.
But whatever, it's an FPS, they're supposed to be mindless fun. Is Section 8 fun?
Well.
Hm.
So far, yes and no. I think this is what Halo was desperately trying to be - it's a generic FPS with a lot of nice little features. You've got a jetpack, for instance, and unlike pretty much any other jetpack I can think of in a game, you're actually given a decent amount of fuel for it. You can customise your character loadout from the word go, which is nice, and you're given some fun little AI mates that follow you around the place.
The problem arises with... well this war you're fighting is against some people wearing red armor (as opposed to the blue stuff you're wearing) and they appear to be voiced by the Daleks. Anyhoo, these guys are really fucking tough. They've got the same armor as you so they take a LOT of shots to dispatch. So many that it's really not very fun.
Section 8 breaks one of the cardinal rules of gameplay: enemies should be killed with very few hits if they're well placed.
It's early days so I'm hoping this problem will go after a couple of levels but if it doesn't, it's going to be a game breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'm not exagerating, by the way, with the default assault rifle it takes about 10 seconds of constant fire to dispatch every enemy. That, my friends, is just too damn long.
But whatever, the atmosphere is good, there are some nice touches, the universe these guys have set up is different enough to warrent a proper explore... I'll give it another crack tomorrow.
Yeah, like hell it does.
I'm being overly cynical - I've only played about an hour of this game and the plot hasn't really started yet but this game is very damn consoley and the day the consoles start producing deep games of their own volition... well, then I'll start taking them seriously.
But whatever, it's an FPS, they're supposed to be mindless fun. Is Section 8 fun?
Well.
Hm.
So far, yes and no. I think this is what Halo was desperately trying to be - it's a generic FPS with a lot of nice little features. You've got a jetpack, for instance, and unlike pretty much any other jetpack I can think of in a game, you're actually given a decent amount of fuel for it. You can customise your character loadout from the word go, which is nice, and you're given some fun little AI mates that follow you around the place.
The problem arises with... well this war you're fighting is against some people wearing red armor (as opposed to the blue stuff you're wearing) and they appear to be voiced by the Daleks. Anyhoo, these guys are really fucking tough. They've got the same armor as you so they take a LOT of shots to dispatch. So many that it's really not very fun.
Section 8 breaks one of the cardinal rules of gameplay: enemies should be killed with very few hits if they're well placed.
It's early days so I'm hoping this problem will go after a couple of levels but if it doesn't, it's going to be a game breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'm not exagerating, by the way, with the default assault rifle it takes about 10 seconds of constant fire to dispatch every enemy. That, my friends, is just too damn long.
But whatever, the atmosphere is good, there are some nice touches, the universe these guys have set up is different enough to warrent a proper explore... I'll give it another crack tomorrow.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
What the hell is wrong with third person shooters?
So I was reading an article about an upcoming Obsidian RPG called Alpha Protocol. It got me pretty excited, to be honest but one bit did make me roll my eyes. I discover that all the gun play will be experiences in the trite over the shoulder third person style I've come to deeply distrust.
This got me thinking. When was the last time I played a third person shooter and I actually enjoyed it...
So I thought about this for a fair while and concluded: Max Payne 2.
Here's the thing- Gears of War, Kane & Lynch, Mass Effect, the Splinter Cell games - they all handle more or less the same and they are all deeply unexciting shooters. They may have other plus points that make up for it or they may not, that's not what I'm here to talk about. The fact is that first person shooters like Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Left 4 Dead are nail biting, exciting and exhilarating (in my opinion) and third person shooters are not (in my opinion) and I've been trying to work out why.
In theory, both of these game types should feel identical. They all have the same control system, the all handle... similarly... And yet, and *yet*, whenever I play a third person shooter, it feels cold, it feels numb...
Part of this, I think, has to do with what you see as a player. Most third person games are played from an over the shoulder perspective. This means you see every move the character makes. This is okay when you're heading straight for an enemy, guns blazing because the standard position for a character is having their feet shoulder width apart with their arms outstretched, pointing their gun dead ahead.
Now, I don't know about you but were I in a combat scenario, that's not how I'd behave all the time. Particularly in something like Left 4 Dead, you'd be swinging around a lot, taking many anxious glances over your shoulder, pointing your gun and then moving your body around it. It feels natural to be skittish and make lots of quick turns from a first person perspective because your subconcious assumes that your characters body language changes according to your mood. Mine does at least. No-where in Left 4 Dead, ignoring those moments when the horde comes charging straight at you, do I imagine my character holding their gun at arms length. Not consciously at least.
