Monday, February 14, 2011
Crysis 2 Has a Story!
I'm not sure if I've made this clear yet, but one of my greatest passions about games is their story. What interests me most in the gaming world is how interactive narratives have evolved over the years, and how they continue to develop. So this interview with Crysis 2's story writer over at IGN was a very interesting read. It's good to see writing in games getting more and more focus by the gaming crowd. This article doesn't spoil anything in the game and the writer has a lot of insights about writing for video games.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
I Suck at Starcraft II
Do you find it hard to admit you're awful at a game you like?
That's what I had to come to terms with this weekend as I played SCII online and yet again won one game out of like five.
It's not even an issue of mastering build orders or knowing unit counters. I'm no master of course but I do know enough to be competetive in the lowly Bronze league. I basically know what to do in the beginning of a match and what to do to win.
I just never do.
If I have to try and define my condition, it's like a total inability to think tactically and execute a coherent plan. I can have a plan in my head and build units and even have the advantage in a match (indeed, often when I study the graphs at the end of matches I lose I see that at a certain point I had the advantage in terms of units), but I never try and attack. But It's not like I'm defensive, either. I'll build forces to attack but never use them properly.
It's the same reason I'm terrible at chess. I have a problem thinking ahead and executing plans.
Why's this depressing? Well, because I love RTS games. In singleplayer tey're a blast; every level is like a puzzle. In multiplayer, however, it's about thinking faster than your opposition and achieveing some manuervers with such mechanical percision that a computer can't do it better.
I think an important part of being a gamer is to acknowledge what you suck at. This doesn't mean I'll stop playing SCII online,but perhaps the goal wouldn't be to win as much as it is to try and enjoy the ride. And I am proud of the fact that I never rage-quit and through each and every loss I endure (even when it's to a no-good rush) I say 'GG' with a smile and, if I'm not too annoyed, go on t another match.
That's what I had to come to terms with this weekend as I played SCII online and yet again won one game out of like five.
It's not even an issue of mastering build orders or knowing unit counters. I'm no master of course but I do know enough to be competetive in the lowly Bronze league. I basically know what to do in the beginning of a match and what to do to win.
I just never do.
If I have to try and define my condition, it's like a total inability to think tactically and execute a coherent plan. I can have a plan in my head and build units and even have the advantage in a match (indeed, often when I study the graphs at the end of matches I lose I see that at a certain point I had the advantage in terms of units), but I never try and attack. But It's not like I'm defensive, either. I'll build forces to attack but never use them properly.
It's the same reason I'm terrible at chess. I have a problem thinking ahead and executing plans.
Why's this depressing? Well, because I love RTS games. In singleplayer tey're a blast; every level is like a puzzle. In multiplayer, however, it's about thinking faster than your opposition and achieveing some manuervers with such mechanical percision that a computer can't do it better.
I think an important part of being a gamer is to acknowledge what you suck at. This doesn't mean I'll stop playing SCII online,but perhaps the goal wouldn't be to win as much as it is to try and enjoy the ride. And I am proud of the fact that I never rage-quit and through each and every loss I endure (even when it's to a no-good rush) I say 'GG' with a smile and, if I'm not too annoyed, go on t another match.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Medal of Honor - Verdict
Alright, so I've played MoH since I wrote about it last time.
Mostly the game does suffer from being so similar to other modern warfare titles out there. However, I was very pleasantly surprised by the story and setting. It seemed much more realistic and really gave the sense of this huge, complicated military operation. It had its share of hyperbolic drama, of course, which I could have done without, but all in all I enjoyed it.
The game takes place in the mountains of Afghanistan, and the player transitions between the different units which have different goals to achieve. We play from the Tier 1 perspective, who are these silent infiltrators, going behind enemy lines and bringing intel or causing some damage to the enemy; we also play as a ranger (I think), which is a more standard in-your-face approach to warfare. We also play as a chopper pilot, giving support to the troops below. The transition between playing these characters is especially good because it happens when they interact, emphasizing that these people work as part of a machine and their success depends on them working together, with every part doing their job.
In this sense I really liked the game because it wasn't about this insane action movie plot. There is no real narrative here; there's no big boss to kill or any resolution. We don't win the war by the end. The entire game is just about this collection of soldiers in this operation, trying to survive and protect each other. This is what I really connected to, because it felt like the developers wanted to convey this and they did a good job of it.
