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.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
KOTOR 2 vs The Witcher
Hm...
So I downloaded the leak of TSLRP.
I've been playing it for the past three days.
Hm.
As far as the game goes- it's okay. Bits of it are really good. I love the characters, the story and so on.
It does have some pretty severe problems though.
The main one is: The Witcher.
I haven't blogged about it, but I recently bought and played The Witcher through. I thought it pulled off the trick of allowing the player to make genuinely moral choices better than any other game has.
The reason for this is... The Witcher doesn't have a morality scale.
For me, every time a game says DARK SIDE POINTS GAINED! or PARAGON +2 etc. etc. they are ruining the concept of moral choice.
In the real world
1) You don't get told when your character has shifted/people think it has
2) You often don't know what repercussions your actions will have.
This simply isn't the case in KOTOR - whenever you make a decision in the game world, you always know how it's going to affect your alignment. Things get slightly more complicated when you're considering how your companions react to you but the relationships system is more than slightly nonsensical.
Fitting things onto a good/vs evil scale of any sort removes one very important thing: complexity. Morality is an incredibly complex and arbitrary thing. One of the tag lines for The Witcher was that there were no good or bad choices, there were just choices. It was taken as red that your character was generally moral (in that he wasn't a cartoon villain - more on that later) so whatever choices he took, they were justifiable. Support the order? Support the Scoiatel? Neutrality? These are all perfectly valid choices.
Problem number 2 with KOTOR is... the Star Wars universe has no middle ground. You can't play a complex character - only a cartoon villain who steals from the poor and murders anyone he can - or a sickly sweet paragon.
I wanted to be a dark jedi this time around because I hadn't been previously. So I went around killing people. But I was nice to my companions. Why? I liked them. The game balanced these equally. Apparently murdering people is balanced by being polite when talking to someone.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. This game is American and the Americans do seem to have a genuine problem accepting that right and wrong are just ideas and that often it's just a matter of perception. Hell, this is even the case in Battlestar Galactica a lot of the time and that's one of the most mature and well written pieces of fiction ever created.
With that in mind, it's very clear that there are two ways the game is *meant* to be played. Either as dark or light. You can mix it up by being dark on some planets and light on others but then you run into the - which characters do you want to play with - problem.
With that in mind, I'm going to play the damn thing again as it wants to be played. I'm going to be a light jedi and see what happens. I can't get a good feel for the game if I'm playing it in a way it doesn't want to be played.
So, out of KOTOR 2 and The Witcher, which is better? Well that's fucking obvious, it's The Witcher. No contest. The Witcher's gameplay is better, the moral choices are more realistic, interesting and poignant...
It's a shame really. I was getting all excited by the prospect of the KOTOR MMO and then I played KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 is, I think, as good as a star wars game is likely to get as far as morality goes. It's a bar so low you'd trip over it but I doubt any Star Wars product will ever beat it.
So I downloaded the leak of TSLRP.
I've been playing it for the past three days.
Hm.
As far as the game goes- it's okay. Bits of it are really good. I love the characters, the story and so on.
It does have some pretty severe problems though.
The main one is: The Witcher.
I haven't blogged about it, but I recently bought and played The Witcher through. I thought it pulled off the trick of allowing the player to make genuinely moral choices better than any other game has.
The reason for this is... The Witcher doesn't have a morality scale.
For me, every time a game says DARK SIDE POINTS GAINED! or PARAGON +2 etc. etc. they are ruining the concept of moral choice.
In the real world
1) You don't get told when your character has shifted/people think it has
2) You often don't know what repercussions your actions will have.
This simply isn't the case in KOTOR - whenever you make a decision in the game world, you always know how it's going to affect your alignment. Things get slightly more complicated when you're considering how your companions react to you but the relationships system is more than slightly nonsensical.
Fitting things onto a good/vs evil scale of any sort removes one very important thing: complexity. Morality is an incredibly complex and arbitrary thing. One of the tag lines for The Witcher was that there were no good or bad choices, there were just choices. It was taken as red that your character was generally moral (in that he wasn't a cartoon villain - more on that later) so whatever choices he took, they were justifiable. Support the order? Support the Scoiatel? Neutrality? These are all perfectly valid choices.
Problem number 2 with KOTOR is... the Star Wars universe has no middle ground. You can't play a complex character - only a cartoon villain who steals from the poor and murders anyone he can - or a sickly sweet paragon.
I wanted to be a dark jedi this time around because I hadn't been previously. So I went around killing people. But I was nice to my companions. Why? I liked them. The game balanced these equally. Apparently murdering people is balanced by being polite when talking to someone.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. This game is American and the Americans do seem to have a genuine problem accepting that right and wrong are just ideas and that often it's just a matter of perception. Hell, this is even the case in Battlestar Galactica a lot of the time and that's one of the most mature and well written pieces of fiction ever created.
With that in mind, it's very clear that there are two ways the game is *meant* to be played. Either as dark or light. You can mix it up by being dark on some planets and light on others but then you run into the - which characters do you want to play with - problem.
With that in mind, I'm going to play the damn thing again as it wants to be played. I'm going to be a light jedi and see what happens. I can't get a good feel for the game if I'm playing it in a way it doesn't want to be played.
So, out of KOTOR 2 and The Witcher, which is better? Well that's fucking obvious, it's The Witcher. No contest. The Witcher's gameplay is better, the moral choices are more realistic, interesting and poignant...
It's a shame really. I was getting all excited by the prospect of the KOTOR MMO and then I played KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 is, I think, as good as a star wars game is likely to get as far as morality goes. It's a bar so low you'd trip over it but I doubt any Star Wars product will ever beat it.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Greatest Sequels Ever
Empire Magazine have produced a list of The 50 Greatest Ever Sequels.
Now, Empire have been getting a lot better in recent years but this list is really, really shit. X Men 2 is at number 11, Batman Returns is at number 13 and, most perplexing of all, Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix is at number 15. Hellboy 2 is in there, as is Return of the Jedi. Reh.
It's not a completely worthless list but it does do that classic empire thing of having twenty decent films, twenty films from the 50's/60's/70's/80's that no-one actually likes but are "classics" so they put them in to make it look like they're high brow, (deep breath) and ten films from the last three years so people will believe they're modern enough to counterbalance the high brow choices.
But here's the thing, they used the word "greatest" in their article. This means that they must be talking about sequels that are not just good but GREAT. Ones that improved significantly on the original...
Taken in that spirit then the list is completely fucking worthless but I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try and compile a list of great sequels.
The criteria are:
1) It must be a great or, at least, a very good film
2) It must improve significantly on the original
So:
1) The Dark Knight
This is the obvious one. Not only is it one of the best films ever made but it takes a great film (Batman Begins) and improves on literally every aspect of it.
2) Terminator 2/3
Terminator 2 and 3 are both good films and both improved significantly on Terminator 1. Personally, I prefer Terminator 3 but that's because I'm not trapped in the past as many film geeks are, and I think Nick Stahl is a fantastic actor. Even though I can't spell his name.
3) Aliens
This is another fairly obvious one. It's very good and wins out over Alien because Alien is fucking aweful. Sorry, Ridley Scott and film geeks everywhere but it fucking is...