This may seem like a very small thing but when you combine it with how immersion breaking it is to see your character on screen anyway, I think this must be the main reason why these games feel unnatural and numb - it looks so damn unnatural to have your character whirl around unrealistically whenever you make a sharp turn.
I then got thinking about why I haven't made this observation before... then I realised that... apart from Mass Effect 2, where this is far from the biggest problem, and Max Payne 2, I've only ever really played third person shooters on consoles... They don't whirl round at great speeds because the controls don't allow for that level of movement speed...
So why doesn't Max Payne 2 suffer from this problem? It's simple. The default stance of your character is having the guns at their sides or in a neutral position. Having the characters return to this feels so much more natural. It also helps that the camera is isometric rather than over the shoulder so the characters' movement looks more natural anyway because you can see more of it.
So, in conclusion, put these fucking games in the first person, please. If you need to go to third person for actions, do what the Riddick games do and slip into third person for those bits. If you have melee combat, go to third person for that by all means, just keep shooting in the first person. Please?
This got me thinking. When was the last time I played a third person shooter and I actually enjoyed it...
So I thought about this for a fair while and concluded: Max Payne 2.
Here's the thing- Gears of War, Kane & Lynch, Mass Effect, the Splinter Cell games - they all handle more or less the same and they are all deeply unexciting shooters. They may have other plus points that make up for it or they may not, that's not what I'm here to talk about. The fact is that first person shooters like Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Left 4 Dead are nail biting, exciting and exhilarating (in my opinion) and third person shooters are not (in my opinion) and I've been trying to work out why.
In theory, both of these game types should feel identical. They all have the same control system, the all handle... similarly... And yet, and *yet*, whenever I play a third person shooter, it feels cold, it feels numb...
Part of this, I think, has to do with what you see as a player. Most third person games are played from an over the shoulder perspective. This means you see every move the character makes. This is okay when you're heading straight for an enemy, guns blazing because the standard position for a character is having their feet shoulder width apart with their arms outstretched, pointing their gun dead ahead.
Now, I don't know about you but were I in a combat scenario, that's not how I'd behave all the time. Particularly in something like Left 4 Dead, you'd be swinging around a lot, taking many anxious glances over your shoulder, pointing your gun and then moving your body around it. It feels natural to be skittish and make lots of quick turns from a first person perspective because your subconcious assumes that your characters body language changes according to your mood. Mine does at least. No-where in Left 4 Dead, ignoring those moments when the horde comes charging straight at you, do I imagine my character holding their gun at arms length. Not consciously at least.
This may seem like a very small thing but when you combine it with how immersion breaking it is to see your character on screen anyway, I think this must be the main reason why these games feel unnatural and numb - it looks so damn unnatural to have your character whirl around unrealistically whenever you make a sharp turn.
I then got thinking about why I haven't made this observation before... then I realised that... apart from Mass Effect 2, where this is far from the biggest problem, and Max Payne 2, I've only ever really played third person shooters on consoles... They don't whirl round at great speeds because the controls don't allow for that level of movement speed...
So why doesn't Max Payne 2 suffer from this problem? It's simple. The default stance of your character is having the guns at their sides or in a neutral position. Having the characters return to this feels so much more natural. It also helps that the camera is isometric rather than over the shoulder so the characters' movement looks more natural anyway because you can see more of it.
So, in conclusion, put these fucking games in the first person, please. If you need to go to third person for actions, do what the Riddick games do and slip into third person for those bits. If you have melee combat, go to third person for that by all means, just keep shooting in the first person. Please?
Great Game/TV sequels
Film sequels? FILM SEQUELS? Who fucking cares. Films are the past. Games and Television are where it's at now.
With that in mind... GAME AND TV SEQUELS! GREAT ONES!
I'm still quite asleep, that's why I'm talking like this.
Anyway. What game and TV sequels are both awesome and improve significantly on the original?
Games:
1) Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines
Granted, no-one played Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption except me but that shouldn't take away from Bloodlines' achievements... it's one of the best games ever made and improves on the original in every way.
2) Call of Duty 4
The fact that this game is fantastic is secondary to the fact that it's the only Call of Duty game that's worth playing.
3) Half Life 2: Episode 2
Now, I hated Half Life 2. The plot was completely absent, there was far too much scripting and Valve appeared to have forgotten how to set up a decent fire fight. All of these factors were sorted for Episode 2 after the frankly disastrous Episode 1
4) Dawn of War 2
Dawn of War was a fantastic strategy game because it wasn't about building as many squads as you could and then rushing the enemy. Dawn of War 2 improved on this by limiting you to four squads and adding RPG elements. As far as sheer naked improvement over a previous installment goes, this is the victor hands down.