Where the game shines a lot less is in the gameplay area, where it takes way too many cues from CoD, meaning the scripted events. I have no problems with scripted events and I think that, if done correctly, can be a huge asset to storytelling and atmosphere. But this is a huge problem when the game simply will not continue unless you stand in a specific spot to trigger some animation - and the game doesn't directly tell you this. A script needs to seamlessly fit into the game, where the player doesn't even notice it's something scripted. Here, there were moments where I literally could not continue the game simply because I didn't fire from the 'correct' position to trigger the final showdown script, or something. I hope they do less of this kind of thing in the future.
All in all the game isn't bad, and I'm even enjoying the multiplayer - although it's nothing new.
The next military shooter I played was the Brothers in Arms, which gave me a lot of insights into shooters in the console age. More on that later (hopefully with video).
Mostly the game does suffer from being so similar to other modern warfare titles out there. However, I was very pleasantly surprised by the story and setting. It seemed much more realistic and really gave the sense of this huge, complicated military operation. It had its share of hyperbolic drama, of course, which I could have done without, but all in all I enjoyed it.
The game takes place in the mountains of Afghanistan, and the player transitions between the different units which have different goals to achieve. We play from the Tier 1 perspective, who are these silent infiltrators, going behind enemy lines and bringing intel or causing some damage to the enemy; we also play as a ranger (I think), which is a more standard in-your-face approach to warfare. We also play as a chopper pilot, giving support to the troops below. The transition between playing these characters is especially good because it happens when they interact, emphasizing that these people work as part of a machine and their success depends on them working together, with every part doing their job.
In this sense I really liked the game because it wasn't about this insane action movie plot. There is no real narrative here; there's no big boss to kill or any resolution. We don't win the war by the end. The entire game is just about this collection of soldiers in this operation, trying to survive and protect each other. This is what I really connected to, because it felt like the developers wanted to convey this and they did a good job of it.
Where the game shines a lot less is in the gameplay area, where it takes way too many cues from CoD, meaning the scripted events. I have no problems with scripted events and I think that, if done correctly, can be a huge asset to storytelling and atmosphere. But this is a huge problem when the game simply will not continue unless you stand in a specific spot to trigger some animation - and the game doesn't directly tell you this. A script needs to seamlessly fit into the game, where the player doesn't even notice it's something scripted. Here, there were moments where I literally could not continue the game simply because I didn't fire from the 'correct' position to trigger the final showdown script, or something. I hope they do less of this kind of thing in the future.
All in all the game isn't bad, and I'm even enjoying the multiplayer - although it's nothing new.
The next military shooter I played was the Brothers in Arms, which gave me a lot of insights into shooters in the console age. More on that later (hopefully with video).
Monday, January 24, 2011
Loooooong Delay
Well, here I am again.
I keep coming to this conclusion that keeping a blog updated and informative is hard, and yet I keep trying. I really believe in what I want to do with this blog, though, so I don't intend to stop.
I've also just finished my studies for now and, even though I've got assignments to write which will take up most of my time, I hope I can organize my time efficiently enough to still write here properly.
Here are some of the things I have in mind:
-I'd like to post a debate (if you can call it that) I've had with someone who posted an opinion on games and art. I think I've touched enough on the topic so I might choose not to put it up, but it was a pretty intreresting argument in some parts.
-I've also been playing some games that gave me some things to think about. I've played through the Brothers in Arms series, which got me thinking of the transition games have made in their presentation and ethos.
Also, I'm playing Assasin's Creed 2 right now. It is a very good game with some intresting design elements.
That's what I can think of for now, but as I said my aim is to keep on posting so expect more updates.
I keep coming to this conclusion that keeping a blog updated and informative is hard, and yet I keep trying. I really believe in what I want to do with this blog, though, so I don't intend to stop.
I've also just finished my studies for now and, even though I've got assignments to write which will take up most of my time, I hope I can organize my time efficiently enough to still write here properly.
Here are some of the things I have in mind:
-I'd like to post a debate (if you can call it that) I've had with someone who posted an opinion on games and art. I think I've touched enough on the topic so I might choose not to put it up, but it was a pretty intreresting argument in some parts.
-I've also been playing some games that gave me some things to think about. I've played through the Brothers in Arms series, which got me thinking of the transition games have made in their presentation and ethos.
Also, I'm playing Assasin's Creed 2 right now. It is a very good game with some intresting design elements.
