Although not a fan of the series, I nevertheless find myself drawn towards the enigma that is the Assassin's Creed series. I enjoy it's scenic environments and am ever curious about how exceedingly farfetched its historical, conspiracy-laced tale can go. Unfortunately, the last time I played AC:Brotherhood was 6 months ago, and I find it impossible to bring myself back to playing it. As I described with AC2, the game is a test of endurance, and I am simply out of steam.
In AC, it's never made too clear how much you are missing out on if you don't complete the bonus objectives or side missions with perfect results, and so you would be compelled to get it right, or have to forcibly reload by restarting the mission entirely. In AC1, it didn't make a difference, as long as you beat it. In AC2, you would completely miss out on solving the ending sequence, and basically fail to understand a majority of the plot and backstory. In AC:B, you have to complete all optional objectives perfectly, and also complete the main objectives in a predetermined method. This means when I assassinate a target, it has to be with a specific weapon, and with a specific result. So sometimes, I must murder a target, but with a sabre, and throw him into some scaffolding. What frustrates me is that I don't understand why I must do it this way to get full points. I'm an ASSASSIN. What matters is that I am undetected. In AC:B, what matters is superficial requirements that don't make any sense. You'd think I was trying to frame someone or something, but no. Who cares if my target is thrown off the wall when I'm surrounded by 20 guards who are witnesses of my identity? Emphasis has been misplaced on meaningless stipulations, and should you somehow not complete the mission as exactly specified, then you must redo the entire mission, usually involving riding across half the country to reach your mission-start location, then tailing a target for ten minutes, then slowly peeling away layers of vulnerable guards, then sneaking in barely any time left. In short, it is tedious work that balances on the edge of a blade that drags on for 20 minutes, until you wonder why it is so difficult to do something as menial as finding a backalley pickpocket.
The checkpoint and saving systems don't help either. You can only save outside of a mission, and loading the game doesn't take you back to where you were last. It merely saves the progression of your game, but usually spawns you at your HQ (in a very isolated part of the country). Automatic checkpoints are rarely interspersed throughout 20-30 minute long missions, but can only be restored upon your death, so you'll frequently beg for the guards to impale quickly you so that you won't have to replay the mission's stalking sequence. Should you choose to complete the mission, despite not completing all the bonus criteria, you can retry it later, but death no longer restores the previous checkpoint, instead exits you out of the replay mission, and back to where you are currently. You can thank console gaming for the trend of lacking genuine, robust save systems. Replayed missions also restore the equipment, abilities and progression you had when you completed the mission the first time, so once you beat it with terrible equipment, it will never get any easier, no matter how long you delay it. Completing a mission is a commitment, and the results will not likely be changed. Any sane player would choose the order of missions wisely, and not attempt to rush through any of the mission sets unless they complete them perfectly first try. You'll do a lot less loading and dying if you just do it right the first time.
The tediousness of it all really takes the fun out of the missions, even if they weren't as cookie-cutter as they are. I feel more sneaky and cunning playing Fallout or Deus Ex. In AC:B, I find myself using stupidly effective combat or assassination techniques in sequence to blast through how stunningly boring it is, which of course, doesn't help me get those super-special bonuses needed to unlock VITAL parts of the game. =_=. Dear developers, it isn't a bonus if it is needed to understand what the fuck is going on in your twisted universe which otherwise seems like a floundering excuse for a plot. Of course, it's marketed as a complex interwoven net of conspiracies and history, but really, it's more like peeling the countless layers of an onion, and having your eyes tear all the while.
Showing posts with label XBOX 360. Show all posts
Showing posts with label XBOX 360. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Friday, November 12, 2010
Fallout: New Vegas - Finishing games before release is a thing of the past.
Again, little late for this, but I guess I'm catching up on some overdue homework.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you've heard anything at all about Fallout: New Vegas, then you've heard about how buggy the game is. For the uninitiated, here's a taste: Quests break constantly and cannot be continued; NPCs disappear when you leave the area and come back, making quest hand-ins impossible; World entities such as items or even characters get jammed or lost or clipped about a mile below the ground. You NEED the developer console and the respective commands to just PLAY the game. If you're playing on the PS3 or the Xbox, you are fucked. Fortunately, the story is alright, and the setting and events fit together well. You'd expect that the major unification faction of the West (developed in previous Fallout games) the NCR, would eventually make its push eastward and encounter resistance. And the location matters: an invaluable energy source post-apocalypse, the Hoover Dam, and the blast furnace of a new economy, the casinos and resorts of Vegas. Trading companies from all over struggle for control in the area, but are considered insignificant in the highly discerning eyes of Vegas. However, the city needs power (the dam), and the power needs the city (money to operate and maintain it), and everything in FNV seems to fall into the balance in the same way. Fallout 3 wasn't quite as good in terms of seeking that balance in setting and lore, but felt like it had more content and hours of fun regardless. In fact, a lot of my experience in FNV was spent retreading old territory because of the bugs and the constant need to replay a segment to avoid it. Statistically, I made a total of fifty saves in FO3. FNV was near 800.
Bugs aside though, I was also a little disappointed by the lack of a climactic super weapon at the end of the game ala Liberty Prime and the FEV. While Helios One was a very very very cool location, it didn't have the significance and impact I wanted on the outcome of the story. The Boomers and their carpet bombing is pretty awesome though, but was unfortunately just a short fly by and a result of an isolated sidequest.
Hoover Dam, the final battle site, and also the major location talked about from beginning to end, is a popular topic in our reality for conspiracy theorists, who believe it was constructed to house a top secret American weapon. What better location than to put something awesome in an alternate universe storyline where America has plenty of money, no ethical boundaries, tons of robotics and is willing to pulverize their communist enemies in any manner? Disappointingly, FNV doesn't try to explore that at all, and the Dam is just a regular hydroelectric plant. After all that build up, that's all we get? Really? I was really hoping for a result or weapon that would have consequences on the world, not just the west coast, like you know, when in previous Fallouts they were developing viruses to turn EVERY human into a mutant, or maybe in Van Buren, where they were going to control all the nukes stored in the orbital bombardment satellites. That's heavy stuff.
