So all of the next-gen consoles are upon us. Well, unless you live in Europe, that is, but regardless, I found the NexGen Wars site (NexGenWars.com) interesting. They claim that the sales data is up to date - I'm not at all sure about it. The "how many people prefer which console" data isn't at all interesting as the site is obviously targeted at the nerdcore. But if the sales data is anywhere close to the truth, it'll be interesting to follow how the market develops, instead of forming your opinion based on separate claims made by the console manufacturers over the next year.
Not surprisingly, the 360 is leading the pack with its year-long headstart (over 7M sold), but the Wii has really gotten off to a running start (over 1M sold), leading Nintendo to speculate that it may well surpass its financial projections for the year. Sony's 400K doesn't sound like much, but of course they did "launch" well before they had the stock to support it. I haven't been following the news that closely, but it seems that Sony is really getting beaten in the massmarket reviews, while Wii is welcomed everywhere.
I'm still fearing that Nintendo goes all Gamecube with Wii, though. Launching a fine console and supporting it with good releases are two different things.
Personally, I'm entrenched in the "wait and see" camp regarding the Playstation 3. It needs quality titles and a lower pricepoint to become desirable. Lacking a PS2, I'm willing to shell out a bit more for the third-gen Playstation, but so far I've heard nothing good. The Wii I'm ready to buy the minute there's a couple of quality titles for it.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Roleplaying for the masses
I've been reading the Finnish tabletop roleplaying scene's thoughts on making a low-threshold game meant to attract new people to the hobby. This has resonated with my own thoughts on roleplaying. I do believe there should be a low-threshold game, however, I'm on a completely different track to the majority of people discussing this.
The common idea seems to be a rules-light game based on a popular stereotype (generic fantasy). Why bother? If all you want is vanilla D&D, there is already vanilla D&D. You'll never get into it unless you're into rules, so the very high threshold to entry should work merely to deter those not cut out for it anyway.
A better take I've seen is taking a pop-culture icon and turning that into an easily digested game. Say, Lost. Or Alias. Then the game should be found in places where non-gamers tend to shop. The less there is to study about the game's framework, the better.
What I haven't seen discussed is breaking the ages-old roleplaying methods down a bit. Boardgames are living a new renaissance right now. The practice of playing a roleplaying game could be moved more towards that - use a board, a theme everyone gets without explaining it and have goals for everyone. This could be good because a boardgame doesn't have the gamemaster vs. players setup, and everyone is working together to gave fun - there is no gamemaster doing all the work.
It probably shouldn't be marketed as a roleplaying game, though, if mass market appeal is sought.
The common idea seems to be a rules-light game based on a popular stereotype (generic fantasy). Why bother? If all you want is vanilla D&D, there is already vanilla D&D. You'll never get into it unless you're into rules, so the very high threshold to entry should work merely to deter those not cut out for it anyway.
A better take I've seen is taking a pop-culture icon and turning that into an easily digested game. Say, Lost. Or Alias. Then the game should be found in places where non-gamers tend to shop. The less there is to study about the game's framework, the better.
What I haven't seen discussed is breaking the ages-old roleplaying methods down a bit. Boardgames are living a new renaissance right now. The practice of playing a roleplaying game could be moved more towards that - use a board, a theme everyone gets without explaining it and have goals for everyone. This could be good because a boardgame doesn't have the gamemaster vs. players setup, and everyone is working together to gave fun - there is no gamemaster doing all the work.
It probably shouldn't be marketed as a roleplaying game, though, if mass market appeal is sought.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
On disability (Nintendo Wii)
I am a healthy person. Regardless, I can't play Burnout for more than around half an hour at a time: I can't keep gas (RT) and nitro (A) down all the time without my right hand aching. I have often wondered how much my life would change if I was no longer able to hold a joypad or use a keyboard and mouse. (It's pretty scary, actually: people break their hands all the time.)
Everyone is not as lucky as I am. I find the people's dickheadedness in this post's comments section astonishing. The guy is just saying that it would be nice if there were consistent options to adjust the Wiimote's sensitivity to accommodate people who can't move their hands that well, and people are crying "cheat!" and "tough luck, disabled guy, live with it!". This being the internet, many are drawing ridiculous parallels like "well, the guy with no hands can't play either, next we'll have to help him!".
I've ranted about usability issues before. Microsoft has pushed the developers into conforming to their standards on the usage of the 360 joypad's buttons, on respecting customized soundtracks and incorporating Live. They even have a setting for console-specific "preferred controls" to avoid having to set your invert, gearbox and viewpoint preferences in every FPS and driving game you play.
Is it possible that they haven't even thought about demanding customizable controls while at it? What about all the people who prefer "southpaw" layout, with movement on the right stick? Like many left-handers? There are no technical reasons to limit the user's customization of controls, yet it's extremely rare to see that an option.
I imagine there are a lot of people with minor hand problems, like missing fingers, aching joints and whatever, who could be helped just by giving them the option of, say, using RB instead of A for the majority of gameplay.
Even very common disabilities like hard of hearing and colorblindness are usually not taken into account. This could be remedied with simple rules on user interface design. I understand that these options can be the last thing to finetune before shipping and thus being very barebones, but we're talking about the overall quality of not just the one game, but the industry. If accessibility (to a sensible point...) was taken into account in the planning and design stage, these would be non-issues.
Since developers don't seem to take this up and publishers won't make them to, some industry entity should take up the accessibility flag. There's a lot of cheap, good PR on the offer, if you need an incentive beyond being as good as you can be.
I find this especially depressing because playing videogames can be one of the few ways a disabled or bed-ridden person can communicate with her peers on an equal level. To limit their options for no good reason is a shame.
Update: A couple of links to complement the post. First, there's One Switch, which is a campaign for greater accessibility in games. Then it appears that the International Game Developers' Association, or IGDA, has already taken accessibility into account in a special interest group's blog.
Everyone is not as lucky as I am. I find the people's dickheadedness in this post's comments section astonishing. The guy is just saying that it would be nice if there were consistent options to adjust the Wiimote's sensitivity to accommodate people who can't move their hands that well, and people are crying "cheat!" and "tough luck, disabled guy, live with it!". This being the internet, many are drawing ridiculous parallels like "well, the guy with no hands can't play either, next we'll have to help him!".
I've ranted about usability issues before. Microsoft has pushed the developers into conforming to their standards on the usage of the 360 joypad's buttons, on respecting customized soundtracks and incorporating Live. They even have a setting for console-specific "preferred controls" to avoid having to set your invert, gearbox and viewpoint preferences in every FPS and driving game you play.
Is it possible that they haven't even thought about demanding customizable controls while at it? What about all the people who prefer "southpaw" layout, with movement on the right stick? Like many left-handers? There are no technical reasons to limit the user's customization of controls, yet it's extremely rare to see that an option.
I imagine there are a lot of people with minor hand problems, like missing fingers, aching joints and whatever, who could be helped just by giving them the option of, say, using RB instead of A for the majority of gameplay.
Even very common disabilities like hard of hearing and colorblindness are usually not taken into account. This could be remedied with simple rules on user interface design. I understand that these options can be the last thing to finetune before shipping and thus being very barebones, but we're talking about the overall quality of not just the one game, but the industry. If accessibility (to a sensible point...) was taken into account in the planning and design stage, these would be non-issues.
Since developers don't seem to take this up and publishers won't make them to, some industry entity should take up the accessibility flag. There's a lot of cheap, good PR on the offer, if you need an incentive beyond being as good as you can be.
I find this especially depressing because playing videogames can be one of the few ways a disabled or bed-ridden person can communicate with her peers on an equal level. To limit their options for no good reason is a shame.