4) The Ring 2
I love The Ring (I'm talking Japanese versions here, obviously) but if I had to watch one or the other, I'd watch Ring 2. Why? It's much, much scarier. The Ring has one moment which is utterly terrifying. The Ring 2 has three. Three beats one.
5) Hot Shots Part Deux
This may be an odd choice but it's a hilarious film and improves significantly on the original... the one liners are better, the plot is more fun and it has Rowan Atkinson in it. And whilst we're on spoofs...
6) Scary Movie 3
I may be pushing my luck a bit by saying Scary Movie 3 is Very Good but I think it is, dammit. It's funny, quite witty and is very short. It's also miraculous in that it's the only Scary Movie film to be even faintly worth watching.
There may be others out there but those are the only ones that spring to mind immediately....
Now, Empire have been getting a lot better in recent years but this list is really, really shit. X Men 2 is at number 11, Batman Returns is at number 13 and, most perplexing of all, Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix is at number 15. Hellboy 2 is in there, as is Return of the Jedi. Reh.
It's not a completely worthless list but it does do that classic empire thing of having twenty decent films, twenty films from the 50's/60's/70's/80's that no-one actually likes but are "classics" so they put them in to make it look like they're high brow, (deep breath) and ten films from the last three years so people will believe they're modern enough to counterbalance the high brow choices.
But here's the thing, they used the word "greatest" in their article. This means that they must be talking about sequels that are not just good but GREAT. Ones that improved significantly on the original...
Taken in that spirit then the list is completely fucking worthless but I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try and compile a list of great sequels.
The criteria are:
1) It must be a great or, at least, a very good film
2) It must improve significantly on the original
So:
1) The Dark Knight
This is the obvious one. Not only is it one of the best films ever made but it takes a great film (Batman Begins) and improves on literally every aspect of it.
2) Terminator 2/3
Terminator 2 and 3 are both good films and both improved significantly on Terminator 1. Personally, I prefer Terminator 3 but that's because I'm not trapped in the past as many film geeks are, and I think Nick Stahl is a fantastic actor. Even though I can't spell his name.
3) Aliens
This is another fairly obvious one. It's very good and wins out over Alien because Alien is fucking aweful. Sorry, Ridley Scott and film geeks everywhere but it fucking is...
4) The Ring 2
I love The Ring (I'm talking Japanese versions here, obviously) but if I had to watch one or the other, I'd watch Ring 2. Why? It's much, much scarier. The Ring has one moment which is utterly terrifying. The Ring 2 has three. Three beats one.
5) Hot Shots Part Deux
This may be an odd choice but it's a hilarious film and improves significantly on the original... the one liners are better, the plot is more fun and it has Rowan Atkinson in it. And whilst we're on spoofs...
6) Scary Movie 3
I may be pushing my luck a bit by saying Scary Movie 3 is Very Good but I think it is, dammit. It's funny, quite witty and is very short. It's also miraculous in that it's the only Scary Movie film to be even faintly worth watching.
There may be others out there but those are the only ones that spring to mind immediately....
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc
I really am going to have to stop re-visiting old films. There are some films that have never been bettered. These are usually films that do something genuinely unique, or at least have never really been bettered. The Blues Brothers fits into this category, as does Hot Shots part 1 & 2. Top Secret fucking rules this category.
Sadly, action films tend to fare less well.
I just re-watched Raiders because I was interested to see if it was the seminal adventure movie. It's really not.
Let me just say something before I get to the meat of this... I don't care that Raiders was really ground breaking when it first came out. All I care about is what it's like to watch now. As a piece of history, it's invaluable but guess what, so's the original Star Wars and that doesn't stop it being incredibly lame when looked at next to the new Battlestar Galactica.
But anyway, Raiders.
It has several problems. The acting is really over the top, and not in a good way. Bits of it are supposed to be farce and these... tend to drift a little too far into pantomime for my liking. The serious bits are even worse. The Nazis seem to think acting either involves standing as rigid as possible or running all over the place waving their arms. The guy in the black mac is particularly bad for this.
The actions scenes are distinctly under whelming, with the exception of the scene where Indie shoots the sword wielding arab. That is still a fantastic moment. The fight choreographer really needed to be given a slap, though.
It's attitudes to women are also faintly disturbing. I'm going to gloss over the whole relationship with Indie and the love interest because whilst I think it's fairly clear that their previous sexual encounter was distinctly non-consensual on the part of the girl, I may be reading too much into things. What does definitely strike a sour note is how completely incompetent the female is. She can't even open a bloody aeroplane canopy.
Overall, though, Raiders has one massive problem that eclipses all others. That problem is The Mummy. The Mummy does everything that Raiders does a hell of a lot better. The story makes more sense, the acting is better, it's funnier, the characters are better defined...
The Mummy is to Raiders what The Good, The Bad, The Weird is to every western ever made. An update that takes the spirit of the original and does it with a 21st century attitude and budget.
Film making has definitely improved in the past thirty years and boy does it show. There are definitely films from the 1970's and 1980's that have never been bettered but there are far fewer than people think.
Sadly, action films tend to fare less well.
I just re-watched Raiders because I was interested to see if it was the seminal adventure movie. It's really not.
Let me just say something before I get to the meat of this... I don't care that Raiders was really ground breaking when it first came out. All I care about is what it's like to watch now. As a piece of history, it's invaluable but guess what, so's the original Star Wars and that doesn't stop it being incredibly lame when looked at next to the new Battlestar Galactica.
But anyway, Raiders.
It has several problems. The acting is really over the top, and not in a good way. Bits of it are supposed to be farce and these... tend to drift a little too far into pantomime for my liking. The serious bits are even worse. The Nazis seem to think acting either involves standing as rigid as possible or running all over the place waving their arms. The guy in the black mac is particularly bad for this.
The actions scenes are distinctly under whelming, with the exception of the scene where Indie shoots the sword wielding arab. That is still a fantastic moment. The fight choreographer really needed to be given a slap, though.
It's attitudes to women are also faintly disturbing. I'm going to gloss over the whole relationship with Indie and the love interest because whilst I think it's fairly clear that their previous sexual encounter was distinctly non-consensual on the part of the girl, I may be reading too much into things. What does definitely strike a sour note is how completely incompetent the female is. She can't even open a bloody aeroplane canopy.
Overall, though, Raiders has one massive problem that eclipses all others. That problem is The Mummy. The Mummy does everything that Raiders does a hell of a lot better. The story makes more sense, the acting is better, it's funnier, the characters are better defined...
The Mummy is to Raiders what The Good, The Bad, The Weird is to every western ever made. An update that takes the spirit of the original and does it with a 21st century attitude and budget.
Film making has definitely improved in the past thirty years and boy does it show. There are definitely films from the 1970's and 1980's that have never been bettered but there are far fewer than people think.
Fuck Team Gizka
No really.
Fuck em.
For those unfamiliar with their work, these are the chaps behind the Sith Lords Restoration Project. I've blogged about it previously here.
I mentioned in that post that the bug count these guys were supposedly working on was at 84, and had been for the past four months. This was in Febuary of 2009. It's now August. A quick bit of maths will tell you that they've been in the same position for ten months. Are they any closer to releasing their mod? No. Do they have a time frame for releasing it? No. Are they even working on it?