FNV was good enough overall, but next time I really hope the developers actually finish their game before releasing it next time. The industry is already starting to copy their style of 'release first, finish later'. Just look at Age of Conan, or perhaps worse, Magicka.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you've heard anything at all about Fallout: New Vegas, then you've heard about how buggy the game is. For the uninitiated, here's a taste: Quests break constantly and cannot be continued; NPCs disappear when you leave the area and come back, making quest hand-ins impossible; World entities such as items or even characters get jammed or lost or clipped about a mile below the ground. You NEED the developer console and the respective commands to just PLAY the game. If you're playing on the PS3 or the Xbox, you are fucked. Fortunately, the story is alright, and the setting and events fit together well. You'd expect that the major unification faction of the West (developed in previous Fallout games) the NCR, would eventually make its push eastward and encounter resistance. And the location matters: an invaluable energy source post-apocalypse, the Hoover Dam, and the blast furnace of a new economy, the casinos and resorts of Vegas. Trading companies from all over struggle for control in the area, but are considered insignificant in the highly discerning eyes of Vegas. However, the city needs power (the dam), and the power needs the city (money to operate and maintain it), and everything in FNV seems to fall into the balance in the same way. Fallout 3 wasn't quite as good in terms of seeking that balance in setting and lore, but felt like it had more content and hours of fun regardless. In fact, a lot of my experience in FNV was spent retreading old territory because of the bugs and the constant need to replay a segment to avoid it. Statistically, I made a total of fifty saves in FO3. FNV was near 800.
Bugs aside though, I was also a little disappointed by the lack of a climactic super weapon at the end of the game ala Liberty Prime and the FEV. While Helios One was a very very very cool location, it didn't have the significance and impact I wanted on the outcome of the story. The Boomers and their carpet bombing is pretty awesome though, but was unfortunately just a short fly by and a result of an isolated sidequest.
Hoover Dam, the final battle site, and also the major location talked about from beginning to end, is a popular topic in our reality for conspiracy theorists, who believe it was constructed to house a top secret American weapon. What better location than to put something awesome in an alternate universe storyline where America has plenty of money, no ethical boundaries, tons of robotics and is willing to pulverize their communist enemies in any manner? Disappointingly, FNV doesn't try to explore that at all, and the Dam is just a regular hydroelectric plant. After all that build up, that's all we get? Really? I was really hoping for a result or weapon that would have consequences on the world, not just the west coast, like you know, when in previous Fallouts they were developing viruses to turn EVERY human into a mutant, or maybe in Van Buren, where they were going to control all the nukes stored in the orbital bombardment satellites. That's heavy stuff.
FNV was good enough overall, but next time I really hope the developers actually finish their game before releasing it next time. The industry is already starting to copy their style of 'release first, finish later'. Just look at Age of Conan, or perhaps worse, Magicka.
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 6, 2009
CNC4 Subtitles
Lmao. In my previous post, I mentioned how terrible EA was at creating their subtitles for the CNC series, continually relying on some of the most trite and overused phrases in the entertainment industry, but there has been some new development. EA has been made aware to their inadequacies in the naming department... And is now asking fans to name the game for them through submissions. >_>
Wow. Well. Considering how terrible EA is at making games, maybe next time they'll ask fans to make the game for them too. This can only be a good thing.
Edit:
CNC4's subtitle is now Tiberian Twilight, as per fan requests, reverting back to the original naming scheme established by Westwood (in line with Tiberian Dawn, Tiberian Sun). It's a little odd now since CNC3 is named Tiberium Wars, a discontinuation of the trend... But what's done is done. Tiberian Twilight would have been alright as a subtitle, but I'm not that excited this time around, as:
1. CNC4 will play nothing like the previous CNCs, and thus, does not deserve the name Tiberian Twilight
2. This subtitle was originally intended as the name for CNC3 (when it was still being made by Westwood) so really, now they're just resurrecting an old title.
3. The title shows no EA ingenuity at all... Although this time it's not really EA's fault, as they left in the hands of the fans. Sorry to say, but the fans suck at making subtitles too, just not as much; they just copied Westwood's dead title.
Wow. Well. Considering how terrible EA is at making games, maybe next time they'll ask fans to make the game for them too. This can only be a good thing.
Edit:
CNC4's subtitle is now Tiberian Twilight, as per fan requests, reverting back to the original naming scheme established by Westwood (in line with Tiberian Dawn, Tiberian Sun). It's a little odd now since CNC3 is named Tiberium Wars, a discontinuation of the trend... But what's done is done. Tiberian Twilight would have been alright as a subtitle, but I'm not that excited this time around, as:
1. CNC4 will play nothing like the previous CNCs, and thus, does not deserve the name Tiberian Twilight
2. This subtitle was originally intended as the name for CNC3 (when it was still being made by Westwood) so really, now they're just resurrecting an old title.
3. The title shows no EA ingenuity at all... Although this time it's not really EA's fault, as they left in the hands of the fans. Sorry to say, but the fans suck at making subtitles too, just not as much; they just copied Westwood's dead title.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Context Sensitive. Not what you think it means.
I get increasingly frustrated nowadays with developers who are trying to do too much with their simplistic control scheme. While they tote keeping things simple and easy to remember as being a selling point, there comes a time when more complex controls give better precision to a player's gaming experience.
When pressing E in a combo does a super move, thats fine... But E also does 50 other damn things, and will basically screw you out of a combo chance if there happens to be a gun or some shit on the ground that you pick up instead.
Let's take Prototype for an example. Very much a console game ported to PC. Here's where E can be used.
E picks up weapons when you are not moving.
E throws away weapons when you are not moving.
E grabs other people.
E grabs other people while moving.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a small AOE attack.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a long range cone super move if you have enough HP.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E while in the air will cannonball you towards your target.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a long range cone super move if you have enough HP if you are in the air.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a different small AOE attack.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a huge AOE super attack if you have enough HP.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger an air AOE attack if you are in the air.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger an air super AOE attack if you are in the air and have enough HP.
Pressing E when you have your whipfist out will hookshot you to your target.
Pressing E when you have your whipfist out will hookshot you to your target while you are in the air.
Pressing E while holding a person will slam them into the ground.
Pressing F and then E will do a stealth consume.
Standing close to a tank or helicopter and pressing E will allow you to enter the vehicle.
Standing or moving close to a vehicle or any object and pressing E will pick up the vehicle provided you have enough strength to do so, and that the vehicle is non enterable. You cannot pick up objects when you already have something picked up, like a weapon.