Update: A couple of links to complement the post. First, there's One Switch, which is a campaign for greater accessibility in games. Then it appears that the International Game Developers' Association, or IGDA, has already taken accessibility into account in a special interest group's blog.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Sponsored post: Review Me
This is a sponsored post about the Review Me service. It's not like I need the $15 USD I'm getting for this or that it's even adequate money for the sign-up effort and writing the post; I'm doing this simply because I think this is a great idea. I came upon this via GameProducer.net.
The problem is that old-fashioned mass marketing or even targeted marketing like Google AdWords is just not cutting it for some products. To get that community interest you need to engage people. Review Me features products which need community exposure but don't work well with mass marketing. They pay bloggers to discuss their products: it's essentially a global media agency for reaching bloggers.
Of course I'm thinking here that videogames could work very well in this context. I know I can rely on Penny Arcade's coverage of the games they play. Even at the risk of sounding much more influential than I am (and I really have no illusions: I've got a total of 2'000 visitors), it's the old ethos of reaching the opinion leaders.
Take the online RPGs I discussed earlier today. You can use banner ads to reach potential customers for Eve Online and D&D Stormreach, since they have popular imagery and USPs you can throw at the audience. But what about the real niche games, like A Tale In The Desert? Games which are too out there to be explained in a single sentence? You can't tell about them if people don't talk about them. Review Me might be just the thing to help get the word out there about these more obscure games without excessive PR efforts.
So there you have it, a way to get bloggers to discuss your product (or site, or service, or...). The only requirements for the sponsored reviews are to write 200+ words (this post is 444 words) and be clear about the fact that it's a paid-for post. There's no need to be positive about the reviewed thing.
As a blogger, I feel good about this. The products it's good for are the kind of stuff I'd likely write about anyway, and since the advertiser hand-picks the sites they want to feature in, the content I'm proposed should fit my line well. Since writing a post is a relatively big effort anyway, I don't think this is "easy money" - it's a bonus, sure, and if you've got a popular site, you can make $50 USD per review.
Now, this is all theoretical. I don't think I'll see many propositions from the Review Me advertisers, but I just want to be clear that I wouldn't categorically say no to them.
Update 15/11/06: We broke the 50 visitor threshold yesterday. Nice, that.
The problem is that old-fashioned mass marketing or even targeted marketing like Google AdWords is just not cutting it for some products. To get that community interest you need to engage people. Review Me features products which need community exposure but don't work well with mass marketing. They pay bloggers to discuss their products: it's essentially a global media agency for reaching bloggers.
Of course I'm thinking here that videogames could work very well in this context. I know I can rely on Penny Arcade's coverage of the games they play. Even at the risk of sounding much more influential than I am (and I really have no illusions: I've got a total of 2'000 visitors), it's the old ethos of reaching the opinion leaders.
Take the online RPGs I discussed earlier today. You can use banner ads to reach potential customers for Eve Online and D&D Stormreach, since they have popular imagery and USPs you can throw at the audience. But what about the real niche games, like A Tale In The Desert? Games which are too out there to be explained in a single sentence? You can't tell about them if people don't talk about them. Review Me might be just the thing to help get the word out there about these more obscure games without excessive PR efforts.
So there you have it, a way to get bloggers to discuss your product (or site, or service, or...). The only requirements for the sponsored reviews are to write 200+ words (this post is 444 words) and be clear about the fact that it's a paid-for post. There's no need to be positive about the reviewed thing.
As a blogger, I feel good about this. The products it's good for are the kind of stuff I'd likely write about anyway, and since the advertiser hand-picks the sites they want to feature in, the content I'm proposed should fit my line well. Since writing a post is a relatively big effort anyway, I don't think this is "easy money" - it's a bonus, sure, and if you've got a popular site, you can make $50 USD per review.
Now, this is all theoretical. I don't think I'll see many propositions from the Review Me advertisers, but I just want to be clear that I wouldn't categorically say no to them.
Update 15/11/06: We broke the 50 visitor threshold yesterday. Nice, that.
Massively Multiplayer (EVE, Stormreach, World Of Warcraft, CCP + White Wolf)
I've been intrigued by the massively multiplayer games for a long time. I've played some Anarchy Online and tried free demos of a couple of others, but haven't really gotten into any of them, mostly due to the grind of the games being such a bore: the games don't properly start until you've invested dozens of hours and made friends with other players.
These games are commonly called massively multiplayer online something-or-other, usually roleplaying games. The "massively" is just needless gloating, and "multiplayer" says the same as "online", really. If it's an RPG, I like to stubbornly call them net-RPGs or something of the sort, as I feel just stupid saying "MMORPG" aloud. Don't you? If it's not an RPG, can't we just say it's an online game? Or a net-game?
There is one game in which the "massively" part rings true, which is one of the reasons I'm itching to try it out. Eve Online's players truly are all in the same world, running it in unison. It's a grand social and economical experiment, hailed by some as the ultimate game and by others as the, well, ultimate bore. There's been a lot of cool stuff done in Eve, like the way the economy actually works and the way the players have set up the world's allegiancies on their own, without GM intervention. We intend to check out EVE with my wife in the Christmas holidays.
Then there's World Of Warcraft. It's massive in the sense that everyone and their cats have played the game and there's a truly massive amount of players at it at any given time, regardless of how many separate servers they inhabit. The games has one thing going for it: it's visually so pleasing that I find it hard to resist jumping in whenever I see it running on-screen. We had already decided against ever trying it out, wary of some of our friends' regret over the time they'd put into it, but last weekend the fever hit again.
I really don't want to spend all my spare time on a (single) game. However, there's nothing wrong in playing something for a while. There's another online RPG I'd really like to check out, Dungeons & Dragons Stormreach, but I always thought that I shouldn't touch it as I wouldn't have the time it required, anyway. But so what if I only played for a couple of months, as with other games? If the game can't offer proper gameplay during the opening moments, it's probably not worth my time anyway.
As I had pondered about these things and settled on rying out at least the free demos of these games, the news hit that CCP, the company behind EVE, had agreed on a merger with White Wolf, the company behind my beloved Vampire tabletop RPG. Something good is bound to emerge from this union.
These games are commonly called massively multiplayer online something-or-other, usually roleplaying games. The "massively" is just needless gloating, and "multiplayer" says the same as "online", really. If it's an RPG, I like to stubbornly call them net-RPGs or something of the sort, as I feel just stupid saying "MMORPG" aloud. Don't you? If it's not an RPG, can't we just say it's an online game? Or a net-game?
There is one game in which the "massively" part rings true, which is one of the reasons I'm itching to try it out. Eve Online's players truly are all in the same world, running it in unison. It's a grand social and economical experiment, hailed by some as the ultimate game and by others as the, well, ultimate bore. There's been a lot of cool stuff done in Eve, like the way the economy actually works and the way the players have set up the world's allegiancies on their own, without GM intervention. We intend to check out EVE with my wife in the Christmas holidays.
Then there's World Of Warcraft. It's massive in the sense that everyone and their cats have played the game and there's a truly massive amount of players at it at any given time, regardless of how many separate servers they inhabit. The games has one thing going for it: it's visually so pleasing that I find it hard to resist jumping in whenever I see it running on-screen. We had already decided against ever trying it out, wary of some of our friends' regret over the time they'd put into it, but last weekend the fever hit again.
I really don't want to spend all my spare time on a (single) game. However, there's nothing wrong in playing something for a while. There's another online RPG I'd really like to check out, Dungeons & Dragons Stormreach, but I always thought that I shouldn't touch it as I wouldn't have the time it required, anyway. But so what if I only played for a couple of months, as with other games? If the game can't offer proper gameplay during the opening moments, it's probably not worth my time anyway.
