In the past few weeks, I've been thoroughly enjoying Zero Punctuation (note: not-safe-for-work). Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's take on games is quite humorous. But in his review of Super Mario Galaxy, he touched upon a subject that I happen to agree with, and I liked the analogy he used. But, I figured, why stop at one game element that needs to die?
So, I figured I'd go through a series of game elements that I feel need to go away.
Lives - As mentioned in Zero Punctuation, the Lives system needs to go. Lives were created solely for coin-operated game machines as a way to prevent gamers from playing forever on one quarter. The developers needed a way to not only end the game session, but make the player insert more coins in order to keep playing.
As console gaming caught on, the lives system was combined with a Continue system as a way to increase challenge in games. Making the player complete the game with a limited number of tries made what would otherwise be a somewhat easy game suddenly have more difficulty.
As games have become more epic, and thus taking longer to beat, game developers have started to shy away from Lives. Yet some companies don't seem to grasp that the Lives system is no longer necessary. We have checkpoints and save points after each level to help the player complete the game, and artificial intelligence that create challenge. A Lives system just isn't needed to create challenge.
Health Bars - Nothing ruins the experience of a "realistic" shooter more than seeing brightly colored health packs laying on the ground. Maybe it's just me, but when I'm storming the beaches of Normandy, I don't want to see big health boxes scattered around. Thus I have been quite relieved and happy to see the newest trend going around: regenerating health. If you get hit, you just wait a few seconds and you will be back to full strength. But get hit too much in a short period of time, and you're dead.
In my opinion, that is the best way to go these days. At least in action games. RPGs will never get rid of their health system, nor should they. And I can see why games like Mario and Ratchet & Clank need health systems. But in action games, they're just obsolete. It was probably the first Halo game that really started the trend. But now I can't imagine playing a shooter without regenerating health. Heck, even Uncharted and Assassin's Creed use this new health system.
Random Battles - This only applies to RPGs, of course. But I hate random battles. Final Fantasy is by far the worst offender as far as random battles go. That isn't to say that other games don't abuse the system.
With Final Fantasy XII removing random battles in favor of MMORPG-style battles, I hope this is the start of games moving away from random battles. Nothing irritates me more than to be walking around, trying to complete a quest, only to be forced into a battle. I don't like random battles, and I want to choose when I fight. Wild ARMs 2 and beyond use a unique system that lets you cancel certain battles at the expense of an ECNG gauge. But because this gauge went down, you were eventually forced to fight. Which became an annoyance.
Fixed-level enemies - This also only applies to RPGs. But when I'm playing an RPG, I play for the story, first and foremost. I don't care about leveling up, battling, or the overall experience. I want the story. I think the story is the most important aspect of all games, but RPGs need the story more than anything. I don't play an RPG to "play" it, I play an RPG to experience the story.
Which is why I hate games that almost force you to level-up in order to beat certain enemies. This is almost all Japanese RPGs, and at least some American RPGs. The example of the way to do things has to be the Elder Scrolls series. In my first play through of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I finished the main quest at around Level 6. The best part about it is the game doesn't force you to level up. All the enemies scale to your current level. If you level-up, the enemies do as well. Meaning the enemies are never too tough, and never too easy. Certain enemies only show up when you reach certain levels, which adds to the challenge. For example, I got to Level 10 in my second play through so I could get the Skeleton Key (a Daedric artifact), and I started seeing enemies I never saw before.
When I say "fixed-level enemies," I mean the kind who are always at a certain level, all the time. They always have fixed stats that rarely, if ever fluctuate. Meaning you must level up to progress, but when you have to backtrack to earlier areas, the enemies are complete push-overs to the point that you can kill an entire battalion of baddies with one move. RPGs would be much more fun if the enemies level and stats scaled along with yours. That way, later enemies aren't too overwhelming, while earlier enemies aren't so weak near the end.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Friday, December 28, 2007
Assassin's Creed
Assassin's Creed is one of those games that seems to divide people. Some people hate it, some people like it. Personally, I enjoyed the game.
I've heard complaints about the combat, but honestly I thought the combat was quite good. Sure, it takes some getting used to, and it's not perfect. But I mostly held R1 and countered in battle, and it worked out nicely. Using the other techniques proved to be useful in the later stages of the game.
