Waking Up.

I was dreaming about 40 minutes ago. Dreaming about being in my local game store - the one that is the mecca of all things video games. It was one of those dreams where you know where you are, even though the location looks nothing like the real thing. Anyways, I was there perusing the shelves, and one of the only games I can remember looking at was Resident Evil 5 for the Gamecube. You read that right. I remember thinking that it can't look good at all, then flipping the box over and saying, "Well, it looks like Resident Evil 5."

Oh, there was also another one I remember looking at, but it wasn't an actual game. Apparently, it was a boxed version of a game demo, because I remember looking at the back of the box, which had game features actually listed and then crossed out. It was letting you know what the full game will have, but not the thing you're holding in your hands. It was also $26.99. What a steal.

Read more...

Getting Emotional.

Recently I've seen the argument put forth that games cannot, by default, elicit the same emotions that movies do. Reason being, simply, that you're looking at computer-generated characters instead of real, living, breathing people. Is that actually the case, or is that a very strict limitation of games that can never be overcome? I give you two examples - one from an actual live performance, and one from a video game. The actual live performance is longer, but for the sake of my comparison, I think that's okay. I won't give you the insights into the Clapton song if you don't know what he's singing about, because the same context isn't readily available for the Silent Hill example. I'll simply place them next to each other and let you come to a conclusion.

Eric Clapton:





Silent Hill (ignore everything after the initial song):


Read more...

Immersion Factor OVER 9000?!?!?

It's not often a game pulls me in so completely. So completely, in fact, that I'm going to declare Silent Hill: Shattered Memories one of the most immersive games I've ever played. Every aspect is designed to make the player feel like they are part of the world, and it's working on me hook, line and sinker.

I'm not going to go into all the details just yet; I'll save that for when I've finished the game. Instead, I want to focus on a single mechanic: Harry's cell phone. When you hit the minus button on the Wiimote, Harry will take out his phone and hold it up to the screen. There are 9 menu items to pick from, including saving your game, dialing a number of your choice, listening to/reading messages, and using the phone's camera. There are phone numbers written all over the town, and if you dial one of them, you'll get some kind of an answer. It may just be an answering machine, but an answer nonetheless. And the genius part comes in once you hit "call". Not content to simply let Harry hold the phone up to his ear in the game, the developers decided to have the player do the same. The audio from the phone comes in through the Wiimote speaker, and let me tell you, it only adds about 985, 543% to feeling like you're really in Silent Hill. I almost said "hello" the first time I answered a call, and I did one of those things where you look at your phone, put it back to your ear, look at it again, put it back to your ear, etc. It's so wondrously simple an idea, yet its effect is monumental.

As I said, you can also choose to whip out the built-in camera. Doing so will cause Harry to hold it sideways, and you can take a picture of any and everything you want to. And just like talking on the phone, there's a little extra bit of immersion added to the camera. The phone's screen actually has the distortion and lag that real camera phones have, and walking around with it in the middle of your field of view makes everything seem even more disturbing. It's another small, genius move that puts a stupid grin on my face. Of course, there is an actual use for the camera besides taking random pictures of the game world. At times, you'll be prompted in some fashion to take out the camera. When you take a picture of a certain area, you'll get a voicemail or text sent to you from different people. It hasn't happened to me a lot yet, so I don't know the full extent of this part of the gameplay. Regardless, it's yet another use of the engrossing phone mechanic.

Even only a couple hours in, I already have so much more I want to talk about, but I'll hold my tongue until (probably) this weekend when I finish the game. I've heard it's relatively short, but I think I'm done measuring a game's worth in hours. The experience is what I'm after, not a mathematical division of hours played and dollars paid. So, yea. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Great stuff.

Read more...

Penumbra: Overture.....Totally Fucked Up.

Observe, if you will, the difference between MY opening scene in Penumbra: Overture vs. the walkthrough on Youtube.



Youtube: skip to the 5:20 mark for this:

Looks normal enough, right?

My playthrough:

wait....what? THAT'S NOT RIGHT. FUCK YOU, PENUMBRA.

Yea....not much else for me to say. Sucks.

Read more...

2009.

I just want to quickly point out that I have absolutely wayyy too many games that I either a) haven't finished or, b) haven't even started.

2009 was the year of me being a douche. That is all.

Read more...

Sad Reflections.

It's 5am, and as I sit here, fresh off a couple of hours attempting to subjugate my people in Tropico 3, I happened to come across this post by Michael Abbott over at Brainy Gamer. It's worth a read. But, sadly, it made me think about what the Call of Duty franchise has ultimately become: a five-second thrill rehashed ad-nauseum. My first confession should be that I'm not nearly as big a multiplayer competitor as I used to be. Turn back the clock just a couple of years and you'd be likely to find me playing a lot more Halo 3. But nowadays, I simply can't do it. The experience of standard multiplayer has become so stale and uninteresting to me that the thought of entering a match doesn't usually cross my mind at all. I need something more out of games at this point, and a game like Modern Warfare 2 just doesn't cut it.

You can call me ignorant, out of touch, pretentious, or any number of other things; one thing you can't accuse me of, however, is having a knee-jerk reaction or hypocritically enjoying the game while unabashedly, well, bashing it. My tastes have slowly evolved to where they are now, and I no longer see any value in what the Call of Duty franchise has to offer. In the Brainy gamer post, Abbott gives reactions he's heard, mostly decrying the single-player campaign as an add-on to the real meat of the game: the multiplayer. Curiously, one person said that he would play the campaign "at some point", but directly after said it would be cheap of them not to include it. But if he doesn't really care about it, then why is it cheap? His only care is obviously the multiplayer, so what's the deal? I muddled my point a bit there, but what I'm getting at is that the whole attitude about the campaign being a throwaway for the player to eventually sift through is incredibly disheartening to me.

I remember playing both Call of Duty 2 and the original Modern Warfare and being thoroughly engrossed by both. Sure, they were all about pushing the player from set-piece to set-piece, but I never felt as though I was being talked down to by the developer. I never once felt like they knew I would buy their game no matter what. If they wanted my $60.00, they had to earn it. And earn it, they did. Their stories were powerful not just because of their intensity, but because of the worlds they were grounded in. Things made sense; cause and effect seemed real; I was engrossed in what was unfolding before me, and I couldn't have been happier. Fast forward to Modern Warfare 2, and it's been turned on its head. No longer do I believe what I'm seeing - not in the least bit. No longer do I care - at all - about characters dying. I'm not moved when something supposedly shocking occurs, because I expect something ludicrous to come out of left field.

Why do I expect it? For one, in the industry's current climate, the double-edged sword of great success demands that sequels be bigger and more bad-ass. Take, for instance, the scene in Modern Warfare where your character is slowly clawing his way out of the flaming wreckage of his chopper, only to look up and see a nuclear holocaust whisking its way straight for him. That scene had impact; it meant something. Compare it with the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2, and I think you catch my drift. Again, your character gets killed, but the impact is greatly retarded by the lack of context. Sure, you know you're a sleeper agent of some sort, but who are you? You don't get to find out before the back of your skull meets the pavement. It's just no good. With the narrative style Infinity Ward employs, that very context is integral to leaving a lasting impression on the player. Without it, the meaning behind the action deflates to nothing more than a cheap trick. Anyone can do a cheap trick; it takes real artists to create something worth discussing.