As I had pondered about these things and settled on rying out at least the free demos of these games, the news hit that CCP, the company behind EVE, had agreed on a merger with White Wolf, the company behind my beloved Vampire tabletop RPG. Something good is bound to emerge from this union.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Phantasy Star Universe beta, Lumines Live outrage
Phantasy Star Universe
So I played one night in the PSU beta on Live. I loved the character creation. I made a chick robot. I like the setting a lot - it's so unpretentious: you have a dedicated shopping mall/lobby, you select a mission and get to it. The unplausible yet aesthetically pleasing mix of fantasy and science fiction appeals to me.
The graphics are lame. They do the job and the design is very good, but you really do expect more on a next-gen console. The visuals are basically Dreamcast era graphics moving smoothly and somewhat smoothed over with anti-aliasing. Textures are poor and the models have nothing going for them... but on the whole, it's a pleasing sight.
Based on that one evening's play, I'm not going to pay the separate online fee Sega is asking for the privilege. There isn't enough variety of stuff to do and for me, the social elements wouldn't be enough, since I definitely wouldn't be hanging online every day.
Lumines Live
Lumines finally came on Live. It caused an uproar. First there was the price of 1200 points (around 14€) and then it turned out that the so-called full game is anything but. There are mere samples of most game modes, with only the time attack and online versus modes completely unlocked for your 1200 points. I could stomach that, if the basic "challenge" mode featured more than seven skins (levels), which is really pushing it. They're going to release a lot more skins for a further 600 points, with individual game mode packs coming later, too.
I can see what they're trying to accomplish here (besides money), and I applaud it. However, the decision to ask for a record-breaking 1200 points for the demo version ("Base") is an unwelcome move. I'd buy the bits and pieces happily if the base pack was a lot cheaper or indeed free.
The game does seem worth of 14€, I really like the demo, but they should never have called it a "full game". Obviously Live Marketplace is a still evolving thing, but incidents like this don't really help people's willingness to indulge in micropayments. And, well, 14€ isn't exactly "micro" in any fashion.
So I played one night in the PSU beta on Live. I loved the character creation. I made a chick robot. I like the setting a lot - it's so unpretentious: you have a dedicated shopping mall/lobby, you select a mission and get to it. The unplausible yet aesthetically pleasing mix of fantasy and science fiction appeals to me.
The graphics are lame. They do the job and the design is very good, but you really do expect more on a next-gen console. The visuals are basically Dreamcast era graphics moving smoothly and somewhat smoothed over with anti-aliasing. Textures are poor and the models have nothing going for them... but on the whole, it's a pleasing sight.
Based on that one evening's play, I'm not going to pay the separate online fee Sega is asking for the privilege. There isn't enough variety of stuff to do and for me, the social elements wouldn't be enough, since I definitely wouldn't be hanging online every day.
Lumines Live
Lumines finally came on Live. It caused an uproar. First there was the price of 1200 points (around 14€) and then it turned out that the so-called full game is anything but. There are mere samples of most game modes, with only the time attack and online versus modes completely unlocked for your 1200 points. I could stomach that, if the basic "challenge" mode featured more than seven skins (levels), which is really pushing it. They're going to release a lot more skins for a further 600 points, with individual game mode packs coming later, too.
I can see what they're trying to accomplish here (besides money), and I applaud it. However, the decision to ask for a record-breaking 1200 points for the demo version ("Base") is an unwelcome move. I'd buy the bits and pieces happily if the base pack was a lot cheaper or indeed free.
The game does seem worth of 14€, I really like the demo, but they should never have called it a "full game". Obviously Live Marketplace is a still evolving thing, but incidents like this don't really help people's willingness to indulge in micropayments. And, well, 14€ isn't exactly "micro" in any fashion.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Online fees (Phantasy Star Online)
I'm completely happy with paying for Xbox Live Gold. Around 7€ per month is not much and I get a lot for that money.
However, paying for the service makes me extremely wary of paying more for individual games. I was super excited about Phantasy Star Universe, but I find it highly unlikely that I'd pay the further (around) 7€ they're asking. I do understand that online RPGs require money to operate, but publishers (Microsoft included) should understand that the consumer view of things is that they're already paying for the online experience.
In the case of PSU, I'm quite skeptical about the publisher's need for the money, in any case. It's a very simple game. I don't have a clue as to how the load is spread between Microsoft's infrastructure and Sega's (the publisher in this case) - for all I know, they could be just asking for more money for the sake of it. It's not like PSU requires ongoing development, new storylines or whatnot - it's a social dungeon bash.
I predict that the game doesn't sell very well and the community ends up being too small to really sustain itself. I do hope all the best for the game and I'm not saying I'd be immune to its lures despite the additional cost, but the threshold for taking part has suddenly gone way up. Let's just say that without the additional "GUARDIANS License" monthly fee, I'd likely pick this up without a second thought.
However, paying for the service makes me extremely wary of paying more for individual games. I was super excited about Phantasy Star Universe, but I find it highly unlikely that I'd pay the further (around) 7€ they're asking. I do understand that online RPGs require money to operate, but publishers (Microsoft included) should understand that the consumer view of things is that they're already paying for the online experience.
In the case of PSU, I'm quite skeptical about the publisher's need for the money, in any case. It's a very simple game. I don't have a clue as to how the load is spread between Microsoft's infrastructure and Sega's (the publisher in this case) - for all I know, they could be just asking for more money for the sake of it. It's not like PSU requires ongoing development, new storylines or whatnot - it's a social dungeon bash.
I predict that the game doesn't sell very well and the community ends up being too small to really sustain itself. I do hope all the best for the game and I'm not saying I'd be immune to its lures despite the additional cost, but the threshold for taking part has suddenly gone way up. Let's just say that without the additional "GUARDIANS License" monthly fee, I'd likely pick this up without a second thought.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Online leaderboards (feat. Doom), 3D platformers (feat. Sonic), Defcon
Doom
I purchased the 360 version of classic Doom at 800 MS points (roughly 9€). It's a no-frills conversion, exactly what I wanted - no tricks done to the original graphics or sounds, all four episodes, controls work very well. It's a great game. I have one thing to complain about: the map is utterly worthless on a non-HDTV. Really, you need to take the massmarket (like all of Europe) into account when designing your game views.
A couple of things came up during playing the first episode through in one sitting.
First and foremost are the online leaderboards, viewable per level. All games need this feature. It plays straight to my competitive spirit. It feels so good to be the best player among your friends and to, say, finally break the global top-1000.
Leaderboards are what keeps me playing Geometry Wars, too. It bugs me that I'm sitting right on the average level (according to MyGamerCard.net). I need to break that half a million to get above the crowd!
Then there are Doom's controls. As per the original version, there is no Y-axis; you don't aim up and down. The character automatically targets monsters above and below you, provided that they line up with your gun. I'd really like to see a modern shooter do the same. Sure it needs some clever level design (Doom's essentially flat), but it would keep things much more free-flowing and immediate.
I recall the makers of the original Unreal Tournament's Xbox version attempting something in this vain, via level design. I don't know how that worked out, though.
I didn't buy Doom merely because I loved it as a kid. I imagined that it would be a great game, period. And it is. If anything, provided you can look past the low-res graphics, it's even better today. It absolutely wipes the floor with so many modern shooters, despite being released in 1993. The lighting is very effective, the level design is engaging, the overall aesthetic design hasn't aged at all.
Oh, and like reviewer Kristan Reed on Eurogamer put it, this game features bodies which do not disappear. Thirteen years ago. Get with the times, shooter designers.
Sonic: The Hedgehog next-gen
I've said it before and this latest offering only enforces my position: platform games should never have made the jump to 3D presentation. It doesn't work! I tried and tried and tried and simply could not hit the lines of rings with any confidence. The automatically aimed spinning attack does work, but as usual, the camera is worthless (you wouldn't believe how slowly it spins).
There's been a single instance of 3D platforming working well - Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time - but even that one stellar example of the genre had some problems with the camera.