That's what I can think of for now, but as I said my aim is to keep on posting so expect more updates.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Medal of Honor
The new Medal of Honor is coming out in a few days and I'm feeling really sorry for it. Things seem to be working against it.
On one hand there's the whole idiotic debate about using the Taliban as the antagonists and letting people play them. It's completely hypocritical that for the people who complain about this we can play as Nazis or even unnamed terrorists but using an actual name on virtual figures is somehow wrong and disrespectful. There always has to be another side, and this game had the guts to let players confront that other side. Because of the many complaints about the game EA have changed the Taliban name in the game to OpFor - Opposing Forces. I understand why EA did that but I'm disappointed that they caved in.
Now, I have nothing but respect for any soldiers who fight and die for the whims of other people but, if anything, letting people play this game in a more realistic setting can help them understand the situation more.I've been playing the open beta that's out until today and I must say that even the multi-player matches seem very reality-based and respectful of the conflict in general. There is always a background to where you are and what your side is doing there. Granted, most young people who play this will probably never bother to read the introductory information for every map, but if even just one does, it's already an achievement... that means you have some random person without any original desire to find out about the conflict suddenly looking for information online. But this can't happen when one side is simply labeled 'OpFor'... now this is just a game about good guys and bad guys. When the other side was the Taliban, one could get a sense of place and situation - who these people are? why are they fighting? Now it really IS just a game of warfare.
There is nothing that disrespects the lives and deaths of the soldiers in this game, and I think that the people complaining about it just get carried away about this whole anti-game movement and moan over anything game-related that they don't understand. EA should have been stronger against it. In any case, this will likely hurt their sales (or, conversely, it could make them skyrocket - so who knows?).
However, this isn't the only hurdle I feel MoH has to overcome. The game itself - at least the multiplayer - feels very rough. What I said before about the setting and background is all well and good, but the gameplay itself and the mechanics of the matches seem in need of serious tweaking. Player spawning, for example, has a very disorganized feel to it:
You spawn at random places every time and it is very likely, when spawning on the front lines, that you will be shot literally within a second of spawning. There should be some way for the player to either control where he or she spawns or have a short invulnerability buff to help the players get their bearing on the field. Of course, the latter would go against the whole point of more realistic-feeling warfare, but I think that players enjoying themselves is more important to keep them coming back.
The weapons as well are in need of fixing, I believe. At the moment, you can fire a burst of bullets at a faraway target and get a hit with virtually no kickback. This does seem unrealistic as it shouldn't be possible for someone using an AK to snipe you from miles away with a single burst of fire from an entire magazine.
Regardless of the above, though, I do enjoy playing it and I'm trying really hard to like it - I want it to do well. I don't think I'll buy it as soon as it's out, though. My favorite aspect of the game is the single player so I will wait for a review to see if it's worth getting. I really hope the game succeeds but, as I said, things aren't looking good for it.
On one hand there's the whole idiotic debate about using the Taliban as the antagonists and letting people play them. It's completely hypocritical that for the people who complain about this we can play as Nazis or even unnamed terrorists but using an actual name on virtual figures is somehow wrong and disrespectful. There always has to be another side, and this game had the guts to let players confront that other side. Because of the many complaints about the game EA have changed the Taliban name in the game to OpFor - Opposing Forces. I understand why EA did that but I'm disappointed that they caved in.
Now, I have nothing but respect for any soldiers who fight and die for the whims of other people but, if anything, letting people play this game in a more realistic setting can help them understand the situation more.I've been playing the open beta that's out until today and I must say that even the multi-player matches seem very reality-based and respectful of the conflict in general. There is always a background to where you are and what your side is doing there. Granted, most young people who play this will probably never bother to read the introductory information for every map, but if even just one does, it's already an achievement... that means you have some random person without any original desire to find out about the conflict suddenly looking for information online. But this can't happen when one side is simply labeled 'OpFor'... now this is just a game about good guys and bad guys. When the other side was the Taliban, one could get a sense of place and situation - who these people are? why are they fighting? Now it really IS just a game of warfare.
There is nothing that disrespects the lives and deaths of the soldiers in this game, and I think that the people complaining about it just get carried away about this whole anti-game movement and moan over anything game-related that they don't understand. EA should have been stronger against it. In any case, this will likely hurt their sales (or, conversely, it could make them skyrocket - so who knows?).