So fuck that, E isn't even an attack key, and it is already used everywhere as if it was a key you press in a combination string in a Street Fighter game. If I was to compile a list of all the different moves that requires you to press primary attack or secondary attack, it would be basically every move in the game. Press left mouse button, then right, then left again to do one combo. Or left left right. Or left and right at once. Or hold right then left. Or hold right, hold left, release right, tap left. FUCK THAT.
Considering how the game plays, where you're running frantically, and facing not only a horde of infected beings in downtown New York, but also the relentless attacks of military soldiers, tanks, and attack choppers... You don't have time to be precise with controls. Considering how your character does different things when you're in the air than when you're on the ground, sometimes you're really just spending all your concentration on staying rooted to the floor while keeping your health high enough to do a super attack. The second you start running, you'll start auto-hopping over obstacles or running up walls or blasted into the air with an explosive that you'll no longer be on the ground. It gets worse that your character will do different things with the same commands depending on what weapon he has out. Considering that a lot of these moves above require you to hold or click primary or secondary fire at the start, that usually puts you into the animation for a completely different move, and you won't be able to execute the final move you wanted to do.
Consider this:
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a huge AOE super attack if you have enough HP.
I want to hit a boss with this attack in the small window that it is vulnerable.
I hold the right mouse button, but that already puts me into a charge kick attack that I cannot cancel. Pressing E now does fucking nothing. So how do you access this super AOE attack? First, find a target you don't care about that is outside the range of the boss. Hold down right mouse button and you will do a flying kick and kill said target. Then, without ever releasing your mouse button (preventing you from doing any further attacking or defending) you must wait until the window of opportunity shows up, all the while dodging any attacks. Run forward to the boss, and hold down E. If you are EVER knocked down while doing any of this, you must start all over, as your right mouse button is no longer considered to be held down after a knockdown. Unless your window is large enough such that you can do a flying kick animation and still have time left over to pull off the stationary AOE attack without being knocked down... Then this is the tedious method you must repeat.
I don't mean to harp on a single game, as this isn't a Prototype article, but it just so happens to be the most recent example on my mind. Many games on Gamecube have frustrated me to no end by trying to map as many different keys as possible to the same buttons or even the same sort of action. Mario Power Tennis is a prime example, mapping 5-7 different kinds of actions to the same two buttons. Depending on the sequence in which the two are pushed, the number of times they are pressed, the duration for which the button is held down, and the current alignment of the stars, these buttons will execute completely different actions. The Wii version is even worse, mapping all of those swings to movements of the remote. Considering that the Wii is a console based off of a barely functioning gimmick, trying to make the remote understand the difference between your topspin and flatspin is nigh impossible. The Wii has the same interface problem with many of the games in its library where the game tries to map too many different controls to the remote motions. In fact, it is easier to say that the rule is the only good games on the Wii are those that map only a single action to the remote movement, like Twilight Princess.
There are some controller devices that are just weird. But often, they are weird because they try to make a new type of controller that does something different... from pistol-mice, to glove controllers, to Novint Falcons, etc. That's not at all what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about having plenty of buttons to map your actions to... Yet persisting in mapping these controls to only a select few of the buttons available, resulting in an unusable control scheme that fails to translate the gamers' intent to the actions of the character. That's not the fault of the controller, it's the fault of the developers who have tried to put too much in too little. It's like capturing an amazing panoramic picture but cropping it down to a tiny photo frame. That's what these games are doing: taking a potentially great game, but crippling it with terrible controls so that your experience is just confined by frustration and exasperation.
When pressing E in a combo does a super move, thats fine... But E also does 50 other damn things, and will basically screw you out of a combo chance if there happens to be a gun or some shit on the ground that you pick up instead.
Let's take Prototype for an example. Very much a console game ported to PC. Here's where E can be used.
E picks up weapons when you are not moving.
E throws away weapons when you are not moving.
E grabs other people.
E grabs other people while moving.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a small AOE attack.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a long range cone super move if you have enough HP.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E while in the air will cannonball you towards your target.
Holding your primary attack key and pressing E will trigger a long range cone super move if you have enough HP if you are in the air.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a different small AOE attack.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a huge AOE super attack if you have enough HP.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger an air AOE attack if you are in the air.
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger an air super AOE attack if you are in the air and have enough HP.
Pressing E when you have your whipfist out will hookshot you to your target.
Pressing E when you have your whipfist out will hookshot you to your target while you are in the air.
Pressing E while holding a person will slam them into the ground.
Pressing F and then E will do a stealth consume.
Standing close to a tank or helicopter and pressing E will allow you to enter the vehicle.
Standing or moving close to a vehicle or any object and pressing E will pick up the vehicle provided you have enough strength to do so, and that the vehicle is non enterable. You cannot pick up objects when you already have something picked up, like a weapon.
So fuck that, E isn't even an attack key, and it is already used everywhere as if it was a key you press in a combination string in a Street Fighter game. If I was to compile a list of all the different moves that requires you to press primary attack or secondary attack, it would be basically every move in the game. Press left mouse button, then right, then left again to do one combo. Or left left right. Or left and right at once. Or hold right then left. Or hold right, hold left, release right, tap left. FUCK THAT.
Considering how the game plays, where you're running frantically, and facing not only a horde of infected beings in downtown New York, but also the relentless attacks of military soldiers, tanks, and attack choppers... You don't have time to be precise with controls. Considering how your character does different things when you're in the air than when you're on the ground, sometimes you're really just spending all your concentration on staying rooted to the floor while keeping your health high enough to do a super attack. The second you start running, you'll start auto-hopping over obstacles or running up walls or blasted into the air with an explosive that you'll no longer be on the ground. It gets worse that your character will do different things with the same commands depending on what weapon he has out. Considering that a lot of these moves above require you to hold or click primary or secondary fire at the start, that usually puts you into the animation for a completely different move, and you won't be able to execute the final move you wanted to do.
Consider this:
Holding your secondary attack key and pressing E will trigger a huge AOE super attack if you have enough HP.
I want to hit a boss with this attack in the small window that it is vulnerable.