I don't want to give the wrong impression; Call of Duty has never been the pinnacle of storytelling. Far from it. Still, the older games' presentations coupled with how the stories unfolded made for a really great experience. It just seems like Infinity Ward's priorities have changed now. They're not as dead-set in crafting a believable world anymore, and for people like me, that's a sad thing. Good thing there are plenty of other games that at least attempt it.


Read more...

The "Airport Level" and Other Musings in Modern Warfare 2 or, What's the Big Deal?

So a friend spontaneously brought over his copy of Modern Warfare 2 tonight, and I played it for a couple of hours or so. I must say, my initial impression of the game doesn't do it any favors. You can say I'm just hating all you want, but I honestly haven't found the experience rewarding enough to warrant a purchase up to this point. For clarity's sake, I just finished the "Wolverines" mission, and I'm playing on Veteran difficulty (which I do for all CoD games).

Now I'm not saying there's a full-on outrage over the airport scenario, but I did read a few articles talking about how controversial it is. Really? I don't see that at all. What makes this thing so different than, say, Kane and Lynch? Or Grand Theft Auto 4? You could say the GTA series has built itself on scenes just like the one in Modern Warfare 2. Sure, Rockstar is no stranger to "controversy", but I can only take so much faux outrage before I throw up my hands and surrender to stupidity. Does the controversy stem from the player being forced to act as a terrorist? I can say that I didn't personally gun down a single civilian in the airport, but I had to protect myself against the S.W.A.T. team with riot shields. Can you name another game that put you in the same scenario? If you said one out of about 800 games, you're probably correct. I just don't see why this even made the news.

My gripe comes in two parts: the situation is set up so poorly that it defies all pretenses of realism and relies solely on shock value, and it also feels like a feeble attempt by Infinity Ward to one-up either themselves or Treyarch in terms of creating the next "wow" moment. No one can honestly argue that this dumb shit is portrayed realistically at all. You're telling me that 3 or 4 armed men would be able to walk into an airport in this day and age and gun down hundreds of people, including S.W.A.T. and police officers, and make a clean getaway? If your answer is yes, then you are full of shit. Sorry. The whole thing is so ludicrous from start to finish that I mostly found myself rolling my eyes and making that "wtf" motion with my hands as I watched dozens upon dozens of people being murdered in a supposedly high security area with no repercussions until we made it to the runway area of the airport. Even then, it was a simple matter of grenading the shit out of the opposition until a suitable path was made through them.


In my mind, in order to make something like that in any way controversial, there has to be an underlying context that warrants emotional investment. You just don't get anything like that in Modern Warfare 2. There's a level of detachment which I find uncanny in its knack for making me not give a shit. Who are you playing as in the airport? I don't know - it's just some dude. What sacrifices did you have to make to infiltrate such a disgusting operation? I don't know - it's just some dude. The stunning lack of context in this game makes it nigh impossible for me to connect with the story in any way. And with that, I'd like to talk about the last mission I took part in: "Wolverines".

First of all, this mission reeks of WWII. I can't be led to believe anything but nostalgia for Infinity Ward's pre-modern era style of games is to blame for being impressed by this. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you're telling me that I'm supposed to believe any of what's going on is a semblance of reality? There are cargo planes lazily drifting along in the air while hundreds of dudes with parachutes float around like this was still the 1940s. Really? This is, as close as analogies allow, Invasion U.S.A.: The Game. If the baddies came across by means of speedboats and 18-wheelers, the effect would be the same. Modern Warfare 2 is the video game equivalent of a big, dumb 80s action movie. What possible redeeming qualities could it hold? So far, the only thing I can say that I appreciate about it is its graphical prowess and fantastic presentation (rock-solid framerate included). But with so many shooters out there, I need to get something more out of a game. Yes, the gameplay is pretty much as good as it gets, but what's my motivation? Does that sound pretentious? The question itself might be, but at this stage in my life, I'm not impressed by snazzy effects and shock narratives. It's a sad state of affairs when a storyline like this can pass for entertaining. This game is the epitome of that whole "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" line of horseshit that certain people tried to feed us. I'll play the game to completion, but I'm really only getting superficial satisfaction out of it. Oh, well, Bioshock 2 comes out in about 3 months.

Read more...

Life Will Find a Way.

Well, I just finished Jurassic: The Hunted. It's a short game; it couldn't have taken me much more than 4 hours to complete. Despite its length, I left satisfied with the experience, and what I'd like to see now is a similar game with a little more time and money thrown behind it. And if that ever happens, it will need a LOT more marketing than this game got.

Jurassic was only about 4 hours, like I said. But I think if the game went on for too much longer with no variations on the gameplay, it would become repetitive pretty quickly. As is, it was a blast to kill dinos, and I was elated not to see any other enemies to distract me from doing so. There are gigantic scorpions, but I lump those into the same category as the dinos. As anyone with any credibility on the subject knows, wherever you find dinosaurs, you'll also find bugs and insects that are at least 10 times their normal size. Durh.

There were a couple parts that were pretty poorly designed, though. First off was one of the most dissapointing sequences in the game: my first encounter with a T-Rex. I knew the situation would inevitably come up, but I was expecting a much more dynamic experience. Instead of having to fend it off using my reflexes and skill, the developers decided a better use of my time would be with a generic turret sequence. The T-Rex charged, and I blasted it in the face. It ran away; rinse and repeat. In-between the T-Rex's charges, flying assholes would swoop down and distract me from my patient waiting. The turret would overheat if used for too prolonged a time period, but it was never very challenging. I didn't necessarily want an uber-challenging fight, though. I just wanted something dynamic and intense. Instead, I got neither. The salt on the wound, however, was that once the fight was over, I had to do it all over again. Ah, but it was different the second time around. This time, the T-Rex was colored red. Thanks, Cauldron. Thanks a lot. King Kong did it a lot better........4 fucking years ago.

The T-Rex sure looks impressive. Too bad the fight was shitty and I did it with one hand while watching water boil.

The game redeemed itself, however, with the next "boss" fight. Forget T-Rexes, this time I was up against a Spinosaurus. The fight actually went almost exactly how I had pictured the T-Rex fight before that debacle happened. I had free reign to run around, dodging the Spinosaurus' lunging jaws of death while popping slo-mo and aiming for his vitals. It was much, much more exhilirating, let me tell you. Again, the dinosaur character models and their movements are a thing to behold.

This guy, however, was bad ass. I RPG'd him like 8 times.

The second obnoxious part was a little sequence involving me running across a bunch of rope bridges while the same flying assholes from the T-Rex bit were flying around my face. Sorry, but it wasn't thrilling at all, just annoying. To kill them, I just had to aim my gun sightly upwards and hold down the trigger. Great. Luckily for me, it was a short sequence, and the only one of its kind.

Oh, I guess I'll tell you about a fantastic death I had. You see, when you're firing a weapon and it runds out of ammo, it will automatically switch to the next weapon in your inventory. Well, the next weapon in my inventory happened to be an RPG. Yea....I was holding down the trigger, shooting a big fucking monster when, oops! I blew myself up. Brilliant, yet again. If a gun runds out of ammo, it should just make that clicking noise and make you manually switch weapons. Otherwise, dumb shit like that will happen. I learned my lesson, though.

