Heavy Rain is a bad narrative, a bad game, and a bad influence on game designers and players. It's also one of the more significant games that's I've been delighted to play this year. It's fairly common on this space of mine to say that all modern game design ideas are bad and to chide those who enable them, but I've got no reservations in giving Heavy Rain my notable "Mr. McCarthy's urban underachievers award" with a beaming smile a parent might reserve for their handicapped child after they burn down the kitchen on the pretenses of "cooking like daddy".
Let's break it down.
Playing Heavy Rain taught me that David Cage is apparently both suffering from ADD and slightly autistic at the same time. In a bizzare twist, however, I don't mean these terms as a complete insult, but rather as legitimate descriptors of his so called "writing".
Every scene and decision you make in Heavy Rain unfolds in the same tripartite format every time of: looking/reacting/combating. Those who contest this forms a beautiful narrative when repeated some forty odd times are, with the full weight of an insult, morons.
Heavy Rain's story has no sense of pacing in any fashion beyond the immediate shock value. While critics may argue that the game advances "interactive fiction" or whatever superlative they may be thinking of in describing what is the adventure game yang to Myst.
Case in point is with the female character Madison.
She's a character I felt bad for only because she's stuck in a world written by men with little exposure to how actual women operate. Her characteristics beyond "journalist that is never once seen doing journalist things" is simply "she has tits and an ass". Every scene in which you control her attacks her sexuality and female qualities in some capacity, leading you to remain "uncomfortable" in any scene she takes a part in. You'll be raped with a drill, forced to strip, and even take part in completely unnecessary fucking for the sake of there being fucking.
In short, she's a tool to the detriment of the other characters both male and female. Never once did any of her plot threads lead to any serious conclusions nor did she ever do anything to make herself a particularly interesting character I wanted to see survive beyond a simple "boy I sure don't want a drill stuck in my vag either".
She the figurehead of the aformentioned greater narrative problem as a whole outlined above. Each scene will have you milling about until you obey the adventure game logic to proceed to the next section. Know that the crying baby could probably make use of the bottle lying conspicuously on the table? Well too bad, you can't touch it until the French developers say so.
In the end, the game ultimately boils down to you have not made too many missed button presses and having found around 15 red/blue pages to advance to the "good" ending.
Yeah, that's a second call back to Myst in one post. Want to fight about it?
All this contributes to is a hopeless feeling of noticing the puppet strings hanging all around you. While excellent movies/novels/goddamned real literature may frustrate you with character revelations and decisions, you're supposed to eventually understand these motives and place them within the overarching narrative, thus increasing your respect and enjoyment of the work.
When you're controlling a character who runs against all the logical motives you've been inputting for him, you merely scratch your head and roll your eyes.
As you undergo each progressively "difficult" scene- of which only two actually made me think through the consequences of my actions- you come to realize that David Cage wrote himself into a corner. With nowhere left to go, you're forced to endure scenes of melodrama and pointless theatrics that would have made the writers of Halo blush.
Of course, the melodrama may just be due to the fact David Cage can't write or keep a consistent universe. The game abounds with cultural anachronisms and clashes. We see French style toilets, cars, appliances, and electrical outlets in a city that's supposed to be a cross between Philly and Boston.
Characters murder other people, both innocent and not, in cold blood with absolutely no repercussions to speak of!
Again, let's go back to the journalist.
She's attacked by a crazy doc who wants to stick a drill in her vagina after he's convinced she's a fed. Should you pass the Simon-Says action sequence, she kills him with his own drill. After almost being brutally slaughtered in the most inhumane way possible she merely walks it off and proceeds to the next sequence where she strips for a mob boss.
What?! How?! Why?! More importantly why wouldn't the goddamned police start coming after her! Sure you could argue that nobody would miss a crazy old man.
Except this man is a drug dealer and has local connections and owned property. Madison also touched a dozen odd objects in the building. This is a game where the police have advanced computer glasses that can see through goddamned time and apparently murders just happen everyday? Good lord, did anyone even look at a second draft of this and ask "But what about?".
This is coming from a character who only hours before had been worried about being raped in her sleep and here she goes attempting to stick up a mobster. This is completely inconsistent in her character actions, which nobody bothers to give any motivation to other than she wants to write articles for some weekly shitrag.
Unless she was an embedded reporter in Iraq, her whole character makes no sense at all. This isn't creating a "mysterious femme fatale", this is making a stupid one dimensional cut out.
Then again I should expect much from a game where I survive a bomb blast by hiding in a fridge.
Narrative could be forgive if it was a good game, but it's not. There is no game to speak of. Since the murder is the same berk every time you play, there is no reason to ever return to the game. With absolutely no element of "play" at work beyond binary distinctions that boil down to you not turning the page fast enough, there's nothing one can call a game at work in the systems here.
I guess it's a game in the same way I held my finger on the pages where I had to make a decision in "choose your own adventure" novels. I did that there because I thought I was being so damn clever. Here you can sub that phrase with "hitting the power button on the console".
More damning, perhaps, is that in it's attempts to be a movie there's no distinction for when one should be "active" on the controller or when one is being timed. I guess this is to give the illusion of decisions and consequences being weighed on the fly.
Too bad there's a pause button I can use at any time to game their system. Sorry David, you failed at making suspense.
It doesn't even need to be mentioned that the voice acting and graphics are mediocre at best and downright awful at worst.
So why do I still consider this an excellent title everyone should check out at least once? It's the sign of something much better.
Where Mr Cage failed in his attempts to rip off movies by mashing Saw and Mystic River together, a good writer could step in to deliver bite sized narrative content that delivers an experience one can't get without the "interactive" nature of games.
I'd like to envision a future where titles such as this would come on a blu-ray, dvd, or- God Lord willing- streamed directly through your cable as part of primetime programming. While Heavy Rain shot itself in the foot by arbitrary tying itself to the PS3 console, I could imagine a company such as Pixar taking the interactive features of blu-ray players to deliver experiences that are shaped by you as a viewer.
While this isn't to say I want the death of passive reader narrative in any capacity- I'd probably be annoyed as hell if I had to make a decision every time Peter Griffin made a flashback or Dilbert had to choose which wacky workplace pun to use- I do see this as a viable new medium. I imagine something akin to The Incredibles or Up where decisions don't ever lead to the arbitrary "death" of a character as video games are destined to be constricted by. Instead, I see viewers being able to choose their own narrative arc and path through the story at key points which the writers have dictated as possible branches.
Since players/viewers can and will always choose the jerk option in any game they play, this format would allow writers to keep their artistic control while allowing significant choice by the end consumer. In the end, we'd create a true mutually generated narrative.
It also wouldn't hurt if these pieces were kept short so as to allow unlimited potential in visuals to not be trapped by Heavy Rain's constant texture repeats and rigid animations.
I really enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain. I just hope next time they'll at least throw a curtain up to cover the strings pulling me about.
4/6/10
3/28/10
Part 3
It's the best question you can ask anyone really.
Why? Why is this? Why should I? Why should we?
Everyone, anywhere, all the time, should ask themselves this question after each statement someone makes.
You are beautiful.
Why?
This is tasty.
Why?
Etc etc so on and so forth ad nauseum.
So how does this blog post relate to video games? Simple. Ask yourself why every moment you're playing every game.
You must stop the invaders.
Why?
Today, most game designers are stunted and failed screenplay writers who would say- based upon their Star Wars and comic book addled haze of a childhood- a number of non-concerning reasons.
Because the fate of the world hangs in the balance!
Why?
One of the greatest games of all time, Doom, has a constant response to every why.
You must kill the monsters!
Why?
Because they are from Hell. And hell's pretty bad.
Why?
Because they've murdered all your comrades, your friends, your family, and you are trapped alone on mars. Everyone you once knew and loved is strung from the trees and walls, desperately taking in their final gasps of life in a haze of pain. You are trapped in a world where flesh and bone compose the walls, floors, ceilings. All the while creatures are looming around every corner to eviscerate you and claim the only remaining human soul that anyone knows of. For this, you are the last candle light of humanity before the unstoppable wind of evil snuffs out the once burning beacon of human existence in this solar system.
oh.
You really can't form a more complete narrative than that. Of course, the whys' will continue as the game progresses.
Why are their chainsaws and medical supplies in hell?
Why are the same groups of monsters constantly coming after me?
Why are these space bases laid out in a maze like fashion with no practical purpose?
Simple response: "Hell's a pretty fucked up place dude. You ever been there to say what it's like?"
I'm tempted to bring a recent modern game I've played, Uncharted 2, which was recently lumped with more praise that I'd ever care to make a case against. Unlike Doom's constant "why" response, Uncharted 2 leaves you with no responses.
Nathan Drake must claim the lost treasure of some place!
Why?
Cause he wants it.
Why?
Cause he is a treasure hunter.
Why?
Fuck you play our terribly acted game.
No.
As you begin to ask more questions, you're left with even worse responses.
Help Nathan Drake steal these maps!
Why?
Cause he wants them.
Why?
Cause.
That's it, that's the entire motivation for the game. Naughty Dog assumes you give a shit about helping a mass murder earn his riches.
It's pretty depressing that the general population is apparently eating up this pap. Each level introduces mechanics you will use only once in a blue moon all while attempting to make a loveable and human character out of a man who steals from museums because it benefits him.
In Grand Theft Auto 4 we played Niko Belic, a man who wasn't afraid to kill but realized the inhumanity of himself while taking part. The open sandbox parts didn't punish you engaging in ultra violence and the game always ignored your agency as a player in between missions.
This is a good thing. I know I occasionally want to fuck around with a game, so why should it have any bearing on the overarching story? It's akin to watching your favorite scenes off a DVD. The actors have no idea if you're either laughing at it or whacking off to it. It honestly makes no difference to them, they'll keep playing their part in the drama. You, on the other hand, are free to enjoy both the moment to moment excitement and the overarching irony taking place around them.
Uncharted 2, on the other hand, assumes you give a flying fuck about obeying it's amoral and unlikeable character's moral code.
Break into the museum and steal artifacts, but make sure to not kill any guards!
Why?
Because they are innocent.
Why?
Because fuck you, play our prescripted scenario.
Of course, in the following level you're apparently free to kill off similarly armed mercenaries as you please.
At no point in this game have I been told why I, as a player, should care. At least GTA4 you've got the promise of more free areas to explore and destroy as you please.
Which brings us all back to Doom. You care because you don't want to die. If you want to die then there's really no point for you to boot up this game now is there.
Unlike modern "masterpieces" such as Uncharted 2, your motivations outside of this overaching question of why are both self imposed and rewarded for exploring them.
Why do I want to find these secret areas in Doom?
Because you'll get access to better guns and items sooner, especially if you've croaked before in this level.
I cannot stress enough that Doom attains that intangible since of "place" and "weight" that so many other shooters have been attempting for years to capture. As you're zipping through the levels, each more convoluted than the last, you feel this unexplainable since of belonging.
The textures with all their bright 256 VGA colors feel real. Enemies made from photos of clay models and pixel art feel strangely menacing. More importantly, perhaps, all of these visuals allow you to develop iconic imagery with each level that allows you to navigate with purpose.
The next time you play a given level, you'll remember the basics of where items and keycards are and will then be tempted to explore the out limits of the map.
What if you attempt that jump?
What if you press against that wall which seems slightly out of place?
99% of the time, you'll be rewarded with a new secret area or simply a different way you might be able to approach a situation.
This point of "going back" to levels is another important facet of what makes Doom one of the greatest games of all time and continues to respond to "why": It's a game that grows with you.
You'll want to go back and replay this level on a harder difficulty.
Why?
Because you'll find new weapons, more enemies, and new challenges due to your changing physical attributes.
As you keep pushing yourself through the harder challenges, you'll find that tangible sense of place become more real on each playthrough. You'll learn to recognize and respond to every single monster. You'll learn the dirty little tricks of movement you didn't think were possible. You'll discover the funny little ticks and side benefits each powerup offers. You'll also find yourself pushing for faster and faster clear times.
