This post is, as usual with me, as late as your first date. But in that same way, it eventually showed up, grinning stupidly, oblivious to all its faults.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Command and Conquer 4 flopped like everyone predicted. Not a surprise. The game is bland, stank of foul betrayal, and is a momumental insult to fans of CNC and RTS gamers everywhere. I wrote about it here last year (ed: now 2 years ago).
I would like to take a moment to spit in the faces of every single person who tried to defend CNC4 pre-release. Every single EA fanboy who said "the new style needs a chance, shouldn't be written off", and every EA moderator (under contractual requirements) who said "don't judge the game before you've played it". Those flimsy veiled excuses don't hold up anymore now, eh? Too bad the bombardment of criticism might have actually curbed the game from ending up such a disaster, but no, instead, we had to not stomp on EA's pathetic marketing campaign for this abomination, only so that we could expose it for being a laughing stock later. Unfortunately, since now it's 'too little, too late', CNC fans got screwed out of a proper sequel (and conclusion) and EA's like 'herpy-derp, we couldn't have forseen this, lawl'. Except for the fact that if they listened to us, instead of hiring moderators to lock/close/hide threads of criticism on their forums, they wouldn't have gotten so badly reamed by every single reviewer. The true, loyal CNC fans did their part. It is EA, and the EA fanboys have no one else to blame but themselves.
However, I'm not here to relive every moment of the nightmare that is CNC4, but rather to educate you on its history, from which, we all may yet learn something. Perhaps this is indeed CNC4's only redeeming quality: it acts as a beacon of tragedies for others to beware.
After CNC4 was released, it's review scores submitted, and it's initial wave of buyers suckered in (about ten people total), CNC4 developers, some of them now ex-employees, were freed from contractual stipulations and revealed the asinine development processes behind the game. In the following link, Greg Black, ex-EA, tells us some of the ugly truths behind CNC4 that fans were forbidden to know before the game's release date. Additionally, Sam Bass, lead designer of all EALA's CNC games, divulges more information about his own power struggle with EA management over the game's direction.
Since I don't expect you to want to sift through it all, I've summarized the major points for how it became such a disaster.
1. As CNC4 was nearing its release date, the number of remaining developers dwindled. EA was trying to cut costs for the project and removed non-essential staff from it's payrolls as the game neared a releasable state. It was also known well ahead of time that ALL of its developers would be terminated by release date. As you can imagine, this didn't promote company atmosphere or enthusiasm. The developers went to get their uninspired game out the door and collect their final paychecks, all while already looking for new employment elsewhere. It didn't help any that the release date was pushed forwards and that CNC4 was expected to be a rushed project since Starcraft 2 was creeping on the horizon.
2. CNC4 was originally designed as a multiplayer online browser game to be marketed in Asia, with very loose ties to the CNC universe, and no singleplayer inclusion, nor any plot advancement. Since it was a lightweight browser game, there was no base-building, macromanagement, nor harvesting of resources. EA management later decided that it would be wiser to repackage the game with a shoddy, cheap singleplayer and as an entire game, cramming a game that was never designed to fit the mold into something else. The designers didn't like it, but they didn't have a choice. Once the fans learned about it, they weren't satisfied either, but the damage was done and EA had no intention of reversing it.
3. In the backlash caused by the poor writing in both CNC3 and Kane's Wrath (CNC3's expansion), Sam Bass, somewhat tired of working on CNC, promised fans that the next main title in the franchise would be an epic conclusion to the story, and resolve most major plot holes and finally answer the fan's questions on the enigmatic Kane, the primary antagonist since the original Command and Conquer. This would release him from working on yet another title in the foreseeable future (up to this point, EA has forced EALA to produce a new CNC title every 6 months), and would allow him to appease the fans he's had to apologize publicly to so many times before. Unfortunately for Bass, EA's intervention demanded that a game that almost entirely contradicted the lore had to be bent and reshaped to fit back into the CNC universe. Worse, EA uncovered Bass' intention of concluding the main plot and revealing one of its greatest mysteries, and promptly forbade it. In the disagreement that followed, Bass retracted the original plot for CNC4, removed the information about Kane, and closed the saga leaving more questions and plot holes than before. At first, it seemed that Sam Bass had lied to the fans. With his admission post-release, Sam Bass has indisputably betrayed and misled fans with misinformation under stipulations of his contract. Even though EA drove the project into the wall, Bass is not entirely blameless for continually oiling the wheels.
4. Following the rather lackluster (but at least palatable) titles of Red Alert 3 and Kane's Wrath, the fans were issued public apologies and promises of better feedback methods pre-release as well as consistent patch support post-release. So for CNC4, they had an invitational pre-screening, gathering pros, prominent players and CNC-fansite reporters to a convention in Germany. The feedback was almost entirely negative, but the developers expected this for the reasons above (which at the time they couldn't disclose). Knowing that EA would never let them alter the game, they curbed the criticism with excuses, claiming that the product was still unfinished, and that it would be much more acceptable by release, even though the main criticisms were with the game fundamentals which were already set in stone. Following the pre-release convention, a multiplayer beta was issued, but as accurately confessed by Greg Black in the above interview, there was insufficient time to have a meaningful beta where feedback could be evaluated and used to further develop the game. Beta and release were practically the same, which is unsurprising, considering all EA betas are like this now. See: Need For Speed World, Medal of Honor, Dead Space 2 betas.
Overall, no one's surprised that EA released a terrible title. No one's surprised that EA management was at fault for leading the trainwreck either. At one point I thought EA had sensibly canceled Tiberium (the CNC FPS game), but then for them to promptly lead this project into disaster makes me think their judgment is spotty at best. EA is never going to learn from its mistakes, but other developers can. And while EA has a lot of buffer room when making such errors, others don't. Learn from EA. Don't be a shit stain on gaming.
Showing posts with label RTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RTS. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Monday, July 19, 2010
Pros and Progression, Starcraft 2
I've been playing Starcraft 2 for a few months now, and while I was more excited near the early phases of beta, I became more and more disheartened by the trend of behavior exhibited by pro gamers and their feedback. Their influence has caused Blizzard to revert many of the new innovative interface features in SC2, and returned the game to a more clunky and primitive state. I've made many posts here before about the pitfalls of catering to the casual players, but sometimes even pro gamers are ignorant and misguided.
In the beta relaunch patch, the rally system was changed to move, rather than attack move. This is already on top of a slew of other intentional interface deadweights in SC2, such as the 1 second delay before off-screen alerts are audibly sounded. I know the arguments on both sides for this, but ultimately, this is a game built to test a specific set of skills, namely strategy and tactics. While pro players will demand for a higher skill ceiling to separate themselves from the common group of players and to make their territory more well-suited to their niche, I feel that they are misguided and... frankly, they don't even know what they want.
A well designed program, or game, or any function that has an interface, seeks to minimize the distance between the user's will and the effective outcome. A car with good handling does exactly that: delivering the driver's intent to the vehicle's movement. But would sports racing be more competitive if all drivers were forced to drive vehicles with staggeringly poor handling and had to wear goggles that only allowed them to look backwards? Does intentionally impeding controls and the intentions of the user exhibit meaningful skill?
If it was true, then why do we not see highly competitive and skill-dominant sports where chains were shackled to the feet of the players? Funny that a game like a three-legged-race where poor control is an established feature is not considered to be competitive or impressively skillful at all. In fact, the opposite is true: competitive sports at a globally-presentable level involve attitudes that continually strive to decrease the gap between user will and outcome. Simply put, intentional flaws of the interface are not a characteristic of professional sports (or sports with high skill ceilings, whatever).
Taken to either extreme, there can be problems: a sport with perfect control interpretation would be purely a thinking game (although that's what TBS are); a sport with poor control interpretation would be as tedious as having to move every individual component yourself. But in former, you have competitive, strategic play, and in the latter, you'll have no one willing to play, and nobody to consider it skillful.
Pro players and Blizzard alike need to realise that the skill of the game is beyond the ability to sift through the muddled controls and interface disabilities. The objective is to always design a system that enhances the players intent as much as possible, and then allow players to flourish in their ability from there. If the game is truly one of skill and mastery, then champion players will only have their abilities further maximized by the new capabilities at their hands.