The story is well done, if not a bit contrived. The "big spoiler" about the true setting of the game isn't just revealed in the first five minutes, it's revealed in the game's own instruction manual. Ubisoft dodged discussing the "futuristic" elements of the game to the end, but they ended up giving it away in the manual, and even the opening scene. I'm disappointed by that, but I suppose it was for the best.
That isn't to say the game doesn't have twists and turns in its own right. Even in the "future world" segments, it pays to walk around and interact with whatever objects you can. The first few times you can't do much of anything, but soon enough you can talk to the female assistant, access the computers, and so forth. I won't say any more, as you have to play it yourself. Or read a guide. Whichever.
The most fun I had was running around on the rooftops. That was so much fun. It reminds me of Prince of Persia, which makes sense because it's the same company. But it was a lot of fun overall. Also, once you get to the View Points and can look over the city, the scope of the game really shows itself. If you can get to a really high view point, you can look over the city and see how much detail is in there. You can see every building, big and small, and marvel over the power of the current generation of hardware. Some of the views are simply breathtaking.
Which brings me to the graphics. Amazing stuff. However, I wasn't really wowed by the character models of the assassination targets. Yes, they are a step above the previous generation, but I get the feeling as if a lot more could be done. Maybe it was just the art design, but a few of the guys just looked ugly. I'm probably nitpicking, though.
The PS3 version of the game, which is what I played, was very well done. I didn't encounter a single glitch, except a strange "can't read disc" error that happened only once. The game prompted me to upgrade it to version 1.10 when I first started it, so maybe that fixed the bugs. I don't know how it compares to the other versions. I noticed very little slowdown, and it certainly didn't affect the game in any way.
All in all, I had an excellent experience, and a lot of fun playing Assassin's Creed. The end of the game definitely set up a sequel. Even though it was said that the game is part of a series when this was first announced, the ending basically shouted out, "Wait until the sequel to find out more!" If you wait until after the credits, you're granted more time to poke around with the computers and find out even more of the story details.
I'm ready for the sequel. I hope it doesn't take two years. But I'm not getting my hopes up. I do worry, though, what direction the game will take. Will Desmond be forced back into the Animus to relive the life of Altair once more? Or will the game shift to Desmond as the main character? If it is set in the future world that Desmond inhabits, I'm sure there will be a major shift in the gameplay itself, as it goes from sword-based combat into gun-based combat, and I don't see that as being an improvement in any way, shape, or form. I don't know how they could keep the game focused on both Altair and Desmond at this point, but we'll have to wait and see.
I've heard complaints about the combat, but honestly I thought the combat was quite good. Sure, it takes some getting used to, and it's not perfect. But I mostly held R1 and countered in battle, and it worked out nicely. Using the other techniques proved to be useful in the later stages of the game.
The story is well done, if not a bit contrived. The "big spoiler" about the true setting of the game isn't just revealed in the first five minutes, it's revealed in the game's own instruction manual. Ubisoft dodged discussing the "futuristic" elements of the game to the end, but they ended up giving it away in the manual, and even the opening scene. I'm disappointed by that, but I suppose it was for the best.
That isn't to say the game doesn't have twists and turns in its own right. Even in the "future world" segments, it pays to walk around and interact with whatever objects you can. The first few times you can't do much of anything, but soon enough you can talk to the female assistant, access the computers, and so forth. I won't say any more, as you have to play it yourself. Or read a guide. Whichever.
The most fun I had was running around on the rooftops. That was so much fun. It reminds me of Prince of Persia, which makes sense because it's the same company. But it was a lot of fun overall. Also, once you get to the View Points and can look over the city, the scope of the game really shows itself. If you can get to a really high view point, you can look over the city and see how much detail is in there. You can see every building, big and small, and marvel over the power of the current generation of hardware. Some of the views are simply breathtaking.
Which brings me to the graphics. Amazing stuff. However, I wasn't really wowed by the character models of the assassination targets. Yes, they are a step above the previous generation, but I get the feeling as if a lot more could be done. Maybe it was just the art design, but a few of the guys just looked ugly. I'm probably nitpicking, though.