In the end, you'll find that your greatest challenge lies in fighting with the geometry of the level itself and how it controls your assaults on the enemy.
That choice of the word assault, by the way, isn't merely a synonym for "fights". It means just that, assualt. You are faster, better armed, and smarter than any enemy in Doom. Assuming you know each monster and their capabilities, the only thing that could possibly kill you is any surprise attack the level itself could create.
More entertaining, however, is the fact their strength lies in numbers. Glorious glorious numbers.
A small fight will have at least 2 dozen monsters attempting to ambush you. A larger fight will be pushing the 50 mark. The best fights, however, will throw well over a hundred foes at you.
You will not stop shooting and you will not stop for a rest with pathetic concepts like "regenerating health" or "limited ammo". Instead, you're going to fight!
You'll ask once more, why should I fight so many goons?
Because it's a perfectly designed game.
Why? Why is this? Why should I? Why should we?
Everyone, anywhere, all the time, should ask themselves this question after each statement someone makes.
You are beautiful.
Why?
This is tasty.
Why?
Etc etc so on and so forth ad nauseum.
So how does this blog post relate to video games? Simple. Ask yourself why every moment you're playing every game.
You must stop the invaders.
Why?
Today, most game designers are stunted and failed screenplay writers who would say- based upon their Star Wars and comic book addled haze of a childhood- a number of non-concerning reasons.
Because the fate of the world hangs in the balance!
Why?
One of the greatest games of all time, Doom, has a constant response to every why.
You must kill the monsters!
Why?
Because they are from Hell. And hell's pretty bad.
Why?
Because they've murdered all your comrades, your friends, your family, and you are trapped alone on mars. Everyone you once knew and loved is strung from the trees and walls, desperately taking in their final gasps of life in a haze of pain. You are trapped in a world where flesh and bone compose the walls, floors, ceilings. All the while creatures are looming around every corner to eviscerate you and claim the only remaining human soul that anyone knows of. For this, you are the last candle light of humanity before the unstoppable wind of evil snuffs out the once burning beacon of human existence in this solar system.
oh.
You really can't form a more complete narrative than that. Of course, the whys' will continue as the game progresses.
Why are their chainsaws and medical supplies in hell?
Why are the same groups of monsters constantly coming after me?
Why are these space bases laid out in a maze like fashion with no practical purpose?
Simple response: "Hell's a pretty fucked up place dude. You ever been there to say what it's like?"
I'm tempted to bring a recent modern game I've played, Uncharted 2, which was recently lumped with more praise that I'd ever care to make a case against. Unlike Doom's constant "why" response, Uncharted 2 leaves you with no responses.
Nathan Drake must claim the lost treasure of some place!
Why?
Cause he wants it.
Why?
Cause he is a treasure hunter.
Why?
Fuck you play our terribly acted game.
No.
As you begin to ask more questions, you're left with even worse responses.
Help Nathan Drake steal these maps!
Why?
Cause he wants them.
Why?
Cause.
That's it, that's the entire motivation for the game. Naughty Dog assumes you give a shit about helping a mass murder earn his riches.
It's pretty depressing that the general population is apparently eating up this pap. Each level introduces mechanics you will use only once in a blue moon all while attempting to make a loveable and human character out of a man who steals from museums because it benefits him.
In Grand Theft Auto 4 we played Niko Belic, a man who wasn't afraid to kill but realized the inhumanity of himself while taking part. The open sandbox parts didn't punish you engaging in ultra violence and the game always ignored your agency as a player in between missions.
This is a good thing. I know I occasionally want to fuck around with a game, so why should it have any bearing on the overarching story? It's akin to watching your favorite scenes off a DVD. The actors have no idea if you're either laughing at it or whacking off to it. It honestly makes no difference to them, they'll keep playing their part in the drama. You, on the other hand, are free to enjoy both the moment to moment excitement and the overarching irony taking place around them.
Uncharted 2, on the other hand, assumes you give a flying fuck about obeying it's amoral and unlikeable character's moral code.
Break into the museum and steal artifacts, but make sure to not kill any guards!
Why?
Because they are innocent.
Why?
Because fuck you, play our prescripted scenario.
Of course, in the following level you're apparently free to kill off similarly armed mercenaries as you please.
At no point in this game have I been told why I, as a player, should care. At least GTA4 you've got the promise of more free areas to explore and destroy as you please.
Which brings us all back to Doom. You care because you don't want to die. If you want to die then there's really no point for you to boot up this game now is there.
Unlike modern "masterpieces" such as Uncharted 2, your motivations outside of this overaching question of why are both self imposed and rewarded for exploring them.
Why do I want to find these secret areas in Doom?
Because you'll get access to better guns and items sooner, especially if you've croaked before in this level.
I cannot stress enough that Doom attains that intangible since of "place" and "weight" that so many other shooters have been attempting for years to capture. As you're zipping through the levels, each more convoluted than the last, you feel this unexplainable since of belonging.
The textures with all their bright 256 VGA colors feel real. Enemies made from photos of clay models and pixel art feel strangely menacing. More importantly, perhaps, all of these visuals allow you to develop iconic imagery with each level that allows you to navigate with purpose.
The next time you play a given level, you'll remember the basics of where items and keycards are and will then be tempted to explore the out limits of the map.
What if you attempt that jump?
What if you press against that wall which seems slightly out of place?
99% of the time, you'll be rewarded with a new secret area or simply a different way you might be able to approach a situation.
This point of "going back" to levels is another important facet of what makes Doom one of the greatest games of all time and continues to respond to "why": It's a game that grows with you.
You'll want to go back and replay this level on a harder difficulty.
Why?
Because you'll find new weapons, more enemies, and new challenges due to your changing physical attributes.
As you keep pushing yourself through the harder challenges, you'll find that tangible sense of place become more real on each playthrough. You'll learn to recognize and respond to every single monster. You'll learn the dirty little tricks of movement you didn't think were possible. You'll discover the funny little ticks and side benefits each powerup offers. You'll also find yourself pushing for faster and faster clear times.
In the end, you'll find that your greatest challenge lies in fighting with the geometry of the level itself and how it controls your assaults on the enemy.
That choice of the word assault, by the way, isn't merely a synonym for "fights". It means just that, assualt. You are faster, better armed, and smarter than any enemy in Doom. Assuming you know each monster and their capabilities, the only thing that could possibly kill you is any surprise attack the level itself could create.
More entertaining, however, is the fact their strength lies in numbers. Glorious glorious numbers.
A small fight will have at least 2 dozen monsters attempting to ambush you. A larger fight will be pushing the 50 mark. The best fights, however, will throw well over a hundred foes at you.
You will not stop shooting and you will not stop for a rest with pathetic concepts like "regenerating health" or "limited ammo". Instead, you're going to fight!
You'll ask once more, why should I fight so many goons?
Because it's a perfectly designed game.
2/28/10
Part 2
4: Half-Life
It's an unsurprising choice most folks make when noting their "top games" lists. It's an anachronistic choice when made today though. For our supposedly refined taste in games now, many of the elements in Half-Life are just plain silly either in or out of context. Chief among these being crates filled with ammo.
Today, when we play our epic cinematic masterpieces ammo is typically found in the most obvious places, off the bodies of the fallen. Some games take this process of ammo collection and make it an mini game in and of itself, such as recent PC gaming darling Crysis. There, a dedicated press of the action key is required before you can even pick up the ammo. In games such as Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2- The Fall of Troy, the acquiring of ammo is so automatic that not even a sound effect chimes in to mark your pickups.
Meanwhile, in Half-Life, you smash an man sized crate with a crowbar to find exactly one rocket inside. This crate, logically enough, being located within an office complex.
As a staff member of an office complex I can say with great certainty, though not complete, that I have never once seen a missile fall out of a crate.
The beauty of the "smash the crate" action was, however, that it gussied up a the age old tradition of opening the treasure chest with something that felt very real and tactile.
I could list the other achievements of Half-Life- its two dozen different weapons, its unshifting perspective, its realistic level design, its lengthy playtime, its excellent multiplayer, and its fantastic expansion packs- but they all pale to the fact that Half-Life was the first polished shooter.
Compared to the other games I'll be running down on this countdown list, Half-Life was the only title that was feature complete right out of the box. There are no showstopping bugs, there is no need to wait for user content or patches to fix the game, and- most importantly- none of its mechanics are half baked.
Here's an example:
The Health/Armor Stations.
Bungie's Marathon games, forever landlocked on Mac platforms, were the first noteworthy titles to make use of wall mounted Medkits, despite the actual forefather of the concept being a rightfully forgotten title called Corridor 7. Marathon let the player recharge their energy at these vending machines at will.
What Bungie forgot, however, was providing the player with any other means of regenerating life. It became easy to trap yourself in a nigh unwinnable situation because you entered a level with barely any life and no Med station in sight for a good half hour or so. Furthermore, there was absolutely no risk involved in any Marathon map once these stations were discovered. Players could simply take a few hits from a fight, run back to the health teat, then recklessly charge back into the fray with nary a consequence.
Foreshadowing of modern FPS health systems I suppose.
Half-Life, though, offered players the sanctuary of the teat fairly frequently but with a finite number of health points each could bestow. Rather than seeing each health unit as something to suckle on through the entire mission, each had to be used sparingly get the most out of them. A succinct example of Valves "refine not innovate" philosophy.
Although I've claimed much ado about how much was included within the game itself, I can't deny its modding scene saved that game from being just another notch on the bedpost of PC gaming's "unappreciated gems".
Half-Life did give us Counter Strike after all. It also begot: Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat, Vampire Slayer, Action Half-Life, The Opera, They Hunger, Deathmatch Classic, and at least 30 different single player games I can barely remember playing.
In short, that single game could provide someone with enough content to last them at least a decade of games.
It offered me far more, it introduced me to a friend.
Half-Life cannot be undersold in its importance of shaping games we play now.
Go to www.steampowered.com and pick it up for ten bucks. It's the best money you'll have ever spent on a game.
It's an unsurprising choice most folks make when noting their "top games" lists. It's an anachronistic choice when made today though. For our supposedly refined taste in games now, many of the elements in Half-Life are just plain silly either in or out of context. Chief among these being crates filled with ammo.
Today, when we play our epic cinematic masterpieces ammo is typically found in the most obvious places, off the bodies of the fallen. Some games take this process of ammo collection and make it an mini game in and of itself, such as recent PC gaming darling Crysis. There, a dedicated press of the action key is required before you can even pick up the ammo. In games such as Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2- The Fall of Troy, the acquiring of ammo is so automatic that not even a sound effect chimes in to mark your pickups.
Meanwhile, in Half-Life, you smash an man sized crate with a crowbar to find exactly one rocket inside. This crate, logically enough, being located within an office complex.
As a staff member of an office complex I can say with great certainty, though not complete, that I have never once seen a missile fall out of a crate.
The beauty of the "smash the crate" action was, however, that it gussied up a the age old tradition of opening the treasure chest with something that felt very real and tactile.
I could list the other achievements of Half-Life- its two dozen different weapons, its unshifting perspective, its realistic level design, its lengthy playtime, its excellent multiplayer, and its fantastic expansion packs- but they all pale to the fact that Half-Life was the first polished shooter.
Compared to the other games I'll be running down on this countdown list, Half-Life was the only title that was feature complete right out of the box. There are no showstopping bugs, there is no need to wait for user content or patches to fix the game, and- most importantly- none of its mechanics are half baked.
Here's an example:
The Health/Armor Stations.
Bungie's Marathon games, forever landlocked on Mac platforms, were the first noteworthy titles to make use of wall mounted Medkits, despite the actual forefather of the concept being a rightfully forgotten title called Corridor 7. Marathon let the player recharge their energy at these vending machines at will.
What Bungie forgot, however, was providing the player with any other means of regenerating life. It became easy to trap yourself in a nigh unwinnable situation because you entered a level with barely any life and no Med station in sight for a good half hour or so. Furthermore, there was absolutely no risk involved in any Marathon map once these stations were discovered. Players could simply take a few hits from a fight, run back to the health teat, then recklessly charge back into the fray with nary a consequence.