Pros want a game that requires constant immediate attention to even menial tasks that are repetitive and simplistic in nature, and have instead a continued sequence of commands inputted by the player, when one simple constant command would have sufficed. (Specifically about the Rally Attack Move.) Pros are misguided in their reasoning, as a game with tedious manual controls in every facet is unreasonable, unrewarding, and never seen as 'skillful', and thus, unworthy of reaching a grand level. If Pros want to give SC2, or any game, a higher skill ceiling and more global acclaim, they would not choose to impede the improvement of game interfaces.
In the beta relaunch patch, the rally system was changed to move, rather than attack move. This is already on top of a slew of other intentional interface deadweights in SC2, such as the 1 second delay before off-screen alerts are audibly sounded. I know the arguments on both sides for this, but ultimately, this is a game built to test a specific set of skills, namely strategy and tactics. While pro players will demand for a higher skill ceiling to separate themselves from the common group of players and to make their territory more well-suited to their niche, I feel that they are misguided and... frankly, they don't even know what they want.
A well designed program, or game, or any function that has an interface, seeks to minimize the distance between the user's will and the effective outcome. A car with good handling does exactly that: delivering the driver's intent to the vehicle's movement. But would sports racing be more competitive if all drivers were forced to drive vehicles with staggeringly poor handling and had to wear goggles that only allowed them to look backwards? Does intentionally impeding controls and the intentions of the user exhibit meaningful skill?
If it was true, then why do we not see highly competitive and skill-dominant sports where chains were shackled to the feet of the players? Funny that a game like a three-legged-race where poor control is an established feature is not considered to be competitive or impressively skillful at all. In fact, the opposite is true: competitive sports at a globally-presentable level involve attitudes that continually strive to decrease the gap between user will and outcome. Simply put, intentional flaws of the interface are not a characteristic of professional sports (or sports with high skill ceilings, whatever).
Taken to either extreme, there can be problems: a sport with perfect control interpretation would be purely a thinking game (although that's what TBS are); a sport with poor control interpretation would be as tedious as having to move every individual component yourself. But in former, you have competitive, strategic play, and in the latter, you'll have no one willing to play, and nobody to consider it skillful.
Pro players and Blizzard alike need to realise that the skill of the game is beyond the ability to sift through the muddled controls and interface disabilities. The objective is to always design a system that enhances the players intent as much as possible, and then allow players to flourish in their ability from there. If the game is truly one of skill and mastery, then champion players will only have their abilities further maximized by the new capabilities at their hands.
Pros want a game that requires constant immediate attention to even menial tasks that are repetitive and simplistic in nature, and have instead a continued sequence of commands inputted by the player, when one simple constant command would have sufficed. (Specifically about the Rally Attack Move.) Pros are misguided in their reasoning, as a game with tedious manual controls in every facet is unreasonable, unrewarding, and never seen as 'skillful', and thus, unworthy of reaching a grand level. If Pros want to give SC2, or any game, a higher skill ceiling and more global acclaim, they would not choose to impede the improvement of game interfaces.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Grim Grimoire - Fuck Dragons
I like to point out this is probably one of my favorite games, but really fuck dragons.
Its from the same creators as Odin Sphere, Vanilla Ware. So you can expect the same shitty English voices and beautiful graphics. Luckily this game also lets you change voices. It doesn't make it any better but at least you don't have to understand the squeaking of the characters. Anyways the story is about a girl called Lillet Blan (everyone is named after wines) who goes to a magic tower school to learn magic. Its fairly lighthearted and the characters grow on you as you try and solve the mystery.
As you first enter the school you get acquainted to some characters. You start learning magic and the headmaster Gammel Dore, teaches you Glamour, magic of natural order. Fairies and life. You get thrown into combat and stuff. Get to that later as that's where the main gripes of this game comes from. You eventually move on and start getting to know the Necromancy professor. While talking to her, the two of you notice the Sorcery professor, a devil, sneaking around the room. After learning a bit of Necromancy from her later that night you realize the soul container of the archmage of the tower was stolen from the Necromancy professor's room and she was killed. The archmage was released and killed everyone in the tower. But before you were killed, when the bell rang on the 5th day you were sent back in time to the first day. Oh shit.
Oh shit indeed. Now you run off to Gammel Dore and he listens to your story, but the Sorcery professor dismisses all the accusations and he tests you to see if he believes your story. When you were transported back in time, you managed to keep everything you learned and held onto all the grimoires you accquired. After passing his test, he lets a remark slip about "how the archmage's apprentice the Alchemy professor feels about him being locked up in a soul container." So now you have a new suspect. You go talk to him and learn about the archmage who tells you about the archmage making a deal with the devil Grimlet and had to be sealed. While Gammel Dore and the Necromancy professor try to seal the archmage, they failed and was killed. The devil grimlet appeared and took the archmage's soul and killed everyone in the tower. The Sorcery professor saves you and keeps you alive long enough until the bell of the 5th night and once again you get transported back.
Now you have to keep figuring out what happened, who is the real enemy, why time keeps going back, etc. There are a lot of twists and turns and the story is very enjoyable. The conversations usually involve huge pictures of the characters talking amongst each other on the screen. The character designs are amazing. Here's a short list of the characters you'll meet.
Lillet Blan - That's you! You're the main character and you are out to solve the mystery of the tower. You are named after the french wine, Lillet Blanc.
Margarita Surprise - Shes your first friend, and one that eventually betrays you in one of the many time loops. She was rescued by Chartreuse and brought to the tower. She's named after the cocktail, Margarita.
Bartido Ballentyne - An Alchemy student learning after Chartreuse. He's not very important to the story but Lillet sorta has a crush on him at first but loses it pretty quickly. He is named after the whisky, Ballentine's.
Hiram Menthe - He is a Necromancy student and friends with Bartido. He's not very important to the story but he's a goody-two-shoes that keeps running off to tell the professors when you do something secretive in one of the time loops and you have to keep kicking his butt over and over.
He is named after the french wine, Hiram Walker.
Amoretta Virgine - She's one of those dead sounding chicks in every game. She's supposedly the "niece" of Advocat, and when you first meet her, shes being molested by him and you save her. She goes "Thank you, I really hate it when he does that." THE FUCK? Anyways its only mentioned once that shes his niece but shes not. She's actually a homunculus with the soul of an angel created by Chartreuse. Her existing tempts every devil in the tower. In the game you develop a lesbian relationship with her. She's named after Amaretto.
Gammel Dore - Headmaster and Galmour professor. He was the one who sealed the archmage Calvaros and the devil Grimlet inside the tower. He dies in almost every time loop and is a pretty shitty magician despite all his achievements in the past. Aging sucks I guess. He's named after Gammel Dansk.
Opalneria Rain - Necromancy professor. She is the keeper of Calvaros' soul container. She has a one sided love for Chartreuse. She is named after Opal Nera.
Advocat - Sorcery professor. He is a devil summoned by Gammel Dore. Even though he acts like a good guy, he doesn't actively help people which he claims because he is a devil. He is named after Advocaat.
Chartreuse Grande - Alchemy Professor. Nothing much about him. He is named after Chartreuse.
Calvaros - The archmage sealed in the tower. Named after Calvados.
Whew glad to get all that out. So yes most characters are pretty important as you find out about stuff. Sometimes you think you're doing alright in your time loop then all of a sudden someone dies and something gets mixed up. So you try again. But each time you go back you learn a little more and get a few grimoires. But because you managed to keep the grimoires other characters who needed it to do things in the previous time loops couldn't and thus changes your future time loops forever. Its fun and interesting to play.
And now we get to the biggest flaw in the game. Combat. The game has a lot of potential, but pretty much failed hardcore. Its an RTS game, you mine mana crystals to summon runes and familiars from your grimoires. As you learn more grimoires you learn more familiars and more power ups. Each school of magic counters one school and is weak to another. So its like rock paper scissors, except for dragons which is like a gun.
Glamour is natural order and life. Its probably the weakest of the four schools of magic. Your workers are elves which can heal. Fairies costs a lot of mana compared to how easily they die. They are ranged and flying but they travel so slow that you can't really run and shoot and they end up dying all the time. Unicorns are fairly good tanks but their mana cost is so high that you're better off getting something like demons which is nearly the same price but twice as powerful. The super unit is the Morning Star. Its fairy cheap and it a flying unit. Its an astral which means most units can't hit them and when they do they do reduced damage. This is strongest astral unit in the game with a huge aoe splash attack. But everytime they attack they need to create stars. Each star costs 10 mana so the price for this unit quickly becomes expensive. They're like reavers in SC. The advantage of Glamour is all their units can hit astrals and they don't do any reduced damage to them. Glamour is strong against Necromancy because it is life.