So in a nutshell: kill 3D platformers, kpls.
Allegedly the original Sega Megadrive/Genesis Sonic is coming to XBLA in the near future. That's an almost guaranteed sale right there and I imagine it will work much better than this entirely competent, but by its nature, awkward offering.
Defcon
I've liked Introversion ever since I found Uplink, the awesome hacker game they released in 2001. Their latest release Defcon has generated a lot of hype. The game was released a few days ago and the demo is now out, too, go get it.
I had trouble imagining how the game would play out in practice, but having played through the tutorial, it's all clear now. I've yet to try a full-fledged game, but it's pretty safe to say at this point that it's a sure sale for me (PC hardware permitting, my home machine's ancient). At 14€ for a brand new game, I really can't complain. Although I might go for the boxed copy, which is priced a little higher, but even that's a ridiculous 21€! And it feels good to know that you're paying straight to the developers themselves.
It's also interesting how cool and distinctive Introversion's games look, despite the authors claiming that it's all "programmer art". Their soundscapes are thoughtful, too. I hear that Defcon sports "situation room ambient" consisting of cigarettes lighted, coughs and so on, which is really a magnificent idea. Can't be witness to that myself, yet, because I didn't have audio on the laptop I tried it on.
Update: Defcon runs just fine on my 900 MHZ/512 MB RAM home system. I've taken a beating from the computer twice, now. Well, at least it runs fine with only two players, that is.
I purchased the 360 version of classic Doom at 800 MS points (roughly 9€). It's a no-frills conversion, exactly what I wanted - no tricks done to the original graphics or sounds, all four episodes, controls work very well. It's a great game. I have one thing to complain about: the map is utterly worthless on a non-HDTV. Really, you need to take the massmarket (like all of Europe) into account when designing your game views.
A couple of things came up during playing the first episode through in one sitting.
First and foremost are the online leaderboards, viewable per level. All games need this feature. It plays straight to my competitive spirit. It feels so good to be the best player among your friends and to, say, finally break the global top-1000.
Leaderboards are what keeps me playing Geometry Wars, too. It bugs me that I'm sitting right on the average level (according to MyGamerCard.net). I need to break that half a million to get above the crowd!
Then there are Doom's controls. As per the original version, there is no Y-axis; you don't aim up and down. The character automatically targets monsters above and below you, provided that they line up with your gun. I'd really like to see a modern shooter do the same. Sure it needs some clever level design (Doom's essentially flat), but it would keep things much more free-flowing and immediate.
I recall the makers of the original Unreal Tournament's Xbox version attempting something in this vain, via level design. I don't know how that worked out, though.
I didn't buy Doom merely because I loved it as a kid. I imagined that it would be a great game, period. And it is. If anything, provided you can look past the low-res graphics, it's even better today. It absolutely wipes the floor with so many modern shooters, despite being released in 1993. The lighting is very effective, the level design is engaging, the overall aesthetic design hasn't aged at all.
Oh, and like reviewer Kristan Reed on Eurogamer put it, this game features bodies which do not disappear. Thirteen years ago. Get with the times, shooter designers.
Sonic: The Hedgehog next-gen
I've said it before and this latest offering only enforces my position: platform games should never have made the jump to 3D presentation. It doesn't work! I tried and tried and tried and simply could not hit the lines of rings with any confidence. The automatically aimed spinning attack does work, but as usual, the camera is worthless (you wouldn't believe how slowly it spins).
There's been a single instance of 3D platforming working well - Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time - but even that one stellar example of the genre had some problems with the camera.
So in a nutshell: kill 3D platformers, kpls.
Allegedly the original Sega Megadrive/Genesis Sonic is coming to XBLA in the near future. That's an almost guaranteed sale right there and I imagine it will work much better than this entirely competent, but by its nature, awkward offering.
Defcon
I've liked Introversion ever since I found Uplink, the awesome hacker game they released in 2001. Their latest release Defcon has generated a lot of hype. The game was released a few days ago and the demo is now out, too, go get it.
I had trouble imagining how the game would play out in practice, but having played through the tutorial, it's all clear now. I've yet to try a full-fledged game, but it's pretty safe to say at this point that it's a sure sale for me (PC hardware permitting, my home machine's ancient). At 14€ for a brand new game, I really can't complain. Although I might go for the boxed copy, which is priced a little higher, but even that's a ridiculous 21€! And it feels good to know that you're paying straight to the developers themselves.
It's also interesting how cool and distinctive Introversion's games look, despite the authors claiming that it's all "programmer art". Their soundscapes are thoughtful, too. I hear that Defcon sports "situation room ambient" consisting of cigarettes lighted, coughs and so on, which is really a magnificent idea. Can't be witness to that myself, yet, because I didn't have audio on the laptop I tried it on.
Update: Defcon runs just fine on my 900 MHZ/512 MB RAM home system. I've taken a beating from the computer twice, now. Well, at least it runs fine with only two players, that is.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
On fearsome controls
While I understand that development time is limited and you have to make sacrifices, your game's controls simply cannot be at stake.
I've waited for FEAR's 360 demo with baited breath. Granted, I've only yet played it for fifteen minutes, but they have some polishing to do with the controls. There are two big problems.
One: you need to hold the left stick in to crouch. Never do this. It has to be a toggle: crouch/stand up. Even if it's intentional because they don't want you to move while crouched (I doubt), it's a pain.
Two: unless tweaking the sensitivity of the sticks alleviates the problem, the movement and aiming feel horribly off. I tried upping the sensitivity a lot, which didn't help at all. It feels to me like they've copied the PC original's control scheme directly - movement doesn't feel analogue, which it really has to be on a twin-stick setup, and aiming feels like you're using a mouse. Which doesn't work at all. You need to factor in a little auto-aim, you need to make the smallest movement of the stick to register, you need to fine-tune the acceleration until it's natural. I spent many a frustrating second trying to move my aim a head's or a limb's width to get a shot at a stationary target. I didn't have a hope landing shots without the use of the - incredibly nifty - slow-motion power.
Halo did the twin-stick console FPS control scheme so well that each and every FPS designer needs to study it. If you can't make it any better, just copy it. There have been examples of working alternatives; for instance, I never cringed at Battlefield 2's controls. You can look past spotty graphics, but if you don't feel like you're in control, you just can't enjoy the game.
All that said, I remain enthusiastic about the game. Maybe I can learn to live with the controls, but that's really the wrong way around.
Regardless of controls, there were also quite a few graphical glitches, but I'm willing to look past that to bask in the glory of the supremely satisfying bullet-trails, particle effects and chunks blown off the environment. We'll see how it all hangs together after a couple of play-throughs of the demo.
Edit: All right, taking the sensitivity down a lot helped with the aiming. The movement still feels clunky, but I believe I can live with it, now.
Come to think of it, I shouldn't be surprised. Monolith's games have always felt weird to control, all the way back from Shogo and No One Lives Forever. Regardless, those two titles are among my all-time favorite games, which just proves that a game is more than the sum of its parts.
I've waited for FEAR's 360 demo with baited breath. Granted, I've only yet played it for fifteen minutes, but they have some polishing to do with the controls. There are two big problems.
One: you need to hold the left stick in to crouch. Never do this. It has to be a toggle: crouch/stand up. Even if it's intentional because they don't want you to move while crouched (I doubt), it's a pain.
Two: unless tweaking the sensitivity of the sticks alleviates the problem, the movement and aiming feel horribly off. I tried upping the sensitivity a lot, which didn't help at all. It feels to me like they've copied the PC original's control scheme directly - movement doesn't feel analogue, which it really has to be on a twin-stick setup, and aiming feels like you're using a mouse. Which doesn't work at all. You need to factor in a little auto-aim, you need to make the smallest movement of the stick to register, you need to fine-tune the acceleration until it's natural. I spent many a frustrating second trying to move my aim a head's or a limb's width to get a shot at a stationary target. I didn't have a hope landing shots without the use of the - incredibly nifty - slow-motion power.