Well the forums are pretty dead. One beta tester is still posting his experiences and there are a few feeble discussions about the politics of Star Wars but it's not exactly a vibrant hive of activity as you'd expect from a mod of this type.
I've been waiting for this mod for ages, I've been patiently putting off replaying KOTOR 2 until it was out but no more. Fuck them. I'm downloading the leaked version of their mod because I have absolutely no faith that they'll ever release the fucking thing or that they're even still working on it.
Team Gizka should be a warning message to anyone thinking of starting an ambitious project:
1) Be honest with people about how the project is doing or they'll just leave.
2) If it's a restoration mod, add content gradually so that when you inevitably lose interest, the users still have something to show for it.
Fuck em.
For those unfamiliar with their work, these are the chaps behind the Sith Lords Restoration Project. I've blogged about it previously here.
I mentioned in that post that the bug count these guys were supposedly working on was at 84, and had been for the past four months. This was in Febuary of 2009. It's now August. A quick bit of maths will tell you that they've been in the same position for ten months. Are they any closer to releasing their mod? No. Do they have a time frame for releasing it? No. Are they even working on it?
Well the forums are pretty dead. One beta tester is still posting his experiences and there are a few feeble discussions about the politics of Star Wars but it's not exactly a vibrant hive of activity as you'd expect from a mod of this type.
I've been waiting for this mod for ages, I've been patiently putting off replaying KOTOR 2 until it was out but no more. Fuck them. I'm downloading the leaked version of their mod because I have absolutely no faith that they'll ever release the fucking thing or that they're even still working on it.
Team Gizka should be a warning message to anyone thinking of starting an ambitious project:
1) Be honest with people about how the project is doing or they'll just leave.
2) If it's a restoration mod, add content gradually so that when you inevitably lose interest, the users still have something to show for it.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Psychonauts: Not as good as everyone says it is
Yahtzee famously blew the Psychonauts horn in one of his early reviews. but more recently Daniel Floyd (who I have infinitely more respect for) did the same thing.
I then looked at Metacritic and found that all these guys were likewise saying it was the dogs bollocks.
Clearly, I had to check it out with that list of glowing references. Given that we're in the middle of a recession and I have no money, I decided to pirate it rather than shell out the £10 it was being sold for on steam and fuck me I'm glad I did.
Now if you're reading this, I'm assuming you've seen one or all of the above links so It's pointless me telling you what Psychonauts is so it's best to dive right in.
Psychonauts is startlingly original, very witty and absolutely no fun to play. The meat of the game is set in characters minds, which are all tarted up platform sections. They're very, very clever yes. You have to unlock emotional baggage, for example. See Daniel Floyd's video for more examples of just how clever the game is.
The problem is the gameplay consists of nothing but jumping from one platform to another, swinging on the occasional bar and using bizarely underwhelming psychic powers. The game has so much charm that this is quite well disguised but you'll play it for an hour or so and suddenly realised that whilst you've been quite engaged the whole time, you haven't enjoyed a second of the damn gameplay.
The developers should be applauded for originality and the game is often genuinely funny but the producers are absolute idiots - there's no way a game like this would sell becase it's not very good...
So if you've wanted to check out Psychonauts for ages because of all the hype, stay back. Play Braid instead, that basically does the same thing (minus the humour) but is actually fun to play.
I then looked at Metacritic and found that all these guys were likewise saying it was the dogs bollocks.
Clearly, I had to check it out with that list of glowing references. Given that we're in the middle of a recession and I have no money, I decided to pirate it rather than shell out the £10 it was being sold for on steam and fuck me I'm glad I did.
Now if you're reading this, I'm assuming you've seen one or all of the above links so It's pointless me telling you what Psychonauts is so it's best to dive right in.
Psychonauts is startlingly original, very witty and absolutely no fun to play. The meat of the game is set in characters minds, which are all tarted up platform sections. They're very, very clever yes. You have to unlock emotional baggage, for example. See Daniel Floyd's video for more examples of just how clever the game is.
The problem is the gameplay consists of nothing but jumping from one platform to another, swinging on the occasional bar and using bizarely underwhelming psychic powers. The game has so much charm that this is quite well disguised but you'll play it for an hour or so and suddenly realised that whilst you've been quite engaged the whole time, you haven't enjoyed a second of the damn gameplay.
The developers should be applauded for originality and the game is often genuinely funny but the producers are absolute idiots - there's no way a game like this would sell becase it's not very good...
So if you've wanted to check out Psychonauts for ages because of all the hype, stay back. Play Braid instead, that basically does the same thing (minus the humour) but is actually fun to play.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Batman: Arkham Assylum Demo
The world and its dog has been getting very excited about this game of late.
I haven't. Partly because it's being produced by Eidos and they haven't brought out anything good since Thief: Deadly Shadows but mostly because it's a Batman game and many successive movie Tie-ins have proved it's extremely hard to do a Batman game.
But what the hell, there's a demo out for the PC version prior to release and so I thought I'd check it out for rarity value if nothing else.
It didn't start well, I have to say. You lead the Joker into Arkham and he escapes in the most predictable and preventable manner imaginable. You are then presented with several goons to fend off. The controls feel... okay. They're quite consoley but a Batman game is one of the few circumstances where this might be appropriate.
The fist fighting is... okay. It's rather like Assassins Creed in that it's based around striking, counters and take downs. This isn't a bad thing, by any means. It's not original but it's much better than most other games that have hand to hand combat in them.
Things got much better when the game opened up a bit... I was presented with three guards with guns. Obviously I couldn't take them head on so I snuck round the back and took them all down silently one by one. This felt briliant, but very linear.
Things improved again when I got to the climax of the demo - a huge room with four armed men in it. I had to take them all down.
Armed with my night vision goggles (which register weaponry, targets' state of mind from information such as their heart rate etc.) batarangs and my bat rope thing, I swung around on gargoyles, dropped down behind one guard and Ju Jitsu'd him until he was unconcious. I then hung from a gargoyle until a goon passed below me, I strung him up by his feet.
His cries brought his mates, though. I glided into one of them, classic Batman style but the other ones shot me a few times. I was close to death but I managed to escape.
I dropped down to the lower level. The guard didn't know where I was so I followed him all sneaky like, watching his heart rate sky rocket.
Here's where I first really noticed the AI and fantastic animations. The guard walked heasitantly, looked around and, at one point, spotted the movement of the chap I'd strung up from the gargoyle and opened fire at it.
That, my friends, is fucking cool.
I used this distraction to climb up behind him and remove him from the land of the concious.
I am now completely sold. It's probably not going to be a briliant game but it will be extremely fun and diverting if the demo is anything to go by. Check it out :)
I haven't. Partly because it's being produced by Eidos and they haven't brought out anything good since Thief: Deadly Shadows but mostly because it's a Batman game and many successive movie Tie-ins have proved it's extremely hard to do a Batman game.
But what the hell, there's a demo out for the PC version prior to release and so I thought I'd check it out for rarity value if nothing else.
It didn't start well, I have to say. You lead the Joker into Arkham and he escapes in the most predictable and preventable manner imaginable. You are then presented with several goons to fend off. The controls feel... okay. They're quite consoley but a Batman game is one of the few circumstances where this might be appropriate.
The fist fighting is... okay. It's rather like Assassins Creed in that it's based around striking, counters and take downs. This isn't a bad thing, by any means. It's not original but it's much better than most other games that have hand to hand combat in them.