Those few points were really the only true negatives in Jurassic. Sure, it's not the most intense game I've ever played, and its budget roots show sometimes, but overall I'd definitely recommend you check it out when you get a chance. Cauldron obviously spent a lot of time and effort on the dinosaurs themselves, because they were fucking awesome. They moved and behaved like I thought they should, and were a little frightening, especially when more than one was running full-speed at me. I guess I wished there were more unique encounters with bigger foes, but I think the whole game would have to be lengthened and changed up a bit more for that to work. And for that to happen, more time and money would be needed, etc. But as it stands, if you have 4 hours to waste with a pretty atmospheric shooter with enemies you don't see very often, give Jurassic a shot.


Read more...

Gamestop is Retarded.

There's not much I can add to this story if you've read about it somewhere else already, but I just feel compelled to comment on how stupid this is. So, let me get this straight. I'll be able to walk into a Gamestop store, pick out the DLC I want to buy, go to the register and pay for it, and then.......go home and still have get on Live and download it? Why the fuck did I just waste my time and gas money driving all the way to Gamestop? Stupid and pointless. They also said something about a large market for full game downloads being a ways off. You mean, like, Games on Demand? Right, Gamestop, good job.

Read more...

Well Then, Thriftweed....

Have you ever been in a situation where you're with a group of friends and they're all talking about a specific, awesome thing, and the only sentence you can contribute to the conversation is along the lines of "I never did that." Well, take out the group of friends and an actual conversation, and you end up with my situation. I feel like I've missed out on something amazing for the last 15 or so years. I never gamed on my family computer when I was young, and man, did I ever miss out. Playing The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition on Xbox 360 is like discovering a lost world where humor was genuine and characters were interesting. The complexity of the world isn't the most important thing; so far, in the first 7% of the game, pretty much everything has been instantly memorable. I can't say that for the first 7% of a lot of more modern games. I wish those very same, graphically intense modern games instilled this sense of awe and curiosity in me. I love you, Tim Shafer (yes, I know other people worked on it as well).

The game starts out with the main character, Guybrush Threepwood, telling some dude that he wants to be a pirate. Fair enough, I figured. I, too, want to be a pirate. So, right off the bat I have something in common with Monkey Island. The mysterious dude tells Guybrush to go to the local tavern in order to converse with the pirates within. Guybrush then sets off, and your adventure with him begins. I haven't really done anything in the game yet, but in the 51 minutes I spent with it so far, my mouth was almost permanently fixed in a full-on grin.

I'd like to acknowledge all the work that went into making this edition of the game. You can press the "back" button at any time during play to instantly switch between the revamped version and the original. The difference is striking - not only visually, but also in the full voice work that accompanied the graphical overhaul. Both aspects are impressive and worthy of all the praise in the world. I can already tell that I'm in for a damn good time, and I have absolutely no idea where this story is going to take me. Like I said, I never got the chance to play games like these when they were brand-spanking new, so right now I'm like a kid in a candy store. I guess for that analogy to work, the candy would have to be 15 years old. And I would also have to enjoy eating rotting food. Forget the analogy and focus on how awesome The Secret of Monkey Island really is:

The opening 10 minutes or so of the game. Epic, really.

Read more...

Deadly Premonition - More Horror Bang for your Buck

In keeping with my promotion of budget titles, I give you another probably little-known game that's slated for a March 2010 release at $19.99. Developed by Access Games (the guys who made Spy Fiction) and published by Ignition Entertainment (they also published Muramasa: The Demon Blade in North America), Deadly Premonition is a survival horror game where you play as Francis Morgan, a detective out to solve a murder in - you guessed it - some fucked up place where weird shit is going down. All I've seen is the trailer that I'll have below, so I'm only slightly more informed than you are. But from watching it, the game looks interesting. One could say the graphics aren't cutting-edge, and they would be right. But there were parts in the trailer, such as the women whispering in each others' ears while some weirdo children with wings or something sit on swings, that had a suitably creepy vibe to it. I hope the game turns out well, because I love the horror genre - be it in movies or games. If nothing else, I've never played anything that, as a contextual game mechanic, had you trying to pull a woman's arm out of your mouth. That's fucked up.





For more info on the game, their website is pretty cool. There's a blog from the game director which is obviously translated into English from Japanese. Good times.

Read more...

"That's a Navy Seal campfire if I ever saw one."

The quote I used for my title is uttered by the main character....Dwayne? Chris?....I don't know his name, but that was the first thing that came to his mind when he saw burnt ash and smoke coming from the ground. Fucking A - you can't make 'em like a Navy Seal. Someone's skull is probably at the base of that campfire. I think my brain is now capable of thinking like Dutch in Predator.

Please, do read on.

In case you were wondering, the game I'm talking about is Jurassic: The Hunted. What? You've never heard of that game? Wow, that comes as such a shock to me. You see, it appears that Activision decided to publish it, despite the fact it didn't put any marketing behind it whatsoever. It's a budget title that released November 3rd for $39.99, but if Activision had its way, I guess you would never know even that much about it. Why? I don't know. It probably has something to do with Bobby Kotick being a fucking tool.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Jurassic: The Hunted is a pretty damn cool game. Yes, the title is pretty stupid and the box art makes it look like a light gun game from 1996. Despite that, it's a relatively unique FPS experience that is highly in danger of going under every single person's radar until it's made obscure by both time and the sheer volume of shooters on the market. But what makes it cool? Well, it sure as shit isn't the fact that it's published by Activision. If you read this blog at all, you'd know that I hate them. I hate them so much, in fact, that I'm currently under a boycott of all their games. Well, until now. You see, this is EXACTLY the kind of game I want to spend my dollars on. And if there were ever a reason to give Activision money, it would be to reward them for publishing a game like this. I bought this game new, and I'm proud of it. But enough politics - what's the actual game like?


Well, for starters, I'll get some of the budget-obvious stuff out of the way. I've only played a couple of hours so far, but I think I have a pretty good handle on how the game feels. One of the first things that clues you in on this being a budget title is the music. The ambient soundtrack is really good; it's suitably creepy, but nice to listen to at the same time. However, when a dinosaur comes into view, a generic rock track suddenly kicks in. Once you kill the dino, the song disappears just as suddenly as it appeared. Scripting like that is just a small indicator of the budget-consciousness of the developers. It's by no means horribly distracting, but it is noticeable. Also, when you switch weapons, you have to wait for the animation to finish before you can go to your next weapon. Again, it's a very minor gripe, but worth noting. If you're used to flipping though your arsenal like a crack fiend in fast-forward, then you might give up a curse word or two. But the rest of humanity can suffer through that slight annoyance. The last critique I have is with the voice acting. But, honestly, I don't know if it's a critique so much as it is an asset. Basically, it's so fucking bad that I think it's intentional. It sets itself up as some sort of sci-fi B-movie. If that was the goal, then mission accomplished. If the developers were trying to be serious with the material, then they just crashed into the fail boat head-on. But either way, we as gamers win. In my mind, whether or not they intended it to be hilarious, it nonetheless is fantastically bad. So that's up to you as to whether it's a plus or minus. It's a plus in my book.