Halo did the twin-stick console FPS control scheme so well that each and every FPS designer needs to study it. If you can't make it any better, just copy it. There have been examples of working alternatives; for instance, I never cringed at Battlefield 2's controls. You can look past spotty graphics, but if you don't feel like you're in control, you just can't enjoy the game.
All that said, I remain enthusiastic about the game. Maybe I can learn to live with the controls, but that's really the wrong way around.
Regardless of controls, there were also quite a few graphical glitches, but I'm willing to look past that to bask in the glory of the supremely satisfying bullet-trails, particle effects and chunks blown off the environment. We'll see how it all hangs together after a couple of play-throughs of the demo.
Edit: All right, taking the sensitivity down a lot helped with the aiming. The movement still feels clunky, but I believe I can live with it, now.
Come to think of it, I shouldn't be surprised. Monolith's games have always felt weird to control, all the way back from Shogo and No One Lives Forever. Regardless, those two titles are among my all-time favorite games, which just proves that a game is more than the sum of its parts.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
In-game advertising
Gamesindustry.biz had an article on in-game advertising. It's a quick read on where we're at, now.
I know that most hardcore gamers react very negatively to in-game advertising. I can see the problem of advertising seeping into ever more facets of our lives, so I can't say that the critics are wrong, per se, but additional income is sorely needed to fund next-gen games. (Or so they say.)
It looks like the publishers want to do this right. Was anybody ever bothered by the ads in sports and car games, where they're placed on billboards, like in the real world they emulate? Probably not. The only thing that bothers me about the ads in, say, Burnout 3, was that they're static and look dated very quickly - apart from the Axe ads perhaps, which are timeless in a sad sort of way.
When advertising came into Anarchy Online, we could see what could go wrong. The first ad was an animated billboard for Alienware gaming PCs, which was absolutely spot on for the context. The next ad, for Mötley Crue's new album, was not integrated to the game world and thus it stuck out. I can imagine there being a Mötley Crue in the far future of the game world, but I have trouble with the "out now" slogans; stuff which breaks my suspension of disbelief and connects me with the day to day real life.
In sports and car titles, I actually like the presence of real-world brands. It brings an air of authenticity, as long as there's a believably large number of brands present. Need For Speed Underground gained lots of atmosphere due to every tuning part being a licenced product. Not just any neon, Streetglow neon!
If I'm going to be affected by advertising anyway, I'd like that advertising to be really targeted at me and those influences to come from stuff I actually like (games), instead of the mass market bombardment. Every banner I've ever clicked on has been on a fringe or community site, heavily targeted at that site's audience. Penny Arcade has stated that they only display ads on products they feel they want to endorse, which lends them immense weight - the stuff feels like genuine recommendations, not just blind advertising. The guys have even drawn many of the ads themselves to better integrate them into the PA experience.
I trust that the videogame publishers know they need to treat their end-user relationship delicately and that they'll handle their advertisers as carefully crafted partnerships.
There are some larger issues at hand, though. If in-game advertising becomes as big as I think it might, what about games which cannot incorporate real-world advertising in a natural manner?
How do you go about putting real-world brands into World Of Warcraft? Some have speculated about sponsor messages in loading screens, menu screens and the like, but I'm afraid that they would still detract from the user's enjoyment of the fantasy theme.
If in-game advertising becomes a commonplace, substantial part of a game's budget, what happens to games which can't benefit from it? Or are we destined to have fantasy worlds swamped by branding, drinking our mead at a fantasy-themed Starbucks and using Snap-On tools to fix our equipment?
I know that most hardcore gamers react very negatively to in-game advertising. I can see the problem of advertising seeping into ever more facets of our lives, so I can't say that the critics are wrong, per se, but additional income is sorely needed to fund next-gen games. (Or so they say.)
It looks like the publishers want to do this right. Was anybody ever bothered by the ads in sports and car games, where they're placed on billboards, like in the real world they emulate? Probably not. The only thing that bothers me about the ads in, say, Burnout 3, was that they're static and look dated very quickly - apart from the Axe ads perhaps, which are timeless in a sad sort of way.
When advertising came into Anarchy Online, we could see what could go wrong. The first ad was an animated billboard for Alienware gaming PCs, which was absolutely spot on for the context. The next ad, for Mötley Crue's new album, was not integrated to the game world and thus it stuck out. I can imagine there being a Mötley Crue in the far future of the game world, but I have trouble with the "out now" slogans; stuff which breaks my suspension of disbelief and connects me with the day to day real life.
In sports and car titles, I actually like the presence of real-world brands. It brings an air of authenticity, as long as there's a believably large number of brands present. Need For Speed Underground gained lots of atmosphere due to every tuning part being a licenced product. Not just any neon, Streetglow neon!
If I'm going to be affected by advertising anyway, I'd like that advertising to be really targeted at me and those influences to come from stuff I actually like (games), instead of the mass market bombardment. Every banner I've ever clicked on has been on a fringe or community site, heavily targeted at that site's audience. Penny Arcade has stated that they only display ads on products they feel they want to endorse, which lends them immense weight - the stuff feels like genuine recommendations, not just blind advertising. The guys have even drawn many of the ads themselves to better integrate them into the PA experience.
I trust that the videogame publishers know they need to treat their end-user relationship delicately and that they'll handle their advertisers as carefully crafted partnerships.
There are some larger issues at hand, though. If in-game advertising becomes as big as I think it might, what about games which cannot incorporate real-world advertising in a natural manner?
How do you go about putting real-world brands into World Of Warcraft? Some have speculated about sponsor messages in loading screens, menu screens and the like, but I'm afraid that they would still detract from the user's enjoyment of the fantasy theme.
If in-game advertising becomes a commonplace, substantial part of a game's budget, what happens to games which can't benefit from it? Or are we destined to have fantasy worlds swamped by branding, drinking our mead at a fantasy-themed Starbucks and using Snap-On tools to fix our equipment?
Friday, July 21, 2006
A Plot. Now With Voice!
I just completed Perfect Dark Zero's singleplayer mode on the easiest "Agent" level. While I remain enthusiastic about the game's sports-like approach to levels and statistics, I have to say that this game would've been much better off without voice actors and cutscenes. This would've rid us of the plot.
I can't say much about the plot, because I couldn't make any sense of it. There was a dead father, crazy old Chinese man with tubes in his head, his mean daughter and the Graal, of all things. I don't know how these things connect, or why was Joanna there, etc. Most of the plot is carried in conversations during the missions, but without subtitles I couldn't make out much of it. Which is just as well, because the voice actors are so horrible that I don't want to hear them. The cutscenes are short, but add nothing to the experience.
The end sequence is so lame that it reminds me positively of old videogames! Spoiler ahead, be warned, although really I'm beyond why anyone would actually care, in this case. When the final bad guy is shot down (I couldn't make sense of the instructions, so I just shot him until he dropped), the arena crumbles around Joanna. Allies rush to scene. Joanna rises from the rubble, wobbly. Chief ally steps up to support him (I still don't know why they're working together). "Are you all right?" "I could use an aspirin." The allied boss (a Scotsman, total mystery to me) comes on stage. "So how did I do?" Both salute. Fade to black.
Why did this game have a plot at all? It serves absolutely no purpose. The stages are sensibly accessed from a mission select screen, one at a time, and all the story bits do is add to the confusion. This would be so much better with mission-specific goals, without an overarching sad excuse for a plot. Thankfully, all of it is skippable.
And really, you spend years and years making a game, then leave your audience cringing at god-awful voice actors. That's just dumb. Surely there must be no one anywhere who would applaud the acting. I actually feel bad saying that, but they substantially take away from the game. I don't know, maybe it's just a director who doesn't know his job, but it's a mess of a job regardless.
