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.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
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.
Metroid Prime Pinball (Nintendo DS)
I wish I were good at pinball. It's one of those kinds of games that I always imagine is fun to be good at, although I'm sure that's a silly opinion to have in practice. I've never heard of the pinball wizard getting the girl, and as far as I know there wasn't a montage-based 80's comedic underdog movie inspired by pinball...and we all know that 80's montage movies are the definition of what's cool and what isn't. The whole playing purely for a high score mentality has always been just beyond my grasp; I'm just too ADD to really get good at those kinds of games. I'm normally intrigued enough by interesting table design to want to explore and trigger every feature, but once I've run through every aspect that I can manage at a basic skill level I get pretty bored. I think I can still give this game a fair shake, though...you'll just need to take the above statements into account.
The premise of Metroid Prime Pinball is actually pretty clever – Samus spends a great deal of time in both Metroid Prime games in the morph ball form. Rolling through those puzzles and bouncing everywhere gave someone the novel idea: why not make her a pinball? Design multiple levels based around environments from Metroid Prime, work in a lot of neat special maneuvers you could easily see Samus doing, slap in a nearly perfect soundtrack adaptation from the first game and voila – you've got a pretty good game on your hands. The primary game mode even links the tables, making it necessary to travel between them to complete the primary “mission” of collecting the twelve Chozo artifact pieces ala (wait for it) Metroid Prime.
I think it's a bit impressive the developers were able to create a “mission” mode in the first place. You can't really have a huge variety of play modes with pinball...I mean, it's pinball. You smack the ball around on a themed table and try not to let it fall into the hole at the bottom. The only other options are to play a single table or play wireless multiplayer, which is really just a contest to see who can make it to 100,000 points first within a limited time. I will say that it's a thoughtful addition since the DS wireless option is pretty heavily advertised these days, but as usual I don't have friends with the time or the hardware to really test it out. Getting to 100,000 points is actually pretty easy, but it'd be a good enough race all the same.
The typical DS game uses the two screens to present more information simultaneously to speed information processing or to present an extra control interface ala the touch feature of the bottom screen. Metroid Prime Pinball belongs instead to a new minority of games that use the second screen to extend the primary play area, which gives it the ability to display something that really looks like a pinball table. The only catch is the gap between the two screens, which ended up representing a physical obstruction on the virtual table. The ball actually disappears momentarily as it moves from one screen to another, which sounds inconvenient as hell in theory but ends up feeling natural in practice. Your mind will instantly adjust to the virtual gap since there is some physical distance between the screens. In a way it even adds to the realism.
I mentioned earlier that the soundtrack was nearly perfect. Most of the tables have an amazing adaptation of the area's theme music, utilizing the virtual surround of the DS to a degree that still makes me marvel. The Tallon overworld music sounds nearly identical to the GameCube version, and the Phendrana, Chozo temple, and Magmoor levels aren't far behind. The lone exception to this is the Space Pirate frigate, which got some sort of guitar-based metal remix of the Metroid theme. I personally find it to be extremely cheesy and think it sticks out like a sore thumb.
The shoulder buttons control the paddles, blah-blah-blah. Do I really need to cover the control scheme in a pinball game? Well wait, maybe I do. There are a few table features that end up pulling Samus out of the morph ball for a few moments to either shoot or jump, but honestly the controls aren't much of a surprise there either once you get the timing down. I'll say it's exactly what you would expect it to be and leave it at that.
I think that about covers it. It's freaking pinball...if you have no real idea what that is hit Google, because I can't be bothered to bring you into the 21st century. Well...the 20th century. Or 19th. I think that's when pinball really solidified as a game. Well, either way if you've got a DS and you like pinball you should really pick this one up.
The premise of Metroid Prime Pinball is actually pretty clever – Samus spends a great deal of time in both Metroid Prime games in the morph ball form. Rolling through those puzzles and bouncing everywhere gave someone the novel idea: why not make her a pinball? Design multiple levels based around environments from Metroid Prime, work in a lot of neat special maneuvers you could easily see Samus doing, slap in a nearly perfect soundtrack adaptation from the first game and voila – you've got a pretty good game on your hands. The primary game mode even links the tables, making it necessary to travel between them to complete the primary “mission” of collecting the twelve Chozo artifact pieces ala (wait for it) Metroid Prime.
I think it's a bit impressive the developers were able to create a “mission” mode in the first place. You can't really have a huge variety of play modes with pinball...I mean, it's pinball. You smack the ball around on a themed table and try not to let it fall into the hole at the bottom. The only other options are to play a single table or play wireless multiplayer, which is really just a contest to see who can make it to 100,000 points first within a limited time. I will say that it's a thoughtful addition since the DS wireless option is pretty heavily advertised these days, but as usual I don't have friends with the time or the hardware to really test it out. Getting to 100,000 points is actually pretty easy, but it'd be a good enough race all the same.