The PS3 version of the game, which is what I played, was very well done. I didn't encounter a single glitch, except a strange "can't read disc" error that happened only once. The game prompted me to upgrade it to version 1.10 when I first started it, so maybe that fixed the bugs. I don't know how it compares to the other versions. I noticed very little slowdown, and it certainly didn't affect the game in any way.
All in all, I had an excellent experience, and a lot of fun playing Assassin's Creed. The end of the game definitely set up a sequel. Even though it was said that the game is part of a series when this was first announced, the ending basically shouted out, "Wait until the sequel to find out more!" If you wait until after the credits, you're granted more time to poke around with the computers and find out even more of the story details.
I'm ready for the sequel. I hope it doesn't take two years. But I'm not getting my hopes up. I do worry, though, what direction the game will take. Will Desmond be forced back into the Animus to relive the life of Altair once more? Or will the game shift to Desmond as the main character? If it is set in the future world that Desmond inhabits, I'm sure there will be a major shift in the gameplay itself, as it goes from sword-based combat into gun-based combat, and I don't see that as being an improvement in any way, shape, or form. I don't know how they could keep the game focused on both Altair and Desmond at this point, but we'll have to wait and see.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Unreal Tournament artificial intelligence rant
Artificial intelligence is a difficult thing to get right. I'll say right off the bat that I enjoy playing the Unreal Tournament games offline, with bots only. It's quite fun, once I find a nice difficulty where it's challenging without being overly frustrating. But I've noticed a couple quirks, mainly in Unreal Tournament 3, that bug me.
I should note that I was playing Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3, not the PC. I doubt that makes any difference, but I figured I should make note of it anyway.
The first quirk that irritates me is the fact that the AI seems to know where you are at all times. It is impossible to sneak up on these bastards. Plus, the "feign death" function in UT3 is useless against bots. The AI somehow knows you're still alive, and will shoot you anyway. But anyway, they seem to know where you are, even if they haven't seen you. I could be hiding behind a column at my base for ten minutes, completely unseen by anyone, but the moment I peek out, I'll see a stream of projectiles coming toward me. For example, I was playing Vehicle Capture The Flag on Sandstorm, a new map in UT3. There is a large wall separating the two bases, and you're able to get on top of it. I got on top, and just peeked at the opposing base, when suddenly two guys and a vehicle were firing at my exact position at the same time. Despite none of my allies ever being up there that round, and the fact that none of them saw me go there, nor did any of them see me up there prior to me peeking out. They fired on me almost instantly, as if they knew I was up there the whole time, and knew exactly where I was situated.
This sort of clairvoyance makes playing the role of a sniper almost impossible, as a sniper is supposed to be stealthy, but it's impossible to be stealthy in a UT game. The AI always knows where you are, and if you pop out for an attempted kill, they'll blast your location with fire to the point where you'll be running around looking for the nearest health pick-up. And that really goes against what a sniper is supposed to do.
Which brings me to quirk number two: the AI seems to focus their attention on you. If they're able to shoot you, they will devote their entire existance to doing so. For this example, I'm going to reference the same round played on Sandstorm. There was an enemy running toward our flag. Two guys plus a Darkwalker were shooting him. I was simply watching, as a passive observer. Logic would dictate that the enemy should get to cover from the Darkwalker, and take care of the two guys trying to kill him. But he ended up firing rockets up toward my position, completely ignoring the three entities attempting to end his short, artificial life. It defies all logic that an AI character would ignore things that are trying to kill him, and only go after the player in some sort of kamikaze mission. Granted, it makes sure that the player is always part of the action, instead of passively observing, but I tend to like passive observation, and I can't really do that when being fired on, and I can't really enjoy it either when the AI seems to not care whether it lives or dies.
I've noticed this to an extent in UT2004, all the way to the Skilled difficulty. UT3 has this issue on Novice and Average, but I haven't tried the other difficulties yet. I would suspect, though, that the AI would more viciously target the player in the higher difficulties, anyway.