Foreshadowing of modern FPS health systems I suppose.
Half-Life, though, offered players the sanctuary of the teat fairly frequently but with a finite number of health points each could bestow. Rather than seeing each health unit as something to suckle on through the entire mission, each had to be used sparingly get the most out of them. A succinct example of Valves "refine not innovate" philosophy.
Although I've claimed much ado about how much was included within the game itself, I can't deny its modding scene saved that game from being just another notch on the bedpost of PC gaming's "unappreciated gems".
Half-Life did give us Counter Strike after all. It also begot: Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat, Vampire Slayer, Action Half-Life, The Opera, They Hunger, Deathmatch Classic, and at least 30 different single player games I can barely remember playing.
In short, that single game could provide someone with enough content to last them at least a decade of games.
It offered me far more, it introduced me to a friend.
Half-Life cannot be undersold in its importance of shaping games we play now.
Go to www.steampowered.com and pick it up for ten bucks. It's the best money you'll have ever spent on a game.
2/25/10
A List PART 1
So recently I've been getting asked by friends (they are not imaginary I swear) what I consider my tops five games to be.
It's a simple question really, as everyone is capable of rattling off a list of favorites at will. But then I got to thinking how could I objectively examine each game I've played based upon my own criteria of what is a "good game". This then creates the matter of complete subjectivity again and thus creates a temporal paradox but whatever.
Thus here were my three criteria when composing this list:
Design Quality: Is the control sound? Are the game rules in place logical and fun to follow? Is there a consistency throughout the ruleset?
Personal Significance: Is this game "important" to me? How have other games impacted my ideas on games by the contents of this title?
Longevity: Am I still playing this game now? Will I still be playing and talking about this game in the future? What impacts will this game have on future titles and even my life?
I can't deny this entire deal is as pompous and masturbatory as possible.
Without further adieu, onto the list.
5: Rock Band (Franchise)
Rock Band is a direct insult to both video games and music. At it's core, the game is a simple recreation of Simon where, at a perfect level of play, your only real decision making comes through where to double your points for a short time. Thus, it spits directly in the face of the entire design philosophy of player "agency" which countless games have been striving for over the past two decades.
For real musicians, the game has become a defacto signifier of "selling out". There is absolutely no real musical benefit for becoming "good" at the game, nor does it even come close to simulating the countless agonizing hours I have no doubt many musicians undergo when learning those opening notes of "Stairway to Heaven".
Despite all of this, it is a game I've clocked- were you to average it out over time- at least an hour a day for over two years. In terms of being a "most played game", Rock Band is- undoubtedly- it.
Games are, of course, about escapist fantasy. Could anybody deny the power of the "rockstar" fantasy? Rock Band, ultimately a futile exercise in chasing after a higher score, is second life in a box.
Let's go into a little backstory everyone loved so dearly with my FEAR 2 review.
It was January 2006 and I had just returned from winter break back to Fitchburg State. Once again, I was coming back from the mall with the now defunct Circuit City with a new game in tow. This game, know as "Guitar Hero", was a monstrosity few had ever seen before. It wasn't simply a "game" you bought for ninety bucks. No, this was a whole new beast.
It's oversized crate contained a guitar which, as related to me by one of my floormates in the front seat, looked "Like something meant for preschoolers". He wasn't incorrect, of course, but I believe his perspective might have been a touch jaded. He was, after all, an actual guitarist.
The ride to the mall Gamestop is a rather surreal experience in retrospect, feeling as if it took place almost a lifetime ago. Buying the game was essentially a fluke in and of itself. Being a fan of any title with a big controller attached to it, a quick glance over an online review was enough to convince me to check it out.
That evening, as the wails of a poorly covered Boston song echoed the halls, I had found a new addiction.
Guitar Hero 1 was a very flawed game technically, resulting in an absolutely skewered difficulty curve when it came to jumping between skill levels. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 so at the time it was borderline nirvana.
Everyone on the floor had a different song they enjoyed hearing and playing. Roommate one, Matt, always enjoyed clicking along with Ziggy Stardust while roommate two, Dan, would end up singing along to Stellar unconsciously.
It created a sort of "meta" game for us. Me and Matt would trade scores back and forth on Ziggy while Dan would occasionally play along on his acoustic. At the same time, it was just so restrictive. "Man," Matt would typically quip, "they really need some drums in this." I, meanwhile, would wonder why I couldn't play the bass.
Guitar Hero 2 entered the scene with less fanfare than the first. I believed I'd gotten my fill of the first game and the tracklist of the second was average at best, but the addition of a second player made the experience far more interesting if only to have different tracks to play with.
When Rock Band was released in November of 2007, I remember driving through almost blizzard like conditions to get the boxed instrument set. While the GH series hinted at a sort of "meta" experience, Rock Band was a new world.
I found, connected and fell out with an entire group of friends due to the game. Even typing that sentence now creates a rather nostalgic headrush. Booting up the game for the first time and hitting the opening lick of "Mississippi Queen", complete with the clack of the drumsticks and the off-tempo singing of a lost friend, still resonates with me.
I can even remember the song I was singing the night shit really hit the fan: "Pretend We're Dead". A fitting anthem.
Even now, that group long since gone, I still chip away with my plastic guitar. Last summer I journeyed into Boston with some old high school friends to play the game with some of the developers and other fans at the Hancock Theater. As we played Foreplay/Longtime with the audience clapping and booing in time, the dissipation between the reality and fantasy was complete. It's more than a game and it's far more than a feeling I guess.
STAY TUNED FOR THE NEXT PART
It's a simple question really, as everyone is capable of rattling off a list of favorites at will. But then I got to thinking how could I objectively examine each game I've played based upon my own criteria of what is a "good game". This then creates the matter of complete subjectivity again and thus creates a temporal paradox but whatever.
Thus here were my three criteria when composing this list:
Design Quality: Is the control sound? Are the game rules in place logical and fun to follow? Is there a consistency throughout the ruleset?
Personal Significance: Is this game "important" to me? How have other games impacted my ideas on games by the contents of this title?
Longevity: Am I still playing this game now? Will I still be playing and talking about this game in the future? What impacts will this game have on future titles and even my life?
I can't deny this entire deal is as pompous and masturbatory as possible.
Without further adieu, onto the list.
5: Rock Band (Franchise)
Rock Band is a direct insult to both video games and music. At it's core, the game is a simple recreation of Simon where, at a perfect level of play, your only real decision making comes through where to double your points for a short time. Thus, it spits directly in the face of the entire design philosophy of player "agency" which countless games have been striving for over the past two decades.
For real musicians, the game has become a defacto signifier of "selling out". There is absolutely no real musical benefit for becoming "good" at the game, nor does it even come close to simulating the countless agonizing hours I have no doubt many musicians undergo when learning those opening notes of "Stairway to Heaven".
Despite all of this, it is a game I've clocked- were you to average it out over time- at least an hour a day for over two years. In terms of being a "most played game", Rock Band is- undoubtedly- it.
Games are, of course, about escapist fantasy. Could anybody deny the power of the "rockstar" fantasy? Rock Band, ultimately a futile exercise in chasing after a higher score, is second life in a box.
Let's go into a little backstory everyone loved so dearly with my FEAR 2 review.
It was January 2006 and I had just returned from winter break back to Fitchburg State. Once again, I was coming back from the mall with the now defunct Circuit City with a new game in tow. This game, know as "Guitar Hero", was a monstrosity few had ever seen before. It wasn't simply a "game" you bought for ninety bucks. No, this was a whole new beast.
It's oversized crate contained a guitar which, as related to me by one of my floormates in the front seat, looked "Like something meant for preschoolers". He wasn't incorrect, of course, but I believe his perspective might have been a touch jaded. He was, after all, an actual guitarist.
The ride to the mall Gamestop is a rather surreal experience in retrospect, feeling as if it took place almost a lifetime ago. Buying the game was essentially a fluke in and of itself. Being a fan of any title with a big controller attached to it, a quick glance over an online review was enough to convince me to check it out.
That evening, as the wails of a poorly covered Boston song echoed the halls, I had found a new addiction.
Guitar Hero 1 was a very flawed game technically, resulting in an absolutely skewered difficulty curve when it came to jumping between skill levels. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 so at the time it was borderline nirvana.
Everyone on the floor had a different song they enjoyed hearing and playing. Roommate one, Matt, always enjoyed clicking along with Ziggy Stardust while roommate two, Dan, would end up singing along to Stellar unconsciously.
It created a sort of "meta" game for us. Me and Matt would trade scores back and forth on Ziggy while Dan would occasionally play along on his acoustic. At the same time, it was just so restrictive. "Man," Matt would typically quip, "they really need some drums in this." I, meanwhile, would wonder why I couldn't play the bass.
Guitar Hero 2 entered the scene with less fanfare than the first. I believed I'd gotten my fill of the first game and the tracklist of the second was average at best, but the addition of a second player made the experience far more interesting if only to have different tracks to play with.
When Rock Band was released in November of 2007, I remember driving through almost blizzard like conditions to get the boxed instrument set. While the GH series hinted at a sort of "meta" experience, Rock Band was a new world.
I found, connected and fell out with an entire group of friends due to the game. Even typing that sentence now creates a rather nostalgic headrush. Booting up the game for the first time and hitting the opening lick of "Mississippi Queen", complete with the clack of the drumsticks and the off-tempo singing of a lost friend, still resonates with me.
I can even remember the song I was singing the night shit really hit the fan: "Pretend We're Dead". A fitting anthem.
Even now, that group long since gone, I still chip away with my plastic guitar. Last summer I journeyed into Boston with some old high school friends to play the game with some of the developers and other fans at the Hancock Theater. As we played Foreplay/Longtime with the audience clapping and booing in time, the dissipation between the reality and fantasy was complete. It's more than a game and it's far more than a feeling I guess.
STAY TUNED FOR THE NEXT PART
12/9/09
I could just go outside.
Let’s talk about bad games for a moment.
As I’ve jokingly said in the past on this blog, PC gaming died somewhere around 2003-2004. I guess somewhere around the point Half-Life 2 was released. After the subliminal PC experience that was Half-Life, Valve realized that lighting had genuinely struck and that the odds were forever stacked against them. After all, it’s impossible for anyone to follow up the best single and multiplayer action games (for novelty’s sake we’re going to consider Counter-Strike part of Half-Life because it is) with another smash mega hit. So for six years Valve toiled and toiled to make the most polished game out on the market. No chaff was kept for their little darling as every individual piece was honed and crafted into a refined diamond that nobody could say with a straight face was “bad” in the traditional sense.
But that’s what Half-Life 2 is: a bad game.
It’s not the only game guilty of this sin, as we’re going to find out we can blame Halo and the rise of the modern gaming console as one of the many sinners that led us to this place, but it’s one of the three games I wanted to focus on talking about what the current standards of refinement and mass production have wrought in the gaming industry.
Compared to Half-Life, HL2 is a treat for the eyes, a fantastic soundscape, and a wonderful experience. None of these factors really matter though as story is ultimately irrelevant for a game. At this point, we come to a critical juncture in our industry where game is either about the gameplay or its story. Tragically, these separate pieces seem to have been impossible to recreate since Deus Ex in 2000.
For all the smoke and mirrors of a living world, HL2 ultimately made you into a mobile camera that relied on the stale gimmicks of boxy room after boxy room setpiece wherein a different gimmick separating you from the next door.
I can’t fully blame Valve though. Halo’s release in 2001 marked a permanent shift in the design of action games. Bungie stated themselves that goal of Halo was to make you enjoy “those first 30 seconds” of gameplay over and over again in every segment of combat. A noble goal considering those precious moment to moment experiences are what make up good games. Unfortunately, developers were too blindsided by the fact Bungie actually made an FPS work on the terribly controlling consoles that they completely missed the higher goals of the game design.
Instead of games with satisfying core mechanics built around a series of varying challenges to those mechanics, we instead game poorly scripted and paced movies with a series of base vaudeville vignettes of gameplay.