However, this isn't the only hurdle I feel MoH has to overcome. The game itself - at least the multiplayer - feels very rough. What I said before about the setting and background is all well and good, but the gameplay itself and the mechanics of the matches seem in need of serious tweaking. Player spawning, for example, has a very disorganized feel to it:
You spawn at random places every time and it is very likely, when spawning on the front lines, that you will be shot literally within a second of spawning. There should be some way for the player to either control where he or she spawns or have a short invulnerability buff to help the players get their bearing on the field. Of course, the latter would go against the whole point of more realistic-feeling warfare, but I think that players enjoying themselves is more important to keep them coming back.
The weapons as well are in need of fixing, I believe. At the moment, you can fire a burst of bullets at a faraway target and get a hit with virtually no kickback. This does seem unrealistic as it shouldn't be possible for someone using an AK to snipe you from miles away with a single burst of fire from an entire magazine.
Regardless of the above, though, I do enjoy playing it and I'm trying really hard to like it - I want it to do well. I don't think I'll buy it as soon as it's out, though. My favorite aspect of the game is the single player so I will wait for a review to see if it's worth getting. I really hope the game succeeds but, as I said, things aren't looking good for it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
QTE chores
I've recently started playing Resident Evil 5 and even though it's quite fun I'm really annoyed by how consoley it is...
Just the clumsy way your character moves around, the very inconvenient shooting and equipment mechanic... But of course it's not only the control but the way the game itself is designed. It amazes me how much of this game consists of cut-scenes. They're amazing cut-scenes, I'll admit, but if this game represents the majority of console games of its type today then I'm really happy I do't play them that much. There's just not that much really to do there. And, of course, there had to be QTEs. Seriously, is there a petition somewhere to ban this completely boring, useless, stupid mechanic from games forever? It is completely symbolic of how console games just want you to do nothing while they show you something cool. And it is cool, but let me play the game, not just click random buttons like a moron.
Okay, I guess I'm ranting a bit because this really does bug me, but this game isn't bad - it is juvenile, perhaps, but not bad. In any case I think I'll make a video log of it once I finish it, or sooner if I feel I've seen enough.
Just the clumsy way your character moves around, the very inconvenient shooting and equipment mechanic... But of course it's not only the control but the way the game itself is designed. It amazes me how much of this game consists of cut-scenes. They're amazing cut-scenes, I'll admit, but if this game represents the majority of console games of its type today then I'm really happy I do't play them that much. There's just not that much really to do there. And, of course, there had to be QTEs. Seriously, is there a petition somewhere to ban this completely boring, useless, stupid mechanic from games forever? It is completely symbolic of how console games just want you to do nothing while they show you something cool. And it is cool, but let me play the game, not just click random buttons like a moron.
Okay, I guess I'm ranting a bit because this really does bug me, but this game isn't bad - it is juvenile, perhaps, but not bad. In any case I think I'll make a video log of it once I finish it, or sooner if I feel I've seen enough.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Puzzle Agent
So yeah, Nelson Tethers: Puzzle Agent is a new adventure game from Telltale.
This is what I love about their approach so much: they really have taken the idea of episodic gaming to its richest and most creative avenues. They're calling Puzzle Agent a pilot. As in a TV series pilot episode - the first episode of a show, designed to outline and demonstrate the characters and setting and test if a full show could be made from it.
This is just another example of the power of this platform, way beyond simply rendering graphics or having comfortable controls; this experimental approach to gaming is without a doubt most lucrative on the PC. They can afford to create a short game (even by their standards, I think), and release it to the gaming public, gathering feedback and calculating whether a full series would be profitable.
And I hope they choose to make more, because I haven't been so excited about an adventure game since Grim Fandango. The thing is, Puzzle Agent really gets what the adventure genre is about. It's less about the puzzles and more about the atmosphere. Since these types of games have you explore a single area for quite some time, it's important that the setting, characters, dialogue and music are memorable and thrilling. And here they are all amazing. The game takes a very courageous approach: it ditches the immediate appeal of slick 3D graphics and gives us a cartoon world that's minimally animated, inspired by the drawings of Graham Annable, who has collaborated with Telltale on this project.