Things got much better when the game opened up a bit... I was presented with three guards with guns. Obviously I couldn't take them head on so I snuck round the back and took them all down silently one by one. This felt briliant, but very linear.
Things improved again when I got to the climax of the demo - a huge room with four armed men in it. I had to take them all down.
Armed with my night vision goggles (which register weaponry, targets' state of mind from information such as their heart rate etc.) batarangs and my bat rope thing, I swung around on gargoyles, dropped down behind one guard and Ju Jitsu'd him until he was unconcious. I then hung from a gargoyle until a goon passed below me, I strung him up by his feet.
His cries brought his mates, though. I glided into one of them, classic Batman style but the other ones shot me a few times. I was close to death but I managed to escape.
I dropped down to the lower level. The guard didn't know where I was so I followed him all sneaky like, watching his heart rate sky rocket.
Here's where I first really noticed the AI and fantastic animations. The guard walked heasitantly, looked around and, at one point, spotted the movement of the chap I'd strung up from the gargoyle and opened fire at it.
That, my friends, is fucking cool.
I used this distraction to climb up behind him and remove him from the land of the concious.
I am now completely sold. It's probably not going to be a briliant game but it will be extremely fun and diverting if the demo is anything to go by. Check it out :)
Monday, 27 July 2009
Bioshock retrospective
I went to visit my parents last week. They have quite a large house so it's where I keep most of my crap from when I used to live there. A considerate son would throw it out but I have an aversion to throwing things out. IT MAY BE USEFUL LATER.
Anyway, one of the things I should really throw out is my collection of old PC gaming magazines. I do love re-reading them, though. Reading previews for games that turned out to be shite and, of course, reading rapturous reviews that didn't find any flaws with deeply flawed games like Half Life 2 or Oblivion.
It was in this nostalgic haze that I came across their review of Bioshock. It really made me want to play through that flawed masterpiece again because they highlighted the unparalleled atmosphere, graphics etc.
So This morning, I installed it, patched it and started playing it again.
And half an hour later I stopped because it was shit.
The thing is, everyone who played Bioshock through the first time (including myself) got sucked in by the incredible graphics, atmosphere etc. These are still there and still excellent.
What none of us noticed until a couple of months after originally playing it is - It's not any bloody fun.
It just isn't.
There are four main problems with is:
1) It's a shooter but you never have enough ammo.
There are supposed to be numerous ways out of every encounter but most of the time, the only sensible one is to start blasting. This is directly linked into:
2) It's too goddamn linear:
Corridors. That's what Bioshock is, corridors, corridors, corridors. Even the Corridor-tastic Call of Duty 4 had more open areas than this. The direct consequence of this is that there are few opportunities to avoid conflict - meaning you have to start shooting, meaning you run into problem #1
3) The shooting is no damn fun:
Even if you can cope with problems 1 & 2, you'll hit problem 3. The weapons lack feel, there's no real accuracy system and they're all pretty damn generic. This is the problem with all games set in the past, the guns really weren't very interesting. You'd think they would sort this with the pasmids but no. They're either far too powerful (lightning or incinerate) or completely useless (telekinesis, sonic boom, shooting bees from your hand).
4) There are no RPG elements:
So you're not even really given the opportunity to improve your character, other than by being given Adam by the little sisters. This means that there's no way round problems 1, 2 & 3. You HAVE to get engaged in gunfights. There's no Bloodlines style melee options if you get bored of the gunfights.
There are other problems, of course, but the fact that it isn't fun lands neatly at the top of the list.
This really disappoints me. I was hoping to get past the flaws of Bioshock and really get into the story again. Sadly, this has proved impossible.
Anyway, one of the things I should really throw out is my collection of old PC gaming magazines. I do love re-reading them, though. Reading previews for games that turned out to be shite and, of course, reading rapturous reviews that didn't find any flaws with deeply flawed games like Half Life 2 or Oblivion.
It was in this nostalgic haze that I came across their review of Bioshock. It really made me want to play through that flawed masterpiece again because they highlighted the unparalleled atmosphere, graphics etc.
So This morning, I installed it, patched it and started playing it again.
And half an hour later I stopped because it was shit.
The thing is, everyone who played Bioshock through the first time (including myself) got sucked in by the incredible graphics, atmosphere etc. These are still there and still excellent.
What none of us noticed until a couple of months after originally playing it is - It's not any bloody fun.
It just isn't.
There are four main problems with is:
1) It's a shooter but you never have enough ammo.
There are supposed to be numerous ways out of every encounter but most of the time, the only sensible one is to start blasting. This is directly linked into:
2) It's too goddamn linear:
Corridors. That's what Bioshock is, corridors, corridors, corridors. Even the Corridor-tastic Call of Duty 4 had more open areas than this. The direct consequence of this is that there are few opportunities to avoid conflict - meaning you have to start shooting, meaning you run into problem #1
3) The shooting is no damn fun:
Even if you can cope with problems 1 & 2, you'll hit problem 3. The weapons lack feel, there's no real accuracy system and they're all pretty damn generic. This is the problem with all games set in the past, the guns really weren't very interesting. You'd think they would sort this with the pasmids but no. They're either far too powerful (lightning or incinerate) or completely useless (telekinesis, sonic boom, shooting bees from your hand).
4) There are no RPG elements:
So you're not even really given the opportunity to improve your character, other than by being given Adam by the little sisters. This means that there's no way round problems 1, 2 & 3. You HAVE to get engaged in gunfights. There's no Bloodlines style melee options if you get bored of the gunfights.
There are other problems, of course, but the fact that it isn't fun lands neatly at the top of the list.
This really disappoints me. I was hoping to get past the flaws of Bioshock and really get into the story again. Sadly, this has proved impossible.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Iron Man 2
A lot of news has been breaking at Comic-Con, which is understandable.
One bit which has really dismayed me, though, is that Scarlett Johansson is going to be playing one of the baddies in Iron Man 2.
If you're one of those deluded idiots who thinks that this woman is still one of the best actresses in the world, I suggest you go and watch The Prestige. That film is fantastic. Christopher Nolan even managed to get a briliant performance out of Hugh Jackman, who's not exactly the worlds greatest actor. But EVERY TIME that useless bloody woman walks on screen the charisma is sucked out. She kills almost every scene she's in, it's remarkable.
I haven't seen her in a good film. Ever. Lost in Translation was hugely over rated, she was easilly the worst thing in The Black Dahlia and don't even get me started on The Island.
Admittedly, I haven't seen Ghost World where apparently her total lack of any talent or charisma is quite in keeping with the tone of the film but...
Seriously, people, I get that people like her because she's good looking but can we stop thinking with our dicks, please? She is not a good actor, period. Kate Winslet? She's a good actor, as is Maggie Gyllenhaal, as is Grace Park.
Hopefully she won't be in too much of Iron Man 2 because if Christopher Nolan couldn't get a decent performance out of her, there's no way Jon Favreau will be able to...
One bit which has really dismayed me, though, is that Scarlett Johansson is going to be playing one of the baddies in Iron Man 2.