So, now, on to the positives, of which there are plenty. The first thing that struck me were the visuals. Like I said, Jurassic: The Hunted is a budget title, but by the looks of it, you could hardly notice. The textures are surprisingly crisp, even up-close. I dare say they're even better than some full-priced games with highly-touted graphics. Maybe not on the technical side, but artistically, this game goes above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended). To put it plainly, the game oozes atmosphere. The air is thick with anticipation as to when a huge dino is going to spring out of the brush and into your face. Speaking of into your face, there's one thing that this game does not do that another recent dinosaur shooter decided was a fantastic way for players to waste their time: being continuously knocked on their ass by enemies, only to be killed while trying to simply stand up again. Yes, Turok, fuck you. So far, Jurassic: The Hunted is much, much better than Turok. And if random people on Youtube are to be believed, this game also doesn't have annoying human distractions. It's all about dinosaur slaughter. But I've played a couple of hours, so that's second-hand information at this point.


One other cool feature of the game is the slo-mo shooting. Yes, I'm well aware that slow motion is OOLLLLDDD NEWWWSSSS. I know Max Payne came out like 10 years ago or some shit. But I think it's implemented in a very streamlined way that enhances the gameplay while at the same time not feeling like a gimmick. There is a small meter on the bottom left-hand side of the screen that indicates how much slo-mo juice you have. When the meter is full, you'll get maybe 5 seconds of slo-mo out of it. Yes, that's it. There are no upgrades for the power; 5 seconds is all you get. And that's precisely what I like about it. The mechanic seems designed to be a supplement to the normal shooting; if you maneuver around and get a good side angle on an enemy, you can pop slow-mo and take one shot for the kill. Whenever you enter the magical world of half-speed, you can also see the dino's skeletal structure and vital organs. If you aim for the vitals, you'll have a much better chance of killing them. So the mechanic, at least for me, works like a sort of headshot. Get the angle, pop the slo-mo, shoot the vitals and your enemy drops. It's instantly gratifying without even needing to upgrade and get a longer duration out of it. Awesome.

The quicker you finish reading this article, the quicker you can go buy the game, so I'll make these couple of points quickly. The game is obviously linear, but I never felt like I was being funneled though a tunnel. The environments have a little bit of space to them, so whenever I'm in an encounter, I can always run around the area and get good bearings on myself and my enemies. For comparison with another budget title, Legendary gets it all wrong. Oh, wow, that rubble fell in the exact pattern of a pathway for me to follow until I reached a suitably shitty encounter with a minotaur that only charged at me head-on without any other attacks whatsoever. Fuck, that game blew. Jurassic: The Hunted, at least so far, utilizes its space well and just lets the enemy encounters happen. Dinosaurs will run at you and constantly try to leap at you, but you can get out of their way, and if need be, run away like a puss until you get a good angle on them. If you question the difference between these dinosaurs and Legendary's minotaur, I wouldn't fault you. But the difference is in believability. I sincerely believe these assholes are jumping at me and trying to kill me. The minotaur in Legendary was just following a line of sight and bumbling towards me. Big difference.


The last cool feature I'll mention is the weaponry. Due to some amazingly contrived plot sequences, you have access to both modern and old-school guns. See, you're in the Bermuda Triangle, and that place is like a time-warp. One minute you're in the present, and the next you're in 1941. Based on that information, it would seem logical that your inventory might consist of a BAR next to a semi-auto pistol. As I mentioned, you can't take the plot seriously. Instead, you really just need to embrace the fact that the game lets you have guns from different time periods at the same time, and go kick some fucking dinosaur ass. It's that simple. Are you up for it? If not, then go play some god damned Modern Warfare 2. It released today, or so I'm told.


Read more...

The Wrong Kind of Challenge: Why Demon’s Souls Represents Rudimentary Game Design

Based on the title of this article, it may be assumed by those reading that I would take the stance that Demon’s Souls is not a game worth playing. The reality is quite the contrary. More than anything else, Demon’s Souls is a game that ultimately challenges players to examine the notion of game difficulty, and asks us to consider several questions regarding the relationship between game design and game difficulty: What aspects of a game make it difficult? What is the difference between challenging and difficult? Is there a difference?

The answers to these questions, particularly if you agree that there is a difference, all eventually lead us to the ultimate consideration that Demon’s Souls invites gamers to consider:

How difficult is it to make a difficult game?

The answer that Demon’s Souls relates to that question is one that could not be understood without the existence of, and comparison to, another game of a different genre: Ninja Gaiden. With both games in mind, the answer becomes quite simple.

It is not difficult to make a difficult game, but it is challenging to make a challenging game.

Everyone agrees that this is a hard game...

In the case of the two games above, Demon’s Souls would be difficult; Ninja Gaiden would be challenging.

I realize that based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews for Demon’s Souls, my statement may get under the skin of the game’s fan base. However, it is important to note that nowhere have I stated that Demon’s Souls is a bad game. I have simply stated that it is much easier to make a game like Demon’s Souls than a game like Ninja Gaiden.

Think about it. Reconsider the questions I posed above. How hard is it to make a game difficult, and what tools do game designers have at their disposal to make this happen?

What is actually being asked with these questions is how easy is it for game designers to kill you in a game?

Very easy. At every step through every part of a game, the designer plays God. Their power is limitless, and what becomes possible and impossible in the game world is entirely in the designer’s control. The player, on the other hand, is the guinea pig. While some aspect of player choice may be perceived by the player, the reality is that those choices have already been predetermined by the designer.

Therefore, any possibility of player death within a game is entirely under the designer’s control, and making a game difficult simply means the designer makes it easier and more frequently possible to die. This accomplishment is rather easy, and the choices the designer has to make this happen is varied: Increase the damage dealt by the enemy. Decrease the player’s damage dealt to enemies. Make more enemies. Make more traps. Decrease the amount of checkpoints between saves. Take away checkpoints. Take away saves. Decrease the amount of healing items. Decrease health.

This list could go on even longer, but the general principle will always revolve around one central concept: the manipulation of numbers. In each of the examples given, the designer is able to increase or decrease a game’s difficulty simply by manipulating a set of numbers.

In the case of Demon’s Souls, and with many games of the early consoles, this tool is the backbone of the game’s concept and design, and in most cases, the system is praised for its risk/reward factor. While the sense of accomplishment may exist from completing such a game, the reality is that not much thought or skill is needed to create a game with this type of difficulty. In theory, any designer could create the most difficult game ever made simply by setting the numbers against the player unreasonably high, and dropping the numbers associated with the player unreasonably low. As a result, the player would deal little damage, but take a lot; the player would have very little health to fight with, but have to deal with fighting enemies who could absorb a lot of damage.

I’m certain that this game would be very hard to beat. I’m also certain that this game would get praised for how punishing it was.

With Demon’s Souls, this results in only one real tool that the player must utilize to complete the game: memory. The player must memorize where the enemies are, and slowly and progressively take them out one by one. This is rudimentary game design.

However, the days of rudimentary difficulty in game design have long passed, and superior forms of player manipulation have surfaced that favor challenge and complexity over punishing difficulty.

Examine the aspects that make Ninja Gaiden challenging and you notice that none of the design principles have anything to do with memory of enemy locations, excessive punishment of the player with a lack of checkpoints, or overwhelming damage of enemies. Yet nobody disagrees that Ninja Gaiden is one of the most challenging games ever made.