I hold the right mouse button, but that already puts me into a charge kick attack that I cannot cancel. Pressing E now does fucking nothing. So how do you access this super AOE attack? First, find a target you don't care about that is outside the range of the boss. Hold down right mouse button and you will do a flying kick and kill said target. Then, without ever releasing your mouse button (preventing you from doing any further attacking or defending) you must wait until the window of opportunity shows up, all the while dodging any attacks. Run forward to the boss, and hold down E. If you are EVER knocked down while doing any of this, you must start all over, as your right mouse button is no longer considered to be held down after a knockdown. Unless your window is large enough such that you can do a flying kick animation and still have time left over to pull off the stationary AOE attack without being knocked down... Then this is the tedious method you must repeat.
I don't mean to harp on a single game, as this isn't a Prototype article, but it just so happens to be the most recent example on my mind. Many games on Gamecube have frustrated me to no end by trying to map as many different keys as possible to the same buttons or even the same sort of action. Mario Power Tennis is a prime example, mapping 5-7 different kinds of actions to the same two buttons. Depending on the sequence in which the two are pushed, the number of times they are pressed, the duration for which the button is held down, and the current alignment of the stars, these buttons will execute completely different actions. The Wii version is even worse, mapping all of those swings to movements of the remote. Considering that the Wii is a console based off of a barely functioning gimmick, trying to make the remote understand the difference between your topspin and flatspin is nigh impossible. The Wii has the same interface problem with many of the games in its library where the game tries to map too many different controls to the remote motions. In fact, it is easier to say that the rule is the only good games on the Wii are those that map only a single action to the remote movement, like Twilight Princess.
There are some controller devices that are just weird. But often, they are weird because they try to make a new type of controller that does something different... from pistol-mice, to glove controllers, to Novint Falcons, etc. That's not at all what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about having plenty of buttons to map your actions to... Yet persisting in mapping these controls to only a select few of the buttons available, resulting in an unusable control scheme that fails to translate the gamers' intent to the actions of the character. That's not the fault of the controller, it's the fault of the developers who have tried to put too much in too little. It's like capturing an amazing panoramic picture but cropping it down to a tiny photo frame. That's what these games are doing: taking a potentially great game, but crippling it with terrible controls so that your experience is just confined by frustration and exasperation.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Mechwarrior 5 - FEUDALISM. IN SPACE.
The game is just called Mechwarrior, since its a series reboot. It still isn't too clear to me why a series reboot is justified in having a name that allows it to be easily confused with the original Mechwarrior game. That just sounds stupid to me.
"Hey lets reboot Spiderman and give him a new image that will rejuvenate the franchise"
"Alright, so we want to make it different from the original Spiderman right?"
"Yea, for sure. The old Spiderman is too boring, so we're making him different. This way fans can't even complain about inconsistencies."
"Uh okay. So what do we call it, if we want to make it differentiable?"
"How about... Spiderman?"
"..."
Seriously, that must be the conversation that occurs in Hollywood or wherever reboots may be made. Only God knows what is wrong with these people... And how they should be punished in hell accordingly.
So anyway, I will be referring to this new upcoming 2009 game as Mechwarrior 5, since it makes far more sense. Here is a trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl4eI3htAuA
It uses the UT3 engine. Cool that they were able to adapt the UT3 engine; it looks good. Not so cool that I can already bet that many sacrifices to gameplay were made to cater to this engine. Also, when a developer reuses an engine, they save development time and money. I fully expect that these resources are reinvested to the game itself, and the game should be even better than if it had its own engine. So, the bar has been raised, even though the game hasn't even been released. Well, they brought it upon themselves.
So whats the problem?
There is no problem! Yea! What a surprise, coming from me, the pessimist of the century. I am actually glad they are doing this game, as I am a big fan of Mechwarrior, and although I hate unfaithful adaptations, Mechwarrior's franchise was dead because its original IP holder, FASA had been liquidated. Microsoft held the rights, but they weren't going to touch the money-losing franchise with a 10 feet pole. Basically, the Mech fans had lost hope of having another game for ages... And here we have an opportunity to restart it... And its on PC! Man that sounds great way to bring back some old memories. Considering how I've been waiting on a MW mod that has been in development for years (and still is)... You can see how eager I am to play MechWarrior again.
With my optimism though, there are some things that bother me, although I won't really mind either way. Just think of it as a wishlist.
- I don't think that MW5 will support fully customizable mechs like in MW4. It may be following more of the boardgame rules in this sense, and only allow pre-set variants. That's a shame, because it makes it a little less fun, but it comes with the benefit of cutting out cheap variants that can abuse certain aspects. The gameplay will be more well balanced instead. I can appreciate both results in this case, although having full-customization for unranked or offline play would be the best of both worlds.
- The date in the trailer says 3015. The clans invaded in 3050 (late 3049 if you're really anal) so clan tech will probably not be in the game. That's a shame, since a lot of my favorite mech designs were from clans, and some of the best weapons in the game were also clan weapons. While this is alright from a lore perspective, clan weapons have always been plain superior upgrades relative to standard weapons. It made standard weapons instantly obsolete and redundant. I can understand the advantages to having clan weapons in the game, but also not having them. Like I said above, having the option in unranked/singleplayer would be amazing. However, I doubt clan chassis will be in, since that requires a lot more work for the developers. A friend though notes that the Atlas-C in the trailer is a variant made in 3080, so it could be possible that the reboot cheats the standard lore a little bit, and clans could be in anyway. How's that for geekdom?
That's really it for my wishlist. I'm really excited about this game, like I have not been for a game in a long time. I hope it'll have a larger and more tightly knit multiplayer community than the previous games.
Edit: Apparently the game is being called MechWarrior 3015 by the community. Fair enough.
"Hey lets reboot Spiderman and give him a new image that will rejuvenate the franchise"
"Alright, so we want to make it different from the original Spiderman right?"
"Yea, for sure. The old Spiderman is too boring, so we're making him different. This way fans can't even complain about inconsistencies."
"Uh okay. So what do we call it, if we want to make it differentiable?"
"How about... Spiderman?"
"..."
Seriously, that must be the conversation that occurs in Hollywood or wherever reboots may be made. Only God knows what is wrong with these people... And how they should be punished in hell accordingly.
So anyway, I will be referring to this new upcoming 2009 game as Mechwarrior 5, since it makes far more sense. Here is a trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl4eI3htAuA
It uses the UT3 engine. Cool that they were able to adapt the UT3 engine; it looks good. Not so cool that I can already bet that many sacrifices to gameplay were made to cater to this engine. Also, when a developer reuses an engine, they save development time and money. I fully expect that these resources are reinvested to the game itself, and the game should be even better than if it had its own engine. So, the bar has been raised, even though the game hasn't even been released. Well, they brought it upon themselves.