Oh, and I only realized in the second to last mission that I could choose my gear for every mission. I don't know where that was explained, I just stumbled upon it.
I can't say much about the plot, because I couldn't make any sense of it. There was a dead father, crazy old Chinese man with tubes in his head, his mean daughter and the Graal, of all things. I don't know how these things connect, or why was Joanna there, etc. Most of the plot is carried in conversations during the missions, but without subtitles I couldn't make out much of it. Which is just as well, because the voice actors are so horrible that I don't want to hear them. The cutscenes are short, but add nothing to the experience.
The end sequence is so lame that it reminds me positively of old videogames! Spoiler ahead, be warned, although really I'm beyond why anyone would actually care, in this case. When the final bad guy is shot down (I couldn't make sense of the instructions, so I just shot him until he dropped), the arena crumbles around Joanna. Allies rush to scene. Joanna rises from the rubble, wobbly. Chief ally steps up to support him (I still don't know why they're working together). "Are you all right?" "I could use an aspirin." The allied boss (a Scotsman, total mystery to me) comes on stage. "So how did I do?" Both salute. Fade to black.
Why did this game have a plot at all? It serves absolutely no purpose. The stages are sensibly accessed from a mission select screen, one at a time, and all the story bits do is add to the confusion. This would be so much better with mission-specific goals, without an overarching sad excuse for a plot. Thankfully, all of it is skippable.
And really, you spend years and years making a game, then leave your audience cringing at god-awful voice actors. That's just dumb. Surely there must be no one anywhere who would applaud the acting. I actually feel bad saying that, but they substantially take away from the game. I don't know, maybe it's just a director who doesn't know his job, but it's a mess of a job regardless.
Oh, and I only realized in the second to last mission that I could choose my gear for every mission. I don't know where that was explained, I just stumbled upon it.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Perfect Dipper Super
I won Kotaku's comment of the day contest. The story about the World Of Warcraft guild paying for its member's family's upkeep during a three-month stint in chemotherapy is exceptional, and I felt awkward commenting on it, but I do stand by my observation on communities being the real "next generation" of videogaming. Anyway, I'm getting gaming swag and a couple of games from the cool folks at Kotaku.
The game loot is all PC, sadly: Guild Wars: Factions, Lineage II and Auto Assault. I don't know much about the latter two, but Guild Wars sparks a lot of monologue.
Seeing that I don't have a gaming PC, I don't know if I'll ever play Guild Wars, but the game intrigues me mightily. (Indeed, I immediately checked out how much a minimum-spec grpahics card would cost to run the game, though I've said again and again that I can't be arsed to buy a gaming PC... again.)
I was always interested in GW due to its excellent art direction, but Eurogamer's enthusiastic review really got my attention. GW seems to do lots of things right.
To begin with, there is no level grind. There is a level progression, but I'm told you'll cap out on level 20 within one week of playing. I take it that the levels are there mostly to gradually introduce the elements of the game. But you won't be spending your valuable time killing ever so slightly more powerful bunnies to get a couple of percentage's worth of increase to your damage potential, when you reach the next level in perhaps a couple of more hours of killing bunnies. Many folks say that World Of Warcraft doesn't really "begin" until you reach level 60. I'm supposed to grind until that to enjoy the game? No thanks.
Guild Wars is based on instances: whenever you embark on a quest alone or with your mates, you go at it without the other gazillion players in the same space with you. While many argue that instances kill the "realism" (yeah, right) in an online game, I say the opposite. World Of Warcraft and its like suffer tons because you have all the other players (many of whom look exactly like you) crowding your view.
GW allows the player interaction (and everyone's in the same world, no server-specific content here), but only in the hub areas - out in the instanced world, you can adventure just with your buddies. No queuing (sp?) to kill the monster spawn that's required in your quest. No killstealing. I couldn't put it better than Eurogamer reviewer Kieron Gillen in his review of the original Guild Wars:
"I was recently playing another MMO Beta. No name, as I'm currently under a non-disclosure agreement. It's very much based in the Korean model, with lots of extremely repetitive monster-bashing, but cute enough.
At around 3 AM in the morning I had a moment of terrifying clarity as I pulled back my camera to examine the surroundings. I was in a field packed full of people, all hacking down virtually identical monsters with their own virtually identical attacks and sullenly ignoring each other. Everyone's attacks, for a second, seem to synchronise, in a steady heartbeat, pumping XP through the body of the playerbase and money into the heart of the developer.
This is humanity reduced to the rhythm of a machine, the player as a combine-harvester, the point of the game suddenly clear. Not to be fun, but to be addicting. I was in a Killing Field. If this is all that MMOs are - and the core of most mainstream MMOs are - what exactly is the benefit to the player of these areas being shared?"
Guild Wars has no subscription fee. This is the single thing that got noticed when it was gearing up for launch, and probably the reason why it's successful. Now, I perfectly understand why most "massively multiplayer" games have subscription fees and I have no regrets paying for the excellent Xbox Live Gold service. But paying money for a single game does not fit my gaming tastes, because I'm a dipper; I dip in and out of games, often playing a single game for one or two nights and then shelving it for months (or years!). So committing myself to spend all of my game time to one game just won't do.
Related to this, Guild Wars is also designed to not require lots of time to enjoy. Many people tell me they only play it occasionally, and it doesn't punish you in any way for this. You can compete, even though you're not a hardcore online nerd. Indeed, the game notifies you when you've played for a long time and advises you to take a break! Commendable.
Guild Wars is built on player vs. player (PVP) gameplay. PVP is not for me in other online "ropleplaying" games, because it's reserved for the elite only, novices need not apply. GW removes the barrier by setting the level cap within reach of the casual player. So you can get immediate access to the good stuff. I don't know if I'll like it, but it sounds so tactical with its interchangeable skills that Magic: The Gathering and its ilk spring to mind, which is a good thing.
Speaking of the interchangeable skills, this is a major innovation. All online RPGs to date (to my knowledge) suffer from new players making blunders in character creation. Then they notice that they can't succeed with the character they've made... after playing for weeks. GW takes this crap away, you can be a different guy in every single game you play. Although you'll probably have favorite setups you always use, you're not stuck with them. Every time you head out from the hub areas, you pick eight (yes, just eight) powers from your selection to use. This reminds me delightfully of building a deck in a collectable card game (albeit a small deck).
In Xbox 360 news, I got Perfect Dark Zero. It does a couple of things very well despite not being anywhere near the Halo-levels of FPS goodness. The basic gameplay is all right, although nothing special. But the structure keeps things tight.
There is no saving: you need to complete a level in one sitting. This is not a problem, because they rarely take you more than half an hour to complete. After every level, you get very detailed statistics of your performance, which are then compared to your personal best, and crucially, to the world record. I have a strong urge to beat the par times and get higher on the world ranking. This leads you to viewing the singe player game as a sports arena; you play through the levels thinking how you could be more effective, not just to see the next level. Once you know your way around, the levels can often be completed in around five minutes. I would urge other developer to take note of this, it is very compelling indeed.
In pop culture news, I first saw a trailer for the new Superman movie last night. I'm suddenly interested in it, because the bullet in the eye stunt was cool. Beyond. Words. Neo, eat your heart out.
The game loot is all PC, sadly: Guild Wars: Factions, Lineage II and Auto Assault. I don't know much about the latter two, but Guild Wars sparks a lot of monologue.
Seeing that I don't have a gaming PC, I don't know if I'll ever play Guild Wars, but the game intrigues me mightily. (Indeed, I immediately checked out how much a minimum-spec grpahics card would cost to run the game, though I've said again and again that I can't be arsed to buy a gaming PC... again.)