Necromancy are all spirits and undead. Almost every unit are astrals. Its as weak as Glamour but has the advantage of being astral and having a few strong units. They have the cheapest workers and they are able to fly so mining crystals for them is easier. Their starting unit are the phantoms. They are sword wielding spirits that have a decent attack and defense. These can mow down masses of enemies if they can't hit astrals. But if they can these drop like flies. They're kinda like dark templars of SC. Their mid tier is skull mages. They can only hit astrals and they hit like a truck. But they can only hit astrals so they're useless the this game. The super unit is Charon, a unit transporter that flies very fast. Necromancy sucks. Necromancy is good against Sorcery because they don't have flesh and temptations for the devils to pick on.
Sorcery is devils and demons. This is the best school of magic. Imps are your workers. They are able to fight and they're cheap to make. They are like ghouls of WC3. The first tier of units are demons. These are probably the strongest non super unit in the game. They have high defense high attack high movement speed. They can fight claw to claw against most super units in the game and they're not that expensive to make at all. The next tier up is Grimalkins. They are cat familiars that casts sleep and mana burn. They don't have any attacks but sleep can take out most super units in one click. When slept they cannot act for about 30 seconds and can still take damage until they die. Mana burn would almost instantly kill any caster in a single click. A very powerful unit. Then the super unit. Dragons. These don't cost a lot about the price of two and a half demons, but can take on about 6-7 demons at a time. They have a huge aoe breath attack that does damage all around them. Anything caught in the aoe would die almost instantly. They have the highest hp, defense, attack. Sorcery is good against Alchemy for reasons I cannot remember.
Alchemy are homunculus and unnatural order. Alchemy is fairly weak but they are very annoying. Their workers are blobs that can cast a stacking slow. The first tier are homunculus which has two skills. Flare which allows all physical attacks to hit astrals in the area for the duration. The second skill is psychic storm. This is like Psionic wave from SC, except there are no friendly fire and more than one storm stacks. There was a dragon coming at me and I was alchemy with no units. So I tried my luck and sent about 5 homunculus and spammed psychic storm on the dragon. It was dead in literally 3 seconds. Luckily the NPC doesn't abuse this. Golem is the next tier up. Its slow it has a long range that out ranges towers. It sucks. Chimera is their super unit. Its almost exactly like the dragon. Same price but lower damage defense and health. It also loses health every second when its summoned until it dies. It sucks compared to the dragon. Alchemy is good against Glamour because it is unnatural order.
It looks good and has high potential but the problem is, that you can make dragons as your first unit, send them in and wipe out the enemy. A dragon is unkillable. And sending 2-3 means you beat the level. Why would you want to make anything else but dragons? As long as you have a few homunculus casting flare they can take on astrals no problem. Sometimes for the hell of it I don't use any super units and I have to spend 3x as long to beat a level. Each level is exactly the same. I know I complained about Odin Sphere being repetitive, but this literally is the same every battle. There is only one map in the game. You will fight on that map for many many times. Each time you fight you will start off with 1 mana crystal mine and 1 rune. The enemy has runes scattered all over the map and the don't need to mine mana to summon units. Units appear in 3 ways. First way is over time they will come and attack you. Second way is when you attack one of their runes a wave of enemies will appear if you don't kill that wave they will attack your base. The last way is when you are attacking their rune, they will attack your base. So, if you attack right when they are attacking and your attack fails you will get 3 waves of enemies and lose the game.
But that won't happen because dragons don't die. Here's the strategy for almost every game. As soon as the game starts you'll usually have couple hundred if not thousand mana to start off. A dragon spawn rune costs 200 to make 100 to upgrade and a dragon costs 500. As soon as the game starts summon a rune summon a dragon and send it out to attack. As your dragon is heading off use the mana you mined to summon a second dragon. By the time your dragon is tearing up their base your second one will spawn and wipe out the wave that attacks your base. Then you send that one out and summon another. By the time you have your third dragon you should have taken out most of their runes. Just keep repeating that and the game is over. Just watch out for Grimalkins sleeping your dragon. They usually can't kill it within 30 seconds but just in case your dragon might die.
Its a good game, but the combat portion of it is completely horrible. It has a lot of potential to be good, but instead it just uses the same boring battle every time as a filler between events. If the combat can be tied into the events like Odin Sphere then it would be a good game. Look at SC. All the combat has something to do with the events. Why can't this game do it as well? Its not like its too much work. Look how small and short the game is. You can probably finish this in a few days, and most people can finish within a week. My play through took about 8 hours total.Overall, story is good, combat sucks. If you can overlook the shitty combat the game itself is very fun. Too short though but the characters really grow on you.
Its from the same creators as Odin Sphere, Vanilla Ware. So you can expect the same shitty English voices and beautiful graphics. Luckily this game also lets you change voices. It doesn't make it any better but at least you don't have to understand the squeaking of the characters. Anyways the story is about a girl called Lillet Blan (everyone is named after wines) who goes to a magic tower school to learn magic. Its fairly lighthearted and the characters grow on you as you try and solve the mystery.
As you first enter the school you get acquainted to some characters. You start learning magic and the headmaster Gammel Dore, teaches you Glamour, magic of natural order. Fairies and life. You get thrown into combat and stuff. Get to that later as that's where the main gripes of this game comes from. You eventually move on and start getting to know the Necromancy professor. While talking to her, the two of you notice the Sorcery professor, a devil, sneaking around the room. After learning a bit of Necromancy from her later that night you realize the soul container of the archmage of the tower was stolen from the Necromancy professor's room and she was killed. The archmage was released and killed everyone in the tower. But before you were killed, when the bell rang on the 5th day you were sent back in time to the first day. Oh shit.
Oh shit indeed. Now you run off to Gammel Dore and he listens to your story, but the Sorcery professor dismisses all the accusations and he tests you to see if he believes your story. When you were transported back in time, you managed to keep everything you learned and held onto all the grimoires you accquired. After passing his test, he lets a remark slip about "how the archmage's apprentice the Alchemy professor feels about him being locked up in a soul container." So now you have a new suspect. You go talk to him and learn about the archmage who tells you about the archmage making a deal with the devil Grimlet and had to be sealed. While Gammel Dore and the Necromancy professor try to seal the archmage, they failed and was killed. The devil grimlet appeared and took the archmage's soul and killed everyone in the tower. The Sorcery professor saves you and keeps you alive long enough until the bell of the 5th night and once again you get transported back.
Now you have to keep figuring out what happened, who is the real enemy, why time keeps going back, etc. There are a lot of twists and turns and the story is very enjoyable. The conversations usually involve huge pictures of the characters talking amongst each other on the screen. The character designs are amazing. Here's a short list of the characters you'll meet.
Lillet Blan - That's you! You're the main character and you are out to solve the mystery of the tower. You are named after the french wine, Lillet Blanc.
Margarita Surprise - Shes your first friend, and one that eventually betrays you in one of the many time loops. She was rescued by Chartreuse and brought to the tower. She's named after the cocktail, Margarita.
Bartido Ballentyne - An Alchemy student learning after Chartreuse. He's not very important to the story but Lillet sorta has a crush on him at first but loses it pretty quickly. He is named after the whisky, Ballentine's.
Hiram Menthe - He is a Necromancy student and friends with Bartido. He's not very important to the story but he's a goody-two-shoes that keeps running off to tell the professors when you do something secretive in one of the time loops and you have to keep kicking his butt over and over.
He is named after the french wine, Hiram Walker.
Amoretta Virgine - She's one of those dead sounding chicks in every game. She's supposedly the "niece" of Advocat, and when you first meet her, shes being molested by him and you save her. She goes "Thank you, I really hate it when he does that." THE FUCK? Anyways its only mentioned once that shes his niece but shes not. She's actually a homunculus with the soul of an angel created by Chartreuse. Her existing tempts every devil in the tower. In the game you develop a lesbian relationship with her. She's named after Amaretto.
Gammel Dore - Headmaster and Galmour professor. He was the one who sealed the archmage Calvaros and the devil Grimlet inside the tower. He dies in almost every time loop and is a pretty shitty magician despite all his achievements in the past. Aging sucks I guess. He's named after Gammel Dansk.
Opalneria Rain - Necromancy professor. She is the keeper of Calvaros' soul container. She has a one sided love for Chartreuse. She is named after Opal Nera.
Advocat - Sorcery professor. He is a devil summoned by Gammel Dore. Even though he acts like a good guy, he doesn't actively help people which he claims because he is a devil. He is named after Advocaat.