5) Red Alert 3
Now, I know I've just said I hate build and rush strategy games... and I do... but Red Alert 3 isn't about the actual gameplay- it's about the sheer stupidity of the story, the units and the atmosphere. They all make up for the shocking gameplay in spades.
6) Hitman: Blood Money
This is also known as The Only Hitman Game Worth Playing. Seriously, the others are drab, dull and single note. Blood Money is vibrant, imaginative and hilarious.
7) Tie Fighter
Yay! A retro one! Tie Fighter improved on X-Wing by having you play as The Empire and getting to kill rebels, which is what all of us wanted in the first place. It merely helped that the gameplay, plot and characters were vastly improved over X-Wing
That's pretty much it as far as I know. Hopefully we'll get a few more later this year, though. We've got:
Assassins Creed 2
Which should be almost identical to the first game but minus the annoying bits
Call of Duty 6
I'm really hoping this one will be good but it may well not be, given how stellar #4 was.
Left 4 Dead 2
Is going to be fucking epic :D
TV:
1) Battlestar Galactica Series 2 & 3
This one has to be in here. Series 2 was twice as good as series 1 and Series 3 was twice as good as series 2. Series 4 was slightly weaker but had some absolutely fantastic story arcs such as the rebellion.
2) Gilmore Girls Series 3
Okay, okay, fucking bear with me. Gilmore Girls is froth but it's intelligent froth. It's one of the best feel good shows ever made, mainly thanks to Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who ooze charisma. And other things. Dirty things. Anyway, Series 1 & 2 are good but it's series 3 where things really come together.
3) House Series 4
House is comfort television. It's exactly the same every week and that's one of it's strengths. It all changes in series 4, though, when the cast gets shaken up significantly, introducing a load of great new sub plots and characters.
Honourable Mention:
Doctor Who series 3
This is only an honourable mention because, whilst it is very good, Series 1 of the New Who was so fucking good and Series 3 had more than a few dodgy episodes, it couldn't quite beat it's younger self. How very Doctor Who.
With that in mind... GAME AND TV SEQUELS! GREAT ONES!
I'm still quite asleep, that's why I'm talking like this.
Anyway. What game and TV sequels are both awesome and improve significantly on the original?
Games:
1) Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines
Granted, no-one played Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption except me but that shouldn't take away from Bloodlines' achievements... it's one of the best games ever made and improves on the original in every way.
2) Call of Duty 4
The fact that this game is fantastic is secondary to the fact that it's the only Call of Duty game that's worth playing.
3) Half Life 2: Episode 2
Now, I hated Half Life 2. The plot was completely absent, there was far too much scripting and Valve appeared to have forgotten how to set up a decent fire fight. All of these factors were sorted for Episode 2 after the frankly disastrous Episode 1
4) Dawn of War 2
Dawn of War was a fantastic strategy game because it wasn't about building as many squads as you could and then rushing the enemy. Dawn of War 2 improved on this by limiting you to four squads and adding RPG elements. As far as sheer naked improvement over a previous installment goes, this is the victor hands down.
5) Red Alert 3
Now, I know I've just said I hate build and rush strategy games... and I do... but Red Alert 3 isn't about the actual gameplay- it's about the sheer stupidity of the story, the units and the atmosphere. They all make up for the shocking gameplay in spades.
6) Hitman: Blood Money
This is also known as The Only Hitman Game Worth Playing. Seriously, the others are drab, dull and single note. Blood Money is vibrant, imaginative and hilarious.
7) Tie Fighter
Yay! A retro one! Tie Fighter improved on X-Wing by having you play as The Empire and getting to kill rebels, which is what all of us wanted in the first place. It merely helped that the gameplay, plot and characters were vastly improved over X-Wing
That's pretty much it as far as I know. Hopefully we'll get a few more later this year, though. We've got:
Assassins Creed 2
Which should be almost identical to the first game but minus the annoying bits
Call of Duty 6
I'm really hoping this one will be good but it may well not be, given how stellar #4 was.
Left 4 Dead 2
Is going to be fucking epic :D
TV:
1) Battlestar Galactica Series 2 & 3
This one has to be in here. Series 2 was twice as good as series 1 and Series 3 was twice as good as series 2. Series 4 was slightly weaker but had some absolutely fantastic story arcs such as the rebellion.