I suppose these issues can be forgiven. The games are still fun. Playing a sniper, while difficult, isn't entirely impossible. And I suppose the AI doesn't always exclusively target the player, though I must say that it chooses the most curious times to do so. They're more personal gripes than anything, and it does seem to help keep the game moving and challenging. So I guess it all works out in the end. Still, I wanted to point them out, anyway.
I should note that I was playing Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3, not the PC. I doubt that makes any difference, but I figured I should make note of it anyway.
The first quirk that irritates me is the fact that the AI seems to know where you are at all times. It is impossible to sneak up on these bastards. Plus, the "feign death" function in UT3 is useless against bots. The AI somehow knows you're still alive, and will shoot you anyway. But anyway, they seem to know where you are, even if they haven't seen you. I could be hiding behind a column at my base for ten minutes, completely unseen by anyone, but the moment I peek out, I'll see a stream of projectiles coming toward me. For example, I was playing Vehicle Capture The Flag on Sandstorm, a new map in UT3. There is a large wall separating the two bases, and you're able to get on top of it. I got on top, and just peeked at the opposing base, when suddenly two guys and a vehicle were firing at my exact position at the same time. Despite none of my allies ever being up there that round, and the fact that none of them saw me go there, nor did any of them see me up there prior to me peeking out. They fired on me almost instantly, as if they knew I was up there the whole time, and knew exactly where I was situated.
This sort of clairvoyance makes playing the role of a sniper almost impossible, as a sniper is supposed to be stealthy, but it's impossible to be stealthy in a UT game. The AI always knows where you are, and if you pop out for an attempted kill, they'll blast your location with fire to the point where you'll be running around looking for the nearest health pick-up. And that really goes against what a sniper is supposed to do.
Which brings me to quirk number two: the AI seems to focus their attention on you. If they're able to shoot you, they will devote their entire existance to doing so. For this example, I'm going to reference the same round played on Sandstorm. There was an enemy running toward our flag. Two guys plus a Darkwalker were shooting him. I was simply watching, as a passive observer. Logic would dictate that the enemy should get to cover from the Darkwalker, and take care of the two guys trying to kill him. But he ended up firing rockets up toward my position, completely ignoring the three entities attempting to end his short, artificial life. It defies all logic that an AI character would ignore things that are trying to kill him, and only go after the player in some sort of kamikaze mission. Granted, it makes sure that the player is always part of the action, instead of passively observing, but I tend to like passive observation, and I can't really do that when being fired on, and I can't really enjoy it either when the AI seems to not care whether it lives or dies.
I've noticed this to an extent in UT2004, all the way to the Skilled difficulty. UT3 has this issue on Novice and Average, but I haven't tried the other difficulties yet. I would suspect, though, that the AI would more viciously target the player in the higher difficulties, anyway.
I suppose these issues can be forgiven. The games are still fun. Playing a sniper, while difficult, isn't entirely impossible. And I suppose the AI doesn't always exclusively target the player, though I must say that it chooses the most curious times to do so. They're more personal gripes than anything, and it does seem to help keep the game moving and challenging. So I guess it all works out in the end. Still, I wanted to point them out, anyway.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Portal
I've been wanting to play Portal, for two reasons. One, because it looked awesome from even the first video. Two, because everyone is going crazy over it.
I swear, just about everyone who has played this game has nothing but good to say about it. Even the most jaded reviewers on the internet. I read that people were making Weighted Companion Cube porn before the game even came out, and I've personally seen porn involving the gun turrets from the game just days after its release. I had to see what all the craze was about.
It's roughly 3:30 AM as I type this. It took me a little over three hours to finish the entire game, in one sitting. I don't know exactly how that ranks on the average play time scale, but I'm proud to say I didn't use a single walkthrough. I rented The Orange Box on the PS3, specifically to play Portal. I use Linux, and while Portal is said to work well with Wine, I don't have the money to buy The Orange Box for the PC, and I wasn't sure if $20 for Portal would be worth it, given that I can hardly afford even that.
While I'm sure that most everyone who cares about Portal has played it, and has done so weeks ago, I feel I should give it a more proper review.
