I'll freely admit I'm borrowing the concept of one-sentence reviews, but it's about the only way I have any hope of writing anything down for now.
+ Pokemon Diamond (NDS)
So much fun I actually forget how much of a fruitcake I am for playing this at the age of 31.
+ Chu-Chu Rocket (GBA)
A perfect solution for those that like to shoot mice into space on the go.
+ Mass Effect (Xbox 360)
The best story-driven elevator simulator with implied lesbian sex that I've ever played.
+ Project Gotham 4 (Xbox 360)
The addition of Gran Turismo handling means I can finally play an entry in this wonderful franchise and not suck.
- Sprung (NDS)
A dating sim that further proves there's absolutely no moderately entertaining foreign concept that Americans can't fuck up.
- Myst (NDS)
I'm still trying to figure out why someone would port a 15 year old game no one cares about anymore to a system actually capable of matching the original control scheme and screw up said controls beyond any hope of playability.
- Dark Messiah of Might and Magic Elements (Xbox 360)
About the only fun to be had here is kicking people off of a cliff until the game locks up for the 30th time.
- Resistance: Fall of Man (PS3)
When otherwise competent players can't get more than a few feet without being gunned down I start to think they named the game literally.
- Patapon (PSP)
I would ask "Why god, why?" but I'm terrified of getting an answer.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Picross (Nintendo DS)
I love logic puzzles, I really do. Sudoku comes close, but at the higher difficulty levels you start having to guess (or at least experiment a bit) as each space could hold two possible answers. That doesn't make it any less fun, but I do sometimes grumble. I have fallen in love with Picross for this very reason - every single move from beginning to end can be logically determined. It's not always obvious, and you've got to be good at running number patterns through your head, but at the end of the day logical elimination and selection works on each and every move.
The premise is fairly simple: you are presented with a grid of squares ranging from 5x5 and up and your job is to mark squares that end up drawing a picture of some sort. Obviously smaller grids rarely resemble the object they're supposed to represent, but at the end of the day the picture isn't what you're supposed to be thinking about anyway. The top and left sides of the grid are lined with various series of numbers and each series represents all of the information you need to mark the right squares. The numbers tell you how many marked squares are in its respective row and how many are connected in a sequence.
This would probably best be served by an example. Let us say that in a 10x10 grid one row has the number series "1 6 1." This would be a row you could fill immediately because you are told that it will be one square, a space, six squares, another space, and a final square. It gets tricky when you only have something like "2" for a row of ten possible squares. You must look at all rows simultaneously and find the initial thread, the initial squares you can either mark or eliminate that will start unravel the puzzle as a whole. I love it. Larger puzzles can take a very long time, and each mistake you make in normal mode will add to the timer that tells you how long you took. It's worth noting that the only measure of "points" is in fact the timer itself. A lower time is better, although it only serves as a point of pride - it won't disqualify you for making large numbers of mistakes.
There's one other mode worth specifically mentioning - Free Mode. Free Mode won't tell you when you make a mistake, you simply have to get the puzzle 100% right on your own for it to finish. Those are much more challenging, and it's not so much the timer as it is just finishing the damn thing in the first place that serves as bragging rights. I'm moving much more slowly in this section...dammit, they're hard. I like that though. I haven't been able to put Picross down for more than a few minutes while I'm home, and considering my distractability that's a big thumbs up on its own. I will state emphatically however: if you don't like numbers, don't even pick it up - you'll hate it.
The premise is fairly simple: you are presented with a grid of squares ranging from 5x5 and up and your job is to mark squares that end up drawing a picture of some sort. Obviously smaller grids rarely resemble the object they're supposed to represent, but at the end of the day the picture isn't what you're supposed to be thinking about anyway. The top and left sides of the grid are lined with various series of numbers and each series represents all of the information you need to mark the right squares. The numbers tell you how many marked squares are in its respective row and how many are connected in a sequence.
This would probably best be served by an example. Let us say that in a 10x10 grid one row has the number series "1 6 1." This would be a row you could fill immediately because you are told that it will be one square, a space, six squares, another space, and a final square. It gets tricky when you only have something like "2" for a row of ten possible squares. You must look at all rows simultaneously and find the initial thread, the initial squares you can either mark or eliminate that will start unravel the puzzle as a whole. I love it. Larger puzzles can take a very long time, and each mistake you make in normal mode will add to the timer that tells you how long you took. It's worth noting that the only measure of "points" is in fact the timer itself. A lower time is better, although it only serves as a point of pride - it won't disqualify you for making large numbers of mistakes.