Chartreuse Grande - Alchemy Professor. Nothing much about him. He is named after Chartreuse.
Calvaros - The archmage sealed in the tower. Named after Calvados.
Whew glad to get all that out. So yes most characters are pretty important as you find out about stuff. Sometimes you think you're doing alright in your time loop then all of a sudden someone dies and something gets mixed up. So you try again. But each time you go back you learn a little more and get a few grimoires. But because you managed to keep the grimoires other characters who needed it to do things in the previous time loops couldn't and thus changes your future time loops forever. Its fun and interesting to play.
And now we get to the biggest flaw in the game. Combat. The game has a lot of potential, but pretty much failed hardcore. Its an RTS game, you mine mana crystals to summon runes and familiars from your grimoires. As you learn more grimoires you learn more familiars and more power ups. Each school of magic counters one school and is weak to another. So its like rock paper scissors, except for dragons which is like a gun.
Glamour is natural order and life. Its probably the weakest of the four schools of magic. Your workers are elves which can heal. Fairies costs a lot of mana compared to how easily they die. They are ranged and flying but they travel so slow that you can't really run and shoot and they end up dying all the time. Unicorns are fairly good tanks but their mana cost is so high that you're better off getting something like demons which is nearly the same price but twice as powerful. The super unit is the Morning Star. Its fairy cheap and it a flying unit. Its an astral which means most units can't hit them and when they do they do reduced damage. This is strongest astral unit in the game with a huge aoe splash attack. But everytime they attack they need to create stars. Each star costs 10 mana so the price for this unit quickly becomes expensive. They're like reavers in SC. The advantage of Glamour is all their units can hit astrals and they don't do any reduced damage to them. Glamour is strong against Necromancy because it is life.
Necromancy are all spirits and undead. Almost every unit are astrals. Its as weak as Glamour but has the advantage of being astral and having a few strong units. They have the cheapest workers and they are able to fly so mining crystals for them is easier. Their starting unit are the phantoms. They are sword wielding spirits that have a decent attack and defense. These can mow down masses of enemies if they can't hit astrals. But if they can these drop like flies. They're kinda like dark templars of SC. Their mid tier is skull mages. They can only hit astrals and they hit like a truck. But they can only hit astrals so they're useless the this game. The super unit is Charon, a unit transporter that flies very fast. Necromancy sucks. Necromancy is good against Sorcery because they don't have flesh and temptations for the devils to pick on.
Sorcery is devils and demons. This is the best school of magic. Imps are your workers. They are able to fight and they're cheap to make. They are like ghouls of WC3. The first tier of units are demons. These are probably the strongest non super unit in the game. They have high defense high attack high movement speed. They can fight claw to claw against most super units in the game and they're not that expensive to make at all. The next tier up is Grimalkins. They are cat familiars that casts sleep and mana burn. They don't have any attacks but sleep can take out most super units in one click. When slept they cannot act for about 30 seconds and can still take damage until they die. Mana burn would almost instantly kill any caster in a single click. A very powerful unit. Then the super unit. Dragons. These don't cost a lot about the price of two and a half demons, but can take on about 6-7 demons at a time. They have a huge aoe breath attack that does damage all around them. Anything caught in the aoe would die almost instantly. They have the highest hp, defense, attack. Sorcery is good against Alchemy for reasons I cannot remember.
Alchemy are homunculus and unnatural order. Alchemy is fairly weak but they are very annoying. Their workers are blobs that can cast a stacking slow. The first tier are homunculus which has two skills. Flare which allows all physical attacks to hit astrals in the area for the duration. The second skill is psychic storm. This is like Psionic wave from SC, except there are no friendly fire and more than one storm stacks. There was a dragon coming at me and I was alchemy with no units. So I tried my luck and sent about 5 homunculus and spammed psychic storm on the dragon. It was dead in literally 3 seconds. Luckily the NPC doesn't abuse this. Golem is the next tier up. Its slow it has a long range that out ranges towers. It sucks. Chimera is their super unit. Its almost exactly like the dragon. Same price but lower damage defense and health. It also loses health every second when its summoned until it dies. It sucks compared to the dragon. Alchemy is good against Glamour because it is unnatural order.
It looks good and has high potential but the problem is, that you can make dragons as your first unit, send them in and wipe out the enemy. A dragon is unkillable. And sending 2-3 means you beat the level. Why would you want to make anything else but dragons? As long as you have a few homunculus casting flare they can take on astrals no problem. Sometimes for the hell of it I don't use any super units and I have to spend 3x as long to beat a level. Each level is exactly the same. I know I complained about Odin Sphere being repetitive, but this literally is the same every battle. There is only one map in the game. You will fight on that map for many many times. Each time you fight you will start off with 1 mana crystal mine and 1 rune. The enemy has runes scattered all over the map and the don't need to mine mana to summon units. Units appear in 3 ways. First way is over time they will come and attack you. Second way is when you attack one of their runes a wave of enemies will appear if you don't kill that wave they will attack your base. The last way is when you are attacking their rune, they will attack your base. So, if you attack right when they are attacking and your attack fails you will get 3 waves of enemies and lose the game.
But that won't happen because dragons don't die. Here's the strategy for almost every game. As soon as the game starts you'll usually have couple hundred if not thousand mana to start off. A dragon spawn rune costs 200 to make 100 to upgrade and a dragon costs 500. As soon as the game starts summon a rune summon a dragon and send it out to attack. As your dragon is heading off use the mana you mined to summon a second dragon. By the time your dragon is tearing up their base your second one will spawn and wipe out the wave that attacks your base. Then you send that one out and summon another. By the time you have your third dragon you should have taken out most of their runes. Just keep repeating that and the game is over. Just watch out for Grimalkins sleeping your dragon. They usually can't kill it within 30 seconds but just in case your dragon might die.
Its a good game, but the combat portion of it is completely horrible. It has a lot of potential to be good, but instead it just uses the same boring battle every time as a filler between events. If the combat can be tied into the events like Odin Sphere then it would be a good game. Look at SC. All the combat has something to do with the events. Why can't this game do it as well? Its not like its too much work. Look how small and short the game is. You can probably finish this in a few days, and most people can finish within a week. My play through took about 8 hours total.Overall, story is good, combat sucks. If you can overlook the shitty combat the game itself is very fun. Too short though but the characters really grow on you.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Tom Clancy's EndWar: A RTS for the lobotomized.
This is a very old article I've had on the backburner, and have only recently decided to fully write up... Perhaps to just divert attention away from the newly lambasted behemoth of a disgrace, Command and Conquer 4. I wonder if that game is worth writing about though, considering that the outrageous fan retaliation is more drama and lulz-worthy than speaking of the game itself.
Ubisoft's attempt to foray into the RTS genre was a careful one, intending to utilize the popularity of the titular series as a brand of excellence and to garner a sizable playerbase with relatively small investments in advertising. Ultimately, the plan flopped, as RTS veterans and Tom Clancy fans alike recognized the amateur level of design put into EndWar.
In EndWar, you have 2 factions, but the faction differences are purely superficial. The units either possess are the same in utility and function, and are equally few in number. You have 3 units to control in this game. Yep. THREE. Be careful counting them, it's quite a hefty number to wrap your mind around. You can control engineers (ground infantry), gunships (choppers), or ground armor (usually something between BMPs to Light tanks). You order in these units via menu reinforcement support, but once they're in, the headaches begin, despite the game being simple enough for a toddler. I think that is actually the problem: you cannot play this game if you are a RTS veteran who likes to be in control. Immediately lop off all your fingers and just run your face over the keyboard to succeed and prosper.
You'll find immediately that despite being limited by a crippling population cap, 12 units to be precise (infantry squads count as 1 unit), you will be sympathetic towards the reasoning behind the design, as EndWar is a RTS created with console players in mind and their problems stem from this foundation. Official reviewers, such as IGN/Gamespot/Gametrailers rate the product from a console viewpoint, and absolutely adore the game, lavishing at the brilliance of a voice-command interface, streamlined action, and the vivid closeup visuals. But of course they'd fawn over it, as being console players, they are unable to appreciate a game with sustenance, depth and a respectable skill ceiling. Instead, with terrible standard control schemes with analog sticks and a very limited set of command hotkeys, they'd see Ubisoft's latest 'voice command' gimmick as a godsend. Using voice command, a player can issue orders to their units, like 'Squad 4, attack Hostile 3'. Perhaps this puts into perspective why there is such a limited number of units to control, as well as actions to assign. Just imagine trying to say 'Rifleman squad #654, utilize grenade launcher upgrade and lay suppressive fire on hostile infantry #352, 366, 775 until hostile light armored vehicle #445 arrives, then switch to mortars and armor piercing rounds, but individually retreat to LZ positon #34 before your health is diminished below 10 units.' Just imagine trying to issue micro commands with your voice on the fly. With fewer units to control, and a very limited set of possible commands to issue, it makes it easier for console players and their retarded voice command interface. It has all the problems of that AVGN listed about the Konami Laser Scope. Your mouth gets tired, everyone around you finds you annoying, and you feel like a total dork. And you should, for playing this piece of crap.