The typical DS game uses the two screens to present more information simultaneously to speed information processing or to present an extra control interface ala the touch feature of the bottom screen. Metroid Prime Pinball belongs instead to a new minority of games that use the second screen to extend the primary play area, which gives it the ability to display something that really looks like a pinball table. The only catch is the gap between the two screens, which ended up representing a physical obstruction on the virtual table. The ball actually disappears momentarily as it moves from one screen to another, which sounds inconvenient as hell in theory but ends up feeling natural in practice. Your mind will instantly adjust to the virtual gap since there is some physical distance between the screens. In a way it even adds to the realism.
I mentioned earlier that the soundtrack was nearly perfect. Most of the tables have an amazing adaptation of the area's theme music, utilizing the virtual surround of the DS to a degree that still makes me marvel. The Tallon overworld music sounds nearly identical to the GameCube version, and the Phendrana, Chozo temple, and Magmoor levels aren't far behind. The lone exception to this is the Space Pirate frigate, which got some sort of guitar-based metal remix of the Metroid theme. I personally find it to be extremely cheesy and think it sticks out like a sore thumb.
The shoulder buttons control the paddles, blah-blah-blah. Do I really need to cover the control scheme in a pinball game? Well wait, maybe I do. There are a few table features that end up pulling Samus out of the morph ball for a few moments to either shoot or jump, but honestly the controls aren't much of a surprise there either once you get the timing down. I'll say it's exactly what you would expect it to be and leave it at that.
I think that about covers it. It's freaking pinball...if you have no real idea what that is hit Google, because I can't be bothered to bring you into the 21st century. Well...the 20th century. Or 19th. I think that's when pinball really solidified as a game. Well, either way if you've got a DS and you like pinball you should really pick this one up.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Bioshock (Xbox 360)
Some of these posts are going to be a bit different. When a game gets to a certain level of quality there is no end to the information available, and I hate rehashing things you've probably heard a thousand times already. Bioshock? It's fantastic. The complexity of combat, the gorgeous visuals, the involved story, all of these things (and more) add up to an experience that simply cannot be missed. While I think numeric ratings are bullshit in general, it's still worth noting that Game Rankings has Bioshock in its top ten list - the first new game on the list in a few years or more.
I'm not going to rehash the plot and it's total awesomeness, I'm not going to talk about how Ken Levine managed to create yet another fantastic title, and I'm not going to talk about how mature the various in-game choices are. All of those things are true, but again - I can easily guess that you've heard it all before. No, I'm going to talk about a couple of negatives surrounding this title. I'm going to talk about the sometimes surprisingly irrational AI. I'm going to talk about how the lack of a simple mini-map nearly drove me insane. I'm going to talk about the typical copy protection issues the computer version suffers from and the mind boggling solution 2K Boston came up with.
I don't want you to think the AI is actually bad - it's not. It's fairly competent in seeking cover and certainly a challenge at higher levels. Opponents will seek out the same health stations you can use to heal themselves. They will press you into corners and try to overwhelm you with numbers. My nitpick is that yet again we've got a game where you opponents have absolute lock-on no matter where you are. Trigger an attack and it won't matter where you are or how you try and hide, that enemy and every other enemy in the area always know exactly where you are. At this point consoles are so powerful and the game engines so detailed that I kind of expect more lifelike behavior, and it can be very jarring when it's not there.
Uh...the lack of a mini-map nearly drove me insane. I guess that's really all I can say about that.
Copy protection is of course a waste of time. You know that, I know that, and most developers know that - but it's not their decision. The suits in publishing insist on it, so for now we're stuck dealing with the problems it causes. I can remember off-hand at least five major screw-ups in the last year or two thanks to heavy-handed protection methods not even including Bioshock. What's different here is the solution. The earlier screw-ups usually resulted in either patches that reduced the frequency of protection checks or in some cases a direct-from-the-programmers "crack" that removed CD checking altogether.
2K's decisions on copy protection and solution for the resulting problems...I can barely repeat it without my jaw still dropping. First of all, even in their initial perfect world you could only install the game on two machines. That is astonishing to me, but at the same time I suppose it's not TOO big of an issue for most people as they tend to only have one computer in the first place. Once the game was installed however, you could only reinstall it THREE TIMES. That. Is. Insane. How dare anyone tell me how many times I can reinstall software on MY hardware. People ask me why I game almost purely on consoles at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, that's a damn good reason. I actually regret buying the game new at this point. Buying used would have still given me the opportunity to play while ensuring 2K didn't actually see my money. Yes, I know this is a rather hollow boycott, but at the same time I would argue it works just as well as not buying the game at all. It certainly is the same on 2K's balance sheet.