So whats the problem?
There is no problem! Yea! What a surprise, coming from me, the pessimist of the century. I am actually glad they are doing this game, as I am a big fan of Mechwarrior, and although I hate unfaithful adaptations, Mechwarrior's franchise was dead because its original IP holder, FASA had been liquidated. Microsoft held the rights, but they weren't going to touch the money-losing franchise with a 10 feet pole. Basically, the Mech fans had lost hope of having another game for ages... And here we have an opportunity to restart it... And its on PC! Man that sounds great way to bring back some old memories. Considering how I've been waiting on a MW mod that has been in development for years (and still is)... You can see how eager I am to play MechWarrior again.
With my optimism though, there are some things that bother me, although I won't really mind either way. Just think of it as a wishlist.
- I don't think that MW5 will support fully customizable mechs like in MW4. It may be following more of the boardgame rules in this sense, and only allow pre-set variants. That's a shame, because it makes it a little less fun, but it comes with the benefit of cutting out cheap variants that can abuse certain aspects. The gameplay will be more well balanced instead. I can appreciate both results in this case, although having full-customization for unranked or offline play would be the best of both worlds.
- The date in the trailer says 3015. The clans invaded in 3050 (late 3049 if you're really anal) so clan tech will probably not be in the game. That's a shame, since a lot of my favorite mech designs were from clans, and some of the best weapons in the game were also clan weapons. While this is alright from a lore perspective, clan weapons have always been plain superior upgrades relative to standard weapons. It made standard weapons instantly obsolete and redundant. I can understand the advantages to having clan weapons in the game, but also not having them. Like I said above, having the option in unranked/singleplayer would be amazing. However, I doubt clan chassis will be in, since that requires a lot more work for the developers. A friend though notes that the Atlas-C in the trailer is a variant made in 3080, so it could be possible that the reboot cheats the standard lore a little bit, and clans could be in anyway. How's that for geekdom?
That's really it for my wishlist. I'm really excited about this game, like I have not been for a game in a long time. I hope it'll have a larger and more tightly knit multiplayer community than the previous games.
Edit: Apparently the game is being called MechWarrior 3015 by the community. Fair enough.
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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Last Remnant Part 2 - Overglorified Coin Tossing
Last time, we finished talking about the horrid battle system that turns TLR into a coin tossing nightmare, where the game developers have assumed that a system of chance and sheer luck would fairly even the playing field between skilled players who could strategically plan ahead and those who just mashed buttons. The fun has only just begun.
One thing that becomes tediously unmanageable is the method in which the game tries to add layers of complexity and detail. Players can collect materials and components from their battles and use them to upgrade existing gear (instead of just selling the loot like vendor trash). In addition, often times monsters will drop 'eggs' which can be broken down into more components at the end of the battle in which they were acquired. Eggs can be sold for a greater amount of cash at vendors if they aren't broken down, so we can see that Square wanted to give their players a choice, and put their decision making abilities to the test. One thing you will notice is that the eggs can be disassembled into individual materials immediately after completion of a battle, but whatever decision you choose will be permanent; disassembled eggs cannot be reassembled, and eggs you have not disassembled cannot be disassembled later. While this is a frustrating mechanic that limits the player to making an immediate choice, I can sympathize, as allowing the player the freedom to disassemble later on removes any possible shortcoming of holding onto as many eggs as possible.
What is worth complaining about is the lack of information given. When presented with the egg disassembly screen, you are told what materials the egg is comprised of, but you are not told what the materials are for. As there are thousands of upgrade materials, you have NO idea whether or not you should disassemble the egg as you do not know if you even need the disasembled materials or not. The only method is to have previously WRITTEN DOWN the materials and quantities required while at the Blacksmith, PRECEDING and OUTSIDE of battle. You absolutely need a notepad to play this game. Worse, your party members will need upgrade materials as well to upgrade their own equipment. While you do know what items they are looking for, you will have no idea how much of each component they need. If your party member has 5 of 6 Feathered Skull Husks required to reach his next upgrade tier, you will not be told that he needs 6, nor will you be told how many are remaining before he reaches his next tier, nor will you be able to control how many he gets the next time the material drops. So if 20 Feathered Skull Husks (yes the component names really are that long) drop the next battle, either your teammate with 5/6 gets all 20 or nothing at all. If your 20 party members all require a common material... Good luck getting it for them, as it'll take five times as long to gather the components because of the wasteful loot distribution system. Once a party member receives an item, you can no longer take it away from them; it's gone forever.
In the same vein of taking control away from the player in the dumbest way possible, you cannot control the equipment your party members equip. This is silly, since you are capable of picking up, creating and purchasing equipment that is strictly confined to certain races (most of which your main character is not). So how do you get your party members to equip this epic item that you found for them? You have to enter and exit the world map repeatedly until your party member ASKS you to lend the item to him or her. Once they have it equipped, again, you will not be able to repossess it or assign it to someone else, unless you provide them with even better equipment that will overwrite that slot. What was Square thinking? How does this better gameplay in any aspect but convolute something that should be damned simple? You never get to see how the comparison of your party member's stats before and after the item is equipped, so it's really hard to tell who should get what in the first place! But once you fuck up, it's over; there's no going back, you mind as well reload your save. Hey I have a great idea, how about if when the game starts, you get a totally unrelated decision of which you have not gotten any information about how to answer correctly, and if you make the wrong choice, your game turns off! More coin tossing, anyone?
What about the game's skill trees? As your character (or your party members) starts to level up, you will gain access to new skill trees, such as potion abilities, herbal abilities, magic abilities, melee... etc. In the same way as mentioned above, on a random chance of entering the world map, you will be confronted with the daunting question 'Shall I focus on melee skills or diversify into magic?'....... Wait, is the character melee based or magic based? What are his stats like? What skills will he learn in the future for either tree? Is diversifying going to slow his leveling? How many other casters do I already have in my 20 man team? None of this is answered, but you must make a decision right away, which invariably, irreversibly and ultimately affects the outcome of the rest of the game. Once you answer, there is no going back, even if the character in question has not actually placed any experience into their new tree yet. TLR is a game of uneducated decision making where tossing a coin is as effective as trying to understand the mechanics of the game intimately.