But you can still choose to turn off the voice command interface, and resort to conventional controls, but you're still severely crippled by absurd command limitations I briefly mentioned above. This is the first RTS I've played where your units cannot be told to move to a location. You did not misread. Selecting your units and right clicking an open area in the map... And nothing will happen. In catering to console players, who do not have the freedom of clicking all over the map like PC players can with their mice, EndWar forces players to move units by either tying it to specific targetable areas or units. That is, if I want to move my gunships anywhere, I have to give it an order to attack something. If there's nothing there, I won't be able to send it anywhere, except for specific 'capture' locations on the map. Just imagine playing Starcraft, but you cant move your tanks unless you have something to attack, or if there's a map object like a mineral to target, yet any of the terrain ANYWHERE are not possible movement zones. It's like playing World of Warcraft, but you cant click anything, or use WASD. You have to use tab to cycle to something you want then type /attack and watch your character auto-path its way to the target. Seriously? Who fucking thought this was a good idea in a RTS? So Gunships don't move anywhere without a valid target. Neither do vehicles. Squads of infantry can take cover behind specific map entities like bunkers (they're a part of the map... You don't build them.) but otherwise can only move in the same way the other units can. How are you supposed to employ strategy when the movements and pathing of your units are so limited? EndWar is literally a RTS on rails, and IF they had rally points, that would already conquer what minuscule challenge exists in this game.
The camera is also terrible, and again, unsuprisingly a fault of trying to cater to console players. Staring at a mass of small individual units is understandably tough on a console player's eyes, who could be trying to squint at their TV across the room. To compensate, Ubisoft places you nearly at street level, with an individual tank taking a massive amount of the screen real estate, which is compounded by the fact that it's no longer a birds eye view camera angle, but a forced tilted angle that's useful for nothing but scenic photography. Pictures explain better than words, so I'd like you to analyze this:
EndWar... This is with the camera zoomed out and tilted as much as possible.
Now, the tanks in the distance don't look huge, but look at your workspace... A thin strip of screen real estate on the lower quarter of the screen, yet above the UI. And with this tilted angle, you can see how impossible it is to select one unit from another. Anything further in the distance is too small to manage, so you need to continually move your screen just to see whats going on in a single skirmish. Why must they have such a stupid ineffective camera angle? Is it a strategy game or a I-like-staring-into-the-sunsets-lulz game?
Barely recognizable as a RTS, EndWar attempts to solidify its position by laying its groundwork with a supremely basic rock-paper-scissor counter system. It is hard to stress how basic the counter system is, but considering that there are only 3 units in the game, it's pretty easy to guess that tanks counter infantry, infantry counter gunships, and gunships counter tanks. There is absolutely no strategy either, you just radio the counter units to what your enemy possesses the most of, issue an attack command and then repeat. If you're slow with your reflexes, there's no need to fret! The counter units take an ETERNITY to kill an opponent, even if you outnumber the target or flank them. I could go take a piss and come back and STILL have enough time to reinforce the squad with units that can counter whatever I'm being attacked by. I get bored idling around watching the battle unfold predictably, seeing a whole set of health bars slowly diminish. Want to be pro at this game? Have an Actions Per Minute of 3. If that wasn't slow and shallow enough for you, there's no need to construct a supportive unit or use skills with cooldowns or even micro your existing units. More accurately, there's no way to do that even if you wanted to. There are no supportive units, there are no unit skills, and you can't issue movement commands, which basically kills any of the usual things you'd expect in a RTS.
EndWar turns extremely aggravating in about 5 minutes of play as you realize, the more effort you invest to manage your units, the more futile and infuriating it becomes. I best describe EndWar as a Chinese fingertrap; don't bother trying to overcome it's crippling mechanics, just put hot irons in your retinas and sign up for a lobotomy, then sit down and enjoy. It's not even close to being acceptable as a RTS; I find a children's Fit-The-Shapes-Into-The-Slots game more strategic.
Ubisoft's attempt to foray into the RTS genre was a careful one, intending to utilize the popularity of the titular series as a brand of excellence and to garner a sizable playerbase with relatively small investments in advertising. Ultimately, the plan flopped, as RTS veterans and Tom Clancy fans alike recognized the amateur level of design put into EndWar.
In EndWar, you have 2 factions, but the faction differences are purely superficial. The units either possess are the same in utility and function, and are equally few in number. You have 3 units to control in this game. Yep. THREE. Be careful counting them, it's quite a hefty number to wrap your mind around. You can control engineers (ground infantry), gunships (choppers), or ground armor (usually something between BMPs to Light tanks). You order in these units via menu reinforcement support, but once they're in, the headaches begin, despite the game being simple enough for a toddler. I think that is actually the problem: you cannot play this game if you are a RTS veteran who likes to be in control. Immediately lop off all your fingers and just run your face over the keyboard to succeed and prosper.
You'll find immediately that despite being limited by a crippling population cap, 12 units to be precise (infantry squads count as 1 unit), you will be sympathetic towards the reasoning behind the design, as EndWar is a RTS created with console players in mind and their problems stem from this foundation. Official reviewers, such as IGN/Gamespot/Gametrailers rate the product from a console viewpoint, and absolutely adore the game, lavishing at the brilliance of a voice-command interface, streamlined action, and the vivid closeup visuals. But of course they'd fawn over it, as being console players, they are unable to appreciate a game with sustenance, depth and a respectable skill ceiling. Instead, with terrible standard control schemes with analog sticks and a very limited set of command hotkeys, they'd see Ubisoft's latest 'voice command' gimmick as a godsend. Using voice command, a player can issue orders to their units, like 'Squad 4, attack Hostile 3'. Perhaps this puts into perspective why there is such a limited number of units to control, as well as actions to assign. Just imagine trying to say 'Rifleman squad #654, utilize grenade launcher upgrade and lay suppressive fire on hostile infantry #352, 366, 775 until hostile light armored vehicle #445 arrives, then switch to mortars and armor piercing rounds, but individually retreat to LZ positon #34 before your health is diminished below 10 units.' Just imagine trying to issue micro commands with your voice on the fly. With fewer units to control, and a very limited set of possible commands to issue, it makes it easier for console players and their retarded voice command interface. It has all the problems of that AVGN listed about the Konami Laser Scope. Your mouth gets tired, everyone around you finds you annoying, and you feel like a total dork. And you should, for playing this piece of crap.
But you can still choose to turn off the voice command interface, and resort to conventional controls, but you're still severely crippled by absurd command limitations I briefly mentioned above. This is the first RTS I've played where your units cannot be told to move to a location. You did not misread. Selecting your units and right clicking an open area in the map... And nothing will happen. In catering to console players, who do not have the freedom of clicking all over the map like PC players can with their mice, EndWar forces players to move units by either tying it to specific targetable areas or units. That is, if I want to move my gunships anywhere, I have to give it an order to attack something. If there's nothing there, I won't be able to send it anywhere, except for specific 'capture' locations on the map. Just imagine playing Starcraft, but you cant move your tanks unless you have something to attack, or if there's a map object like a mineral to target, yet any of the terrain ANYWHERE are not possible movement zones. It's like playing World of Warcraft, but you cant click anything, or use WASD. You have to use tab to cycle to something you want then type /attack and watch your character auto-path its way to the target. Seriously? Who fucking thought this was a good idea in a RTS? So Gunships don't move anywhere without a valid target. Neither do vehicles. Squads of infantry can take cover behind specific map entities like bunkers (they're a part of the map... You don't build them.) but otherwise can only move in the same way the other units can. How are you supposed to employ strategy when the movements and pathing of your units are so limited? EndWar is literally a RTS on rails, and IF they had rally points, that would already conquer what minuscule challenge exists in this game.