There's one other mode worth specifically mentioning - Free Mode. Free Mode won't tell you when you make a mistake, you simply have to get the puzzle 100% right on your own for it to finish. Those are much more challenging, and it's not so much the timer as it is just finishing the damn thing in the first place that serves as bragging rights. I'm moving much more slowly in this section...dammit, they're hard. I like that though. I haven't been able to put Picross down for more than a few minutes while I'm home, and considering my distractability that's a big thumbs up on its own. I will state emphatically however: if you don't like numbers, don't even pick it up - you'll hate it.
Friday, May 16, 2008
You Can Hear the Crickets Chirping
I am simply a mass of FAIL lately. Part of the problem relates to game overload - I've been so busy trying to winnow my way through the enormous stack of things to play that reviewing them - or even commenting on them - hasn't even occurred to me. I may try and formulate a short list review format, something like a one sentence list of many games. I'll make some sort of decision later today.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Assassin's Creed - Pt. 2 (Xbox 360)
I kind of fell down on the job for this one. I completed Assassin's Creed a few days after the last entry, but with Mass Effect the very next Tuesday and not feeling well from personal issues...well it just wasn't high on my to-do list. Knowing for a fact that no one reads these articles also sometimes makes me postpone writing anything. It hit me today however that these posts can easily serve more than one purpose. I hope to create games at some point, whether as a hobby or professionally. These two game journals can double as a free form notebook of sorts, a rambling collection of what can go right and what can go wrong. I have a really bad habit of determining some very important concepts and promptly forgetting them because I didn't jot them down somewhere.
Well, I think it goes without saying that me playing Assassin's Creed non-stop until completing it hints at my impressions remaining positive. The mechanics held up well, I never really felt the missions got all that repetitious, and the story...well, right up until the end it held my attention completely. The journey from irresponsible and arrogant asshole to thoughtful and respectful crusader felt natural, and the progression of events in the "real world" meshed nicely with the game itself. I'm not going to lie; the ending is abrupt and I can easily see how someone might get frustrated with it. I myself do love proper conclusions but I'm also a sucker for a grand, multi-volume plot. My opinion is fairly simple: if they tie up the game itself but break off even sharply for a sequel - I'm fine. The only exception to this rule was the original Soul Reaver. The sudden shift itself from self-contained game to multi-volume story did not bother me, it was the unavoidable fact that I would have to wait for and use the next generation platform to continue. I know for a fact the next Assassin's Creed game(s) will be released on the 360, so more power to Ubisoft.
It's very interesting to me to examine the mechanics of AAA titles like Assassin's Creed in detail. Ubisoft used a home-grown engine called Scimitar, and fuck me running if it doesn't make the latest Unreal Engine (Gears of War, Bioshock) look like an Erector Set. Couple this with the ongoing problems multiple studios are having to even make the Unreal Engine work at a decent framerate and it makes you wonder how hard it really is to do things right. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that I could whip up a high-caliber engine in my home office. I'm saying that sometimes high profile companies screw things up all along leading everyone to think that's just how it is, and then suddenly a dark horse comes along and quietly hits a home run without any of the assumed difficulties associated with whatever it is they're doing. A lot of niche techies might use the example of OS X versus Windows, but that's a really tired analogy that's been done more times than I care to think about - and it's not relevant to the industry I'm talking about.
The truly amusing angle to this concept is the fact Ubisoft will probably never license or sell the Scimitar Engine. Epic has been selling evolving versions of the Unreal Engine for years now, enough to make it a go-to standard for a long list of high-profile developers...but they're stomped in one fell swoop by the initial release of an in-house program that wasn't even created with the intent to pitch and sell to others. I could use Renderware (Crackdown, Burnout) as another example of a superior-looking product versus Unreal, but there are a couple of important qualifiers to what's happened there. Renderware was developed in-house by Criterion, and they've always freely admitted it's been a hodge-podge project that can produce beautiful results but can be a bit of a beast to work with. They licensed it to a small number of companies, but when they were purchased by EA it was pulled. It will be used for a few more internal projects and then discontinued completely, so while the results were superior to Epic's product the circumstances surrounding it muddy the waters enough to prevent an honest comparison.