... but this game is actually challenging.

The reason why Ninja Gaiden achieves that dichotomy is that the game designer gives the player more tools than simple memory: skill and variety. In order to be successful, the player has many methods for taking out the enemies, and survival has nothing to do with memory, and everything to do with reflex, reaction time, and dynamic strategies of using the wide array of moves and combos available to the player.

Simply put, the game favors complexity as the catalyst for challenge, not number manipulation. As a result, Ninja Gaiden is only as challenging as the player’s lack of skills and reflexes. No battle will ever play out the same, even when the same battle is fought several times after death, because the game does not allow memory to become a factor.

Moreover, when the player dies, the game does not elongate itself by placing the player at the beginning of the level, instead using checkpoints to encourage the player to experiment with new techniques without worrying about unreasonable risk.

It is no secret that gameplay is unrealistic to the way the real world works. No matter how difficult a game is, it never truly reflects the impossible realities of the scenarios that we as gamers play out in our games. It will never be realistic to assume that any one, ordinary soldier could slaughter hundreds of equally skilled soldiers. Games will always favor the player (the protagonist), much in the same way that movies do. Otherwise they wouldn’t be very fun.

But as long as we strive to make the notion of game completion an actual accomplishment, the decision on whether or not a game should be difficult or challenging must be addressed.

Should game difficulty be designed with challenging complexity in mind, and not simple difficulty? Should game design favor player skill and dynamic gameplay over player memory and numbers manipulation?

We can thank Demon’s Souls for making that a question to ask.

Read more...

Take This in your Pooper, Kotick.

I just thought I'd share the fact that my crusade against Activision DEO (Douchey Executive Officer) Bobby Kotick has officially started. I was able to, by way of simple explanation of the situation, convince a hardcore gamer to boycott Activision products. That's called a win.


[adding...] Yes, I'm aware that I only convinced one person, but I'm hoping to start a meme here. I tell him, he tells his friends, they tell their friends, etc. It can happen.

Read more...

Do You Like to Read?

If so, there's a very long, but very worthwhile article at Kotaku by Tim Rogers. I couldn't begin to describe everything he talks about, but he starts off with guns and zombies and works his way through Uncharted and Tomb Raider. I guess I did begin to describe it. Anyways, if you can read and you like games, go read this article about games. I know I've told you jack shit about it, but whatever, you know I know what I'm talking about.

Read more...

Bobby Kotick Thinks You Are a Moron.

Bobby's early years, before heading up one of the country's biggest games publishers. He is on record saying it was a "dark, yet extremely rewarding time in my life."

If you haven't read this story on Gamespot, do so now. The quotes attributed to Activision's CEO, Bobby Kotick, are despicable and unethical, to say the least.How this man is allowed to leave his house without checking in with a parole officer is beyond me, but I don't make the rules. If I did, I'd make sure ol' Bobby was trading places with the kid actors from Slumdog Millionaire. What a douchebag.

"I think what the untethered Guitar Hero does is equal the playing field a little more and give you some leverage with first parties when it comes to downloadable content and the business model," said the crotch-sniffing asshat Kotick, during the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference. Sure, that quote sounds innocuous enough, but read it again and then think about it. What he's actually saying is that if Guitar Hero winds up not requiring an actual console to play it on your T.V., then they can do whatever the hell they want as far as pricing their DLC. At least that's what I'm reading into it. Maybe I'm reaching. But then again, maybe Bobby Kotick is an evil cock that doesn't deserve the title of Head of Custodial Arts, let alone his actual title of CEO.

Promotional material for my upcoming Docu-Drama, "Life With Bobby, or; How I Learned to Like Not Being a Rich Cunt"

That quote alone wouldn't even remotely approach the sound reasoning that he deserves the scorn and ridicule I'm doling out to him. Nay, I say to you who doubts his assholeishness. Observe another gem of wisdom when Kotick says, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

Exqueeze me? Baking powder? What the fuck did he just say? His life-goal with Activision "...was to take all the fun out of making video games." Way to go, asshole. You're not SUPPOSED to say that shit in public. That's the type of thing you say to your secretary over an early morning breakfast of infant appendages and A-1 sauce while twirling your moustache with grease made from aborted Christian fetuses.

Here is Bobby Kotick, clearly not looking like a tool.

And, astonishingly, he didn't stop there. To quote the Gamespot story, "The executive said that he has tried to instill into the company culture 'skepticism, pessimism, and fear' of the global economic downturn, adding, 'We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression.'"

You'd think something would fire up some neurons in his brain and involuntarily keep his fat fucking mouth shut before he was able to get out that utterly ridiculous "company culture" bullshit. That's no way to run a company, and I don't care how big that company is. If that's how you treat your employees, then Activision can't be a very nice place to work. In all seriousness, this kind of attitude is absolutely unacceptable. It's unethical, immoral, and whatever other synonym for shitty you can think of.

In an article from Edge dating back to August of this year, the Prince of Darkness decided to chime in when Activision executives were asked about retailers' reactions to their pricing, saying, "…You know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further,” before pulling a giant lever which opened up a cavernous hole beneath his #2's plush office chair.

Here, Bobby is seen celebrating his random sale of stock, which happened to make him $17 million in a single day. He later admitted he is going to use the money to nuke us into oblivion. Victory!

As if you need any more proof that this dude is a jerkoff, The Business Insider picked up on a little financial transaction by Bobby from around May, in which they found "Kotick, who had sold a big chunk [of Activision stock] in March, filed to sell 1.5 million shares worth about $17 million..." Let me be clear about this kind of thing: I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with anyone selling stock that they own. But I will raise questions when you are the CEO of a major corporation who makes millions every year, and yet you still think it's a good idea to sell an ass-load of stock in your own company. Why, you ask? Well, the final sentences in the article sum it up pretty well for me. "It could be that they[sic] execs need to do some 'estate planning' or some other functional reason. It could also be some ill winds blowing across the gaming sector. Retailer GameStop said on Friday that same store sales were weak and its outlook cloudy for the second quarter." You see, when I read something like that, all I can think of is random opportunity for Bobby. He makes a lot of money. Durh. So why would he sell millions of shares of stock in Activision? On a whim? And if that's the case, did he even bother to think of what this might tell people like the writers of that article? He's putting artificial doubt in the minds of financial analysts for the sole sake of making $17 million on a whim. That's ridiculously unethical in my not-so-humble opinion. Like I said, there's nothing illegal about doing what he did, but I think it's pretty telling as to his character and ethical center.




I'd already swore off Activision-published games, as the poll on the right-hand-side of the blog points to. I'll admit to buying the odd game published by them, but that's only because I didn't know the full extent of Kotick's insane beliefs. I already knew he didn't want to publish a game unless he could franchise it, but Jesus, I had no idea he was this far down the rabbit hole. Fuck this guy, and fuck everything that comes from Activision. It's too bad I won't be able to enjoy Call of Duty 6 when it comes out, but Infinity Ward should really consider moving on to greener pastures at this point. Activision is ruining their franchise by watering it down with inferior products every other year, and the trend is only going to continue. With CEOs like Bobby Kotick lurking around the dungeons of corporate depravity, it's no wonder sometimes I feel like the games industry is lagging behind where it should be in terms of creativity.