If you're one of those deluded idiots who thinks that this woman is still one of the best actresses in the world, I suggest you go and watch The Prestige. That film is fantastic. Christopher Nolan even managed to get a briliant performance out of Hugh Jackman, who's not exactly the worlds greatest actor. But EVERY TIME that useless bloody woman walks on screen the charisma is sucked out. She kills almost every scene she's in, it's remarkable.
I haven't seen her in a good film. Ever. Lost in Translation was hugely over rated, she was easilly the worst thing in The Black Dahlia and don't even get me started on The Island.
Admittedly, I haven't seen Ghost World where apparently her total lack of any talent or charisma is quite in keeping with the tone of the film but...
Seriously, people, I get that people like her because she's good looking but can we stop thinking with our dicks, please? She is not a good actor, period. Kate Winslet? She's a good actor, as is Maggie Gyllenhaal, as is Grace Park.
Hopefully she won't be in too much of Iron Man 2 because if Christopher Nolan couldn't get a decent performance out of her, there's no way Jon Favreau will be able to...
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Gaming podcasts
Daniel Floyd appeared on a gaming podcast a few days ago so I checked it out.
I've always avoided gaming podcasts previously, mainly because whenever I load one up, they always start the same way:
"Hello"
"Hello"
"I'm Dave"
"I'm Charles"
"Welcome to The Awesome Gaming Podcast"
"Hi"
"Today we're talking about-"
"Yeah, we're talking about shooters today."
"Yeah"
Then one of them makes a crap joke and they laugh.
Gaming podcasts are one of the only things I can find online where people seem to genuinely think they don't need any form of editing. These damn things can stretch to over two hours.
But whatever, I thought. I need to go to the market, I'll stick it on my Zen and check it out. Floyd's on it, it can't be too bad.
So I listened to it. I got through the first hour whilst being very entertained. In this particular episode they had a bunch of industry podcasters on there. Most of them were pretty interesting. They were talking about things that annoyed them in video games.
It was a bit like intellectual masturbation but the guests were clever enough to properly argue. It was great to hear some real vitriol aimed at things such as quick time events and games that don't end properly. Hearing someone mention Assassins Creed and then have to compulsively yell "FINISH YOUR FUCKING GAME" is really cathartic.
Anyway, Daniel Floyd came on, he wasn't very good but whatever.
Then the podcast started to decline sharply. I eventually had to stop listening because it got boring and painful. I loaded up another of their Room 101 podcasts and found it to be even worse.
So I thought I'd detail what I don't like about the damn things. Why? It's my blog, no-one reads it and I like setting this sort of thing out.
1) They're all too long
In theory, there's nothing wrong with a lecture/discussion lasting for an hour and a half. But.... I'm going to have to illustrate this with an example from my own life
I've kept a diary for most of my life because I'm quite narcissistic. However, when I was very young (14ish I think) I kept an Audio diary where I talked at a tape recorder. This didn't work at all because if I lost my train of thought or I didn't have something to say, I'd pause and wait for something to occur to me. I wouldn't pause the tape though. In a pen and paper diary (or a Blog, to keep up the podcast comparison) If you haven't got anything to say, you don't write anything. Similarly, if you need to work something out in your head, you wait until you know what you're going to say before you say it.
Consequently, my audio diary, as well as every podcast I've ever listened to, consisted of about twenty minutes of decent material, surrounded by an hour of badly formed sentiment and people going "urr".
2) Peoples personalities come through
This guy came on the Podcast, called Chris O'Reagan from the Super Happy Funtime Show. Now, he did say some quite interesting things but the *way* he was saying everything and the belligerent way he approached the topics... it made me want to fucking punch him.
Here's where text wins again, you see. If anyone read this, they wouldn't really get a feel for my personality, they'd just get a feel for my writing style. The good part of that is- with the exception of annoying formatting stuff like italics and *putting* *asterisks* *next* *to* *words*, you're interpriting the sentences how you want to. That way, you decide if I'm being an arse hole or not.
If someone's just chatting with someone, their personality is there. And, I gather from my unrepresentative sample of the 12 or so guests on these shows, four are boring, four are interesting, four are complete dick heads.
I've always avoided gaming podcasts previously, mainly because whenever I load one up, they always start the same way:
"Hello"
"Hello"
"I'm Dave"
"I'm Charles"
"Welcome to The Awesome Gaming Podcast"
"Hi"
"Today we're talking about-"
"Yeah, we're talking about shooters today."
"Yeah"
Then one of them makes a crap joke and they laugh.
Gaming podcasts are one of the only things I can find online where people seem to genuinely think they don't need any form of editing. These damn things can stretch to over two hours.
But whatever, I thought. I need to go to the market, I'll stick it on my Zen and check it out. Floyd's on it, it can't be too bad.
So I listened to it. I got through the first hour whilst being very entertained. In this particular episode they had a bunch of industry podcasters on there. Most of them were pretty interesting. They were talking about things that annoyed them in video games.
It was a bit like intellectual masturbation but the guests were clever enough to properly argue. It was great to hear some real vitriol aimed at things such as quick time events and games that don't end properly. Hearing someone mention Assassins Creed and then have to compulsively yell "FINISH YOUR FUCKING GAME" is really cathartic.
Anyway, Daniel Floyd came on, he wasn't very good but whatever.
Then the podcast started to decline sharply. I eventually had to stop listening because it got boring and painful. I loaded up another of their Room 101 podcasts and found it to be even worse.
So I thought I'd detail what I don't like about the damn things. Why? It's my blog, no-one reads it and I like setting this sort of thing out.
1) They're all too long
In theory, there's nothing wrong with a lecture/discussion lasting for an hour and a half. But.... I'm going to have to illustrate this with an example from my own life
I've kept a diary for most of my life because I'm quite narcissistic. However, when I was very young (14ish I think) I kept an Audio diary where I talked at a tape recorder. This didn't work at all because if I lost my train of thought or I didn't have something to say, I'd pause and wait for something to occur to me. I wouldn't pause the tape though. In a pen and paper diary (or a Blog, to keep up the podcast comparison) If you haven't got anything to say, you don't write anything. Similarly, if you need to work something out in your head, you wait until you know what you're going to say before you say it.
Consequently, my audio diary, as well as every podcast I've ever listened to, consisted of about twenty minutes of decent material, surrounded by an hour of badly formed sentiment and people going "urr".
2) Peoples personalities come through
This guy came on the Podcast, called Chris O'Reagan from the Super Happy Funtime Show. Now, he did say some quite interesting things but the *way* he was saying everything and the belligerent way he approached the topics... it made me want to fucking punch him.
Here's where text wins again, you see. If anyone read this, they wouldn't really get a feel for my personality, they'd just get a feel for my writing style. The good part of that is- with the exception of annoying formatting stuff like italics and *putting* *asterisks* *next* *to* *words*, you're interpriting the sentences how you want to. That way, you decide if I'm being an arse hole or not.
If someone's just chatting with someone, their personality is there. And, I gather from my unrepresentative sample of the 12 or so guests on these shows, four are boring, four are interesting, four are complete dick heads.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Two Bullshit Sci Fi Stock Devices
Sci Fi is often the most inventive and interesting genre out there. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its fair share of lazy writing, though. What do the lazy writers do? They fall back on these:
1) Evil organisations that execute their own employees
Now, I'm not saying that no company has ever killed an employee of theirs but this device is never about realism. This device is used by extremely lazy writers as a way of saying: Look! Look! This company is evil! They're killing their employees! Bastards!