First up is gameplay. It's a very unique concept. Only one game, to my knowledge, has featured gameplay like this, and that was Narbacular Drop, a class project done by DigiPen students who ended up being hired by Valve to turn their idea into a full-fledged game. So, you could say Narbacular Drop was a tech-demo for what would become Portal. I have to hand it to the developers, because Narbacular Drop has most of the physics-related fun you'll find in Portal, and for a class project, that's really impressive.
Anyway, once you get access to both portals, the game is basically about spacial recognition. Being able to look around your environment and figuring out exactly how to place your portals. Later puzzles involve figuring out angles and momentum. Some puzzles take some work to figure out, but there will be some where you figure out the answer quickly. However, on the later puzzles, while the solution may seem easy, the execution isn't. That's not a game flaw, it's the precision timing or placement needed.
The audio is really nice. There's not a whole lot to it for most of the game. GLaDOS is humorous at times. The way she says certain things with that monotone, robot voice is sure to make you laugh. It's more just a few moments than the entire game, of course. Also of note are the voices for the gun turrets. I read that the voices sound really cute, and I have to agree with that. The sweet and rather deceptive voice of the turrets is off-set by the fact that it can kill you quite easily.
Also, I only noticed the Weighted Companion Cube in one single "Test." The rest were Weighted Storage Cubes. (The Companion Cube has pink hearts on it, while the Storage Cubes have the Aperture logo.) Which makes me wonder why there is such a craze over this cube. I guess I'm just not getting it.
The story is almost non-existent. The player character has little or no back story, and GLaDOS doesn't start showing much personality until the last level. Still, this is a kind of game that doesn't really need a story. It's like adding a story to Tetris. Puzzle games don't need story, and Portal is a puzzle game.
Overall, I think Portal is amazing. It's quick, which is a shame, but it's a lot of fun. If you're into games that really make you think, Portal is a must have. I'm just hoping for a sequel or expansion pack of some kind.
I swear, just about everyone who has played this game has nothing but good to say about it. Even the most jaded reviewers on the internet. I read that people were making Weighted Companion Cube porn before the game even came out, and I've personally seen porn involving the gun turrets from the game just days after its release. I had to see what all the craze was about.
It's roughly 3:30 AM as I type this. It took me a little over three hours to finish the entire game, in one sitting. I don't know exactly how that ranks on the average play time scale, but I'm proud to say I didn't use a single walkthrough. I rented The Orange Box on the PS3, specifically to play Portal. I use Linux, and while Portal is said to work well with Wine, I don't have the money to buy The Orange Box for the PC, and I wasn't sure if $20 for Portal would be worth it, given that I can hardly afford even that.
While I'm sure that most everyone who cares about Portal has played it, and has done so weeks ago, I feel I should give it a more proper review.
First up is gameplay. It's a very unique concept. Only one game, to my knowledge, has featured gameplay like this, and that was Narbacular Drop, a class project done by DigiPen students who ended up being hired by Valve to turn their idea into a full-fledged game. So, you could say Narbacular Drop was a tech-demo for what would become Portal. I have to hand it to the developers, because Narbacular Drop has most of the physics-related fun you'll find in Portal, and for a class project, that's really impressive.
Anyway, once you get access to both portals, the game is basically about spacial recognition. Being able to look around your environment and figuring out exactly how to place your portals. Later puzzles involve figuring out angles and momentum. Some puzzles take some work to figure out, but there will be some where you figure out the answer quickly. However, on the later puzzles, while the solution may seem easy, the execution isn't. That's not a game flaw, it's the precision timing or placement needed.
The audio is really nice. There's not a whole lot to it for most of the game. GLaDOS is humorous at times. The way she says certain things with that monotone, robot voice is sure to make you laugh. It's more just a few moments than the entire game, of course. Also of note are the voices for the gun turrets. I read that the voices sound really cute, and I have to agree with that. The sweet and rather deceptive voice of the turrets is off-set by the fact that it can kill you quite easily.
Also, I only noticed the Weighted Companion Cube in one single "Test." The rest were Weighted Storage Cubes. (The Companion Cube has pink hearts on it, while the Storage Cubes have the Aperture logo.) Which makes me wonder why there is such a craze over this cube. I guess I'm just not getting it.
The story is almost non-existent. The player character has little or no back story, and GLaDOS doesn't start showing much personality until the last level. Still, this is a kind of game that doesn't really need a story. It's like adding a story to Tetris. Puzzle games don't need story, and Portal is a puzzle game.