It shouldn’t be unsurprising, after all, considering the rise of console gaming within the sixth generation of systems. These are machines designed for quick and expendable single player games, as one must always be motivated to buy new carts to keep playing, and party oriented multiplayer games, as nobody wants to legitimately lose- heaven forbid.
Let’s look at a single player example- Bioshock.
Bioshock follows the Halo school of design to a T wherein the player will continue
to experience the first 30 seconds of gameplay every moment their in the game- because what they see in those first 30 seconds is the entire game.
Several of the more prominent members of the BS team were responsible for the absolutely stellar System Shock series and the granddaddy of all modern games Deus Ex. With such a pedigree behind them, the fact it’s a horrible game should come as a surprise.
What marks Bioshock as a critical failure- beyond its heavy handed story that rehashes System Shock 2 completely- is that it’s a no risk game.
If you die at any point your life will be completely regenerated. It’s not like such a regeneration should ever be necessary however, as you eventually become a jack of all trades in all weapons capable of regenerating your life constantly. Even then, all your weapons you acquire except for the wrench are rendered useless.
More damningly, I believe, is the revelation that your single free option in the game- to kill or not kill the kids- is essentially a wizard of oz style façade. You must always save the girls because that will net you the best tangible benefits. This is not an actual choice in essence, it is a linear target range with poor bump mapping and under rendered hallways powered by the Unreal Engine.
Remember, you certainly can limit yourself from all of this meta-knowledge to get into some bullshit thing like “the flavor of the game” but that’s a completely dismissable response. You are playing a game wherein the goal is to win. If that is the most effective path to victory, you will take it every time because it simply works.
System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, however, encourage a similar style of min/maxing that actually offers many different choices and actual consequences to your actions. Taking that new high powered rifle? You’ll need to make sure you’re actually trained in that skill. Take a new magic power but don’t like it any more? Too bad, so sad, it’s forever bound to your body and you’ve wasted a slot. In short, every decision you make has weight and the potential to forever screw up or benefit your experience.
On the multiplayer forefront, we have a game such as Call of Duty 6. Some will call it Modern Warfare 2 but they are liars, it is Call of Duty 6.
Here we have a shooter that takes its cues from Smash Brothers and Marvel Vs Capcom 2 wherein the guiding design principal is “throw enough crap in there and the game will automatically sort itself out”. Of course, I’m being unfair to MvC2 here, which is actually a very good game with an incredible level of potential skill on display. The SSB comparison is far more apt.
While Call of Duty 4 was actually incredibly well balanced across all platforms, which each system having its own different “power weapons” and such, CoD 6 is a game that discourages skillful playing. Rather than having players learn map routes and other tactics that have been standard fare since Counter-Strike was still relevant, CoD 6 believes you should remain seated at all times. Want to see folks coming? Attach a radar to your gun. Killed enough folks? Congratulations, you can automatically end the game.
For a pickup and play game, it’s fine for what it is. If anything the developers should be congratulated for making a game where anyone can win and where there is absolutely no viable cover other than the map boundaries.
However, such features do not make for a game of skill.
Unlike Quake 3, wherein a good player can survive indefinitely based on their skills alone, a good player in CoD 6 will eventually just be overrun or run out of ammo. With death more or less an “inevitability”, what’s the point? Why not just take your chances on a slot machine? It’d produce similar results in determining how often you won or lost.
On the opposite end of this multiplayer development spectrum is Quake 3, a game with incredibility limited options that produces a limitless skill cap. Any defeat you suffer in Quake is through your own horrible playing and not some sky god becoming bored with you. A shut out of 50-0 isn’t unheard of in Quake a good players will continue to dominate the playing field through a variety of skills most “semi-realistic” sorely lack (thus resulting in a whole generation of really subpar players but I digress).
This trend of bad games isn’t just limited to action games mind you, look at any RPG out on the market now. Compared to the glory days of rouge and nethack, games such as Mass Effect and Fallout 3 change your diaper for you as you play.
A game like nethack will take years for the average player to complete. Furthermore, every defeat they suffer will force them to replay the entire game over again. Unlike snoozes such as the Fable series, Oblivion, or any of the Zelda games from Ocaraina onwards, nethack can not and will not be completed by brute force attempts.
Sure with the typical Zelda you can just hold B and eventually Gannon will defeat himself, but attempting to fight flat footed in a typical hack session will result in you cleaning your entrails off someone else’s blade. That is assuming you don’t drink the “wrong” potion and accidentally kill yourself before the first enemy.
In short kids, games really are getting worse today in many ways. There are still diamonds in the rough, of course, but their numbers are dwindling. The defense of “it’s just fun” isn’t a good enough reason anymore. Sure, I can read a Harlequin romance or watch any one of the “Scary/Disaster/X” movies and said I “enjoyed them for what they were”, but those are all infantile justifications of either bad taste or guilty pleasures. If you want a more productive use of your gaming time, look for some classics and give yourself a real challenge.
Here, I’m such a nice guy I’m even offering links to two good games that will never age:
http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/info/shareware.php
http://www.nethack.org/
As I’ve jokingly said in the past on this blog, PC gaming died somewhere around 2003-2004. I guess somewhere around the point Half-Life 2 was released. After the subliminal PC experience that was Half-Life, Valve realized that lighting had genuinely struck and that the odds were forever stacked against them. After all, it’s impossible for anyone to follow up the best single and multiplayer action games (for novelty’s sake we’re going to consider Counter-Strike part of Half-Life because it is) with another smash mega hit. So for six years Valve toiled and toiled to make the most polished game out on the market. No chaff was kept for their little darling as every individual piece was honed and crafted into a refined diamond that nobody could say with a straight face was “bad” in the traditional sense.
But that’s what Half-Life 2 is: a bad game.
It’s not the only game guilty of this sin, as we’re going to find out we can blame Halo and the rise of the modern gaming console as one of the many sinners that led us to this place, but it’s one of the three games I wanted to focus on talking about what the current standards of refinement and mass production have wrought in the gaming industry.
Compared to Half-Life, HL2 is a treat for the eyes, a fantastic soundscape, and a wonderful experience. None of these factors really matter though as story is ultimately irrelevant for a game. At this point, we come to a critical juncture in our industry where game is either about the gameplay or its story. Tragically, these separate pieces seem to have been impossible to recreate since Deus Ex in 2000.
For all the smoke and mirrors of a living world, HL2 ultimately made you into a mobile camera that relied on the stale gimmicks of boxy room after boxy room setpiece wherein a different gimmick separating you from the next door.
I can’t fully blame Valve though. Halo’s release in 2001 marked a permanent shift in the design of action games. Bungie stated themselves that goal of Halo was to make you enjoy “those first 30 seconds” of gameplay over and over again in every segment of combat. A noble goal considering those precious moment to moment experiences are what make up good games. Unfortunately, developers were too blindsided by the fact Bungie actually made an FPS work on the terribly controlling consoles that they completely missed the higher goals of the game design.
Instead of games with satisfying core mechanics built around a series of varying challenges to those mechanics, we instead game poorly scripted and paced movies with a series of base vaudeville vignettes of gameplay.
It shouldn’t be unsurprising, after all, considering the rise of console gaming within the sixth generation of systems. These are machines designed for quick and expendable single player games, as one must always be motivated to buy new carts to keep playing, and party oriented multiplayer games, as nobody wants to legitimately lose- heaven forbid.
Let’s look at a single player example- Bioshock.
Bioshock follows the Halo school of design to a T wherein the player will continue
to experience the first 30 seconds of gameplay every moment their in the game- because what they see in those first 30 seconds is the entire game.
Several of the more prominent members of the BS team were responsible for the absolutely stellar System Shock series and the granddaddy of all modern games Deus Ex. With such a pedigree behind them, the fact it’s a horrible game should come as a surprise.
What marks Bioshock as a critical failure- beyond its heavy handed story that rehashes System Shock 2 completely- is that it’s a no risk game.
If you die at any point your life will be completely regenerated. It’s not like such a regeneration should ever be necessary however, as you eventually become a jack of all trades in all weapons capable of regenerating your life constantly. Even then, all your weapons you acquire except for the wrench are rendered useless.
More damningly, I believe, is the revelation that your single free option in the game- to kill or not kill the kids- is essentially a wizard of oz style façade. You must always save the girls because that will net you the best tangible benefits. This is not an actual choice in essence, it is a linear target range with poor bump mapping and under rendered hallways powered by the Unreal Engine.
Remember, you certainly can limit yourself from all of this meta-knowledge to get into some bullshit thing like “the flavor of the game” but that’s a completely dismissable response. You are playing a game wherein the goal is to win. If that is the most effective path to victory, you will take it every time because it simply works.
System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, however, encourage a similar style of min/maxing that actually offers many different choices and actual consequences to your actions. Taking that new high powered rifle? You’ll need to make sure you’re actually trained in that skill. Take a new magic power but don’t like it any more? Too bad, so sad, it’s forever bound to your body and you’ve wasted a slot. In short, every decision you make has weight and the potential to forever screw up or benefit your experience.
On the multiplayer forefront, we have a game such as Call of Duty 6. Some will call it Modern Warfare 2 but they are liars, it is Call of Duty 6.
Here we have a shooter that takes its cues from Smash Brothers and Marvel Vs Capcom 2 wherein the guiding design principal is “throw enough crap in there and the game will automatically sort itself out”. Of course, I’m being unfair to MvC2 here, which is actually a very good game with an incredible level of potential skill on display. The SSB comparison is far more apt.
While Call of Duty 4 was actually incredibly well balanced across all platforms, which each system having its own different “power weapons” and such, CoD 6 is a game that discourages skillful playing. Rather than having players learn map routes and other tactics that have been standard fare since Counter-Strike was still relevant, CoD 6 believes you should remain seated at all times. Want to see folks coming? Attach a radar to your gun. Killed enough folks? Congratulations, you can automatically end the game.
For a pickup and play game, it’s fine for what it is. If anything the developers should be congratulated for making a game where anyone can win and where there is absolutely no viable cover other than the map boundaries.
However, such features do not make for a game of skill.
Unlike Quake 3, wherein a good player can survive indefinitely based on their skills alone, a good player in CoD 6 will eventually just be overrun or run out of ammo. With death more or less an “inevitability”, what’s the point? Why not just take your chances on a slot machine? It’d produce similar results in determining how often you won or lost.
On the opposite end of this multiplayer development spectrum is Quake 3, a game with incredibility limited options that produces a limitless skill cap. Any defeat you suffer in Quake is through your own horrible playing and not some sky god becoming bored with you. A shut out of 50-0 isn’t unheard of in Quake a good players will continue to dominate the playing field through a variety of skills most “semi-realistic” sorely lack (thus resulting in a whole generation of really subpar players but I digress).
This trend of bad games isn’t just limited to action games mind you, look at any RPG out on the market now. Compared to the glory days of rouge and nethack, games such as Mass Effect and Fallout 3 change your diaper for you as you play.
A game like nethack will take years for the average player to complete. Furthermore, every defeat they suffer will force them to replay the entire game over again. Unlike snoozes such as the Fable series, Oblivion, or any of the Zelda games from Ocaraina onwards, nethack can not and will not be completed by brute force attempts.
Sure with the typical Zelda you can just hold B and eventually Gannon will defeat himself, but attempting to fight flat footed in a typical hack session will result in you cleaning your entrails off someone else’s blade. That is assuming you don’t drink the “wrong” potion and accidentally kill yourself before the first enemy.
In short kids, games really are getting worse today in many ways. There are still diamonds in the rough, of course, but their numbers are dwindling. The defense of “it’s just fun” isn’t a good enough reason anymore. Sure, I can read a Harlequin romance or watch any one of the “Scary/Disaster/X” movies and said I “enjoyed them for what they were”, but those are all infantile justifications of either bad taste or guilty pleasures. If you want a more productive use of your gaming time, look for some classics and give yourself a real challenge.