I don't really have a point to make, it's just something that I find fascinating and it gives me hope for my own aspirations as a game developer. With web distribution and XBLA as low-cost outlets for small shops and consolidating and expanding resources for larger shops we're seeing an increasing number of out-of-the-blue technical triumphs. It exposes how clunky certain aspects of the industry have become and how accustomed to it we have become. It also helps remind developers like myself that yes, games are a lot of work...but it's not as hard as some people would have you believe either by word or by deed.
Well, I think it goes without saying that me playing Assassin's Creed non-stop until completing it hints at my impressions remaining positive. The mechanics held up well, I never really felt the missions got all that repetitious, and the story...well, right up until the end it held my attention completely. The journey from irresponsible and arrogant asshole to thoughtful and respectful crusader felt natural, and the progression of events in the "real world" meshed nicely with the game itself. I'm not going to lie; the ending is abrupt and I can easily see how someone might get frustrated with it. I myself do love proper conclusions but I'm also a sucker for a grand, multi-volume plot. My opinion is fairly simple: if they tie up the game itself but break off even sharply for a sequel - I'm fine. The only exception to this rule was the original Soul Reaver. The sudden shift itself from self-contained game to multi-volume story did not bother me, it was the unavoidable fact that I would have to wait for and use the next generation platform to continue. I know for a fact the next Assassin's Creed game(s) will be released on the 360, so more power to Ubisoft.
It's very interesting to me to examine the mechanics of AAA titles like Assassin's Creed in detail. Ubisoft used a home-grown engine called Scimitar, and fuck me running if it doesn't make the latest Unreal Engine (Gears of War, Bioshock) look like an Erector Set. Couple this with the ongoing problems multiple studios are having to even make the Unreal Engine work at a decent framerate and it makes you wonder how hard it really is to do things right. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that I could whip up a high-caliber engine in my home office. I'm saying that sometimes high profile companies screw things up all along leading everyone to think that's just how it is, and then suddenly a dark horse comes along and quietly hits a home run without any of the assumed difficulties associated with whatever it is they're doing. A lot of niche techies might use the example of OS X versus Windows, but that's a really tired analogy that's been done more times than I care to think about - and it's not relevant to the industry I'm talking about.
The truly amusing angle to this concept is the fact Ubisoft will probably never license or sell the Scimitar Engine. Epic has been selling evolving versions of the Unreal Engine for years now, enough to make it a go-to standard for a long list of high-profile developers...but they're stomped in one fell swoop by the initial release of an in-house program that wasn't even created with the intent to pitch and sell to others. I could use Renderware (Crackdown, Burnout) as another example of a superior-looking product versus Unreal, but there are a couple of important qualifiers to what's happened there. Renderware was developed in-house by Criterion, and they've always freely admitted it's been a hodge-podge project that can produce beautiful results but can be a bit of a beast to work with. They licensed it to a small number of companies, but when they were purchased by EA it was pulled. It will be used for a few more internal projects and then discontinued completely, so while the results were superior to Epic's product the circumstances surrounding it muddy the waters enough to prevent an honest comparison.
I don't really have a point to make, it's just something that I find fascinating and it gives me hope for my own aspirations as a game developer. With web distribution and XBLA as low-cost outlets for small shops and consolidating and expanding resources for larger shops we're seeing an increasing number of out-of-the-blue technical triumphs. It exposes how clunky certain aspects of the industry have become and how accustomed to it we have become. It also helps remind developers like myself that yes, games are a lot of work...but it's not as hard as some people would have you believe either by word or by deed.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Assassin's Creed - Pt 1. (Xbox 360)
I will freely admit that I read "professional" reviews and bitch about the scoring systems, but I do not ever base buying decisions on them. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and plenty of people can get almost irrationally fixated on some plus or minus of any given game and his entire opinion becomes shaped around it. Recent middling reviews of Assassin's Creed reflect this problem perfectly - they obsess on various design aspects of the game that they decide are flaws. Gamespot delivers a 9.0 with a very fair assessment, as do several others...but more that two or three major outlets called it a "letdown" and gave it between a 7 and 7.5.