The camera is also terrible, and again, unsuprisingly a fault of trying to cater to console players. Staring at a mass of small individual units is understandably tough on a console player's eyes, who could be trying to squint at their TV across the room. To compensate, Ubisoft places you nearly at street level, with an individual tank taking a massive amount of the screen real estate, which is compounded by the fact that it's no longer a birds eye view camera angle, but a forced tilted angle that's useful for nothing but scenic photography. Pictures explain better than words, so I'd like you to analyze this:
EndWar... This is with the camera zoomed out and tilted as much as possible.
Now, the tanks in the distance don't look huge, but look at your workspace... A thin strip of screen real estate on the lower quarter of the screen, yet above the UI. And with this tilted angle, you can see how impossible it is to select one unit from another. Anything further in the distance is too small to manage, so you need to continually move your screen just to see whats going on in a single skirmish. Why must they have such a stupid ineffective camera angle? Is it a strategy game or a I-like-staring-into-the-sunsets-lulz game?
Barely recognizable as a RTS, EndWar attempts to solidify its position by laying its groundwork with a supremely basic rock-paper-scissor counter system. It is hard to stress how basic the counter system is, but considering that there are only 3 units in the game, it's pretty easy to guess that tanks counter infantry, infantry counter gunships, and gunships counter tanks. There is absolutely no strategy either, you just radio the counter units to what your enemy possesses the most of, issue an attack command and then repeat. If you're slow with your reflexes, there's no need to fret! The counter units take an ETERNITY to kill an opponent, even if you outnumber the target or flank them. I could go take a piss and come back and STILL have enough time to reinforce the squad with units that can counter whatever I'm being attacked by. I get bored idling around watching the battle unfold predictably, seeing a whole set of health bars slowly diminish. Want to be pro at this game? Have an Actions Per Minute of 3. If that wasn't slow and shallow enough for you, there's no need to construct a supportive unit or use skills with cooldowns or even micro your existing units. More accurately, there's no way to do that even if you wanted to. There are no supportive units, there are no unit skills, and you can't issue movement commands, which basically kills any of the usual things you'd expect in a RTS.
EndWar turns extremely aggravating in about 5 minutes of play as you realize, the more effort you invest to manage your units, the more futile and infuriating it becomes. I best describe EndWar as a Chinese fingertrap; don't bother trying to overcome it's crippling mechanics, just put hot irons in your retinas and sign up for a lobotomy, then sit down and enjoy. It's not even close to being acceptable as a RTS; I find a children's Fit-The-Shapes-Into-The-Slots game more strategic.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I Fucking Knew It.
http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/19892.page
http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/19952.page
So, EA admitted that they stole their innovative RTS ideas from other games. I kind of already went over all that bullshit a few posts back here though, so I'm really not surprised in any way. The EA boards probably has more skeptics than fanboys, but the naive defiance of the latter generally makes the atmosphere too stifling to follow.
First you have fanboys who fiercely defend the franchise for being innovative, but then change gears when evidence says otherwise. Now they're justifying the borrowing of gameplay ideas, claiming that many games borrow inspiration from the others before them, but they heavily gloss over the fact that the 'borrowed' ideas aside, CNC4 has nothing innovative of its own. As the PC gamer podcast (second link) says, EA's 'first ever RTS with mobile bases' appeal is ridiculous, as they must have never played another RTS in their life. It makes sense though, EA has always been a company lagging behind their competitive developers, with blinders over their eyes and plugs in their ears.
http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/19952.page
So, EA admitted that they stole their innovative RTS ideas from other games. I kind of already went over all that bullshit a few posts back here though, so I'm really not surprised in any way. The EA boards probably has more skeptics than fanboys, but the naive defiance of the latter generally makes the atmosphere too stifling to follow.
First you have fanboys who fiercely defend the franchise for being innovative, but then change gears when evidence says otherwise. Now they're justifying the borrowing of gameplay ideas, claiming that many games borrow inspiration from the others before them, but they heavily gloss over the fact that the 'borrowed' ideas aside, CNC4 has nothing innovative of its own. As the PC gamer podcast (second link) says, EA's 'first ever RTS with mobile bases' appeal is ridiculous, as they must have never played another RTS in their life. It makes sense though, EA has always been a company lagging behind their competitive developers, with blinders over their eyes and plugs in their ears.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Command and Conquer 4: The Revenge of Tiberium!
Well, I admit. EA is just better than I am.
AT MAKING SHITTY SUBTITLES.
Yeah, considering their previous publications - BFME2: Rise of the Witch King, CNC3: Tiberium Wars, CNC3: Kane's Wrath, then RA3: Uprising, and just Tiberium (for their first person shooter title) - EA has me beaten by a mile when it comes to cliche, angry and spiteful underdog avenger titles. Ooh. So scary.
So, no. CNC4 isn't called the Revenge of Tiberium. I'm sure it'll be much worse though, so just stay tuned. But it'll be pretty hard for Tiberium to have revenge on anybody... You know why? Tiberium is now a tame and easily accessible resource that has no infringement on human health or lifestyle. What the fuck.
For those who don't know the lore being Tiberium, I will do a quick recap, as the story was revealed by Westwood, the original developers. Not long ago, a meteor fell from space and crashed in Italy. It brought with it a strange biological plant growth called Tiberium that leeched minerals out of the ground and sprouted it as a green plant on the surface. While this made harvesting the plant quite lucrative, the plant emitted poisonous gases and rapidly spread, destroying Earth's habitat, killing off other plants and animals. Tiberium's growth was so dramatic that much of the world was covered in it, even the seas were clogged with it, and the only places that could slow its growth were icy artic regions or areas with steep rocky terrain. The world was being split into two factions, GDI and Nod, the former trying to restore peace and order and quell the advance of Tiberium, and the latter trying to undermine GDI (and the current world order) to embrace Tiberium, the secrets it may hold, and usher forward a new race of enhanced beings. While GDI and Nod slugged it out with each other, they stumbled upon the bizarre. Some wild animals, humans and even plants adapted with excessive exposure to Tiberium, becoming much stronger and more resilient. Furthermore, Tiberium was obviously alien, but unnervingly hinted at the existence of an invading intelligent alien race.
Unfortunately, as Westwood's rights to the franchise were passed to EA, the story began to crumble in inconsistency. Tiberium became some crystalline lifeform, and resembled the minerals in Starcraft. Alien artifacts that were found in earlier games were 'refound' at an even earlier date. Alien arrivals were poorly explained, and Nod's enigmatic and visionary leader, Kane, began to operate in a questionable manner with incomprehensible objectives. But worse... Tiberium is no longer the plague that is encompassing the globe. It is now of no threat to anyone, safely locked away underground, and mined by large vertical drilling shafts. Tiberium no longer is on the surface to destroy civilian respiratory systems, give severe skin burns and cancers, corrode the armor off of vehicles, mutate biosystems, or uproot and level cities. What's going on? The main element of the game... The resource you NAMED the game after, has been so drastically altered, there is really no point in trying to continue this franchise. Worse, EA drops the guillotine: they claim they will be concluding the story and wrap up loose ends with this final installment. Considering how they bullshitted the story for both CNC3 and the expansion pack, they have so many plot holes and loose ends that they will never be able to piece the thing back together in just a single game.
EA tried to write the story as it pleased them in CNC3, and it lead to inconsistencies and fans asking well-deserved questions, often about the characters or incomplete events from the previous titles. But since it was plainly obvious that EA did not even play the previous games themselves, they had no idea who or what the fans were talking about. So... what did they do? They made an expansion pack to try fill in the gaps. So the fans received 5 second explanations during FMVs, often just saying that so-and-so died before the game events occurred, or that Tiberium underwent a mysterious overnight transformation and that researchers could not come up with any answers. Wow. Lame. If by 'filling the gaps' they meant just acknowledging their poorly written inconsistencies in an official FMV... then EA sure succeeded. And worse, they tried to bring back old characters and factions to do fanservice... even when these things had no right to return. Now with factions like Cabal, a previously rogue AI commander, back in his throne, EA has plot holes the size of dump trucks to fill. And yet they think they can complete a convincing story in just ONE game? Get over yourself, EA.