Here, I’m such a nice guy I’m even offering links to two good games that will never age:
http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/info/shareware.php
http://www.nethack.org/
5/25/09
We can be bionic heroes, just for one day.
Goddamn has it been a long time. Sorry about that. Little thing called life tends to get in the way of whining about vidja games.
Anyways, the topic of today is the recently released Bionic Commando for the 360/PS3.
As with all of these posts, let me begin by telling you a story of a man I knew when I was young... wait scratch that, sounds a bit too familiar.
Anyways, most people will reminisce that their first memory of the BC series was on the NES with the titular first entry of the series. Archaic by today's discriminating taste (HOPE YOU ENJOY DYING IN ONE HIT PUNKASS), the game nevertheless managed to remain with gaming's collective memory for one simple reason.
It was the first game where you got to see Hitler's head explode.
While Wolfenstein 3d would eventually perfect the dictator murder simulation years later, Bionic Commando wormed its way into the hearts of 80s children everywhere for their first real taste of video game gore.
None of this matters to myself really, since my birthdate of 1987 was the year of the games release.
Instead, I would first gain an appreciation for the title years later with the Gameboy Color psudeo-sequel and series reboot entitled the same exact thing.
Using rotoscoped sprites, the title was a visual powerhouse for the little handheld at the time and presented a ball-stompingly difficult challenge that took me a good few months to play through.
Were I to play it now, thanks to the power of the internets ability to never forget, I'd probably clear it within the hour. My smug self assertiveness now aside, I was pretty terrible at games years ago.
Figuring the Gameboy title was a warmup for an upcoming N64 or Playstation game, I waited for a few months for any further news but was returned with only broken dreams and dead silence.
Since it was a handheld title, I left my memories of it to rot.
It wasn't until 2008 that I was reminded of that little game again when developer GRIN and publisher Capcom announced they were going to relaunch the Bionic Commando brand with a new current gen title and a bonus "mini" game through various download services.
Intrigued by the trailers, I watched with fascination about this new celebration of a well-loved friend returning home looked nothing like the girl I fell in love with. Essentially, Capcom collectively put their fingers in their ears over the existence over the GBC title and GRIN similarly responded with a collective shrug.
And thus, a new sequel to Bionic Commando was born entitled... Bionic Commando.
Keeping in mind the black sheep of the series, the GBC title, was also entitled the same. So basicly the Bionic Commando series has three games all called "Bionic Commando". At least Capcom has kept some consistency somewhere through the games.
The mini game released online, thankfully subtitled "Rearmed", was a reimaging of the NES game's 2d gameplay and applying, I dare to say again, our more modern and refined gaming sensibilities to the table.
It was a fair good appetite wheter that did add in some modern niceities such as a life bar and the ability to actually play it. Above all, I think, it did sell me on the idea of purple space men bringing back Hitler from the dead was a plot that actually matter and had some particality. Nevermind the fact it's never explained how Hitler can exist in a world so different from our own, especially considering his body was burned to a crisp after he shot himself, but SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP.
I was most impressed with the little title was the music. Reference both the NES and the GBC titles of the series into one modern day game which is at once a tribue to the era of bombastic 16 Bit consoles/DOS era games and incorporates all of the lessons in pacing and build up composers have learned since then.
Fitting then, that the current gen Bionic Commando plays the original theme we've heard across all these games in a melodic piano score with none of the digitized sounds we've heard from the days of yore beyond the fact it's original composure date is probably somewhere in the mid 80s.
Hearing the opening soundtrack is a fitting lead in to what Bionic Commando is: a eulogy to retro gaming.
Apparently, according to sources I don't care enough to cite, Bionic Commando's (which henceforth I'll call BC 3 for the sake of my sanity) production run was dropped from over 2 million units to just under several hundred thousand. While most would claim that it's a sign Capcom knew the game was bad, I beg to differ.
If anything, it shows their foresight after the Lost Planet debacle.
They know BC3 will be a niche product. After all, the plot is an incomprehensible mess unless you've played the Rearmed game, read an online comic series revealing the events prior to this game, and have read the manual before playing.
Most would say that such a poorly handled storyline should deduct imaginary review points, but I'll beg to differ.
It's, once again, a fitting eulogy to retro gaming.
Did we ever really know about Mario, Bowser, Sonic, and whatever other character was being marketed to us with neon colors and impact fonts? No, instead it was all infered through perhiphery media we consumed or, heaven forbid, read in the manual.
As Nathan RAD Spencer leaps from tall buildings with a single bound and questions the very nature of the human condition (one of these things is a blatant lie), we can't help but shake the feeling he's trapped within a 2D world and accutely aware of his dire situation.
All around him are blue clouds which, upon contact, instantly kill the player with nary a second through. Water forms an ever present and looming danger the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 90s. Death, perhaps most damningly, not only sends the player back several minutes in time but also undoes everything they'd done up to the point of croaking.
In short, it is a platformer with the camera shoved in the wrong location.
What's impressive is how the game handles all of the influences of the old with the requirements of the new. Case in point, the "collectibles".
Scattered throughout the game are little icons of NES Bionic Commando items that serve no purpose other than unlocking an concept art and achievements. Are they unnecessary? Completely. None of the character even reference them during their frequent motivation monologues. Instead, they're placed because GRIN knew you as a player couldn't avoid their siren song. They tap into the childlike fascination you once held with the older games.
They also hit upon your childhood frustrations of being required to turn off the console and go to dinner by having you loose all your trinkets everytime you bite the dust. There is no progress to be saved after all... you died, too bad, so sad.
Spencer, voiced by the jack-of-all-trades Mike Patton, also serves as a surrogate for the player in that post modern way we've come to expect from franchise reboots.
Sure, he performs all the motions becoming for an action hero, but his sarcastic smirks of self satsifaction every time he knocks a foot trooper into the abyss and his cries of "who's next" every time he kills a small platoon of soliders reflect that ever repressed id of the gamer currently holding the controller.
The game is challenging through the conventional means classic gaming, meaning lots of enemies and nary an item in sight, while never once assuming you're a moron at the game. Sure, game game has the obligatory "context senstitive" clues require of all modern gaming but I cannot but help but be impressed by the fact it never once bullshits you. Every time you die will be due to your own ineptitue with the controls. Every time you fight a boss, you will be required to learn their weak points. Most importantly, every time you fail you get a little bit better at the game.
Nathan's journey to redemption then, for you see he's a national traitor at the begining of the game but given pardon on the basis of being A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO STOP THE TERRORISTS HELL YEAH, is the journey of the Bionic Commando franchise and the player's experience as a whole. It is a classically challenging game and elegant in all the right ways.
Long dormant, the player and Nathan must teeth their way back into the the habits of the old through an opening mission where they're castrated from their arm. Here, Nathan must learn to become a warrior in a strict game-only way. The player, however, must learn the basics of survival in a world that will not stop for them. Upon reuniting with the THE ARM, Nathan and the player are free. You may be guided by a disembodied voice from time to time, but for the majority of the game you and Nathan are entirely alone. Through this loneliness, then, comes your skill naturally as a player.
For those reasons, the title is bound to tank hard.
Going back to that main theme then, it's as though the composer knew this might just be the last time we'll ever see the Bionic Commando property and thus devised a theme which is at once heroic and sad. As you and Nathan triumph against all odds, victory will leave you with a sense of nihlistic complacement. You beat the game and Nathan arose to his rightful place as a bionic legend once more, yes, but that's also the end of him and the era of retro platformers.
His game hints at modern features which are bound supplant the classic ones in the next title, or patch even, therefore the end of BC3 also signifies the end of a franchise.
You could argue that the multiplayer mode would be the game's saving grace, but it too echoes a world of games that are no more. If anything, I'm reminded of Quakeworld with it where players are featureless characters bearing brightly colored suits of armor. Only the skilled prevailed while the scrubs are left to toil with a poor starting weapon and being as frail as a glass vase. It's fun, certainly, but not for the faint of heart.
Fitting then that the slow piano theme plays over the multiplayer menu.
In short, I'd check out the game if you feel up for a little challege and can put up with its endless load screens. In the end, you'll feel the same way as the David Bowie butchery I put as the subject line.
The game and you will champion the old ways gaming for a little while, but it's long past time for a burial. At least it's a viking send off.
Anyways, the topic of today is the recently released Bionic Commando for the 360/PS3.
As with all of these posts, let me begin by telling you a story of a man I knew when I was young... wait scratch that, sounds a bit too familiar.
Anyways, most people will reminisce that their first memory of the BC series was on the NES with the titular first entry of the series. Archaic by today's discriminating taste (HOPE YOU ENJOY DYING IN ONE HIT PUNKASS), the game nevertheless managed to remain with gaming's collective memory for one simple reason.
It was the first game where you got to see Hitler's head explode.
While Wolfenstein 3d would eventually perfect the dictator murder simulation years later, Bionic Commando wormed its way into the hearts of 80s children everywhere for their first real taste of video game gore.
None of this matters to myself really, since my birthdate of 1987 was the year of the games release.
Instead, I would first gain an appreciation for the title years later with the Gameboy Color psudeo-sequel and series reboot entitled the same exact thing.
Using rotoscoped sprites, the title was a visual powerhouse for the little handheld at the time and presented a ball-stompingly difficult challenge that took me a good few months to play through.
Were I to play it now, thanks to the power of the internets ability to never forget, I'd probably clear it within the hour. My smug self assertiveness now aside, I was pretty terrible at games years ago.
Figuring the Gameboy title was a warmup for an upcoming N64 or Playstation game, I waited for a few months for any further news but was returned with only broken dreams and dead silence.
Since it was a handheld title, I left my memories of it to rot.
It wasn't until 2008 that I was reminded of that little game again when developer GRIN and publisher Capcom announced they were going to relaunch the Bionic Commando brand with a new current gen title and a bonus "mini" game through various download services.
Intrigued by the trailers, I watched with fascination about this new celebration of a well-loved friend returning home looked nothing like the girl I fell in love with. Essentially, Capcom collectively put their fingers in their ears over the existence over the GBC title and GRIN similarly responded with a collective shrug.
And thus, a new sequel to Bionic Commando was born entitled... Bionic Commando.
Keeping in mind the black sheep of the series, the GBC title, was also entitled the same. So basicly the Bionic Commando series has three games all called "Bionic Commando". At least Capcom has kept some consistency somewhere through the games.
The mini game released online, thankfully subtitled "Rearmed", was a reimaging of the NES game's 2d gameplay and applying, I dare to say again, our more modern and refined gaming sensibilities to the table.
It was a fair good appetite wheter that did add in some modern niceities such as a life bar and the ability to actually play it. Above all, I think, it did sell me on the idea of purple space men bringing back Hitler from the dead was a plot that actually matter and had some particality. Nevermind the fact it's never explained how Hitler can exist in a world so different from our own, especially considering his body was burned to a crisp after he shot himself, but SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP.
I was most impressed with the little title was the music. Reference both the NES and the GBC titles of the series into one modern day game which is at once a tribue to the era of bombastic 16 Bit consoles/DOS era games and incorporates all of the lessons in pacing and build up composers have learned since then.
Fitting then, that the current gen Bionic Commando plays the original theme we've heard across all these games in a melodic piano score with none of the digitized sounds we've heard from the days of yore beyond the fact it's original composure date is probably somewhere in the mid 80s.
Hearing the opening soundtrack is a fitting lead in to what Bionic Commando is: a eulogy to retro gaming.
Apparently, according to sources I don't care enough to cite, Bionic Commando's (which henceforth I'll call BC 3 for the sake of my sanity) production run was dropped from over 2 million units to just under several hundred thousand. While most would claim that it's a sign Capcom knew the game was bad, I beg to differ.
If anything, it shows their foresight after the Lost Planet debacle.
They know BC3 will be a niche product. After all, the plot is an incomprehensible mess unless you've played the Rearmed game, read an online comic series revealing the events prior to this game, and have read the manual before playing.
Most would say that such a poorly handled storyline should deduct imaginary review points, but I'll beg to differ.