The thing is, it's usually totally pointless. It's always done when an employee has "served their purpose" or "seen something they shouldn't have". If an employee has served their purpose, get them to do something else. It's no wonder a company has to keep hiring assassins if they bump them off after every successful job. And if they've seen something they shouldn't have... good for them. These are Sci Fi films, remember? It's not as if they can ever go to the press or the police in these films...
Worst Offenders:
Prototype Scientists try to save a mans life, he wakes up and escapes. Solders ask scientists a few questions and then kill them. Those scientists probably had some useful information, you know. Now you'll have to spend days going through their research and working out where they were in their projects.
Cube 2 A covert operative goes through hell to retrieve some data from the ultimate hiding place - another reality. How is she thanked? With a bullet to the back of her head. She is probably the most talented individual in your company, guys. At least try her out at marketing or something first...
Are there any examples of this actually working?
Not in Sci Fi, as far as I know... Leverage had an episode called The Mile High Job which played with this concept very nicely though.
2) Ultimate Stop Anything Force Fields
What happens when a force need to invade a planet? They need to stop the populace defending themselves. Clever shows like Battlestar Galactica have the enemy infiltrate the humans for years in advance, learning about them and planning precisely where and when to strike.
Lazy shows have the enemies invent a force field that will stop any weapon in the world, including nuclear bombs.
Now, I can cope with the idea of a force field but what's important to remember is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a nuclear bomb explodes on your fancy alien hull I don't care if you've got a fancy force field, you're still being sent flying a few miles in the opposite direction.
Worst Offenders:
The War Of The Worlds Remakes, Independence Day etc. etc. etc.: This is especially bad in War Of The Worlds. They hit the aliens with missiles, rockets, bombs... the damn things don't even flinch. That's not how physics works, guys.
Are there any examples of this actually working?
Oddly, yes. The Christopher Eccleston series of Doctor Who gave their ultimate death machines, the Daleks, a stop anything force field. It's different for two reasons, though. Firstly, bullets fired at this force field are not stopped in their tracks, they are slowly absorbed... the implication being the daleks are using the power and momentum of these bullets to power their own systems. Secondly, if you and several buddies concentrate your fire on one small are, you can break through the force field and do some real damage.
Granted, in series 2, 3 and 4 of the same show this rather clever sci fi device get's unceremoniously stomped on by Russel T Davies, one of the all time great Lazy Writers but it was good whilst it lasted.
1) Evil organisations that execute their own employees
Now, I'm not saying that no company has ever killed an employee of theirs but this device is never about realism. This device is used by extremely lazy writers as a way of saying: Look! Look! This company is evil! They're killing their employees! Bastards!
The thing is, it's usually totally pointless. It's always done when an employee has "served their purpose" or "seen something they shouldn't have". If an employee has served their purpose, get them to do something else. It's no wonder a company has to keep hiring assassins if they bump them off after every successful job. And if they've seen something they shouldn't have... good for them. These are Sci Fi films, remember? It's not as if they can ever go to the press or the police in these films...
Worst Offenders:
Prototype Scientists try to save a mans life, he wakes up and escapes. Solders ask scientists a few questions and then kill them. Those scientists probably had some useful information, you know. Now you'll have to spend days going through their research and working out where they were in their projects.
Cube 2 A covert operative goes through hell to retrieve some data from the ultimate hiding place - another reality. How is she thanked? With a bullet to the back of her head. She is probably the most talented individual in your company, guys. At least try her out at marketing or something first...
Are there any examples of this actually working?
Not in Sci Fi, as far as I know... Leverage had an episode called The Mile High Job which played with this concept very nicely though.
2) Ultimate Stop Anything Force Fields
What happens when a force need to invade a planet? They need to stop the populace defending themselves. Clever shows like Battlestar Galactica have the enemy infiltrate the humans for years in advance, learning about them and planning precisely where and when to strike.
Lazy shows have the enemies invent a force field that will stop any weapon in the world, including nuclear bombs.
Now, I can cope with the idea of a force field but what's important to remember is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a nuclear bomb explodes on your fancy alien hull I don't care if you've got a fancy force field, you're still being sent flying a few miles in the opposite direction.
Worst Offenders:
The War Of The Worlds Remakes, Independence Day etc. etc. etc.: This is especially bad in War Of The Worlds. They hit the aliens with missiles, rockets, bombs... the damn things don't even flinch. That's not how physics works, guys.
Are there any examples of this actually working?
Oddly, yes. The Christopher Eccleston series of Doctor Who gave their ultimate death machines, the Daleks, a stop anything force field. It's different for two reasons, though. Firstly, bullets fired at this force field are not stopped in their tracks, they are slowly absorbed... the implication being the daleks are using the power and momentum of these bullets to power their own systems. Secondly, if you and several buddies concentrate your fire on one small are, you can break through the force field and do some real damage.
Granted, in series 2, 3 and 4 of the same show this rather clever sci fi device get's unceremoniously stomped on by Russel T Davies, one of the all time great Lazy Writers but it was good whilst it lasted.
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Street Fighter 4
I have a long and patchy history with fighting games... I never really liked them for a long time - mainly because learning special combos is quite high on my list of things I have no time for.
This all changed at university when I discovered Super Smash Brothers and Soul Calibur 2. Leaving SSB on one side, let's look at soul calibur 2.
I love several things about that game.
1) It's in 3-D
This means that you can block and dodge - they're two different moves. So if you want to avoid a strike, you can move back. This means the game is far more tactical than most others as you can just avoid most attacks and then chose when to strike.
2) There are hundreds of special moves.
The down side of this is that none of the special moves really feel that special. However, what it does mean is that it's incredibly easy to perform them. It's also fairly intuitive as different combinations of buttons generally mean the same thing.
3) Button bashers will always lose out to skilled players.
This is because skilled players know when to dodge, when to block and when to attack. These three things are far more important than the actual moves being performed. I like that.
4) The characters are all genuinely different.
Each character has a weapon and each weapon feels different. They all have different ranges, strengths and weaknesses. I know most fighting games have this but in the Soul Calibur games the weapon is a fantastic illustration of this.
So, with my parameters stated, what do I think about Street Fighter 4?
Plus points:
1) It's quite pretty.
Negative points:
1) It's not in 3-D so you can't dodge.
2) The characters all feel very similar to each other
3) You have to learn special move combos and they're much more powerful than the normal attacks so if you can't be bothered to learn them, you're fucked.
4) There seems to be very little strategy
It really does seem to be the anti Soul Calibur. It's what I hated about every bloody fighting game from Mortal Kombat to Marvel Vs Capcom. And it's got a metascore of 93. Now, I get that some people might like this sort of thing. If you like your fighting games to be about learning special moves rather than choosing when to attack and when to defend, it's probably very good.
I don't think this. I think it can fuck off.
This all changed at university when I discovered Super Smash Brothers and Soul Calibur 2. Leaving SSB on one side, let's look at soul calibur 2.
I love several things about that game.
1) It's in 3-D
This means that you can block and dodge - they're two different moves. So if you want to avoid a strike, you can move back. This means the game is far more tactical than most others as you can just avoid most attacks and then chose when to strike.
2) There are hundreds of special moves.