Overall, I think Portal is amazing. It's quick, which is a shame, but it's a lot of fun. If you're into games that really make you think, Portal is a must have. I'm just hoping for a sequel or expansion pack of some kind.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Burnout Paradise
I downloaded the Burnout Paradise demo (PS3 version) yesterday. I must say it looks great, and plays well. My only complaint of the demo is the introduction sequence cannot be skipped. Also, there are times when the game pauses, and the announcer guy gives you tips on what to do, and these cannot be skipped, either. So, anytime you want to play the demo, it's probably three minutes of crap before you can get to the actual game, with shorter one minute or less breaks every so often.
That part is highly annoying.
Other than that, I think the demo is fun. Though, I avoided doing any missions until my second time through, and when I tried them, I wish I kept skipping them. To me, it's too confusing to try and catch a turn when I'm supposed to, because the only indication I get is a flashing street sign on the top of the screen. By that time, I'm going so fast that I'm concentrating more on the road and less on indicators. If there was a giant arrow, I'd probably be able to follow it better. Or maybe a path drawn on the mini-map.
I'm not really able to play a game where I'm driving at high speeds, and have to make split-second decisions. One reason I don't like street racing games. Although Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit on the PS1 was excellent, and it had enough of a "street" feel for me.
But, I found myself having much more fun just crashing into stuff. Trying to roll my car into a "Drive away" crash, and also going as fast as possible and going head-on into a wall. The damage models are well done, and it looks impressive, and ultimately satisfying, to see my car (and others) be totally destroyed.
So, basically I had more fun driving around like a lunatic than I did actually doing any missions. I think this is what Burnout is supposed to be, anyway. Just a giant city filled with potential destruction and insanity. Just forget the races and all that junk, and go destroy things. It's good, old fashioned, mindless fun.
That part is highly annoying.
Other than that, I think the demo is fun. Though, I avoided doing any missions until my second time through, and when I tried them, I wish I kept skipping them. To me, it's too confusing to try and catch a turn when I'm supposed to, because the only indication I get is a flashing street sign on the top of the screen. By that time, I'm going so fast that I'm concentrating more on the road and less on indicators. If there was a giant arrow, I'd probably be able to follow it better. Or maybe a path drawn on the mini-map.
I'm not really able to play a game where I'm driving at high speeds, and have to make split-second decisions. One reason I don't like street racing games. Although Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit on the PS1 was excellent, and it had enough of a "street" feel for me.
But, I found myself having much more fun just crashing into stuff. Trying to roll my car into a "Drive away" crash, and also going as fast as possible and going head-on into a wall. The damage models are well done, and it looks impressive, and ultimately satisfying, to see my car (and others) be totally destroyed.
So, basically I had more fun driving around like a lunatic than I did actually doing any missions. I think this is what Burnout is supposed to be, anyway. Just a giant city filled with potential destruction and insanity. Just forget the races and all that junk, and go destroy things. It's good, old fashioned, mindless fun.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
2007 in review
(Small content note: I'm still debating whether or not I should continue the This Month in Gaming History series I've done. These posts don't have a lot of content, and the site I use as my main source has many inaccurate dates when cross-referenced with Wikipedia. I've often missed events because the month was listed incorrectly, or I couldn't confirm a date.)
2007 is almost over, and I thought I would take a look back at the events of the year.
As 2007 started off, the PlayStation 3 was difficult to find. However, Sony quickly got more units to shelves, and system sales have remained steady, but still behind the competition. The year also saw the dropping of the 20 Gig and 60 Gig units, in favor of the 80 Gig and 40 Gig units. Plus, the PS3 saw a couple price drops, though the first was rather temporary.
The XBox 360 saw steady sales, though it eventually fell to second place in the second half of the year. Major titles like Halo 3, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and others were released. The 360 Elite and Arcade models were also released.
As for the Wii, it has spent the entire year in a "shortage." I'm sure there are people who will claim that Nintendo is creating the shortage in order to boost demand for the system, and I won't argue with them. Whether Nintendo is purposefully creating a shortage or not, the system is in very high demand, and overtook the XBox 360 in less than a year, despite the 360 having a one year head-start.