It's, once again, a fitting eulogy to retro gaming.
Did we ever really know about Mario, Bowser, Sonic, and whatever other character was being marketed to us with neon colors and impact fonts? No, instead it was all infered through perhiphery media we consumed or, heaven forbid, read in the manual.
As Nathan RAD Spencer leaps from tall buildings with a single bound and questions the very nature of the human condition (one of these things is a blatant lie), we can't help but shake the feeling he's trapped within a 2D world and accutely aware of his dire situation.
All around him are blue clouds which, upon contact, instantly kill the player with nary a second through. Water forms an ever present and looming danger the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 90s. Death, perhaps most damningly, not only sends the player back several minutes in time but also undoes everything they'd done up to the point of croaking.
In short, it is a platformer with the camera shoved in the wrong location.
What's impressive is how the game handles all of the influences of the old with the requirements of the new. Case in point, the "collectibles".
Scattered throughout the game are little icons of NES Bionic Commando items that serve no purpose other than unlocking an concept art and achievements. Are they unnecessary? Completely. None of the character even reference them during their frequent motivation monologues. Instead, they're placed because GRIN knew you as a player couldn't avoid their siren song. They tap into the childlike fascination you once held with the older games.
They also hit upon your childhood frustrations of being required to turn off the console and go to dinner by having you loose all your trinkets everytime you bite the dust. There is no progress to be saved after all... you died, too bad, so sad.
Spencer, voiced by the jack-of-all-trades Mike Patton, also serves as a surrogate for the player in that post modern way we've come to expect from franchise reboots.
Sure, he performs all the motions becoming for an action hero, but his sarcastic smirks of self satsifaction every time he knocks a foot trooper into the abyss and his cries of "who's next" every time he kills a small platoon of soliders reflect that ever repressed id of the gamer currently holding the controller.
The game is challenging through the conventional means classic gaming, meaning lots of enemies and nary an item in sight, while never once assuming you're a moron at the game. Sure, game game has the obligatory "context senstitive" clues require of all modern gaming but I cannot but help but be impressed by the fact it never once bullshits you. Every time you die will be due to your own ineptitue with the controls. Every time you fight a boss, you will be required to learn their weak points. Most importantly, every time you fail you get a little bit better at the game.
Nathan's journey to redemption then, for you see he's a national traitor at the begining of the game but given pardon on the basis of being A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO STOP THE TERRORISTS HELL YEAH, is the journey of the Bionic Commando franchise and the player's experience as a whole. It is a classically challenging game and elegant in all the right ways.
Long dormant, the player and Nathan must teeth their way back into the the habits of the old through an opening mission where they're castrated from their arm. Here, Nathan must learn to become a warrior in a strict game-only way. The player, however, must learn the basics of survival in a world that will not stop for them. Upon reuniting with the THE ARM, Nathan and the player are free. You may be guided by a disembodied voice from time to time, but for the majority of the game you and Nathan are entirely alone. Through this loneliness, then, comes your skill naturally as a player.
For those reasons, the title is bound to tank hard.
Going back to that main theme then, it's as though the composer knew this might just be the last time we'll ever see the Bionic Commando property and thus devised a theme which is at once heroic and sad. As you and Nathan triumph against all odds, victory will leave you with a sense of nihlistic complacement. You beat the game and Nathan arose to his rightful place as a bionic legend once more, yes, but that's also the end of him and the era of retro platformers.
His game hints at modern features which are bound supplant the classic ones in the next title, or patch even, therefore the end of BC3 also signifies the end of a franchise.
You could argue that the multiplayer mode would be the game's saving grace, but it too echoes a world of games that are no more. If anything, I'm reminded of Quakeworld with it where players are featureless characters bearing brightly colored suits of armor. Only the skilled prevailed while the scrubs are left to toil with a poor starting weapon and being as frail as a glass vase. It's fun, certainly, but not for the faint of heart.
Fitting then that the slow piano theme plays over the multiplayer menu.
In short, I'd check out the game if you feel up for a little challege and can put up with its endless load screens. In the end, you'll feel the same way as the David Bowie butchery I put as the subject line.
The game and you will champion the old ways gaming for a little while, but it's long past time for a burial. At least it's a viking send off.
4/17/09
I'm just angry cause a preteen teabagged me
Anyone who listens to me talk for a while knows that I'm interested in competitive gaming. This doesn't mean I'm good at games, but that I find the whole idea of competitive games fascinating.
Obviously, like everything else you've read here, my primary interest lies in competitive FPS games. But don't get me wrong, fighting and RTS games- the other two massive draws- have their own benefits and disadvantages. If you sat me down and told me to pick the genre of perfect skill, it'd be fighting games, but that's besides the point of my discussion for now.
Anyways, when it comes to competitive FPS games, one of the main problems with the whole genre is that no one can find a definitive game that incorporates all aspects of competitive play. Fans of team games have plenty of support of their titles such as Halo 3, Counter-Strike, and Call of Duty 4 while Twitch/Duel fans have the old standbys of Quake 3, Painkiller, and CPMA- though twitch games are going the way of the dodo right now.
So the question I ask every, how do we make a game that appeals to these diverse groups of people? Obviously this is impossible, so the next challenge would be to make one appeal to one group or the other. The tragic part of super competitive games are that what you see on the box are rarely what the game actually plays like.
Case in point, here's what Quake 3 should look like.
But, here's what many high level players see.
Suffice to say, it's a striking difference.
Console titles don't really suffer from this problem, as they're locked machines.
So, when making this ultimate game it's clear that a designer would need to focus on one platform or the other mainly in terms of thinking of how their ascetic will look.
Anyways, moving on to actual gameplay I'd argue for twitch midrange encounters that reward preparation. In short, the Quake model. Modern team based games rarely encourage map knowledge, while dueling based games require a certain intimacy with levels I feel is missing nowadays.
The main crux I want to get to is this, people will buy competitive games and watch them so long as they're pleasing to view. With Quake, the spaztastic nature of the game means many don't know what's going on unless they know how the game operate on an intimate level. Halo 3, on the other hand, can be picked up from casually watching. Of course, Halo has more than it's share of problems at the competitive level, but such is life.
Obviously, like everything else you've read here, my primary interest lies in competitive FPS games. But don't get me wrong, fighting and RTS games- the other two massive draws- have their own benefits and disadvantages. If you sat me down and told me to pick the genre of perfect skill, it'd be fighting games, but that's besides the point of my discussion for now.
Anyways, when it comes to competitive FPS games, one of the main problems with the whole genre is that no one can find a definitive game that incorporates all aspects of competitive play. Fans of team games have plenty of support of their titles such as Halo 3, Counter-Strike, and Call of Duty 4 while Twitch/Duel fans have the old standbys of Quake 3, Painkiller, and CPMA- though twitch games are going the way of the dodo right now.
So the question I ask every, how do we make a game that appeals to these diverse groups of people? Obviously this is impossible, so the next challenge would be to make one appeal to one group or the other. The tragic part of super competitive games are that what you see on the box are rarely what the game actually plays like.
Case in point, here's what Quake 3 should look like.
But, here's what many high level players see.
Suffice to say, it's a striking difference.
Console titles don't really suffer from this problem, as they're locked machines.
So, when making this ultimate game it's clear that a designer would need to focus on one platform or the other mainly in terms of thinking of how their ascetic will look.
Anyways, moving on to actual gameplay I'd argue for twitch midrange encounters that reward preparation. In short, the Quake model. Modern team based games rarely encourage map knowledge, while dueling based games require a certain intimacy with levels I feel is missing nowadays.
The main crux I want to get to is this, people will buy competitive games and watch them so long as they're pleasing to view. With Quake, the spaztastic nature of the game means many don't know what's going on unless they know how the game operate on an intimate level. Halo 3, on the other hand, can be picked up from casually watching. Of course, Halo has more than it's share of problems at the competitive level, but such is life.
3/13/09
Resident Malcom X
A GAME WITH SO MUCH TO SAY, IT'S GOING TO TAKE 2 PARTS!
Actually, in terms of what the game's really trying to communicate, there isn't much to say beyond "hey, hey, SHOOT EVERYTHING". What is of note, however, is the setting of Africa.
Accusations have been flung that the game is depicts largely uncomfortable images to the American public on the basis of the game being set in a "not-Africa" country.
I'm here to assert those accusations are entirely correct.
Were I to keep it brief, I could point to the fact that most of the monsters you shoot have been changed from outright dark skinned Somalians to a mix of Iranians and Quasi-Asian characters. Sure you still get the occasional jet black character, but for the most part your opposition has been bleached. Capcom was attempting to avoid something, there's obviously some basis to this argument.
Being that our game buying and playing public has never heard of PC games before (as they are dead you see, the tombstone reads somewhere around 2004), nobody remembers the game Delta Force Black Hawk Down. Based on the movie/operation of the same name, you played as Sgt. Joe Shmoe as he goes in to kill everyone in Africa in his quest to bring one single really evil African (you know so as he wears glasses, the heathen) to justice... lead justice. The game was fun and very much ahead of it's time, jingoistic worldview aside, as it played like a combination of Medal of Honor and Call of Duty 4 before such a game existed.
As you meandered about the African countryside killing rebels- I assume, as your only motivation to kill everyone is that the government dictates so- you'd inevitably end up blasting your way through countless shantytowns and villages. What's surprising, however, is that the game faithfully rendered women and children in these villages as well. Not only would they run away from you, they'd even insult and chuck rocks at you.
Fitting then, that your only interaction with them was violence. Not only could you shoot them, they could be killed without mercy or penalty.
Why am I talking about this game within the context of RE5? Well, both have a section where you need to dodge alligators so my digression isn't completely lost. Above that, however, is that RE5 lets you perform the same actions and actively encourages you to slaughter that ever present "other".
Let's take a typical boneheads defensive post about the game FROM THE INTERNET. It's scary I know, don't worry, I'll hold you. These are all from the same fellow and his responses to another person who thinks like myself:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blah blah blah his boring point goes on and on. Now, before we discuss how he's a hood short of attending a Klan rally, let's debunk the counter arguement many players will have: Resident Evil 4.
RE4 had you visit, as the sexy white man you were, a completely fictionalized version of Spain where peasant farmers still exist. Obviously the were infected with the monster virus and you need to kill everyone. One person on the web even put forward a very interesting argument that you were taking part in the Spanish Inquisition as all the bosses/royalty characters lived in luxury with exotic torture chambers while the pesants toiled the fields. I'm not one to argue with that assesment. The fact you explore villages, castles, dungeons, and caves only supports it further.
Thing is, however, every monster you fight genuinely looks like something inhuman. Case in point:
http://www.gamethink.net/IMG/jpg/re4_ps2_2005_villagers_attacking.jpg
They speak pig-latin Spanish, sure, but from that blurry image you can see they're set up completely inhuman.
Now, let's look at RE5:
http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/resident-evil-5-20070726113937477.jpg
A bit more realistic but, hey, it is Africa. I can dig it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj7pOOFcK5w&feature=related
Skip to around the 50 second mark, notice how they try to dodge a bullet by making the "kidnapper" character paler.
Nice try Capcom, you're not fooling anyone.
See this wouldn't be a big deal if the blonde girl was an established character. Problem is, what you see here is all that you see of that girl. She is set up to merely scream, be raped, and then quickly killed off. Why was she necessary? In Resident Evil 4 you could argue that Ashley provided a similar role, but her purpose was a game mechanic as well. You had to protect her lest you wanted your game to end. Here, we see a white, blonde woman in the middle of a quarintined African warzone. There is absolutely no justification, plotwise, why she should be here.
If you wanted my take on it though, which you're going to get since you're reading this, it's to play on white boy fears.
Now, another good counterpoint would be the recent Far Cry 2 game. You play a whitey in that, why is that suddenly ok?
Simple, all the enemies are as well armed as you are. In RE5, they're lucky to find enough pots and pans to toss at you. You could also argue that in FC2, Africans are being forced to kill one another and you by other Africans. RE5, on the other hand, very plainly sets up a collection of white villians manipulating the lives of Africans.