Seriously, fuck Bobby Kotick and Activision. Don't support this type of bullshit by buying their games. It has to be done.
Read more...

How to be truely InFamous...

Oh Ps3... Nobody loves you like I do. Rather than give me sequel, after sequel, you give me new I.P. And not just average new I.P. You deliver the best of this generation. Heavenly Sword, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, and now InFamous.

Let me just say firstly that InFamous doesn't do a whole lot new when it comes to open world games, it just does everything BETTER. From the first time you pick up the DualShock, you will find that our hero moves around so fluidly. He is fast, jumping from building to building feels fantastic. Sucker Punch nailed control and movement in their first outing since Sly 3.

The gameplay is a mix of platformer and third person shooter, with the latter more prevalent. You have upgrades that you can use to empower Cole, and even your decisions, good or bad, will give you different abilities.

The story is great if you take it for what it is, a comic book style narrative. I found myself often playing just to see what happens to Cole. With one of the better endings I have seen in a few years, there was no disappointment in finishing the tale.

So, without going on too much longer, I will leave you with this: In a sea of yearly sequels and reboots, its nice to see new games come out that are truly new and refreshing. If you pass this gem up, it is you who will become InFamous!!!

Read more...

Killzone 2's Controls Are Fixed!!!!!

Yea, this is old news. I just thought I'd share this bit of information for those who didn't know. I knew about it since the patch went live, but I was waiting for the opportunity to pick it up again cheap used. I already bought it once, so I'll be damned if I'm going to give Guerrilla my money TWICE. Anyways, the controls are totally fixed now, and I'm having a fucking blast with the game. I'm not done with it yet, and I'm not going to review it since we already have an ass-load of Killzone 2 shit up on the blog. I'll only say that my happiness level has increased immensely with this much-needed fix, and now I'm definitely going to finish the game. Kudos do Guerrilla for not being total douches and owning up to the fact that they fucked up. That's something I can't say for every company. Read more...

Conduit Impressions

Let's get this right out of the way. There are sooooo many other FPS games with similar plots. There are sooooo may other FPS games that offer a robust multiplayer mode. The Level design won't blow you away....hallway....open room....bad guys...shoot....repeat over and over. Many games in the genre also look a lot better than what you will get with Wii's "The Conduit", however this little gem boasts one of the most immersive customizable control schemes you have ever played on any system..........period.

I have spent about three hours with the campaign mode so far and it has been an absolute joy to play. There is a huge learning curve while you get use to the motion controls, but once you do.....you'll be pulling off head shots and chucking grenades with relative ease. The big hook in the game is the aforementioned control scheme. Moving a little too slow....change it...don't like where the re-load button is....change it. For the most part, there is no control layout that is set in stone. I've never had such a good time tweaking my controller options in a video game until now. When you are in the menu screen making adjustments you basically stay in the game while taking no damage from enemies. This allows you customize on the fly and should be THE standard for any FPS in the future to follow.

Before the Wii came out, people were anticipating the very thing that High Voltage has created with "The Conduit." An immersive FPS built from the ground up with the Wii waggle in mind. They have proved that it can be done........and done beautifully I might add. Now I still love my standard controller, however it's nice to have something different on the menu when I'm craving that type of experience. If the Wii is your only console.....it is simply a no brainer purchase.

I totally praise High Voltage for what they have accomplished. Now I will admit they did sacrifice things like enemy a.i. and interesting levels, but their focus on making the controls truly exceptional outweigh the shortcomings. Future projects from this developer are already making this Wii owner totally giddy with excitement.

Read more...

T R I C O . !!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, you must watch:





Yes, you are correct. That was fucking amazing. Lets talk about why that is.

If you've played Shadow of the Colossus, you should pay close attention to how the boy moves while on top of the creature. I could be wrong, but to me it looks like the game is taking the core mechanic from SOTC - grappling onto the fur of giant creatures - and applying it to totally opposite situations. The creature and the boy are obviously close, and the creature takes the boy wherever he needs to go. Flying high in the sky, swimming to the oceans depths, and everything in between seem, at first glance, to be within the players reach. I just can't get over the simple genius of using that mechanic for exploration instead of only combat. Bravo, Sony. Now, all you have to do is give this development studio a better name than the current generic, third-tier-sounding name it unfortunately has. I don't even remember what the fuck it is. And no, Team ICO isn't their actual name.

But more to the point, this game is far and away one of the best reasons to own a ps3. TRICO looks to be some kind of mix between ICO and SOTC, with the possible addition of being hunted by an unnumbered amount of people (notice the beginning of the footage....the boy and the creature seem to be escaping from some kind of prison or fortress). And with the creature's ability to fly, I'm expecting the scope to eclipse SOTC by quite a bit. Son of a bitch, I want this game right now. I think Sony might be showing off the game proper at E3, but I'm not sure about that. Obviously, I hope they do, especially since this footage is pretty old. Who knows how much more awesome can be contained on a single disc? Only god and santa claus know the answer to that, but Sony is getting pretty damn close to finding out for themselves.

Read more...

First Impressions: Velvet Assassin (Xbox 360)

I really haven't played much of the game yet, so this will be pretty short. I believe I'm three levels in, and so far I'm very happy with it. For starters, it looks great. I can't even think of anything wrong with the graphics off the top of my head, and honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by that. In fact, I don't even remember who developed the game, and I wasn't expecting it to look or feel like a triple-A game. But so far it does, so.....more power to whoever the fuck made it.

If you didn't know, Velvet Assassin is a stealth game. And it's pretty traditional so far, but in a good way. You basically go through the different environments (which, as I said a second ago, are beautiful) and try to be as sneaky as possible. Stealth kills are super easy to execute, as they're done by simply pressing A when you get close enough to an enemy. The whole screen turns red, and once you execute the move, it's not pretty. I stabbed a man in the crotch and then immediately went for a major artery somewhere around the shoulder/neck area. I've slit a bunch of throats. I stabbed another man in the face. It's brutal stuff, and it's fucking satisfying, to say the least. You occasionally get to use firearms, but ammo is scarce and it's pretty tough to aim with any kind of precision. But that's the point of a stealth game, isn't it? If you were given the controls of, say, Call of Duty, then what would be the point of trying to be all stealthy? Exactly.

The narrative is told as a flashback as the game's protagonist, Faith, is lying in a hospital bed (I think). That's all I remember, actually. Like I said, I'm not very far in the game, and I haven't really settled in with the story or begun to feel a flow or groove yet. But I like the presentation, and there's a dark tone that hopefully will continue throughout the entire game. I need to play more, but I'm juggling three games at once right now: this one, The Longest Journey, and Armed & Dangerous. Land Shark Gun FTW. Anyways, I'll have more thoughts on Velvet Assassin when I'm done, but for now, it's off to a great start.


Read more...

Oldies but Goodies - Dreamfall: The Longest Journey

First off, I know I haven't written anything in a month. So to the two of you, I apologize.