Deep breaths, deep breaths...alright I'm calm again. Well, the snafu wasn't actually the protection itself; apparently it wasn't even working right as-is. People were being told they were out of reinstalls on the very first install on their first machine, rendering the game completely useless. Woo! Totally awesome. 2K recognized the issue and put out a patch to "correct" the problem. Their solution? You may now install it on up to five machines up to five times. Nnnng, my head hurts now. Fantastic work guys, thanks for fixing that right up. It makes me want to quote Jon Lovitz:
Me: How did you fix the game?
2K: Patching!
Me: Genius!
2K: Thank you.
(Addendum: I don't play many PC games anymore or pay attention to news about them, so for all I know the limited reinstall protection might be old hat by now and I'm just behind the curve - I do that a lot.
Addendum to the addendum: I've spoken with some hardcore computer gamers, this is something entirely new and they're just as flabbergasted as I am at the sheer balls of it.)
I'm not going to rehash the plot and it's total awesomeness, I'm not going to talk about how Ken Levine managed to create yet another fantastic title, and I'm not going to talk about how mature the various in-game choices are. All of those things are true, but again - I can easily guess that you've heard it all before. No, I'm going to talk about a couple of negatives surrounding this title. I'm going to talk about the sometimes surprisingly irrational AI. I'm going to talk about how the lack of a simple mini-map nearly drove me insane. I'm going to talk about the typical copy protection issues the computer version suffers from and the mind boggling solution 2K Boston came up with.
I don't want you to think the AI is actually bad - it's not. It's fairly competent in seeking cover and certainly a challenge at higher levels. Opponents will seek out the same health stations you can use to heal themselves. They will press you into corners and try to overwhelm you with numbers. My nitpick is that yet again we've got a game where you opponents have absolute lock-on no matter where you are. Trigger an attack and it won't matter where you are or how you try and hide, that enemy and every other enemy in the area always know exactly where you are. At this point consoles are so powerful and the game engines so detailed that I kind of expect more lifelike behavior, and it can be very jarring when it's not there.
Uh...the lack of a mini-map nearly drove me insane. I guess that's really all I can say about that.
Copy protection is of course a waste of time. You know that, I know that, and most developers know that - but it's not their decision. The suits in publishing insist on it, so for now we're stuck dealing with the problems it causes. I can remember off-hand at least five major screw-ups in the last year or two thanks to heavy-handed protection methods not even including Bioshock. What's different here is the solution. The earlier screw-ups usually resulted in either patches that reduced the frequency of protection checks or in some cases a direct-from-the-programmers "crack" that removed CD checking altogether.
2K's decisions on copy protection and solution for the resulting problems...I can barely repeat it without my jaw still dropping. First of all, even in their initial perfect world you could only install the game on two machines. That is astonishing to me, but at the same time I suppose it's not TOO big of an issue for most people as they tend to only have one computer in the first place. Once the game was installed however, you could only reinstall it THREE TIMES. That. Is. Insane. How dare anyone tell me how many times I can reinstall software on MY hardware. People ask me why I game almost purely on consoles at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, that's a damn good reason. I actually regret buying the game new at this point. Buying used would have still given me the opportunity to play while ensuring 2K didn't actually see my money. Yes, I know this is a rather hollow boycott, but at the same time I would argue it works just as well as not buying the game at all. It certainly is the same on 2K's balance sheet.
Deep breaths, deep breaths...alright I'm calm again. Well, the snafu wasn't actually the protection itself; apparently it wasn't even working right as-is. People were being told they were out of reinstalls on the very first install on their first machine, rendering the game completely useless. Woo! Totally awesome. 2K recognized the issue and put out a patch to "correct" the problem. Their solution? You may now install it on up to five machines up to five times. Nnnng, my head hurts now. Fantastic work guys, thanks for fixing that right up. It makes me want to quote Jon Lovitz:
Me: How did you fix the game?
2K: Patching!
Me: Genius!
2K: Thank you.
(Addendum: I don't play many PC games anymore or pay attention to news about them, so for all I know the limited reinstall protection might be old hat by now and I'm just behind the curve - I do that a lot.
Addendum to the addendum: I've spoken with some hardcore computer gamers, this is something entirely new and they're just as flabbergasted as I am at the sheer balls of it.)
Greetings...again
For better or for worse I'm just full of opinions and I like to write. Given the fact I'm gaming almost constantly, I always want to talk about games. I started out with a blog for ranting about bad games, but I play far more good games than I do bad ones and I want to talk about those too. Sometimes games are off the beaten path and more people should know about them, sometimes games get a bad rap and could use a defender, and sometimes games are just so good I want to add my accolades to teh Interwebz.
Without further ado...
Without further ado...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