Don't get me wrong, this doesn't bother me. Fuck 'em, I play what I want. It does however present me with an interesting opportunity. A game this open to interpretation could be reviewed in three phases: initial impressions, thoughts after playing halfway through or more, and then musings upon completion. Perhaps this evolution of opinion is what led to those middling scores, perhaps not...but I think it's a fun experiment either way.
So what exactly are my initial impressions? This game is a home run. It is hands down the single most beautiful video game I've ever played, and keep in mind this is on a standard CRT - not HD. The level of detail, the depth of model animations, the sheer scope of the sounds and music...these things and more add up to something that literally must be seen to be believed. I could rant and rave about these things for paragraphs on end, so I'll just stop here and say again: this is hands down the most beautiful game I've ever played.
The game play is not nearly as odd or unique as some would have you believe, although it does introduce novel concepts that have a bit of a learning curve. You have two categories of actions you can take - the casual set such as walking or gently pushing your way through a crowd, things that will not draw much attention - or the aggressive set that WILL draw attention, such as physically attacking someone or running at full speed. The types of actions mapped to the buttons are the same and you merely switch "sets" by holding or releasing the right trigger. It's a bit tricky at first to remember when to hold and release, but it quickly becomes automatic. Combat requires some control skills and timing that definitely take some practice, but they do provide you with several "get out of jail free" moves to fall back on in a pinch that don't take TOO much coordination. It's a system that so far hasn't gotten old at all, although that might also be because the special moves are so much fun to watch.
The plot summary is pretty interesting - you're an assassin during the Crusades with a list of people to well, assassinate. It's a good story, but...well, I'm not going to really go into any more depth right now except to talk about one of the touchiest points to some reviewers. Ubisoft first showed Assassin's Creed as a historical game and stayed very tight-lipped about the details. Further trailers and screen caps showed a futuristic look to the HUD and to a few other elements, leading to all sorts of speculation about a plot twist that involved time travel or who knows what else. The upshot is that it is neither. It's not a twist to know that the game is set in present day and you're using a machine that can make you relive ancestral memories, and I can say that because it's how the game STARTS. Ubisoft kind of screwed this one up a little bit; although they didn't call it a twist they also stayed far too quiet about it, which gave a lot of people the wrong impression. The IGN reviewer in particular went apeshit over this point. I think he's being silly, but I can acknowledge the logic behind the issue.
(Personally, I think Ubisoft should have announced this fact proudly - it's a very neat concept that truly sets the game apart from a normal action title.)
So far this is one of the best games I've played this year. Let's see if it holds up after another 10 hours or so. More to come...
Don't get me wrong, this doesn't bother me. Fuck 'em, I play what I want. It does however present me with an interesting opportunity. A game this open to interpretation could be reviewed in three phases: initial impressions, thoughts after playing halfway through or more, and then musings upon completion. Perhaps this evolution of opinion is what led to those middling scores, perhaps not...but I think it's a fun experiment either way.
So what exactly are my initial impressions? This game is a home run. It is hands down the single most beautiful video game I've ever played, and keep in mind this is on a standard CRT - not HD. The level of detail, the depth of model animations, the sheer scope of the sounds and music...these things and more add up to something that literally must be seen to be believed. I could rant and rave about these things for paragraphs on end, so I'll just stop here and say again: this is hands down the most beautiful game I've ever played.
The game play is not nearly as odd or unique as some would have you believe, although it does introduce novel concepts that have a bit of a learning curve. You have two categories of actions you can take - the casual set such as walking or gently pushing your way through a crowd, things that will not draw much attention - or the aggressive set that WILL draw attention, such as physically attacking someone or running at full speed. The types of actions mapped to the buttons are the same and you merely switch "sets" by holding or releasing the right trigger. It's a bit tricky at first to remember when to hold and release, but it quickly becomes automatic. Combat requires some control skills and timing that definitely take some practice, but they do provide you with several "get out of jail free" moves to fall back on in a pinch that don't take TOO much coordination. It's a system that so far hasn't gotten old at all, although that might also be because the special moves are so much fun to watch.