The game's look can be daunting at first. When I saw the trailer I was taken aback. But the game's atmosphere is just so precise and powerful that you get sucked into it immediately. The story itself, of an FBI agent, Nelson Tethers, being sent to the town of Scoggings, Minnesota to investigate the closure of an eraser factory is surprisingly dark and suspenseful. The game is clearly influenced by Twin Peaks or any other show/movie where a cop is sent to a small town where things aren't what they seem. But the story manages to be fresh and had me wondering what would happen next.
But, of course, the puzzles are the 'game' part of the adventure game and you can't ignore them completely. And here is where PA falls short. I hope that the series continues and that Telltale work on the puzzles more. The idea itself is nice. It is worked into the story that the people of Scoggins are obsessed with puzzles. So wherever you go there is some puzzle to solve. The problem is the puzzles split to two kinds: easy-as-pie puzzles where you almost don't do anything. There was one puzzle that I didn't even completely understand what to do, but I dragged some things around and in a minute I solved it. But the other kind of puzzle is the obtuse kind. These puzzles aren't particularly hard, but have irritating mechanics that aren't explained well enough in the puzzle's instructions. But I suspect this too is a result of the over simplification of the puzzles. That's alright, though. I'm guessing this was deliberate in order to appeal to more audiences who aren't used to the usual adventure scheme of an inventory and combining items. This way the game is challenging and straightforward enough so that someone who has never played an adventure game can get into it. Still, I hope the difficulty level and coherency of the puzzles improve if another game gets made. Because, despite the puzzle issues, this game was an absolute pleasure. Best 3 hours of gaming I've had in a while.
I'm really happy Telltale are around and doing their thing. My favorite game genre is Adventure and with Telltale around I know there's always something good to look forward to.
This is what I love about their approach so much: they really have taken the idea of episodic gaming to its richest and most creative avenues. They're calling Puzzle Agent a pilot. As in a TV series pilot episode - the first episode of a show, designed to outline and demonstrate the characters and setting and test if a full show could be made from it.
This is just another example of the power of this platform, way beyond simply rendering graphics or having comfortable controls; this experimental approach to gaming is without a doubt most lucrative on the PC. They can afford to create a short game (even by their standards, I think), and release it to the gaming public, gathering feedback and calculating whether a full series would be profitable.
And I hope they choose to make more, because I haven't been so excited about an adventure game since Grim Fandango. The thing is, Puzzle Agent really gets what the adventure genre is about. It's less about the puzzles and more about the atmosphere. Since these types of games have you explore a single area for quite some time, it's important that the setting, characters, dialogue and music are memorable and thrilling. And here they are all amazing. The game takes a very courageous approach: it ditches the immediate appeal of slick 3D graphics and gives us a cartoon world that's minimally animated, inspired by the drawings of Graham Annable, who has collaborated with Telltale on this project.
The game's look can be daunting at first. When I saw the trailer I was taken aback. But the game's atmosphere is just so precise and powerful that you get sucked into it immediately. The story itself, of an FBI agent, Nelson Tethers, being sent to the town of Scoggings, Minnesota to investigate the closure of an eraser factory is surprisingly dark and suspenseful. The game is clearly influenced by Twin Peaks or any other show/movie where a cop is sent to a small town where things aren't what they seem. But the story manages to be fresh and had me wondering what would happen next.
But, of course, the puzzles are the 'game' part of the adventure game and you can't ignore them completely. And here is where PA falls short. I hope that the series continues and that Telltale work on the puzzles more. The idea itself is nice. It is worked into the story that the people of Scoggins are obsessed with puzzles. So wherever you go there is some puzzle to solve. The problem is the puzzles split to two kinds: easy-as-pie puzzles where you almost don't do anything. There was one puzzle that I didn't even completely understand what to do, but I dragged some things around and in a minute I solved it. But the other kind of puzzle is the obtuse kind. These puzzles aren't particularly hard, but have irritating mechanics that aren't explained well enough in the puzzle's instructions. But I suspect this too is a result of the over simplification of the puzzles. That's alright, though. I'm guessing this was deliberate in order to appeal to more audiences who aren't used to the usual adventure scheme of an inventory and combining items. This way the game is challenging and straightforward enough so that someone who has never played an adventure game can get into it. Still, I hope the difficulty level and coherency of the puzzles improve if another game gets made. Because, despite the puzzle issues, this game was an absolute pleasure. Best 3 hours of gaming I've had in a while.
I'm really happy Telltale are around and doing their thing. My favorite game genre is Adventure and with Telltale around I know there's always something good to look forward to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)