The last thing that annoys me severely is Square's attempt to move away from the traditional by eliminating the level system. Instead of having levels to represent character strength, it is now apparently the cool thing to have no levels. When has this ever been a good idea, especially in a method that is as poorly implemented as in TLR? While no levels appear on any of your characters, your character does indeed have individual hidden levels. You will notice a drastic difference in skill between unleveled members of your party, versus leveled ones. Ones that die often in combat, or are benched often will be drastically weaker than those who survive and fight on. However, Square does away with the leveling system, so you have no idea whether or not your party members are the most fit for battle of the lot of fighters at your disposal. You may be fielding severely weak and underleveled party members and not even realise it until you see them get one-shotted by a boss. Yet, you do see an aggregate level called 'Battle Ranking' that rates the aggregate strength of your entire party... So then what the hell is the point of having this awkward no-level system when ultimately, in the background of it all, there IS a level count, and the AI sure as hell knows what it is, but they aren't going to tell you. Talk about pointless.
Seriously, Square needs to understand that if they want to be original and innovative, they have to actually incorporate some brilliance and sensibility into the design. By changing the outlying appearance of the game, they've implemented half-assed features that do more to cripple the game than enhance it. And it's not just Square that is guilty of this as many other developers have taken the idea of being ground breaking to the level that they would have done much better by sticking to what they know. Not everyone in this universe is a brilliant genius, and out of the hundred people who jumped off a cliff with a prototype parachute, only one managed to deploy it. Square is one of the many who ended up as a bloody splatter in their blind approach to finding a winning formula. Innovative ideas may sound mad at conception, but it's the ones with method in their madness that find success... TLR is an exercise in sheer idiotic lunacy.
One thing that becomes tediously unmanageable is the method in which the game tries to add layers of complexity and detail. Players can collect materials and components from their battles and use them to upgrade existing gear (instead of just selling the loot like vendor trash). In addition, often times monsters will drop 'eggs' which can be broken down into more components at the end of the battle in which they were acquired. Eggs can be sold for a greater amount of cash at vendors if they aren't broken down, so we can see that Square wanted to give their players a choice, and put their decision making abilities to the test. One thing you will notice is that the eggs can be disassembled into individual materials immediately after completion of a battle, but whatever decision you choose will be permanent; disassembled eggs cannot be reassembled, and eggs you have not disassembled cannot be disassembled later. While this is a frustrating mechanic that limits the player to making an immediate choice, I can sympathize, as allowing the player the freedom to disassemble later on removes any possible shortcoming of holding onto as many eggs as possible.
What is worth complaining about is the lack of information given. When presented with the egg disassembly screen, you are told what materials the egg is comprised of, but you are not told what the materials are for. As there are thousands of upgrade materials, you have NO idea whether or not you should disassemble the egg as you do not know if you even need the disasembled materials or not. The only method is to have previously WRITTEN DOWN the materials and quantities required while at the Blacksmith, PRECEDING and OUTSIDE of battle. You absolutely need a notepad to play this game. Worse, your party members will need upgrade materials as well to upgrade their own equipment. While you do know what items they are looking for, you will have no idea how much of each component they need. If your party member has 5 of 6 Feathered Skull Husks required to reach his next upgrade tier, you will not be told that he needs 6, nor will you be told how many are remaining before he reaches his next tier, nor will you be able to control how many he gets the next time the material drops. So if 20 Feathered Skull Husks (yes the component names really are that long) drop the next battle, either your teammate with 5/6 gets all 20 or nothing at all. If your 20 party members all require a common material... Good luck getting it for them, as it'll take five times as long to gather the components because of the wasteful loot distribution system. Once a party member receives an item, you can no longer take it away from them; it's gone forever.
In the same vein of taking control away from the player in the dumbest way possible, you cannot control the equipment your party members equip. This is silly, since you are capable of picking up, creating and purchasing equipment that is strictly confined to certain races (most of which your main character is not). So how do you get your party members to equip this epic item that you found for them? You have to enter and exit the world map repeatedly until your party member ASKS you to lend the item to him or her. Once they have it equipped, again, you will not be able to repossess it or assign it to someone else, unless you provide them with even better equipment that will overwrite that slot. What was Square thinking? How does this better gameplay in any aspect but convolute something that should be damned simple? You never get to see how the comparison of your party member's stats before and after the item is equipped, so it's really hard to tell who should get what in the first place! But once you fuck up, it's over; there's no going back, you mind as well reload your save. Hey I have a great idea, how about if when the game starts, you get a totally unrelated decision of which you have not gotten any information about how to answer correctly, and if you make the wrong choice, your game turns off! More coin tossing, anyone?
What about the game's skill trees? As your character (or your party members) starts to level up, you will gain access to new skill trees, such as potion abilities, herbal abilities, magic abilities, melee... etc. In the same way as mentioned above, on a random chance of entering the world map, you will be confronted with the daunting question 'Shall I focus on melee skills or diversify into magic?'....... Wait, is the character melee based or magic based? What are his stats like? What skills will he learn in the future for either tree? Is diversifying going to slow his leveling? How many other casters do I already have in my 20 man team? None of this is answered, but you must make a decision right away, which invariably, irreversibly and ultimately affects the outcome of the rest of the game. Once you answer, there is no going back, even if the character in question has not actually placed any experience into their new tree yet. TLR is a game of uneducated decision making where tossing a coin is as effective as trying to understand the mechanics of the game intimately.
The last thing that annoys me severely is Square's attempt to move away from the traditional by eliminating the level system. Instead of having levels to represent character strength, it is now apparently the cool thing to have no levels. When has this ever been a good idea, especially in a method that is as poorly implemented as in TLR? While no levels appear on any of your characters, your character does indeed have individual hidden levels. You will notice a drastic difference in skill between unleveled members of your party, versus leveled ones. Ones that die often in combat, or are benched often will be drastically weaker than those who survive and fight on. However, Square does away with the leveling system, so you have no idea whether or not your party members are the most fit for battle of the lot of fighters at your disposal. You may be fielding severely weak and underleveled party members and not even realise it until you see them get one-shotted by a boss. Yet, you do see an aggregate level called 'Battle Ranking' that rates the aggregate strength of your entire party... So then what the hell is the point of having this awkward no-level system when ultimately, in the background of it all, there IS a level count, and the AI sure as hell knows what it is, but they aren't going to tell you. Talk about pointless.