2) Gilmore Girls Series 3
Okay, okay, fucking bear with me. Gilmore Girls is froth but it's intelligent froth. It's one of the best feel good shows ever made, mainly thanks to Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who ooze charisma. And other things. Dirty things. Anyway, Series 1 & 2 are good but it's series 3 where things really come together.
3) House Series 4
House is comfort television. It's exactly the same every week and that's one of it's strengths. It all changes in series 4, though, when the cast gets shaken up significantly, introducing a load of great new sub plots and characters.
Honourable Mention:
Doctor Who series 3
This is only an honourable mention because, whilst it is very good, Series 1 of the New Who was so fucking good and Series 3 had more than a few dodgy episodes, it couldn't quite beat it's younger self. How very Doctor Who.
TSLRP impressions
I've given up on TSLRP.
Completely.
I don't exactly know what I was expecting from this thing... I suppose after three years in development I'd hoped that KOTOR 2 would be significantly different. There are a couple of differences I've noticed (including one extra character) but the only major difference I've noticed is that the influence system now appears to be completely broken.
There are odd restored lines of dialogue here and there... the problem is it's quite obvious why most of them were cut in the first place. Most of them are either unnecessary exposition or mystical Star Wars bullshit.
As far as the actual game goes, nothing has changed. This isn't like the Wesp patches for Vampire Bloodlines where there are dozens of gameplay tweaks to make things more streamlined or pleasant for the player...
This does kind of vindicate everything I've been saying about how they should have released this damn thing incrementally. There's no way I would have given up on this mod two years ago, or even possibly a year ago. The problem is, now KOTOR has been so completely outclassed in terms of story, characters, atmosphere (which were the only real plus points to this game in the first place) by Portal, Call of Duty 4, Braid, Dark Athena etc. etc. etc...
KOTOR 2 is like a teenager who has a bunch of really witty jokes at school and TSLRP is like a friend who has been giving him a bunch of new jokes for university to impress new friends and keep old ones entertained. He's been working on the routine for absolutely ages but it's only when he finally trots them out that we all realise they're the same jokes as previously with a tiny bit of spit and polish, and is thoroughly outclassed by people who've spent their time thinking up new jokes.
I know that TSLRP is supposed to kick in properly when you get to the end part of the game (where most stuff was cut) but I was so disheartened by the lack of new material in the mid-game planets, coupled with the disappointing gameplay and irritating star wars universe, I'd rather play just about anything else right now.
So, in conclusion, TSLRP adds very little to the dialogue/atmosphere/plot but does break the game in several places. The combat is still bollocks, there are still a lot of bad gameplay decisions and all in all, it's a project that has been thoroughly outclassed by its more modern counterparts.
Completely.
I don't exactly know what I was expecting from this thing... I suppose after three years in development I'd hoped that KOTOR 2 would be significantly different. There are a couple of differences I've noticed (including one extra character) but the only major difference I've noticed is that the influence system now appears to be completely broken.
There are odd restored lines of dialogue here and there... the problem is it's quite obvious why most of them were cut in the first place. Most of them are either unnecessary exposition or mystical Star Wars bullshit.
As far as the actual game goes, nothing has changed. This isn't like the Wesp patches for Vampire Bloodlines where there are dozens of gameplay tweaks to make things more streamlined or pleasant for the player...
This does kind of vindicate everything I've been saying about how they should have released this damn thing incrementally. There's no way I would have given up on this mod two years ago, or even possibly a year ago. The problem is, now KOTOR has been so completely outclassed in terms of story, characters, atmosphere (which were the only real plus points to this game in the first place) by Portal, Call of Duty 4, Braid, Dark Athena etc. etc. etc...
KOTOR 2 is like a teenager who has a bunch of really witty jokes at school and TSLRP is like a friend who has been giving him a bunch of new jokes for university to impress new friends and keep old ones entertained. He's been working on the routine for absolutely ages but it's only when he finally trots them out that we all realise they're the same jokes as previously with a tiny bit of spit and polish, and is thoroughly outclassed by people who've spent their time thinking up new jokes.
I know that TSLRP is supposed to kick in properly when you get to the end part of the game (where most stuff was cut) but I was so disheartened by the lack of new material in the mid-game planets, coupled with the disappointing gameplay and irritating star wars universe, I'd rather play just about anything else right now.
So, in conclusion, TSLRP adds very little to the dialogue/atmosphere/plot but does break the game in several places. The combat is still bollocks, there are still a lot of bad gameplay decisions and all in all, it's a project that has been thoroughly outclassed by its more modern counterparts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)