I just finished Dreamfall: The Longest Journey today, and I have to admit that it ended with more questions than answers. Having never played the original The Longest Journey, there were things that happened in the sequel that tied into the original, but the full extent I won't know until I play it (I'm planning to start it within the next few days if my laptop isn't totally screwed). Having said that, Dreamfall is straight up, old fashioned good storytelling. The world is believable, the characters are beautifully written and articulated, and the experience really does feel like a long journey that spans across two worlds. The cutscenes are great as well, thanks to a uniformly pitch-perfect voice cast and writing to match. As a game that hinges on all those things mixing well, there's really no greater praise I could give it.

The game's not perfect, by any means, but its shortcomings are far outweighed by everything it does right. Until you finish the game. It's not necessarily a bad ending, but it leaves so much unfinished that if the next game never comes, I'll have no choice but to call it a disappointment. In that way, it's sort of like Quantum of Solace. As a stand-alone narrative, it falls short. But if the next Bond movie delivers, Solace instantly benefits. It's the same situation with Dreamfall, with the notable exception of the story being told really well, but the ending being way too open-ended. In short, I hope to god they make the next one. Soon. I know there are plans in the works for the next game, but it looks to be a little while before any concrete information is put out.

If you happen to be interested in knowing when the next game is coming, bookmark Ragnar's blog. If there's ever an official or semi-official announcement, it'll definitely show up there.

I think the most amazing thing about Dreamfall was how the characters and story intertwined and unfolded. When the game starts, you're only controlling a single protagonist. It stays that way for quite some time, but as more characters are introduced, you gradually start taking control of them at certain points. For example (spoiler-free), in one scene I was playing as character A. While walking I met character B. We had a conversation, and when it was over, the character I was just playing as walked away and I was left controlling character B. That's one hell of an elegant way to tell a story (it helps that the story didn't suck). See, it's stuff like this that a lot of developers don't even think about trying. Hell, even if they try and fail, that's better than not trying at all. Those fuckers.

Something else that hit home for me was one of the central themes of the game: being stuck in a rut and basically going through life on auto-pilot. I can fully relate to that, and in fact, it's what I've been doing up until about a month ago. So, yea, I think having a purpose or goal in life is important, and Zoe in Dreamfall agrees with me, even if she's still stuck in that rut. At least until all the crazy shit starts happening. After that, she doesn't get the chance to be lazy and non-committal. Evil things are afoot, and she's pretty much the only one who can do anything about it. I almost wish it was that easy to fall into globe-trotting adventures, but alas, it is not to be. Oh well, I've started going to the gym, so that's a start.

As far as gameplay goes, well, that's not why anyone's playing Dreamfall. That's not in any way saying that the gamplay is broken or not fun. Quite the opposite, actually. It's just that when you play an adventure game like this, the nuts and bolts take a backseat to storytelling, and, in a broader sense, emotions. If I had to pick something, I'd say the hand-to-hand combat is the worst aspect of the gameplay, but it doesn't happen enough to really matter much. Other than combat, the game is really about following clues. You get to a certain area, search around until you find whatever it is you're looking for, which in turn reveals the next place you should head to, etc, etc. On paper it probably sounds boring, but when you're knee-deep in a double-global conspiracy involving a nefarious corporation and land occupation in another dimention by foreign religious zealots, it gets pretty engrossing.



Adding.... I've now started The Longest Journey, and while I'll save my comments for when I finish it, I'll say this: I've never played an old school point-and-click adventure, and the first couple hours have blown my mind. It's so fresh and interesting, and way different than the types of games I usually play. Also, seeing the places and characters before the events in Dreamfall is really cool. More thoughts incoming.

Read more...

Burned by Friendly Fire: Game Critics Rant...well, part of it

I just read about this panel today, and while a lot of it was interesting, I found myself insulted by one speaker, and befuddled by another. Unfortunately, I can't find a transcript of it, so I won't even bother linking to anywhere that talks about it. It's out there, you can find it easily enough.

Let's first start with the speaker who insulted me. Heather Chaplin is her name, and I don't care to ever hear it again. I don't know anything about her, and I've never read anything she's written before. But from all the lengthy quotes I did read from her, I just don't care to ever read something by her ever again. Sorry. Her whole schtick was about how the industry is full of adolescent man-children who only use games as a way of acting out power fantasies. Apparently, men who make games aren't men, because they make games with violence and sex. While I'll agree that I'd like to see some of our focus trained on other, different kinds of games, the fact still remains that other, different kinds of games exist. They're there, whether or not Heather Chaplin wants to, or is able to, see them. What about Shadow of the Colossus and ICO? What about Braid? Bioshock? Heavy Rain? I guess they don't count.

And she says we don't have our Citizen Kane. Um, ok. There's several problems with that statement. First - and I've said this before - games aren't movies. There are fundamental differences between the mediums that, while some valid comparisons can be made, make shit like spouting off about games not having a Citizen Kane sound just plain idiotic. For every Citizen Kane that a studio produces, how many 12 Rounds do we have to put up with? It's a shitty comparison, plain and simple. I could argue that games journalism doesn't have their Walter Cronkite, but I would see that as discrediting the loads of people who go to work every day to report about the games industry. I actually do think that games journalists need to figure out some way to stop relying on publishers and PR departments to get all their information, because, I would imagine, and it's been talked about before, they have to meet certain criteria to gain access to a game. That's bullshit. You see what Heather has done to me? I'm going all over the place now.

The focus of my anger is with her babble about developers "not being men." Who is she comparing them to, first of all? Secondly, who is she to make that comparison? She talks about neoteny, which, according to Wikipedia, is "the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles (a kind of pedomorphosis), and is a subject studied in the field of developmental biology." Now, I don't need to be an expert in neoteny to understand what she's getting at. Man-children. She's not just attacking the games that developers make, but them as people. And by extension, she's attacking the people who buy and play said games. I don't think I should be made to apologize for playing and enjoying Gears of War. And I also don't think my enjoyment has anything to do with her so-called "power fantasies." I play the game because it's fun. Period. That's what games are all about, or did she forget that in all her serious, world-changing journalism classes? I also happen to read a lot on subjects such as religion, politics and philosophy. But we'll just ignore all that because I like to play shooters. Whatever. And by the way, nice job calling out immature men on their infantile ego-stroking power fantasies, and then ending your rant by saying "What do you want to be, a Chihuahua or a wolf?" Durrrhhh.

David Jaffe has a fantastic response on his blog.

Another speaker on the panel was Adam Sessler, and I have to preface this with the fact that I think he's great. Sessler's Soapbox is the greatest thing on television. That being said, his talk was about Metacritic and why people rely on it so much. Again, I don't have a transcript, but I'm pretty sure I understand what he was talking about. Basically, either Metacritic should stop using scores to aggregate rankings, or people should stop using Metacritic as a barometer. Either way, the problem honestly comes down to people like him, and every other magazine and t.v. show that ranks games. If there were no scores on reviews, there would be no Metacritic. It's that simple. There's not really much else to say about that, because it really is that easy to figure out. If you would stop putting scores on games, Metacritic would just go away. So let's get that train moving, if you would.

Read more...

Shadow of the Colossus is going to be made into a movie.

I was going to just make a post that said Sony can go fuck themselves, but I've now thought better of it. Instead, I'm going to tell them exactly why their ape brains are apparently venting too many nutrients, because this is fucking retarded.