The down side of this is that none of the special moves really feel that special. However, what it does mean is that it's incredibly easy to perform them. It's also fairly intuitive as different combinations of buttons generally mean the same thing.
3) Button bashers will always lose out to skilled players.
This is because skilled players know when to dodge, when to block and when to attack. These three things are far more important than the actual moves being performed. I like that.
4) The characters are all genuinely different.
Each character has a weapon and each weapon feels different. They all have different ranges, strengths and weaknesses. I know most fighting games have this but in the Soul Calibur games the weapon is a fantastic illustration of this.
So, with my parameters stated, what do I think about Street Fighter 4?
Plus points:
1) It's quite pretty.
Negative points:
1) It's not in 3-D so you can't dodge.
2) The characters all feel very similar to each other
3) You have to learn special move combos and they're much more powerful than the normal attacks so if you can't be bothered to learn them, you're fucked.
4) There seems to be very little strategy
It really does seem to be the anti Soul Calibur. It's what I hated about every bloody fighting game from Mortal Kombat to Marvel Vs Capcom. And it's got a metascore of 93. Now, I get that some people might like this sort of thing. If you like your fighting games to be about learning special moves rather than choosing when to attack and when to defend, it's probably very good.
I don't think this. I think it can fuck off.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Games what I have been playing (part 2)
We're in the traditional summer drought as far as games go but there have been a few interesting releases.
1) Overlord 2
I completed this yesterday and I do really like it. It has moved on a little from Overlord 1 in that it's less of a freeform RPG type thing. You move from area to area to area, there's a definite plot this time round and so on. This is good/bad if you ask me. I liked the general directionless evil the first game reveled in but there is a reasonable plot this time round as well as actual characters rather than standard fantasy archetypes.
As far as the rest of the game goes - everything's been tweaked. The graphics are better, the RPG elements are slightly better thought out... there are a few extra features like mounts for your minions which are entertaining if a little pointless.
What does annoy me slightly is- the moral decisions you take this time around are not to kill or not to kill, it's to dominate or to kill. To dominate someone, you use an evil presence spell until they lose their willpower and follow you unquestioningly. This may have been a good idea on paper but in practice, it's unclear which of these two options is more evil. As the game is supposed to be a cartoonish entertaining romp whilst being evil in many different ways, moral ambiguity doesn't quite fit in.
Anyway, it's not perfect, there are more than a few bugs as well as the above issues but I did really like it. I think I probably enjoyed the first one more as it was fresher but if you have to play one of these games, this sequel is probably the one to go for. And I do really recommend playing them, by the way, there's nothing else really like them at the moment.
2) Call of Juarez 2 - Bound In Blood
I've been faintly interested in this game for a while. I never played the first one but the previews all made it seem fairly interesting. I loaded it up this morning, though, and hit several roadblocks straight away.
I) The game is set in the American Civil War and your character passionately believes in the Confederate cause.
Morally, this puts them slightly above someone fighting passionately to preserve the Third Reich. I know the south weren't as bad as the Nazis but they were pretty fucking bad.
II) You can't turn the auto aiming off.
Thankfully, there is only auto aiming when you're using two pistols (for single pistols and rifles, it's normal) but it's still really, really fucking annoying when your cross hair follows an enemy literally half way across the screen. I'm playing on a PC, guys, I don't need you to aim for me, I have a mouse.
III) The engine feels artificial
This is harder to define - when your character walks around, you keep getting stuck on things that you should be clearing with no trouble... your sight line is a little bit low... it feels like you're playing a really short, fat guy. Everything feels really artificial.
So yeah. I don't like it.
3) Trine
I've only played the demo of this but it's a highly entertaining 2-D puzzle platformer thing. The graphics are lovely, the music is entertaining and it has three player local co-op which is fucking fantastic.
If you have a mate who lives near you who enjoys his games, get them around and try it out, it's great fun.
4) Unreal Tournament 3
I got this as part of the Unreal pack that I got mainly for Unreal 2 - which was one of my favourite games of yesteryear. Miracle of miracles, though, I actually found it quite entertaining. The single player game, this is. It may have great multiplayer but I don't really care.
The single player campaign has a ridiculous plot and over acted cut scenes. However, that puts it several dozen places above Half Life 2, for example, because at least Unreal Tournament 3 does have a plot. It's also got a clearly defined antagonist, goals and relationships for the player... you know, all that stuff HL2 dramatically failed to have.
It's not actually that fun, though. Warfare (territory control) is quite fun but UT3 seems to be really, really convinced that 21st century players enjoy Capture the Flag. I don't. I have never liked Capture the Flag and as I have grown older, my contempt for it has only increased.
There are also straight death matches, which are fun in a vague way.
Part of the problem is the guns - they're just not very fun. The minigun is entertaining but all the other guns lack feel and character.
One good side to UT3, though, is the vehicles, which are imaginative and often genuinely awesome.
UT3 is often good in spite of itself. I would never recommend actually buying it - partly because Epic are dicks who have all ready made far too much money from a vastly over rated game but mostly because the vast majority of the game is pretty damn underwhelming. Occasionally it puts a smile on your face but far too infrequently to be worth it. If someone buys it for you, though, enjoy.
5) Blueberry Garden
This is another of those indie games I like. It's an odd one. You play a bird/man thing who is in charge of this huge garden thing. You can pick up fruit from one location and leave it somewhere else and it'll grow. If you eat fruit, it will affect you or the landscape. Some make you fly more efficiently, some cause earthquakes. But in a good way.
It's a very hard one to describe. I did enjoy the time I spent playing it, but I have no idea why. The gameplay itself is basic at best. The graphics are good, the music is absolutely fantastic...
The best thing you can do is check out the demo, really.
1) Overlord 2
I completed this yesterday and I do really like it. It has moved on a little from Overlord 1 in that it's less of a freeform RPG type thing. You move from area to area to area, there's a definite plot this time round and so on. This is good/bad if you ask me. I liked the general directionless evil the first game reveled in but there is a reasonable plot this time round as well as actual characters rather than standard fantasy archetypes.
As far as the rest of the game goes - everything's been tweaked. The graphics are better, the RPG elements are slightly better thought out... there are a few extra features like mounts for your minions which are entertaining if a little pointless.
What does annoy me slightly is- the moral decisions you take this time around are not to kill or not to kill, it's to dominate or to kill. To dominate someone, you use an evil presence spell until they lose their willpower and follow you unquestioningly. This may have been a good idea on paper but in practice, it's unclear which of these two options is more evil. As the game is supposed to be a cartoonish entertaining romp whilst being evil in many different ways, moral ambiguity doesn't quite fit in.
Anyway, it's not perfect, there are more than a few bugs as well as the above issues but I did really like it. I think I probably enjoyed the first one more as it was fresher but if you have to play one of these games, this sequel is probably the one to go for. And I do really recommend playing them, by the way, there's nothing else really like them at the moment.
2) Call of Juarez 2 - Bound In Blood
I've been faintly interested in this game for a while. I never played the first one but the previews all made it seem fairly interesting. I loaded it up this morning, though, and hit several roadblocks straight away.
I) The game is set in the American Civil War and your character passionately believes in the Confederate cause.
Morally, this puts them slightly above someone fighting passionately to preserve the Third Reich. I know the south weren't as bad as the Nazis but they were pretty fucking bad.