The plot summary is pretty interesting - you're an assassin during the Crusades with a list of people to well, assassinate. It's a good story, but...well, I'm not going to really go into any more depth right now except to talk about one of the touchiest points to some reviewers. Ubisoft first showed Assassin's Creed as a historical game and stayed very tight-lipped about the details. Further trailers and screen caps showed a futuristic look to the HUD and to a few other elements, leading to all sorts of speculation about a plot twist that involved time travel or who knows what else. The upshot is that it is neither. It's not a twist to know that the game is set in present day and you're using a machine that can make you relive ancestral memories, and I can say that because it's how the game STARTS. Ubisoft kind of screwed this one up a little bit; although they didn't call it a twist they also stayed far too quiet about it, which gave a lot of people the wrong impression. The IGN reviewer in particular went apeshit over this point. I think he's being silly, but I can acknowledge the logic behind the issue.
(Personally, I think Ubisoft should have announced this fact proudly - it's a very neat concept that truly sets the game apart from a normal action title.)
So far this is one of the best games I've played this year. Let's see if it holds up after another 10 hours or so. More to come...
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Final Fantasy IX (PSX)
So occasionally I plan on reviewing older games. I would in truth like to review a great many old games, but I've got so many new games on the list that it's hard to make time to play and review everything. Granted...if I'm abandoning the traditional review objectivity (which I am) I don't have to write a three page opus on an old Genesis game covering graphics, sound, sodium levels, caffeine content, smelliness, or whatever - a few paragraphs about how cool or stupid it is will suffice. On with the show...
I'm not going to spend any time defending my love of the Final Fantasy franchise - they make polished and enjoyable games, so I play them. Apparently these days it's fashionable to "lay the hate" on Squenix, and words cannot adequately sum up how retarded that attitude truly is. People took one look at FF IX's art style, called it a kiddie Final Fantasy, and walked away. Screw 'em, it's a good game. I remember enjoying it immensely, but it wasn't until I decided to play through it again recently that I realized - FF IX is probably the darkest and most adult Final Fantasy to date. It isn't simply a crusade of good versus evil, rebels against a tyrant...this game takes a hard look at some really tough and saddening issues.
I really love going back to earlier generation JRPGs...they can be a genuine kick in the balls. With the exception of a small group of niche games localized by companies like Atlas or Nippon Ichi the genre got easy during the reign of the PS2 and has continued that trend into this generation of consoles as well. Everything is balanced more in favor of the player, and side quests have gotten fewer and easier to puzzle out. I know that this does make the genre more accessible and less frustrating, but sometimes I miss that frustration. Hell, that's one reason I go to such great lengths to maintain a back catalogue of old games.
I'm not going to spend any time defending my love of the Final Fantasy franchise - they make polished and enjoyable games, so I play them. Apparently these days it's fashionable to "lay the hate" on Squenix, and words cannot adequately sum up how retarded that attitude truly is. People took one look at FF IX's art style, called it a kiddie Final Fantasy, and walked away. Screw 'em, it's a good game. I remember enjoying it immensely, but it wasn't until I decided to play through it again recently that I realized - FF IX is probably the darkest and most adult Final Fantasy to date. It isn't simply a crusade of good versus evil, rebels against a tyrant...this game takes a hard look at some really tough and saddening issues.
- A queen is twisted and pulled into darkness, driven insane and manipulated into starting war after war. Her loving daughter tries with all her heart to save her, fails, and watches her die in a blaze of fire.
- Sentient golems are manufactured as slaves and thrown away like trash in these pointless wars. Some of the golems start to develop free will and flee their bondage to start a village only to bluntly realize they each only have about a year to live their new found lives before they simply stop working and die.
- A child-like figure with no real idea of where he came from discovers he resembles the golems and is paralyzed by the thought that his very existence might not be truly real. He then discovers he IS one of them, an early model that was a mistake and discarded as defective - which does wonders for his self-esteem. He further realizes that his time might be severely limited as well, and has to face the fact he might stop working and die at any time. On top of it all, he feels the other golems are his brothers and watches helplessly as both the slaves are destroyed by war and the free ones die from their limited lifespan.
- A woman searching for her lost lover sees her homeland get conquered and her people wiped out right before her eyes.
- A little girl lives alone as the last of her race, isolated and abandoned.
- The servant villain, while alien and uncaring towards the planet and her peoples, is himself a complete slave and tries desperately without any success to escape his bondage.