I was always interested in GW due to its excellent art direction, but Eurogamer's enthusiastic review really got my attention. GW seems to do lots of things right.
To begin with, there is no level grind. There is a level progression, but I'm told you'll cap out on level 20 within one week of playing. I take it that the levels are there mostly to gradually introduce the elements of the game. But you won't be spending your valuable time killing ever so slightly more powerful bunnies to get a couple of percentage's worth of increase to your damage potential, when you reach the next level in perhaps a couple of more hours of killing bunnies. Many folks say that World Of Warcraft doesn't really "begin" until you reach level 60. I'm supposed to grind until that to enjoy the game? No thanks.
Guild Wars is based on instances: whenever you embark on a quest alone or with your mates, you go at it without the other gazillion players in the same space with you. While many argue that instances kill the "realism" (yeah, right) in an online game, I say the opposite. World Of Warcraft and its like suffer tons because you have all the other players (many of whom look exactly like you) crowding your view.
GW allows the player interaction (and everyone's in the same world, no server-specific content here), but only in the hub areas - out in the instanced world, you can adventure just with your buddies. No queuing (sp?) to kill the monster spawn that's required in your quest. No killstealing. I couldn't put it better than Eurogamer reviewer Kieron Gillen in his review of the original Guild Wars:
"I was recently playing another MMO Beta. No name, as I'm currently under a non-disclosure agreement. It's very much based in the Korean model, with lots of extremely repetitive monster-bashing, but cute enough.
At around 3 AM in the morning I had a moment of terrifying clarity as I pulled back my camera to examine the surroundings. I was in a field packed full of people, all hacking down virtually identical monsters with their own virtually identical attacks and sullenly ignoring each other. Everyone's attacks, for a second, seem to synchronise, in a steady heartbeat, pumping XP through the body of the playerbase and money into the heart of the developer.
This is humanity reduced to the rhythm of a machine, the player as a combine-harvester, the point of the game suddenly clear. Not to be fun, but to be addicting. I was in a Killing Field. If this is all that MMOs are - and the core of most mainstream MMOs are - what exactly is the benefit to the player of these areas being shared?"
Guild Wars has no subscription fee. This is the single thing that got noticed when it was gearing up for launch, and probably the reason why it's successful. Now, I perfectly understand why most "massively multiplayer" games have subscription fees and I have no regrets paying for the excellent Xbox Live Gold service. But paying money for a single game does not fit my gaming tastes, because I'm a dipper; I dip in and out of games, often playing a single game for one or two nights and then shelving it for months (or years!). So committing myself to spend all of my game time to one game just won't do.
Related to this, Guild Wars is also designed to not require lots of time to enjoy. Many people tell me they only play it occasionally, and it doesn't punish you in any way for this. You can compete, even though you're not a hardcore online nerd. Indeed, the game notifies you when you've played for a long time and advises you to take a break! Commendable.
Guild Wars is built on player vs. player (PVP) gameplay. PVP is not for me in other online "ropleplaying" games, because it's reserved for the elite only, novices need not apply. GW removes the barrier by setting the level cap within reach of the casual player. So you can get immediate access to the good stuff. I don't know if I'll like it, but it sounds so tactical with its interchangeable skills that Magic: The Gathering and its ilk spring to mind, which is a good thing.
Speaking of the interchangeable skills, this is a major innovation. All online RPGs to date (to my knowledge) suffer from new players making blunders in character creation. Then they notice that they can't succeed with the character they've made... after playing for weeks. GW takes this crap away, you can be a different guy in every single game you play. Although you'll probably have favorite setups you always use, you're not stuck with them. Every time you head out from the hub areas, you pick eight (yes, just eight) powers from your selection to use. This reminds me delightfully of building a deck in a collectable card game (albeit a small deck).
In Xbox 360 news, I got Perfect Dark Zero. It does a couple of things very well despite not being anywhere near the Halo-levels of FPS goodness. The basic gameplay is all right, although nothing special. But the structure keeps things tight.
There is no saving: you need to complete a level in one sitting. This is not a problem, because they rarely take you more than half an hour to complete. After every level, you get very detailed statistics of your performance, which are then compared to your personal best, and crucially, to the world record. I have a strong urge to beat the par times and get higher on the world ranking. This leads you to viewing the singe player game as a sports arena; you play through the levels thinking how you could be more effective, not just to see the next level. Once you know your way around, the levels can often be completed in around five minutes. I would urge other developer to take note of this, it is very compelling indeed.
In pop culture news, I first saw a trailer for the new Superman movie last night. I'm suddenly interested in it, because the bullet in the eye stunt was cool. Beyond. Words. Neo, eat your heart out.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Aloha
I've been looking forward to Test Drive Unlimited. The whole Hawaiian island of Oahu modelled for driving, realistic roads and traffic, garage full of sports cars (and motorcycles), what else would I need? Based on the demo, not very much. It's as good as they promised.
It's fun just to... drive. There's a great sense of freedom to drive along nice and slow, keep to your own lane, pick your own path and then slam down the accelerator when you feel like it, dodging traffic and hear the engine scream in joy. Bliss.
However, a couple of niggles worry me. First, is there enough to do? While free roaming is fun for a couple of days, sooner or later you'll want some objectives. There will be taxi missions and such in the retail version, but I wonder if it's enough. Of course there are online races, too, but keeping just one location - no matter how delicately reproduced - fresh, is quite a task.
Second, excessive speed equals danger. The danger element is completely missing from this game. If you career out of control and slam at oncoming traffic at full speed, the traffic just flies out of your way, denting some metal while at it, but you merely spin a little, if that, and continue on your way completely unaffected. Rubbish! If the game is based on a "realistic" experience, I want to live with the consequences of my actions. If licencing contracts forbid the thrashing of the sports cars, fine: send me back to my last checkpoint or something, whatever to feel like it's a bad idea to crash.
Allegedly there are Hawaiian cops who chase you if you hit other cars. I haven't seen them, though. All I get is a textbox informing me that I've been fined. Police chases would be an essential element of this package.
UPDATE 11 JULY: There are cops. I don't know why I didn't see them once during my first plays of the demo. They're a little easy to shake, though, at least in the demo's Lamborghini. It's good fun to play Getaway In Stockholm, waiting to let them close in and then lose them in a successful run. The protagonist's whimpering "Oh no" when the police lady comes in to write a ticker is pathetic, though.
The environment looks convincing, but not very next-gen. Blocky shapes, not much in the way of HDR goodness in lighting, no pedestrians. The cars do look sweet and I love the way sunlight plays in my in-car view. The driver models are all right, but not realistic and regardless of their very limited posing, they exhibit clipping problems.
The in-car view kicks ass. You can even adjust the seat and play with the windows. It may be that Hawaii wins Need For Speed: Most Wanted in the shopping list priorities.
It's fun just to... drive. There's a great sense of freedom to drive along nice and slow, keep to your own lane, pick your own path and then slam down the accelerator when you feel like it, dodging traffic and hear the engine scream in joy. Bliss.
However, a couple of niggles worry me. First, is there enough to do? While free roaming is fun for a couple of days, sooner or later you'll want some objectives. There will be taxi missions and such in the retail version, but I wonder if it's enough. Of course there are online races, too, but keeping just one location - no matter how delicately reproduced - fresh, is quite a task.
Second, excessive speed equals danger. The danger element is completely missing from this game. If you career out of control and slam at oncoming traffic at full speed, the traffic just flies out of your way, denting some metal while at it, but you merely spin a little, if that, and continue on your way completely unaffected. Rubbish! If the game is based on a "realistic" experience, I want to live with the consequences of my actions. If licencing contracts forbid the thrashing of the sports cars, fine: send me back to my last checkpoint or something, whatever to feel like it's a bad idea to crash.