2007 also saw the new and improved Electronic Entertainment Expo, as well as a few others trying to cash in on the downsized E3. Including E 4 All, which apparently had problems drawing a crowd.
In terms of games, Call of Duty 4 made an impact in the realm of first-person shooters. In terms of gameplay, the game didn't do a whole lot to revolutionize the genre. But the game looks incredible. The PS3 version, in particular, looks and runs as well as the XBox 360 version, and was released the same day as the other versions, which has been a rarity in multi-platform games this year. The story is well done, which is also unusual in FPS games. The multiplayer, while I've not tried it, is said to be excellent.
Also released this year was the PS3 version of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. While 360 and PC owners got to explore Cyrodil last year, PS3 owners were given the chance this year. While several months late, it was still great for those who missed out the first time around.
The Darkness came out to mixed reviews. Personally, I've enjoyed the game. I can't say it's the greatest, but it's at least fun.
Fire Pro Wrestling Returns, the latest entry in Japan's long running wrestling game series, came out in North America last month, marking the first time a console version (ie: not portable) of Fire Pro has been released outside of Japan. Fire Pro Returns was released in Japan in 2005, but even if it took two years, it was worth the wait. The game is incredible.
In terms of other news items throughout the year, there aren't many that I can remember, to be honest. Bungie separated from Microsoft. There was a Gamespot scandal involving the firing of Jeff Gerstman. And that's about all I can remember off the top of my head.
And that's my brief look back on 2007 in gaming. I hope you enjoyed it.
2007 is almost over, and I thought I would take a look back at the events of the year.
As 2007 started off, the PlayStation 3 was difficult to find. However, Sony quickly got more units to shelves, and system sales have remained steady, but still behind the competition. The year also saw the dropping of the 20 Gig and 60 Gig units, in favor of the 80 Gig and 40 Gig units. Plus, the PS3 saw a couple price drops, though the first was rather temporary.
The XBox 360 saw steady sales, though it eventually fell to second place in the second half of the year. Major titles like Halo 3, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and others were released. The 360 Elite and Arcade models were also released.
As for the Wii, it has spent the entire year in a "shortage." I'm sure there are people who will claim that Nintendo is creating the shortage in order to boost demand for the system, and I won't argue with them. Whether Nintendo is purposefully creating a shortage or not, the system is in very high demand, and overtook the XBox 360 in less than a year, despite the 360 having a one year head-start.
2007 also saw the new and improved Electronic Entertainment Expo, as well as a few others trying to cash in on the downsized E3. Including E 4 All, which apparently had problems drawing a crowd.
In terms of games, Call of Duty 4 made an impact in the realm of first-person shooters. In terms of gameplay, the game didn't do a whole lot to revolutionize the genre. But the game looks incredible. The PS3 version, in particular, looks and runs as well as the XBox 360 version, and was released the same day as the other versions, which has been a rarity in multi-platform games this year. The story is well done, which is also unusual in FPS games. The multiplayer, while I've not tried it, is said to be excellent.
Also released this year was the PS3 version of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. While 360 and PC owners got to explore Cyrodil last year, PS3 owners were given the chance this year. While several months late, it was still great for those who missed out the first time around.
The Darkness came out to mixed reviews. Personally, I've enjoyed the game. I can't say it's the greatest, but it's at least fun.
Fire Pro Wrestling Returns, the latest entry in Japan's long running wrestling game series, came out in North America last month, marking the first time a console version (ie: not portable) of Fire Pro has been released outside of Japan. Fire Pro Returns was released in Japan in 2005, but even if it took two years, it was worth the wait. The game is incredible.
In terms of other news items throughout the year, there aren't many that I can remember, to be honest. Bungie separated from Microsoft. There was a Gamespot scandal involving the firing of Jeff Gerstman. And that's about all I can remember off the top of my head.
And that's my brief look back on 2007 in gaming. I hope you enjoyed it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Call of Duty 4 revisited
Last time I talked about Call of Duty 4, I discussed the gameplay features I enjoyed. Since then, I finished the game, and then did so again three more times. So I felt compelled to expand on what I first wrote.