I really love going back to earlier generation JRPGs...they can be a genuine kick in the balls. With the exception of a small group of niche games localized by companies like Atlas or Nippon Ichi the genre got easy during the reign of the PS2 and has continued that trend into this generation of consoles as well. Everything is balanced more in favor of the player, and side quests have gotten fewer and easier to puzzle out. I know that this does make the genre more accessible and less frustrating, but sometimes I miss that frustration. Hell, that's one reason I go to such great lengths to maintain a back catalogue of old games.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Ratchet: Deadlocked (PS2)
I don't like squad-based games. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I'm a lone wolf. Whether you're AI or human I don't really feel like delaying or altering what I need to do to cover you, bail your ass out, tell you what to do, or toss you supplies. I definitely do not want to have to deal with friendly fire. I'd rather face the hordes of hostiles all by my lonesome than have to even think about what you're doing. I can stand co-op in some games, but only because there's no real strategy. Both of us need to shoot everything that moves as quickly as possible, heads up I just tossed a grenade over there. That's pretty straightforward and honestly rather difficult to fuck up. Am I worried about you fucking up? A little I suppose, but I think I'm probably more worried more about me fucking up. I will probably get you killed, and while I'm not going to feel guilty I probably will feel hassled – who likes saying oops over and over? Don't even get me started on AI squads...brain-dead automatons that barely manage to find their way from point A to point B without assistance. I know things are improving in that arena, but as far as I'm concerned if I have to tell the computer that it's important they aim for an opponent's head instead of just firing randomly with the sniper rifle then I might as well just do it myself.
The problem with not liking squad-based games is that it's put me at a disadvantage on a lot of new releases. Squads are in, squads are hip, squads are a great way for you and some friends to go win one for the Gipper as a TEAM, rah rah rah. Or if your posse consists of some AI drones, it's a great way to give orders, feel like you're the big boss man, and that your brains led you to victory. I mean, hey...it's not like those drones can even get their shoes tied without you hitting Shift-T or selecting “Tie Shoes” from the context menu you get from pressing the triangle button. Given all of this, you can imagine I was not very happy to hear that one of my favorite franchises would be a squad-based shoot-em-up on the next go-round. Sure, the Ratchet and Clank franchise had been moving to more and more of a straight shooter and sure, the missions in Up Your Arsenal where you assisted or saved squads of the Galactic Rangers were a lot of fun. Those guys were all on automatic, though. They were background noise, randomly shooting at the waves of bad guys and essentially none of your concern. All of the previews of the new game Deadlocked, however said that you would be giving orders and directing your squad, using teammates to ensure your victory in a pure arena-style venue.
Those idiots need to have their heads examined. Either that or they need to go back and figure out what the terms “squad-based” and “arena-style” really mean.
I suppose the fault is really mine – Insomniac Games has never let me down. They have put together a very entertaining (albeit somewhat short) game with Ratchet: Deadlocked. There's a reason Clank is missing from the title – he's no longer with you. Instead he serves as a sort of navigator from a remote monitoring station, feeding you hints and vague directions in such rapid succession that I started looking for a way to shut him up. Wait, I should back up a bit. Heroes all over the galaxy have been kidnapped, and Ratchet is no exception. Gleeman Vox has scooped them all up for a gladiatorial-style championship show where they are forced to duke it out against hordes of robots and then eventually each other, all on live TV with a rather colorful commentary.
The “arenas” are actually more like large zones in a real environment, giving you all sorts of cover and terrain options to work with, and your “squad?” Two helper robots that hover just behind you shooting anything that comes near. You can give them a grand total of six orders, and that's including the auto-repair command when one of them is knocked out. You can tell them to turn cranks for you, set up explosives in predefined points you come across in certain objectives, hack security stations, shield whomever is doing any of the prior actions, or (drum roll) to return to you. These orders functions off of the d-pad with context-sensitive icons – you can only tell the bots to do things when it fits the objective or way point you come across. Like I said, I think some people need to review what the term “squad-based” typically means in a game. Other than the overall premise, the core features of the Ratchet and Clank series are still here. You've got upgradeable weapons (although less than even the first game...very disappointing), detailed and complex environments, hordes of things to shoot, and plenty of wise-cracks.