We also can't forget that the African female lead has a collection of Alternative outfits, once of which is her naked barring a rag and warpaint. Meanwhile the white male gets a whole safari outfit.
I could also point out the fact that one of the bonus multiplayer modes has you killing the infected Africans with a partner, trying to score more kills than the pairs in the level. Keep in mind, of course, that the female lead is the only other African character you can play as.
Speaking from a gameplay angle, it's fine and a fun concept. Video games are different from a boardgame or math equation though due to that external layer of graphics and sound however. Taking those rules within the context of setting, well...
They also resort to spear chucking enemies, can't forget that.
Of course, my concern about such things is because I'm entirely a racist of course. Yes, indeed.
Anyways, review of the actual gameplay is forthcoming. If you want a bite sized snipped you can take this to heard: A fun game exists beneath all the tangental bullshit mechanics they ruin it with.
Imagine having to play a Left 4 Dead map for 15 hours. Now imagine you had to do it with only 2 people and one of them was a bot. Now imagine if you and this bot had to share ammo.
Edit: Just have to add part of this other internet writing on the game. It's about the spear tossing zombies. Italics mine.
"I didn't think the game was racist at all. It's just based in a different country. The people who are all dressed like ancient tribal africans are just meant to have gone mental and reverted to some primal instincts or something, there was a diary about it in the game somewhere. Other than that, what the fuck is meant to be racist in the game?"
So wait... ancient Africans operated on primal instincts alone... oh dear.
Actually, in terms of what the game's really trying to communicate, there isn't much to say beyond "hey, hey, SHOOT EVERYTHING". What is of note, however, is the setting of Africa.
Accusations have been flung that the game is depicts largely uncomfortable images to the American public on the basis of the game being set in a "not-Africa" country.
I'm here to assert those accusations are entirely correct.
Were I to keep it brief, I could point to the fact that most of the monsters you shoot have been changed from outright dark skinned Somalians to a mix of Iranians and Quasi-Asian characters. Sure you still get the occasional jet black character, but for the most part your opposition has been bleached. Capcom was attempting to avoid something, there's obviously some basis to this argument.
Being that our game buying and playing public has never heard of PC games before (as they are dead you see, the tombstone reads somewhere around 2004), nobody remembers the game Delta Force Black Hawk Down. Based on the movie/operation of the same name, you played as Sgt. Joe Shmoe as he goes in to kill everyone in Africa in his quest to bring one single really evil African (you know so as he wears glasses, the heathen) to justice... lead justice. The game was fun and very much ahead of it's time, jingoistic worldview aside, as it played like a combination of Medal of Honor and Call of Duty 4 before such a game existed.
As you meandered about the African countryside killing rebels- I assume, as your only motivation to kill everyone is that the government dictates so- you'd inevitably end up blasting your way through countless shantytowns and villages. What's surprising, however, is that the game faithfully rendered women and children in these villages as well. Not only would they run away from you, they'd even insult and chuck rocks at you.
Fitting then, that your only interaction with them was violence. Not only could you shoot them, they could be killed without mercy or penalty.
Why am I talking about this game within the context of RE5? Well, both have a section where you need to dodge alligators so my digression isn't completely lost. Above that, however, is that RE5 lets you perform the same actions and actively encourages you to slaughter that ever present "other".
Let's take a typical boneheads defensive post about the game FROM THE INTERNET. It's scary I know, don't worry, I'll hold you. These are all from the same fellow and his responses to another person who thinks like myself:
-------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I don't care. You know why? You are always gonna offend someone, if you mean to or not.
I really don't think painting attrocities happening in a war torn african country is that hurtful, seeing as, you know, a lot of attrocities actually DO happen in africa, so it's not exactly an unrealistic liberty they are taking to show attrocities in a civil war torn land.
Uh.....what?
I've seen footage of africans beating their own people before, and of all sorts of violence...
Yes images of black people being violent were used as racist propaganda back in the day, but just because something depicts black violence does NOT mean it is evoking that spirit.
Maybe it tells you something about the people who draw the parelles between racist artwork and this, than the people who just see it as a violent scene without noticing race?
It's interesting how the ones shouting racism seemed to notice the race of the violent people, whereas most took it what it was: a violent scene in a war torn country. I know which of those two groups sounds like the real racists to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Blah blah blah his boring point goes on and on. Now, before we discuss how he's a hood short of attending a Klan rally, let's debunk the counter arguement many players will have: Resident Evil 4.
RE4 had you visit, as the sexy white man you were, a completely fictionalized version of Spain where peasant farmers still exist. Obviously the were infected with the monster virus and you need to kill everyone. One person on the web even put forward a very interesting argument that you were taking part in the Spanish Inquisition as all the bosses/royalty characters lived in luxury with exotic torture chambers while the pesants toiled the fields. I'm not one to argue with that assesment. The fact you explore villages, castles, dungeons, and caves only supports it further.
Thing is, however, every monster you fight genuinely looks like something inhuman. Case in point:
http://www.gamethink.net/IMG/jpg/re4_ps2_2005_villagers_attacking.jpg
They speak pig-latin Spanish, sure, but from that blurry image you can see they're set up completely inhuman.
Now, let's look at RE5:
http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/resident-evil-5-20070726113937477.jpg
A bit more realistic but, hey, it is Africa. I can dig it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj7pOOFcK5w&feature=related
Skip to around the 50 second mark, notice how they try to dodge a bullet by making the "kidnapper" character paler.
Nice try Capcom, you're not fooling anyone.
See this wouldn't be a big deal if the blonde girl was an established character. Problem is, what you see here is all that you see of that girl. She is set up to merely scream, be raped, and then quickly killed off. Why was she necessary? In Resident Evil 4 you could argue that Ashley provided a similar role, but her purpose was a game mechanic as well. You had to protect her lest you wanted your game to end. Here, we see a white, blonde woman in the middle of a quarintined African warzone. There is absolutely no justification, plotwise, why she should be here.
If you wanted my take on it though, which you're going to get since you're reading this, it's to play on white boy fears.
Now, another good counterpoint would be the recent Far Cry 2 game. You play a whitey in that, why is that suddenly ok?
Simple, all the enemies are as well armed as you are. In RE5, they're lucky to find enough pots and pans to toss at you. You could also argue that in FC2, Africans are being forced to kill one another and you by other Africans. RE5, on the other hand, very plainly sets up a collection of white villians manipulating the lives of Africans.
We also can't forget that the African female lead has a collection of Alternative outfits, once of which is her naked barring a rag and warpaint. Meanwhile the white male gets a whole safari outfit.
I could also point out the fact that one of the bonus multiplayer modes has you killing the infected Africans with a partner, trying to score more kills than the pairs in the level. Keep in mind, of course, that the female lead is the only other African character you can play as.
Speaking from a gameplay angle, it's fine and a fun concept. Video games are different from a boardgame or math equation though due to that external layer of graphics and sound however. Taking those rules within the context of setting, well...
They also resort to spear chucking enemies, can't forget that.
Of course, my concern about such things is because I'm entirely a racist of course. Yes, indeed.
Anyways, review of the actual gameplay is forthcoming. If you want a bite sized snipped you can take this to heard: A fun game exists beneath all the tangental bullshit mechanics they ruin it with.
Imagine having to play a Left 4 Dead map for 15 hours. Now imagine you had to do it with only 2 people and one of them was a bot. Now imagine if you and this bot had to share ammo.
Edit: Just have to add part of this other internet writing on the game. It's about the spear tossing zombies. Italics mine.
"I didn't think the game was racist at all. It's just based in a different country. The people who are all dressed like ancient tribal africans are just meant to have gone mental and reverted to some primal instincts or something, there was a diary about it in the game somewhere. Other than that, what the fuck is meant to be racist in the game?"
So wait... ancient Africans operated on primal instincts alone... oh dear.
3/12/09
Musing
Last weekend I picked up two titles on a whim, Tony Hawk's Underground and Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard.
THUG (hur hur hur) needs no introduction really since it's such an old game, but I'll get to it in a moment. Instead I want this post to focus on Matt Hazard.
Matt Hazard symbolizes why nerd humor isn't funny. It's akin to lolcats. Sure, a joke is funny when it's mentioned. It's not funny when you say the joke, the go into exacting detail about why that joke isn't funny.
Matt Hazard is guilty of the latter throughout most of the game. On paper, the concept of parody every action game within the last 25 years is wonderful. It's not like there's a shortage of material to work with there. What's inexcusable though, is taking those cliches and making use of them anyways.
Case in point: In the second level of the game you have to protect a buddy by sniping at enemies which come from all angles to attack him. To do so, you command a Slient Scope arcade machine. Funny, but it doesn't change the fact you're still forced to play an insufferable escort segment.
I think above all, as whiny as it sounds, you just die too fast. This is a comedy game, I don't want to have to actually try. I'd perfer a Monkey Island style route where there's no real failure.
In short don't be a sap like me and pay a full 50 bones for it. Around 20 bucks or a rental I'd say snap it up.
As for Tony Hawk, I had to rebuy it since it was the only sport game I ever owned on the PS2. I never really enjoyed any of the other Hawk titles, but for some reason this title clicked with me. Replaying it is a rude awakening in how much I suck, but eh.
Tomorrow Resident Evil 5 comes out. I look forward to killing minorities in a jungle/desert setting once again. It is something I haven't done since Crysis, Far Cry 2, Call of Duty 4, and probably a dozen other games that were all released in the past 6 months.
If you're wondering why the above reviews were short, there's not really much to say about the games. RE5 will provide some decent fodder soon enough. Till then, tootles.
THUG (hur hur hur) needs no introduction really since it's such an old game, but I'll get to it in a moment. Instead I want this post to focus on Matt Hazard.
Matt Hazard symbolizes why nerd humor isn't funny. It's akin to lolcats. Sure, a joke is funny when it's mentioned. It's not funny when you say the joke, the go into exacting detail about why that joke isn't funny.
Matt Hazard is guilty of the latter throughout most of the game. On paper, the concept of parody every action game within the last 25 years is wonderful. It's not like there's a shortage of material to work with there. What's inexcusable though, is taking those cliches and making use of them anyways.
Case in point: In the second level of the game you have to protect a buddy by sniping at enemies which come from all angles to attack him. To do so, you command a Slient Scope arcade machine. Funny, but it doesn't change the fact you're still forced to play an insufferable escort segment.
I think above all, as whiny as it sounds, you just die too fast. This is a comedy game, I don't want to have to actually try. I'd perfer a Monkey Island style route where there's no real failure.
In short don't be a sap like me and pay a full 50 bones for it. Around 20 bucks or a rental I'd say snap it up.
As for Tony Hawk, I had to rebuy it since it was the only sport game I ever owned on the PS2. I never really enjoyed any of the other Hawk titles, but for some reason this title clicked with me. Replaying it is a rude awakening in how much I suck, but eh.
Tomorrow Resident Evil 5 comes out. I look forward to killing minorities in a jungle/desert setting once again. It is something I haven't done since Crysis, Far Cry 2, Call of Duty 4, and probably a dozen other games that were all released in the past 6 months.
If you're wondering why the above reviews were short, there's not really much to say about the games. RE5 will provide some decent fodder soon enough. Till then, tootles.
3/4/09
FEAR 2:Electric Boogaloo
Monolith Software must have employed Bertha Rochester during the more formative years of the company, it's the only way to explain their track record.
For every excellent concept they develop, they somehow manage to screw up several other bad ideas in the process.
Two of their early titles, Blood and Shogo: Mobile Armor Division were excellent titles and solid concepts. The only drawback was that in both games most players wouldn't live long enough to see the actual game as your character was more frail than an anemic child.
Then came their problem with sequels... they are universally terrible in comparison to the first game 90% of the time. Ok, I'll grant you Aliens vs Predator 2 and maybe No One Lives Forever 2.
FEAR 2 breaks that curse... kind of. Perhaps a little bit of history is in order, both of myself and the game.