According to Variety, Sony is readying a film version of Shadow of the Colossus, to be written by Justin Marks. Who is Justin Marks, you ask? Let me tell you. He wrote the fantastically deep and thoughtful Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. Sony, let me ask you a question. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you fucking serious? What, from the long list of, I'm sure, excellent films this dude has written, has given you the impression he could pen a story for Shadow of the Colossus? Actually, I'm getting ahead of myself. What makes you think Shadow of the Colossus could, in any conceivable way, be turned into a film that resembles something other than a freshly-laid loaf?

You see, there is a very important thing that a lot of industry leaders seem to just not realize, or not give a shit about:

Games, as a medium, is way different than film. Something that works well in a game won't necessarily work at all in a movie. I have the same problem with Bioshock being fucked over, but this right here goes above and beyond the call of duty (and no, that shouldn't be made into a movie, either). There is absolutely nothing in Shadow of the Colossus that would lead anyone to believe a film should be made about it. First off, what would it be about? The game had a story, but it was pretty much all subtext and inference; you got out as much as you put in. The genius and beauty about it was the journey, not the dialogue or cutscenes. If I were a betting man, I'd lay a sizeable chunk down on there being a fucking sappy, drawn-out love story between a couple of asshats I hate looking at. I'll say this much, though - if I had any sort of confidence in a movie studio to at least try their best to keep every single thing about the game that made it special intact, then I would only be, on a mad-as-piss scale of 10, at about a 10. But my confidence levels being what they are, I'm now at about a 35, give or take.

Face it, Sony, you're not going to keep its spirit intact, you're not going to have minimal dialogue, you're not going to have it be ten hours long, you're not even going to keep the story the same, and you're sure as fuck not going to get me to go see this god damned debacle.

Read more...

Rockstar has a few things to learn about "their" genre.

Because Saints Row 2 is, in every important way, vastly superior to GTA 4. Let me first admit that I was on the anti-Saints Row bandwagon. I never played the original, and from a few early screenshots, I thought the sequel looked like shit. This just goes to show you that a well-informed opinion can't come from stuff like that. So, at the behest of a friend, I picked up Saints Row 2, and I can now say that I enjoyed it so much more than Niko Belic's disjointed and confused adventure.

Since there are so many things this game does better, I've decided to just make a list of everything, in no particular order, and I'll elaborate on a few points later.

• Features a garage where you can store any car you want, and here's the sticker: you can dump the cars from your garage anywhere in the world, and they'll always be available for you to take out again from any owned garage in the game.
• Missions have a lot more variety. Sure, a lot of them just involve going somewhere and shooting someone, but most of the time, the story and situations the game puts you in make them far more interesting.
• Once you complete certain activities, infinite ammo is unlocked for specific sets of guns. This makes everything a lot more fun, and the game doesn't take itself seriously enough to warrant any gripes about it ruining the realism or any such nonsense.
• The entire game - missions, activities, diversions, everything - can be played co-op. Obvious plus. Roughly half of my overall playtime was with a friend.
• Vehicles are fully customizable. You can upgrade them with nitrous, improved tires and overall durability, etc. It makes the garage feature that much more awesome when you know you have a pimped-out, bad ass ride waiting for you wherever you want it.
• Almost everything you accomplish in the game has a tangible gameplay reward attached to it. Finishing certain activities, for example, will give you the ability to have more homies ride with you while on missions, or increase your health or stamina. Basically, you're working towards a goal even when you're lighting people on fire with a friend.
• Fully customizable avatar. Once again, the game lets you decide how you want your game to look. Your character can be male or female, and the range of options available for changing their appearance is pretty great. If you want to have a 19-year-old skinny chick that sounds like a 50-year-old guy working in a mine, go right ahead.
• The story is flat-out better and more entertaining. I'll go into more detail below.
• You can actually, for the most part, accomplish missions and objectives the way you want to. One big problem I had with GTA 4 was the fact that Rockstar had a specific vision for how a lot of the missions played out, and if you deviated from the way they wanted them to, it was game over. In Saints Row 2, if you want to jack someone's car to chase the guys on motorcycles that you're after, you're free to do so. You don't have to take the vehicle they provide you with.
  
• Humor. it ties in with the story, which again, I'll go into further down. But it's a lot funnier than you'd think.
• Cribs. For whatever reason, GTA 4 didn't want to let you feel like you owned the city. Saints Row 2 does. There are about a dozen houses for you to buy, and you can - yet again - upgrade them and pimp them out.
• You can replay any story-related mission in the game as many times as you want. Durh, that's awesome. The same goes for all the activities as well.
• One of the perks of co-op is that if you die, your friend has 15 seconds (on hardcore difficulty) to revive you. Extremely welcome, especially when you have a five-star wanted level.
• You can carry way more weapons on your person at all times, including an SMG, rocket launcher, shotgun, dual pistols, samurai sword and satchel charges.

All of those examples are off the top of my head, so there's probably other stuff that I forgot to mention. Of course, the game isn't perfect, and Rockstar probably has more money and staff to polish their games a bit more than Volition does. Graphically, GTA 4 is superior, but it really doesn't matter. Saints Row 2 looks just fine. On the other hand, the game can be a little buggy at times, and clipping is a common occurence. But again, it doesn't hamper the fun in any meaningful way.

That's the thing about this game - I had way more fun with it than I ever thought I would. Even before I played Saints Row 2, I was disappointed with GTA 4 in a lot of big ways. After playing it, my disappointments with GTA 4 stand out even more, in stark contrast to what Volition has accomplished. I think sometimes Rockstar is more concerned with being "mature" and controversial than they are with making a cohesive story. With GTA 4, they set out to tell a tale of sin and redemption, but ended up with a pile of shit. Niko's motivations were explained as being forced into violence by outside forces, when all he wants is to lead a better life. Fair enough. But his actions showed a totally different person. He doesn't want to kill people anymore, yet if you were to flash a twenty in his direction, he'd probably shoot everyone in the room and snatch it from your cold, lifeless hand. The whole thing doesn't make a damn bit of sense in that regard, and I just got turned off about half-way through the game. Not to mention the fact that you commit countless random acts of violence and murder while you're driving around aimlessly, but that's more of an inherent problem with trying to tell any kind of realistic story when the player is allowed to do whatever they want.

Saints Row 2 isn't trying to tell a realistic story at all. It's instantly recognized as ridiculous and over-the-top, and that's exactly what I liked about it. In a game where I can use rocket launchers to blow up helicopters while someone is driving me around, I expect to see the same shit happen in the cutscenes, and it delivers just that. A lot of crazy shit happens in the story, in fact, and I found myself laughing out loud at the insane stunts the main character pulls off. Speaking of cutscenes, they were suprisingly well-directed. A lot of them had a great kind of movie quality to them, and it was nice to see Volition take the time to make such a non-serious story at least look awesome. Overall, the story is really just the standard get out of jail, start up your gang again kind of thing, but it works because there are no pretenses of being gritty or serious. Make no mistake, there are a lot of fucked up things that happen, and I would say it's on the same level of hardcore that GTA 4 was on, but the big difference is the non-contradictory way it all played out.

Look, if you were left wanting after you finished GTA 4, then this is a no-brainer. Get this game, you'll love it. If you can get someone else to play it with you - holy shit - the satisfaction is increased by a factor of about a billion. Rockstar should look at this game and weep in their feathery-soft pillows.


Read more...