My only real complaints with the game would be it's length. It's about seven to eight hours long on the default difficulty setting and you have a somewhat anti-climactic ending. There's the now-standard ability to keep your arsenal and start over with harder challenges, and every stage contains a series of extra challenges and skill points to try for, but that can really be hit or miss when it comes to holding interest. You can't put a sizable portion of your content in optional mini-quests, because even if there's a ton of things to do a player will still feel a bit let down. That's perceived as extra content, something added on to a full gaming experience. I've read that the multi-player modes are quite good, however I lack both an online adapter for my PS2 and friends with enough free time to just drop by to help me test a game so I can't really vouch for it myself. Even so that would fall under what I've said already: in the console world at least – you shouldn't short change your single player experience for what most people see as extra material.
Overall, I did enjoy Ratchet: Deadlocked immensely, even though I was mailing it back to GameFly after beating it two days later. Do what I'm doing: consider it a definite rental, and then if you start jonesing after you've returned it you'll know you should at least pick it up used.
The problem with not liking squad-based games is that it's put me at a disadvantage on a lot of new releases. Squads are in, squads are hip, squads are a great way for you and some friends to go win one for the Gipper as a TEAM, rah rah rah. Or if your posse consists of some AI drones, it's a great way to give orders, feel like you're the big boss man, and that your brains led you to victory. I mean, hey...it's not like those drones can even get their shoes tied without you hitting Shift-T or selecting “Tie Shoes” from the context menu you get from pressing the triangle button. Given all of this, you can imagine I was not very happy to hear that one of my favorite franchises would be a squad-based shoot-em-up on the next go-round. Sure, the Ratchet and Clank franchise had been moving to more and more of a straight shooter and sure, the missions in Up Your Arsenal where you assisted or saved squads of the Galactic Rangers were a lot of fun. Those guys were all on automatic, though. They were background noise, randomly shooting at the waves of bad guys and essentially none of your concern. All of the previews of the new game Deadlocked, however said that you would be giving orders and directing your squad, using teammates to ensure your victory in a pure arena-style venue.
Those idiots need to have their heads examined. Either that or they need to go back and figure out what the terms “squad-based” and “arena-style” really mean.
I suppose the fault is really mine – Insomniac Games has never let me down. They have put together a very entertaining (albeit somewhat short) game with Ratchet: Deadlocked. There's a reason Clank is missing from the title – he's no longer with you. Instead he serves as a sort of navigator from a remote monitoring station, feeding you hints and vague directions in such rapid succession that I started looking for a way to shut him up. Wait, I should back up a bit. Heroes all over the galaxy have been kidnapped, and Ratchet is no exception. Gleeman Vox has scooped them all up for a gladiatorial-style championship show where they are forced to duke it out against hordes of robots and then eventually each other, all on live TV with a rather colorful commentary.
The “arenas” are actually more like large zones in a real environment, giving you all sorts of cover and terrain options to work with, and your “squad?” Two helper robots that hover just behind you shooting anything that comes near. You can give them a grand total of six orders, and that's including the auto-repair command when one of them is knocked out. You can tell them to turn cranks for you, set up explosives in predefined points you come across in certain objectives, hack security stations, shield whomever is doing any of the prior actions, or (drum roll) to return to you. These orders functions off of the d-pad with context-sensitive icons – you can only tell the bots to do things when it fits the objective or way point you come across. Like I said, I think some people need to review what the term “squad-based” typically means in a game. Other than the overall premise, the core features of the Ratchet and Clank series are still here. You've got upgradeable weapons (although less than even the first game...very disappointing), detailed and complex environments, hordes of things to shoot, and plenty of wise-cracks.
My only real complaints with the game would be it's length. It's about seven to eight hours long on the default difficulty setting and you have a somewhat anti-climactic ending. There's the now-standard ability to keep your arsenal and start over with harder challenges, and every stage contains a series of extra challenges and skill points to try for, but that can really be hit or miss when it comes to holding interest. You can't put a sizable portion of your content in optional mini-quests, because even if there's a ton of things to do a player will still feel a bit let down. That's perceived as extra content, something added on to a full gaming experience. I've read that the multi-player modes are quite good, however I lack both an online adapter for my PS2 and friends with enough free time to just drop by to help me test a game so I can't really vouch for it myself. Even so that would fall under what I've said already: in the console world at least – you shouldn't short change your single player experience for what most people see as extra material.
Overall, I did enjoy Ratchet: Deadlocked immensely, even though I was mailing it back to GameFly after beating it two days later. Do what I'm doing: consider it a definite rental, and then if you start jonesing after you've returned it you'll know you should at least pick it up used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