So that's enough about the plot. They fucked it up, and it isn't going to get unfucked any time soon. But what really pisses me off is that they're selling the same fucking rehash gameplay and engine. This engine has been used for 11 games, not including expansions! 5 of these games were ancient, and used a very very old basic version of this engine, fair enough... But the earliest one was from 2001! Way to milk a dry cow. Or in this case, a dry and half-eaten-by-vultures carcass. Now just reusing engine code isn't bad... But its the way it is used is important. Some games show noticable engine upgrades and improvements that make the engine recycling well justified... But EA does not make that sort of game. Currently, the CNC4 screenshots look like a game from 2004... But I will give them the benefit of the doubt since it's still in alpha: CNC4 at release will look about as sharp and clean as CNC3, but no better. Why is this? Because EA has no incentive to improve it past that, and CNC3 already consumed a ton of memory in high-res textures. On top of that, RA3, based on the same engine, showed diminishing graphics relative to CNC3, a game that is its predecessor.
Graphics aside, CNC4 doesn't have any gameplay innovations to speak of, only concepts borrowed from other games. Instead of having a construction yard and building around it like other CNC games, you have a walking mega unit that is pretty much your base all in one package. Not only has this been done before in Universe at War, and Dawn of War, but it isn't anything like what the franchise is like. Instead of harvesting fields of rapidly growing Tiberium, you capture and hold Tiberium control points that give you a steady stream of income. Done by Dawn of War and other capture-point based RTSes like Demigod, Company of Heroes, and World in Conflict. This is not anything like any CNC game either. They've introduced a population cap. If I wanted to play a Blizzard game, I'd play a Blizzard game. There's also no more base building, another feature taken from modern tactical RTSes. Everything that made CNC unique is gone, we only have some pathetic trend following, courtesy of sloppy and uninspired EA developers. Instead of unlocking units by teching up to new tech tiers, you level up your commander level by killing or losing units. Your commander level is a consistent stat that carries across games. Not only is this RPG element completely unnecessary, but it is so poorly integrated that it will throw a wrench in any RTS mechanic that remains in the game. Players will be limited to what units they can build because of their level. That limits build orders, strategies and even the opponents they can fairly fight and counter. Why even bother? This is a terrible idea just at conception. Scrap the damn thing.
Now someone may ask... The game isn't out, why are you so harsh and so certain it will fail? These words were spoken to me every single time a EA CNC game was on the horizon. It came about for CNC3, for KW, and for RA3. Yet unsurprisingly, every time, I was justified in my criticism. EA is truly a company that you cannot let out of your sight, as when they are given creative freedom, they are bound to failure and disappointment. So, I know without a doubt that EA will screw up CNC4, and like their previous releases, I refuse to purchase it. And you know what is sad? I was happy when EA announced the cancellation of Tiberium, their first person shooter rendition of the CNC universe. I thought they came to their senses and decided to not pursue developing a genre and universe that they did not understand and instead moved their investment to something they do better... Like sports or something. But no. They put their money here, in this other abomination of a RPG-Squadbased-Tactical-RTS game. Jumping from one sinking ship to another. There is no doubt that EA will fuck up. The only question on my mind is between the unfinished Tiberium project and CNC4, which one would have been the lesser of two evils? Ultimately, the answer to this is moot; both of them are destined to be a shit stain on gaming.
AT MAKING SHITTY SUBTITLES.
Yeah, considering their previous publications - BFME2: Rise of the Witch King, CNC3: Tiberium Wars, CNC3: Kane's Wrath, then RA3: Uprising, and just Tiberium (for their first person shooter title) - EA has me beaten by a mile when it comes to cliche, angry and spiteful underdog avenger titles. Ooh. So scary.
So, no. CNC4 isn't called the Revenge of Tiberium. I'm sure it'll be much worse though, so just stay tuned. But it'll be pretty hard for Tiberium to have revenge on anybody... You know why? Tiberium is now a tame and easily accessible resource that has no infringement on human health or lifestyle. What the fuck.
For those who don't know the lore being Tiberium, I will do a quick recap, as the story was revealed by Westwood, the original developers. Not long ago, a meteor fell from space and crashed in Italy. It brought with it a strange biological plant growth called Tiberium that leeched minerals out of the ground and sprouted it as a green plant on the surface. While this made harvesting the plant quite lucrative, the plant emitted poisonous gases and rapidly spread, destroying Earth's habitat, killing off other plants and animals. Tiberium's growth was so dramatic that much of the world was covered in it, even the seas were clogged with it, and the only places that could slow its growth were icy artic regions or areas with steep rocky terrain. The world was being split into two factions, GDI and Nod, the former trying to restore peace and order and quell the advance of Tiberium, and the latter trying to undermine GDI (and the current world order) to embrace Tiberium, the secrets it may hold, and usher forward a new race of enhanced beings. While GDI and Nod slugged it out with each other, they stumbled upon the bizarre. Some wild animals, humans and even plants adapted with excessive exposure to Tiberium, becoming much stronger and more resilient. Furthermore, Tiberium was obviously alien, but unnervingly hinted at the existence of an invading intelligent alien race.
Unfortunately, as Westwood's rights to the franchise were passed to EA, the story began to crumble in inconsistency. Tiberium became some crystalline lifeform, and resembled the minerals in Starcraft. Alien artifacts that were found in earlier games were 'refound' at an even earlier date. Alien arrivals were poorly explained, and Nod's enigmatic and visionary leader, Kane, began to operate in a questionable manner with incomprehensible objectives. But worse... Tiberium is no longer the plague that is encompassing the globe. It is now of no threat to anyone, safely locked away underground, and mined by large vertical drilling shafts. Tiberium no longer is on the surface to destroy civilian respiratory systems, give severe skin burns and cancers, corrode the armor off of vehicles, mutate biosystems, or uproot and level cities. What's going on? The main element of the game... The resource you NAMED the game after, has been so drastically altered, there is really no point in trying to continue this franchise. Worse, EA drops the guillotine: they claim they will be concluding the story and wrap up loose ends with this final installment. Considering how they bullshitted the story for both CNC3 and the expansion pack, they have so many plot holes and loose ends that they will never be able to piece the thing back together in just a single game.
EA tried to write the story as it pleased them in CNC3, and it lead to inconsistencies and fans asking well-deserved questions, often about the characters or incomplete events from the previous titles. But since it was plainly obvious that EA did not even play the previous games themselves, they had no idea who or what the fans were talking about. So... what did they do? They made an expansion pack to try fill in the gaps. So the fans received 5 second explanations during FMVs, often just saying that so-and-so died before the game events occurred, or that Tiberium underwent a mysterious overnight transformation and that researchers could not come up with any answers. Wow. Lame. If by 'filling the gaps' they meant just acknowledging their poorly written inconsistencies in an official FMV... then EA sure succeeded. And worse, they tried to bring back old characters and factions to do fanservice... even when these things had no right to return. Now with factions like Cabal, a previously rogue AI commander, back in his throne, EA has plot holes the size of dump trucks to fill. And yet they think they can complete a convincing story in just ONE game? Get over yourself, EA.
So that's enough about the plot. They fucked it up, and it isn't going to get unfucked any time soon. But what really pisses me off is that they're selling the same fucking rehash gameplay and engine. This engine has been used for 11 games, not including expansions! 5 of these games were ancient, and used a very very old basic version of this engine, fair enough... But the earliest one was from 2001! Way to milk a dry cow. Or in this case, a dry and half-eaten-by-vultures carcass. Now just reusing engine code isn't bad... But its the way it is used is important. Some games show noticable engine upgrades and improvements that make the engine recycling well justified... But EA does not make that sort of game. Currently, the CNC4 screenshots look like a game from 2004... But I will give them the benefit of the doubt since it's still in alpha: CNC4 at release will look about as sharp and clean as CNC3, but no better. Why is this? Because EA has no incentive to improve it past that, and CNC3 already consumed a ton of memory in high-res textures. On top of that, RA3, based on the same engine, showed diminishing graphics relative to CNC3, a game that is its predecessor.
Graphics aside, CNC4 doesn't have any gameplay innovations to speak of, only concepts borrowed from other games. Instead of having a construction yard and building around it like other CNC games, you have a walking mega unit that is pretty much your base all in one package. Not only has this been done before in Universe at War, and Dawn of War, but it isn't anything like what the franchise is like. Instead of harvesting fields of rapidly growing Tiberium, you capture and hold Tiberium control points that give you a steady stream of income. Done by Dawn of War and other capture-point based RTSes like Demigod, Company of Heroes, and World in Conflict. This is not anything like any CNC game either. They've introduced a population cap. If I wanted to play a Blizzard game, I'd play a Blizzard game. There's also no more base building, another feature taken from modern tactical RTSes. Everything that made CNC unique is gone, we only have some pathetic trend following, courtesy of sloppy and uninspired EA developers. Instead of unlocking units by teching up to new tech tiers, you level up your commander level by killing or losing units. Your commander level is a consistent stat that carries across games. Not only is this RPG element completely unnecessary, but it is so poorly integrated that it will throw a wrench in any RTS mechanic that remains in the game. Players will be limited to what units they can build because of their level. That limits build orders, strategies and even the opponents they can fairly fight and counter. Why even bother? This is a terrible idea just at conception. Scrap the damn thing.