Seriously, Square needs to understand that if they want to be original and innovative, they have to actually incorporate some brilliance and sensibility into the design. By changing the outlying appearance of the game, they've implemented half-assed features that do more to cripple the game than enhance it. And it's not just Square that is guilty of this as many other developers have taken the idea of being ground breaking to the level that they would have done much better by sticking to what they know. Not everyone in this universe is a brilliant genius, and out of the hundred people who jumped off a cliff with a prototype parachute, only one managed to deploy it. Square is one of the many who ended up as a bloody splatter in their blind approach to finding a winning formula. Innovative ideas may sound mad at conception, but it's the ones with method in their madness that find success... TLR is an exercise in sheer idiotic lunacy.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Last Remnant pt.1 - Hiding Information from the Player Makes the Game Easier
The Last Remnant. Yea, well the title is probably the best part of this game - you don't have to expect an even shittier sequel. I mean it is LAST right? No. It's about as last as Final Fantasy is final. So what will it be called? The Second Last (Penultimate) Remnant? Last Remnant 2? Who knows, just close your eyes and plug your ears till it blows over. But I'm getting ahead of myself since we haven't even dived into how shitty the first one is.
The story is quite simple and generic, so I won't talk about it too much. Typical boy wanders out into world, has hidden fantastic powers, is out to stop super villains and eventually gets the girl. Of course, the 'girl' in this game happens to be your little sister, so unless there's some incestuous undertone here, which I really wouldn't put past the Japanese, there is effectively no romantic portion. Possibly for the best. See it how you will, but there really isn't any other female lead in this game worth mentioning.
Whoa okay, so that's not entirely true. There is one character that does blossom out to be passable, dare I say, interesting but unfortunately, no more than an hour in, you will quickly start getting the hint that this character is going to be obsoleted. First, you notice that she's over 40 and let's face it, any character that isn't within the teen's bracket is going to leave your party permanently, and bequeath his or her role in the game to another more youthful character. The game quickly introduces to you her replacement: a lone NPC that looks exactly like her, except younger. They mind as well just tell you: this character is going to be replaced by a younger, hotter version. Don't bother training her. She even repeats 'I will gladly give my life for Athlum' several times, with exceedingly painful emphasis as soon as there is even the slightest threat. No other character emits this sort of patriotic valor, but that's not the effect that Square was trying to achieve. No, they were trying to drill a foreboding warning into your mind, as if it wasn't obvious enough. To put this into perspective, you realise all this within the first hour of a game rated at a length of 70-100 hours. I would not have minded so much if she wasn't the one single good character of the game. Afterwards, you're left with a terrible and forgetable cast who you really wish you could do without.
Most of the other characters do very little talking in the game, but the dialogue is lame, both in the way that it is uninteresting and doesn't progress the game. It is meaningless chatter to fill in the void. Avoiding these NPCs entirely and continuing will have no negative impact on your experience. Unfortunately, they apply the same sort of treatment to the cutscenes, drawing out meaningless babble and adding awkwardly long pauses between sentences. I'm not sure if it was an issue with the English dubbing, but the scenes themselves are also too long. If I want to pan around the environment at a distance that is much too close to really get a grasp of the surroundings, I would happily do it myself when I am in control of the camera.
And I haven't gotten into the real shitter yet: the gameplay of this game is unbelievably terrible. First, you should know that Square designed this game off the Unreal engine, and admitted to facing many challenges converting a FPS engine to work well with a turn-based RPG game. It seemed to me that they were really forced into working with something they knew would be problematic and limiting, just so they could sell it under the pretense that it was a JRPG marketed towards the American market. Seeing that The Last Remnant was built practically around the XBOX 360, with the controls and interface contoured for the 360 controller, and that a PS3 version has never been discussed... This game was solely targeted towards American console FPSers between the ages of 13-20ish. I really hesitate to bump the number higher, as the gameplay really isn't deep enough to warrant drawing in the hardcore crowd of RPGers, who are often older geeks.
Regardless, I am still unclear as to what aspect of the game really appeals to the American audience. Does the story or setting have a strong resemblance to western culture? No more so than other JRPGs. Do the characters feel like they bear the attitudes and personalities of typical American people? No, in fact, most characters are quite soft-spoken, perhaps with the sole exception of Rush, the main protagonist (the player) who is a total moron. I guess that's very much like the typical American 360 player after all, but why just him? How could you even feel anything but alienation from this character; he's impossible to respect in any aspect. Is the game trying to appeal to American non-RPG audiences by dumbing down what the RPG genre is and reducing any complexities down to random chance and your character levels? .... I think we found a winner!
That's exactly what Last Remnant's gameplay is: a shitty, random, washed out version of what a tactical RPG is usually like. Of course, instead of viewing this as a weakness, Square promotes them as innovative features.
Here's a taste: Instead of controlling individual characters, you give commands to an entire squad, consisting of up to 5 characters each. You eventually get to control practically a battalion, with multiple squads under your command. Giving orders to a group is fine and all, but what ultimately ends up happening is that each of your groups members deliver individual commands. It completely defeats the purpose of the group-system in the first place, as you have none of the advantages and all of the problems. You can tell an entire party to attack, use spells, use skills or defend... But they all do different things. Say if you tell a party to use spells, only 2 of your party members will cast some spell of their choosing, and the others will run in and melee. You won't get to choose what spell these two use, or which of your characters will cast the spell. Switching your target to another enemy at equivalent distance will bring up a completely new set of options. You may only be able to defend this turn if you attack the enemies on the left, but you may only be able to melee the enemies on the right. Is there a particular reason that you are restricted in such a way? No! You can restart the fight, and have the exact same conditions, yet different combat options will be open to you. Last Remnant uses RANDOM chance to fluctuate the difficulty of battles. If you tell your party to attack with spells, the game may choose to have your weakest caster cast the spells and use up the party's aggregate mana. Conversely, telling your party to heal another party may have your slowest caster cast the heal... Which usually means that your allied party is already dead before the heal is completed. The inability to choose who will use what wildly changes how your battles will play out, meaning if you input a set of commands for a fight, you may end up failing miserably... Yet in the exact same battle, the same commands again may allow you to win handily because the random members and random skills chosen just happened to match up in such a way that it maximized the effectiveness of your party.