First, the game is intense. Even the earlier levels have intense moments. Really the only parts of the game that aren't intense are the parts where you're avoiding a helicopter or searching for a missing ally. There were a few moments in the lone stealth mission that had me on edge. But you'll often find yourself hiding behind cover, trying to pick off an enemy or two without being killed. I found some easier paths to take on some levels, but others leave you without a lot of room to maneuver.
The story presentation, in my opinion, is awesome. First-person shooters aren't known for having good stories. But I grew an attachment to the S.A.S. squad. The U.S.M.C. squad, not as much. I had to use the subtitles to make out who was talking when (I'm not very good at differentiating voices with accents), but I grew to love my S.A.S. squad. Gaz, Captain Price, and Griggs (from the U.S.M.C.) are my favorites. The game portrays them with such unique personalities, which doesn't come off as forced.
Some story bits are delivered during load times, which helps disguise loading. It works quite well, as playing the game the first time, I was more interested in how the story progressed from one level to the next, that I didn't mind waiting for it to load. On a second or even third play through, it serves to remind you what the situation is, but it does get a bit tiring.
The story itself is pretty good. I'm not expecting anything of epic proportions, but it does its job quite nicely. The switch to the modern era, and moving into a fictional war, really did wonders for the story. When you do a game based on a historical era, you usually are faced with the constraints of that time period, as well as keeping it historically accurate. But this fictional war in the modern era has no such restraints, and you'll actually find yourself coming face-to-face with the main antagonists on more than one occasion. It makes you feel like you actually mean something, as opposed to being a random soldier in a big battle during World War II.
Overall, this game excels on all levels. The gameplay, video, sound, and story are all incredible. If I were to nitpick, I'd complain that the player characters don't cast any shadows. In fact, in typical first-person-shooter style, you don't see the characters' legs, body, or head. But even though the world is beautifully lighted, and all the shadows are real-time with HDR rendering, you can move in front of a light and nothing will happen. No shadow, no disturbance, nothing. It's the only real annoyance I found in the game, outside of the "playing as a helicopter gunner" level.
First, the game is intense. Even the earlier levels have intense moments. Really the only parts of the game that aren't intense are the parts where you're avoiding a helicopter or searching for a missing ally. There were a few moments in the lone stealth mission that had me on edge. But you'll often find yourself hiding behind cover, trying to pick off an enemy or two without being killed. I found some easier paths to take on some levels, but others leave you without a lot of room to maneuver.
The story presentation, in my opinion, is awesome. First-person shooters aren't known for having good stories. But I grew an attachment to the S.A.S. squad. The U.S.M.C. squad, not as much. I had to use the subtitles to make out who was talking when (I'm not very good at differentiating voices with accents), but I grew to love my S.A.S. squad. Gaz, Captain Price, and Griggs (from the U.S.M.C.) are my favorites. The game portrays them with such unique personalities, which doesn't come off as forced.
Some story bits are delivered during load times, which helps disguise loading. It works quite well, as playing the game the first time, I was more interested in how the story progressed from one level to the next, that I didn't mind waiting for it to load. On a second or even third play through, it serves to remind you what the situation is, but it does get a bit tiring.
The story itself is pretty good. I'm not expecting anything of epic proportions, but it does its job quite nicely. The switch to the modern era, and moving into a fictional war, really did wonders for the story. When you do a game based on a historical era, you usually are faced with the constraints of that time period, as well as keeping it historically accurate. But this fictional war in the modern era has no such restraints, and you'll actually find yourself coming face-to-face with the main antagonists on more than one occasion. It makes you feel like you actually mean something, as opposed to being a random soldier in a big battle during World War II.
Overall, this game excels on all levels. The gameplay, video, sound, and story are all incredible. If I were to nitpick, I'd complain that the player characters don't cast any shadows. In fact, in typical first-person-shooter style, you don't see the characters' legs, body, or head. But even though the world is beautifully lighted, and all the shadows are real-time with HDR rendering, you can move in front of a light and nothing will happen. No shadow, no disturbance, nothing. It's the only real annoyance I found in the game, outside of the "playing as a helicopter gunner" level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)