Now someone may ask... The game isn't out, why are you so harsh and so certain it will fail? These words were spoken to me every single time a EA CNC game was on the horizon. It came about for CNC3, for KW, and for RA3. Yet unsurprisingly, every time, I was justified in my criticism. EA is truly a company that you cannot let out of your sight, as when they are given creative freedom, they are bound to failure and disappointment. So, I know without a doubt that EA will screw up CNC4, and like their previous releases, I refuse to purchase it. And you know what is sad? I was happy when EA announced the cancellation of Tiberium, their first person shooter rendition of the CNC universe. I thought they came to their senses and decided to not pursue developing a genre and universe that they did not understand and instead moved their investment to something they do better... Like sports or something. But no. They put their money here, in this other abomination of a RPG-Squadbased-Tactical-RTS game. Jumping from one sinking ship to another. There is no doubt that EA will fuck up. The only question on my mind is between the unfinished Tiberium project and CNC4, which one would have been the lesser of two evils? Ultimately, the answer to this is moot; both of them are destined to be a shit stain on gaming.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Herding Gold and Item Farmers into FPS Games.
Lately, many of my recently played FPS games have notoriously capitalized on RPG-like elements, such as the strengthening of your character over time with acquisition of experience and collected items; statistically represented progression in specific objectives, usually in the form of achievements.
Now I'm not against the evolution of gaming, but a particular question keeps me from embracing the changes: are gamers having more fun when they have steady and statistical representation of their accumulation of experience and skill?
Optimistically, gamers play games for entertainment, but it is necessary to see the darker side of gaming as well: competition and egoism - gamers play to get better. Undeniably, much fun is derived from getting and being better. Achievements, milestones and levels certainly give gamers a better reflection of their current strength and ability, rather than a nebulous idea of where they stand, and often reward the gamer with a boost of extra strength for attaining said accomplishments. While statistics don't necessarily mean the player is better, it does give them confidence and a definite ego boost.
RPG leveling elements can help counterbalance the gaps of player skill, as it rewards a skilled level 20 player and an unskilled level 20 player by the same indiscriminate amount, as opposed to a traditional method where a better player can quickly amass and horde all the best weapons and vehicles on the map, denying others of the opportunity. It also lets players feel rewarded for spending a great deal of time and effort in a game, even if they were often losing and having an unpleasant experience while playing. The achievements give the player a sense of accomplishment that would let the player know not all their time was wasted, and the hope that with enough time, they too would reach greater milestones that will award new bonuses.
However, would adding something like achievements to a real life sport, like tennis result in tennis players having more fun? Certainly people play sports to have fun, but they also do it to better themselves at the game. Would they benefit from having a statistical measurement of their estimated ability, outside of tournament ranking systems? What do you say to them? "Congrats, you have reached the 200 hour milestone for tennis training"... Or maybe, "You have earned achievement: Rocket ball straight into opponent's face." Or perhaps, on low random chance of defeating an opponent, you obtain rare purple tennis shoes, that adds +3 to your dash speed. Is this going to make tennis more fun? Would that even make a tennis VIDEO GAME more fun?
When we isolate the RPG elements to their core, we can see that they can help smoothen out a game experience... But there is a proper method of when and where to use it. The problem that is cropping up in the game industry is that developers are starting to use RPG elements as a cure-all to bolster their game and give it a new shine without contemplating how they could actually IMPROVE the genre of their existing game. Just adding a new leveling feature or touting an achievement pack is not worthy of being mentioned as a selling enticement. Not all games need to be like a RTS, and in fact, it will be soon a breath of fresh air to not have to think about leveling in our games. FPSes were always great for being a game where you could jump in and play, and there were no levels to think about that would inhibit your ability to kick ass. Developers should focus on how to build on the current aspects of their games, while introducing new exciting concepts that were not just hastily borrowed from other genres. Not only are these ideas often poorly translated across genres, but they also do not match the current gameplay, are not forays of originality, and alienate the original player base. And think about it this way: As soon as people have to start grinding for levels or items in whatever game it is, you're going to have the same band of notorious gold-farmers or botters that follow in the wake of every evil RPG. Only this time, the developers are inexperienced with RPG dilemmas and have no idea of what proper countermeasures to employ to safeguard against these corrupters, and the problem only spreads from there. Bottom line: don't play with fire.
Addendum:
Recently, Command and Conquer 4, a RTS in development by EALA, was announced... Yet one of its main features is commanders gaining experience from their battles and leveling up after matches regardless of the outcome, and slowly unlock units and abilities in their arsenal in a manner identical to Call of Duty 4. This is an example of where leveling elements were entirely unnecessary, but as the game was revealed much after the majority of this article was composed, I will save my comments related to it for another time.
Now I'm not against the evolution of gaming, but a particular question keeps me from embracing the changes: are gamers having more fun when they have steady and statistical representation of their accumulation of experience and skill?
Optimistically, gamers play games for entertainment, but it is necessary to see the darker side of gaming as well: competition and egoism - gamers play to get better. Undeniably, much fun is derived from getting and being better. Achievements, milestones and levels certainly give gamers a better reflection of their current strength and ability, rather than a nebulous idea of where they stand, and often reward the gamer with a boost of extra strength for attaining said accomplishments. While statistics don't necessarily mean the player is better, it does give them confidence and a definite ego boost.
RPG leveling elements can help counterbalance the gaps of player skill, as it rewards a skilled level 20 player and an unskilled level 20 player by the same indiscriminate amount, as opposed to a traditional method where a better player can quickly amass and horde all the best weapons and vehicles on the map, denying others of the opportunity. It also lets players feel rewarded for spending a great deal of time and effort in a game, even if they were often losing and having an unpleasant experience while playing. The achievements give the player a sense of accomplishment that would let the player know not all their time was wasted, and the hope that with enough time, they too would reach greater milestones that will award new bonuses.
However, would adding something like achievements to a real life sport, like tennis result in tennis players having more fun? Certainly people play sports to have fun, but they also do it to better themselves at the game. Would they benefit from having a statistical measurement of their estimated ability, outside of tournament ranking systems? What do you say to them? "Congrats, you have reached the 200 hour milestone for tennis training"... Or maybe, "You have earned achievement: Rocket ball straight into opponent's face." Or perhaps, on low random chance of defeating an opponent, you obtain rare purple tennis shoes, that adds +3 to your dash speed. Is this going to make tennis more fun? Would that even make a tennis VIDEO GAME more fun?
When we isolate the RPG elements to their core, we can see that they can help smoothen out a game experience... But there is a proper method of when and where to use it. The problem that is cropping up in the game industry is that developers are starting to use RPG elements as a cure-all to bolster their game and give it a new shine without contemplating how they could actually IMPROVE the genre of their existing game. Just adding a new leveling feature or touting an achievement pack is not worthy of being mentioned as a selling enticement. Not all games need to be like a RTS, and in fact, it will be soon a breath of fresh air to not have to think about leveling in our games. FPSes were always great for being a game where you could jump in and play, and there were no levels to think about that would inhibit your ability to kick ass. Developers should focus on how to build on the current aspects of their games, while introducing new exciting concepts that were not just hastily borrowed from other genres. Not only are these ideas often poorly translated across genres, but they also do not match the current gameplay, are not forays of originality, and alienate the original player base. And think about it this way: As soon as people have to start grinding for levels or items in whatever game it is, you're going to have the same band of notorious gold-farmers or botters that follow in the wake of every evil RPG. Only this time, the developers are inexperienced with RPG dilemmas and have no idea of what proper countermeasures to employ to safeguard against these corrupters, and the problem only spreads from there. Bottom line: don't play with fire.
Addendum:
Recently, Command and Conquer 4, a RTS in development by EALA, was announced... Yet one of its main features is commanders gaining experience from their battles and leveling up after matches regardless of the outcome, and slowly unlock units and abilities in their arsenal in a manner identical to Call of Duty 4. This is an example of where leveling elements were entirely unnecessary, but as the game was revealed much after the majority of this article was composed, I will save my comments related to it for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