Allegedly there are Hawaiian cops who chase you if you hit other cars. I haven't seen them, though. All I get is a textbox informing me that I've been fined. Police chases would be an essential element of this package.
UPDATE 11 JULY: There are cops. I don't know why I didn't see them once during my first plays of the demo. They're a little easy to shake, though, at least in the demo's Lamborghini. It's good fun to play Getaway In Stockholm, waiting to let them close in and then lose them in a successful run. The protagonist's whimpering "Oh no" when the police lady comes in to write a ticker is pathetic, though.
The environment looks convincing, but not very next-gen. Blocky shapes, not much in the way of HDR goodness in lighting, no pedestrians. The cars do look sweet and I love the way sunlight plays in my in-car view. The driver models are all right, but not realistic and regardless of their very limited posing, they exhibit clipping problems.
The in-car view kicks ass. You can even adjust the seat and play with the windows. It may be that Hawaii wins Need For Speed: Most Wanted in the shopping list priorities.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
As For The Launch Titles
I have now tried Project Gotham Racing 3 and Perfect Dark Zero, both launch titles for the 360.
Project Gotham Racing 3 didn't make much of an impression: it's just as good as I thought it would be, no surprises there. On a standard-definition 4:3 CRT TV, the graphics don't seem much better than on the original game on the Xbox. But the in-car view is excellent, the presentation is flawless, the cars handle well... this is very likely the one car game you need in your 360 library. Of course, the take on the car theme is very different from Need For Speed, and I don't see them as competitors.
Perfect Dark Zero, Rare's much-lamented 360 launch title, was something of a surprise for me. No, it's not the Halo-killer it was set up to be, but I really can't find reason for the kind of beating it's taken in the gamer community.
The demo is good fun, presented very well indeed, it looks nice and plays well. Sure, it's basic FPS action with secret agent overtones, but I don't see anything wrong with that. The Live gamemode Dark Ops feels like a lot of fun, too.
There are plenty of nice touches. The comic book -like character design is cool, and they blend with the game's (excellently) ragdoll-powered ultraviolence in a fine manner. The way the enemies' body armor blows off as if launched by springs when shot is very satisfying.
Seeing that PDZ's being sold for last-gen prices just about everywhere, I might have to pick one up.
As a sidenote, Quake 4 did not pass the demo test. It's Doom 3, only without the pacing, the design aesthetic, the mood or the technical flair. I do not expect to see an Xbox-engine creak and stutter this way on the 360. Bleugh.
Xbox Live Arcade continues to be the main use for our 360. Yes, Hardwood Hearts and Geometry Wars, on a 500€ console. Forget about the processing power, the real generation leap is the Live connectivity.
Speaking of Live, Live Anywhere could be a really neat thing, once it matures. No, I don't need to see what my friends are playing at this very moment once I'm on the go myself, but if I could, say, manage my character's shopping while in commute, that could be cool.
Last night and this morning I've played some Total Overdose, an Xbox title that came and went with little fanfare. It's good fun: basically Max Payne in Mexico, with more fun and less plot. The developers give me what I need, including instant access to missions via a menu, available at any time, without wandering aimlessly on the GTA III -alike map. There are cutscenes, but they can be skipped, as I have done. Needless to say, the plot is so basic that you get the hang of it regardless.
I find I'm having little patience for crappy stories these days. If you want to force-feed me a storyline in a game that doesn't need one, at least either make it entirely skippable or integrate it into the gameplay in a way that doesn't hamper my playing.
Car games don't need storylines. Why do gunplay games need one? The Rainbow Six series are a fine example of what's wrong: these games consist of separate scenarios, in which you kill terrorists. There is no need for a story, indeed, it takes away from the suspension of disbelief as you have to accept that there's this global terrorist conspiracy with hundreds (thousands) of members you take down in successive missions. Please, cut the crap and pass the ammunition.
I really like Max Payne 2's storytelling, but it just doesn't cope with replay. I want to play out the action scenes again, not take in the storyline all over again. There's the survival gamemode, but it's not the same. Give me a separate story mode if I'm into that kind of thing and you really deem it necessary - otherwise, please, just the gameplay, in a separate "arcade" mode if need be.
For a positive example, Doom 3 does this well. There's a story of sorts, but it really never gets in the way of playing the game. You can view the story bits in audio logs and diaries when you want to, but there's no need to do that. The setup is so simple that the level design and the mission prompts tell you all you need to know. There are cut scenes, but they're short and they don't really force any bad drama on you: they're there just to show you what's going on.
Project Gotham Racing 3 didn't make much of an impression: it's just as good as I thought it would be, no surprises there. On a standard-definition 4:3 CRT TV, the graphics don't seem much better than on the original game on the Xbox. But the in-car view is excellent, the presentation is flawless, the cars handle well... this is very likely the one car game you need in your 360 library. Of course, the take on the car theme is very different from Need For Speed, and I don't see them as competitors.
Perfect Dark Zero, Rare's much-lamented 360 launch title, was something of a surprise for me. No, it's not the Halo-killer it was set up to be, but I really can't find reason for the kind of beating it's taken in the gamer community.
The demo is good fun, presented very well indeed, it looks nice and plays well. Sure, it's basic FPS action with secret agent overtones, but I don't see anything wrong with that. The Live gamemode Dark Ops feels like a lot of fun, too.
There are plenty of nice touches. The comic book -like character design is cool, and they blend with the game's (excellently) ragdoll-powered ultraviolence in a fine manner. The way the enemies' body armor blows off as if launched by springs when shot is very satisfying.
Seeing that PDZ's being sold for last-gen prices just about everywhere, I might have to pick one up.
As a sidenote, Quake 4 did not pass the demo test. It's Doom 3, only without the pacing, the design aesthetic, the mood or the technical flair. I do not expect to see an Xbox-engine creak and stutter this way on the 360. Bleugh.
Xbox Live Arcade continues to be the main use for our 360. Yes, Hardwood Hearts and Geometry Wars, on a 500€ console. Forget about the processing power, the real generation leap is the Live connectivity.
Speaking of Live, Live Anywhere could be a really neat thing, once it matures. No, I don't need to see what my friends are playing at this very moment once I'm on the go myself, but if I could, say, manage my character's shopping while in commute, that could be cool.
Last night and this morning I've played some Total Overdose, an Xbox title that came and went with little fanfare. It's good fun: basically Max Payne in Mexico, with more fun and less plot. The developers give me what I need, including instant access to missions via a menu, available at any time, without wandering aimlessly on the GTA III -alike map. There are cutscenes, but they can be skipped, as I have done. Needless to say, the plot is so basic that you get the hang of it regardless.
I find I'm having little patience for crappy stories these days. If you want to force-feed me a storyline in a game that doesn't need one, at least either make it entirely skippable or integrate it into the gameplay in a way that doesn't hamper my playing.
Car games don't need storylines. Why do gunplay games need one? The Rainbow Six series are a fine example of what's wrong: these games consist of separate scenarios, in which you kill terrorists. There is no need for a story, indeed, it takes away from the suspension of disbelief as you have to accept that there's this global terrorist conspiracy with hundreds (thousands) of members you take down in successive missions. Please, cut the crap and pass the ammunition.
I really like Max Payne 2's storytelling, but it just doesn't cope with replay. I want to play out the action scenes again, not take in the storyline all over again. There's the survival gamemode, but it's not the same. Give me a separate story mode if I'm into that kind of thing and you really deem it necessary - otherwise, please, just the gameplay, in a separate "arcade" mode if need be.
For a positive example, Doom 3 does this well. There's a story of sorts, but it really never gets in the way of playing the game. You can view the story bits in audio logs and diaries when you want to, but there's no need to do that. The setup is so simple that the level design and the mission prompts tell you all you need to know. There are cut scenes, but they're short and they don't really force any bad drama on you: they're there just to show you what's going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