II) You can't turn the auto aiming off.
Thankfully, there is only auto aiming when you're using two pistols (for single pistols and rifles, it's normal) but it's still really, really fucking annoying when your cross hair follows an enemy literally half way across the screen. I'm playing on a PC, guys, I don't need you to aim for me, I have a mouse.
III) The engine feels artificial
This is harder to define - when your character walks around, you keep getting stuck on things that you should be clearing with no trouble... your sight line is a little bit low... it feels like you're playing a really short, fat guy. Everything feels really artificial.
So yeah. I don't like it.
3) Trine
I've only played the demo of this but it's a highly entertaining 2-D puzzle platformer thing. The graphics are lovely, the music is entertaining and it has three player local co-op which is fucking fantastic.
If you have a mate who lives near you who enjoys his games, get them around and try it out, it's great fun.
4) Unreal Tournament 3
I got this as part of the Unreal pack that I got mainly for Unreal 2 - which was one of my favourite games of yesteryear. Miracle of miracles, though, I actually found it quite entertaining. The single player game, this is. It may have great multiplayer but I don't really care.
The single player campaign has a ridiculous plot and over acted cut scenes. However, that puts it several dozen places above Half Life 2, for example, because at least Unreal Tournament 3 does have a plot. It's also got a clearly defined antagonist, goals and relationships for the player... you know, all that stuff HL2 dramatically failed to have.
It's not actually that fun, though. Warfare (territory control) is quite fun but UT3 seems to be really, really convinced that 21st century players enjoy Capture the Flag. I don't. I have never liked Capture the Flag and as I have grown older, my contempt for it has only increased.
There are also straight death matches, which are fun in a vague way.
Part of the problem is the guns - they're just not very fun. The minigun is entertaining but all the other guns lack feel and character.
One good side to UT3, though, is the vehicles, which are imaginative and often genuinely awesome.
UT3 is often good in spite of itself. I would never recommend actually buying it - partly because Epic are dicks who have all ready made far too much money from a vastly over rated game but mostly because the vast majority of the game is pretty damn underwhelming. Occasionally it puts a smile on your face but far too infrequently to be worth it. If someone buys it for you, though, enjoy.
5) Blueberry Garden
This is another of those indie games I like. It's an odd one. You play a bird/man thing who is in charge of this huge garden thing. You can pick up fruit from one location and leave it somewhere else and it'll grow. If you eat fruit, it will affect you or the landscape. Some make you fly more efficiently, some cause earthquakes. But in a good way.
It's a very hard one to describe. I did enjoy the time I spent playing it, but I have no idea why. The gameplay itself is basic at best. The graphics are good, the music is absolutely fantastic...
The best thing you can do is check out the demo, really.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Overlord 2
Given my current employment situation, I have to chose between comptuer games and regular square meals. Mind you, I do have 15% body fat, 5% of which I could stand to lose, so computer games it is.
I've played a couple of hours of Overlord 2, so far it's like the first one only tighter, prettier and much funnier. I haven't come across as many amusing moral choices and it's slightly harder to kill innocent people this time round but none the less, it's damn good fun.
I've played a couple of hours of Overlord 2, so far it's like the first one only tighter, prettier and much funnier. I haven't come across as many amusing moral choices and it's slightly harder to kill innocent people this time round but none the less, it's damn good fun.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Mass Effect has pissed me off
So I’ve been playing through Mass Effect again. Why, you ask. Well I don’t have the internets and I haven’t done for two weeks. You’d be surprised at how much you need the internets if you’re unemployed.
Anyhoo, I’ve been struggling through. The combat is balls but some of the bits are fairly entertaining – mainly the fun character bits. Having said that, I’ve just given up on it. Why? Because I couldn’t get a girl to shag me.
Part of the hype behind Mass Effect was you could cultivate relationships between characters and this is probably the best bit of the game. The problem arises when you don’t go down the beaten track. The first time round, I had my eye on someone, I forget who but because I was playing a girl and I didn’t tell Kaiden to fuck off at any point, the game decided I clearly wanted to ride him like a bitch from hell. This annoyed me and I had to start again, making the person I wanted to fuck extremely clear from the outset.
I should point out, by the way, that I am not in the least interested in seeing the grainy CGI sex scene. It’s just that the character arc is incomplete for the NPC’s if the relationship I’ve been cultivating for most of the game doesn’t go anywhere. It’s really annoying when films, for example, drop an unresolved character half way through and never bring them back. I was struggling with that sort of frustration.
So anyway, this time I was playing as a girl and I wanted to shag Ashley Wiliams. Why? Well because fucking the Asari is far too easy – the woman comes on so hard it’s like having sex with a stalker. I got Kaiden killed because he’s just a little bit too boring. Garrus, Tali and Wrex are out for species reasons.
It was with great surprise that I discovered – during the scene where my two characters usually meet and confess their love for each other – nothing. Not a sausage. Poor choice of words there. The game just skipped straight on to the next bit of story – which is landing on Ilos if anyone cares.
This *really* annoys me. The entire fucking game is about cultivating relationships and it doesn’t even let you do that properly. I forgave its rubbish combat, dodgy plot, lack of any interesting sub plots and so on because the character development system was brilliant. It seems that I had been playing the exact way Bioware wanted me to and as soon as I wanted to do something SLIGHTLY UNUSUAL, that was it.
Reh.
The second one had better be an improvement.
Anyhoo, I’ve been struggling through. The combat is balls but some of the bits are fairly entertaining – mainly the fun character bits. Having said that, I’ve just given up on it. Why? Because I couldn’t get a girl to shag me.
Part of the hype behind Mass Effect was you could cultivate relationships between characters and this is probably the best bit of the game. The problem arises when you don’t go down the beaten track. The first time round, I had my eye on someone, I forget who but because I was playing a girl and I didn’t tell Kaiden to fuck off at any point, the game decided I clearly wanted to ride him like a bitch from hell. This annoyed me and I had to start again, making the person I wanted to fuck extremely clear from the outset.
I should point out, by the way, that I am not in the least interested in seeing the grainy CGI sex scene. It’s just that the character arc is incomplete for the NPC’s if the relationship I’ve been cultivating for most of the game doesn’t go anywhere. It’s really annoying when films, for example, drop an unresolved character half way through and never bring them back. I was struggling with that sort of frustration.
So anyway, this time I was playing as a girl and I wanted to shag Ashley Wiliams. Why? Well because fucking the Asari is far too easy – the woman comes on so hard it’s like having sex with a stalker. I got Kaiden killed because he’s just a little bit too boring. Garrus, Tali and Wrex are out for species reasons.
It was with great surprise that I discovered – during the scene where my two characters usually meet and confess their love for each other – nothing. Not a sausage. Poor choice of words there. The game just skipped straight on to the next bit of story – which is landing on Ilos if anyone cares.
This *really* annoys me. The entire fucking game is about cultivating relationships and it doesn’t even let you do that properly. I forgave its rubbish combat, dodgy plot, lack of any interesting sub plots and so on because the character development system was brilliant. It seems that I had been playing the exact way Bioware wanted me to and as soon as I wanted to do something SLIGHTLY UNUSUAL, that was it.
Reh.
The second one had better be an improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)