Back in 2004 I had first heard of Monolith's next titles, one for that new fangled Xbox 360 coming out the follow fall with the other being a PC only title through and through. I found out the console one was about beating up the homeless while the PC title would be a cross between the X-Files, John Woo, and Rainbow Six.
As any punk kid with a new Alienware would do, I bet on FEAR being the megahit.
So thus the waiting game began, but the game of life took greater precidence. Notably, I went off to college like adultescent boy my age and fell into the rut of excessive boozing and studying.
Put blunt, life was damn good.
Near the end of my first month, I remembered that both FEAR and Quake 4 were to be released and thus immediately picked up my copies.
Now, it's important to note that I purchased my copies at the Leominster Circuity City. At the time, it was the only electronics store within a 30 mile radius of my college outside of Gamestop. Though the prices would fluxuate wildly, I ended up making that store my third most visited location in the glorious Fitchburg/Leominster area, behind the liquor store and Tiki Tiki- the best Chinese takeout in Fitchburg fyi.
Eagerly rushing back to my dorm to install all 5 cds of FEAR, I came to a horrific realization within two hours.
It sucked.
It wasn't a straight up suck that just has the marks of a bad game written all over it, but it was a special kind of suck where every good idea an intention they may have had with the finished product resulted in a disaster.
In short, it was pretty analogus to the Leominster Circuit City.
Now, four years have passed and everything has been turned on its head since then. My PC continues to age and languish while I buy dongle after dongle for my 360, I found to my pleasure that Condemned's hobo murdering was game of the year material, and I've since been forced off campus due to my aforementioned lifestyle.
More importantly though, Circuit City will probably be nothing but an abandoned storefront by the time you read this.
Fitting then, that Monolith finally brings its A-Game to the table when I'm at a point in my life that it means so very little.
Anyways on to the game itself. FEAR 2 is a retooling of FEAR 1. Monolith discovered the hard way no one cares about PC games anymore, therefore the entire game is nothing but a retelling of the first game.
It's also in this retelling they loose a wondeful plot to the throes of stupid designs. Goddamned Bertha.
Watch out, I'm going to spoil the game for you and not care so stop here I guess if you want to play this and not have the ending ruined. In all honesty though, you can enjoy the game more if you know the disappointment that follows.
FEAR 2 ends with your protagonist being raped by the ghost of the 14 year old clone of the Ring girl.
Yes, that is the ending. It is as stupid and as contrived as one can get in a first person shooter. It resolves no plot, provides no closure, it just simply ends with your character feeling his seed in the belly of Alma.
Were the writers and designers of Monolith actually intelligent, it could have made for a great play upon the suburban nightmare of teen pregnancy. Moreover, they could have explored very real prejudices and "fears" within their target audience. After all, for the 15-25 year old male, nothing is more terrifying than the idea of unwittingly becoming a father.
Interestingly, and perhaps a sign of silent protest against Bertha, levels are designed around the concepts of areas in which teens meet and fuck. It's quiet ingenious in all honesty. Of course, there are the science labs, test areas, and all the other shlock that comes with the territory of a sci-fi shooter, but brief moments of insight shine through.
For instance, at one point in the game you're forced to explore a school. Simple, straight forward, and insipid once you realize it's an underground testing site!!!!!! (Those exclamations are to represent your shock you see)
Nevertheless, the crux of the spooky sequence in the level take place in the dimly lit broom closets of the school. Wearing nothing but her hair, Alma meanders the coridors always two steps ahead of you, seemly luring you to follow her. When you do eventually catch up to her, which occurs only at her discression, you're momentarily pinned up against a locker while she seems to smile while inspecting your body.
Later in the game, as you meander through the city streets shooting spacemen or the storm troopers or whatever they are, you discover lines of cars parked outside a movie theater. Expected within a city, yes, but the fact it is still standing with Alma waiting inside for you suggests that the developers wanted to simulate a sort of destructive relationship between the player and his fictional "girlfriend". Hell, there's even 14 levels in game, which mirrors her age.
Now obviously all of this sounds like fan fiction bullshit above, and it's ignoring this potentially fun mindfuck with the player that the game falls apart.
After trying so hard to use subtley and smart AI tricks in the first game, FEAR 2's guards run at you with like minded purpose. Your ability to slow down time is rendered moot, as plentiful armor and weapons exist around every corner. In all honesty, you can tell they wanted to go for a regenerating health system but were afraid of scaring away their former audience. Your comrades in arms all die expectedly and offer generic shits, fucks, and "what the hell is happening" for you to groan at.
But it's during these groans you notice another feature of the game, the prevalance of water. Everywhere you turn water is dripping out of pipes, onto your mask, etc. I'd like to pretent it's a silent reference to the fact that when Alma's water bursts the world will be left as ruinous as the cityscape you're currently exploring.
That'd probably be out of Bertha's realm however.
The core combat is fairly satisfying, but slow-mo just feels less fun this time around. The goons you rip through just feel muted compared to their chatty counterparts in the first game. While you've got the ability to create cover on demand, none of it ever proves too useful.
You'll probably also end up killing yourself while fiddling with your inventory more than actual gunfights will kill you.
Should you check it out? I guess, it's certainly a competent little game. Maybe if you've just arisen from a coma and never played an FPS since Doom it'd seem like the most psudeo realistic terror experience ever created. To anyone who has played Halo 3, play it again while running a copy of The Ring soundtrack in the background. Maybe have your girlfriend or a special lady friend sit next to you naked while doing so. It'd be the same experience.
Wait, goddamn it that sounds like a better time already.
What's really a disappointment is that the title of FEAR is never once scary. This is just so disappointing when I remember the terrifying department store fistfight in Condemned. Come now Monolith, you can do better.
Then I also remember this was the same company that had you fight a zombie bear in Condemned 2.
Goddamn Monolith.
For every excellent concept they develop, they somehow manage to screw up several other bad ideas in the process.
Two of their early titles, Blood and Shogo: Mobile Armor Division were excellent titles and solid concepts. The only drawback was that in both games most players wouldn't live long enough to see the actual game as your character was more frail than an anemic child.
Then came their problem with sequels... they are universally terrible in comparison to the first game 90% of the time. Ok, I'll grant you Aliens vs Predator 2 and maybe No One Lives Forever 2.
FEAR 2 breaks that curse... kind of. Perhaps a little bit of history is in order, both of myself and the game.
Back in 2004 I had first heard of Monolith's next titles, one for that new fangled Xbox 360 coming out the follow fall with the other being a PC only title through and through. I found out the console one was about beating up the homeless while the PC title would be a cross between the X-Files, John Woo, and Rainbow Six.
As any punk kid with a new Alienware would do, I bet on FEAR being the megahit.
So thus the waiting game began, but the game of life took greater precidence. Notably, I went off to college like adultescent boy my age and fell into the rut of excessive boozing and studying.
Put blunt, life was damn good.
Near the end of my first month, I remembered that both FEAR and Quake 4 were to be released and thus immediately picked up my copies.
Now, it's important to note that I purchased my copies at the Leominster Circuity City. At the time, it was the only electronics store within a 30 mile radius of my college outside of Gamestop. Though the prices would fluxuate wildly, I ended up making that store my third most visited location in the glorious Fitchburg/Leominster area, behind the liquor store and Tiki Tiki- the best Chinese takeout in Fitchburg fyi.
Eagerly rushing back to my dorm to install all 5 cds of FEAR, I came to a horrific realization within two hours.
It sucked.
It wasn't a straight up suck that just has the marks of a bad game written all over it, but it was a special kind of suck where every good idea an intention they may have had with the finished product resulted in a disaster.
In short, it was pretty analogus to the Leominster Circuit City.
Now, four years have passed and everything has been turned on its head since then. My PC continues to age and languish while I buy dongle after dongle for my 360, I found to my pleasure that Condemned's hobo murdering was game of the year material, and I've since been forced off campus due to my aforementioned lifestyle.
More importantly though, Circuit City will probably be nothing but an abandoned storefront by the time you read this.
Fitting then, that Monolith finally brings its A-Game to the table when I'm at a point in my life that it means so very little.
Anyways on to the game itself. FEAR 2 is a retooling of FEAR 1. Monolith discovered the hard way no one cares about PC games anymore, therefore the entire game is nothing but a retelling of the first game.
It's also in this retelling they loose a wondeful plot to the throes of stupid designs. Goddamned Bertha.
Watch out, I'm going to spoil the game for you and not care so stop here I guess if you want to play this and not have the ending ruined. In all honesty though, you can enjoy the game more if you know the disappointment that follows.
FEAR 2 ends with your protagonist being raped by the ghost of the 14 year old clone of the Ring girl.
Yes, that is the ending. It is as stupid and as contrived as one can get in a first person shooter. It resolves no plot, provides no closure, it just simply ends with your character feeling his seed in the belly of Alma.
Were the writers and designers of Monolith actually intelligent, it could have made for a great play upon the suburban nightmare of teen pregnancy. Moreover, they could have explored very real prejudices and "fears" within their target audience. After all, for the 15-25 year old male, nothing is more terrifying than the idea of unwittingly becoming a father.
Interestingly, and perhaps a sign of silent protest against Bertha, levels are designed around the concepts of areas in which teens meet and fuck. It's quiet ingenious in all honesty. Of course, there are the science labs, test areas, and all the other shlock that comes with the territory of a sci-fi shooter, but brief moments of insight shine through.
For instance, at one point in the game you're forced to explore a school. Simple, straight forward, and insipid once you realize it's an underground testing site!!!!!! (Those exclamations are to represent your shock you see)
Nevertheless, the crux of the spooky sequence in the level take place in the dimly lit broom closets of the school. Wearing nothing but her hair, Alma meanders the coridors always two steps ahead of you, seemly luring you to follow her. When you do eventually catch up to her, which occurs only at her discression, you're momentarily pinned up against a locker while she seems to smile while inspecting your body.
Later in the game, as you meander through the city streets shooting spacemen or the storm troopers or whatever they are, you discover lines of cars parked outside a movie theater. Expected within a city, yes, but the fact it is still standing with Alma waiting inside for you suggests that the developers wanted to simulate a sort of destructive relationship between the player and his fictional "girlfriend". Hell, there's even 14 levels in game, which mirrors her age.
Now obviously all of this sounds like fan fiction bullshit above, and it's ignoring this potentially fun mindfuck with the player that the game falls apart.
After trying so hard to use subtley and smart AI tricks in the first game, FEAR 2's guards run at you with like minded purpose. Your ability to slow down time is rendered moot, as plentiful armor and weapons exist around every corner. In all honesty, you can tell they wanted to go for a regenerating health system but were afraid of scaring away their former audience. Your comrades in arms all die expectedly and offer generic shits, fucks, and "what the hell is happening" for you to groan at.
But it's during these groans you notice another feature of the game, the prevalance of water. Everywhere you turn water is dripping out of pipes, onto your mask, etc. I'd like to pretent it's a silent reference to the fact that when Alma's water bursts the world will be left as ruinous as the cityscape you're currently exploring.
That'd probably be out of Bertha's realm however.
The core combat is fairly satisfying, but slow-mo just feels less fun this time around. The goons you rip through just feel muted compared to their chatty counterparts in the first game. While you've got the ability to create cover on demand, none of it ever proves too useful.
You'll probably also end up killing yourself while fiddling with your inventory more than actual gunfights will kill you.
Should you check it out? I guess, it's certainly a competent little game. Maybe if you've just arisen from a coma and never played an FPS since Doom it'd seem like the most psudeo realistic terror experience ever created. To anyone who has played Halo 3, play it again while running a copy of The Ring soundtrack in the background. Maybe have your girlfriend or a special lady friend sit next to you naked while doing so. It'd be the same experience.
Wait, goddamn it that sounds like a better time already.
What's really a disappointment is that the title of FEAR is never once scary. This is just so disappointing when I remember the terrifying department store fistfight in Condemned. Come now Monolith, you can do better.
Then I also remember this was the same company that had you fight a zombie bear in Condemned 2.
Goddamn Monolith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)