... That is an atrocity. To have the element of luck and nebulous party/combat management be the main deciding factor in your battles is a terrible idea from conception. Why not just roll dice at the start of the fight and be done with it?
But wait, it can't be that bad right? You can probably level up or gear up a little more to improve your chances. No. You can't. Although the skills chosen to be cast (and who casts them) are random, the option of possible commands that appear for your party are ALSO random. Some turns, for no reason, your party will not be allowed to heal. It doesn't matter if they have healing items on them, if they have no health, full health, lots of AP, little AP or no status afflictions... You just CAN'T. No reasons are ever given in this game, so you just got to tough it out until your heals or attacks start to appear. If you've got shitty luck, expect to watch your party get slaughtered when they cannot make any moves other than 'play it by the ear' for 5 consecutive turns. And what is 'Play It By the Ear'? That's when your party members get to do whatever the fuck they want, and you won't even know because all their skills appear as ???. It literally IS just rolling the dice for that turn. Although I'm telling you, sometimes even THAT doesn't appear as an option. Then you're really fucked and you mind as well just reload your closest save.
But what the fuck is the point? Sometimes you're unable to heal, and your only hope of healing is to select Play It By the Ear and hope to God that one of your party members will decide healing is a good idea. So if your party is technically capable of using a heal... Why the fuck wasn't the option there in the first place? Was it just funny to have it hidden? Why is there even a 5 command options limit in the first place? You have 5 things to pick from at random, and sometimes they're all shitty. But by the luck of the draw, your parties may do something that is actually helpful. There is no planning your battles, there is no skill and there definitely is no strategy. I've read some comments and reviews that compliments TLR for having an innovative level of strategic commanding... But nowhere have I found anyone who can tell me HOW they are being strategic. Simply put, these people are full of shit, and are probably indeed the never-played-a-RPG-before Americans that Square were hoping to please.
While in combat, you can maneuver your squads to deadlock other enemy squads... Once in deadlock, that's when the damage begins, pending your nebulous combat options above. There is also a strategic flanking damage bonus that you will never be able to capitalize on. Your squads can supposedly go around and attack an enemy squad at its rear for increase damage... But you simply cannot get this to happen because you cannot give your squad a command to go to a specific location on the battlefield. Everything you do is relative to the enemy squads. You can either stay put and do nothing where you are... Or you charge forwards towards the targetted enemy squad. There is no in between, there is no walking to the left edge of the battlefield, nor is there a 'Circle around the deadlock and flank them' command. This game is charge, charge, and charge.
Here's what I don't understand. Square tries to make the game easier to understand and play and not make it too overwhelming with information to the player... But they do it hiding everything. You do not get to see why certain spells cannot be cast, you don't get to know why you can't heal, you don't get to know who is even going to attack first in a deadlock. All this stuff is important, as it affects the way you're going to command the next turn. If your enemy is going to get off the attack first the next turn, you may want to avoid casting large-long-cast spells. If the enemy has been charging a long casting spell for the previous turn, you may want to have options to attack quickly and interrupt or run the hell away. But no, you're completely at the mercy of the game, who on a whim may or may not give you the commands to effectively deal with the situation.
Even GIVEN the option to heal/attack/resurrect in this game, it is still a pain in the ass. If two parties are low on HP, even selecting which party to heal becomes impossible. You cannot target friendly parties. Instead you target the enemy party that your friendly parties have targeted. You can then cast a heal to heal the target of your target. Wow. Way to make it confusing, assholes. But worse, if two parties are targetting the same enemy squad... Which party are you healing? Now that will be fucking random again. You won't get to pick, and you're definitely not going to get a second command option to heal the other group. Again, either you tough it out and hope to God that next turn you get the options you want, or you restart.
This is a fairly long game, and there are way more problems than this. Stay tuned for TLR, Part 2.
The story is quite simple and generic, so I won't talk about it too much. Typical boy wanders out into world, has hidden fantastic powers, is out to stop super villains and eventually gets the girl. Of course, the 'girl' in this game happens to be your little sister, so unless there's some incestuous undertone here, which I really wouldn't put past the Japanese, there is effectively no romantic portion. Possibly for the best. See it how you will, but there really isn't any other female lead in this game worth mentioning.
Whoa okay, so that's not entirely true. There is one character that does blossom out to be passable, dare I say, interesting but unfortunately, no more than an hour in, you will quickly start getting the hint that this character is going to be obsoleted. First, you notice that she's over 40 and let's face it, any character that isn't within the teen's bracket is going to leave your party permanently, and bequeath his or her role in the game to another more youthful character. The game quickly introduces to you her replacement: a lone NPC that looks exactly like her, except younger. They mind as well just tell you: this character is going to be replaced by a younger, hotter version. Don't bother training her. She even repeats 'I will gladly give my life for Athlum' several times, with exceedingly painful emphasis as soon as there is even the slightest threat. No other character emits this sort of patriotic valor, but that's not the effect that Square was trying to achieve. No, they were trying to drill a foreboding warning into your mind, as if it wasn't obvious enough. To put this into perspective, you realise all this within the first hour of a game rated at a length of 70-100 hours. I would not have minded so much if she wasn't the one single good character of the game. Afterwards, you're left with a terrible and forgetable cast who you really wish you could do without.
Most of the other characters do very little talking in the game, but the dialogue is lame, both in the way that it is uninteresting and doesn't progress the game. It is meaningless chatter to fill in the void. Avoiding these NPCs entirely and continuing will have no negative impact on your experience. Unfortunately, they apply the same sort of treatment to the cutscenes, drawing out meaningless babble and adding awkwardly long pauses between sentences. I'm not sure if it was an issue with the English dubbing, but the scenes themselves are also too long. If I want to pan around the environment at a distance that is much too close to really get a grasp of the surroundings, I would happily do it myself when I am in control of the camera.
And I haven't gotten into the real shitter yet: the gameplay of this game is unbelievably terrible. First, you should know that Square designed this game off the Unreal engine, and admitted to facing many challenges converting a FPS engine to work well with a turn-based RPG game. It seemed to me that they were really forced into working with something they knew would be problematic and limiting, just so they could sell it under the pretense that it was a JRPG marketed towards the American market. Seeing that The Last Remnant was built practically around the XBOX 360, with the controls and interface contoured for the 360 controller, and that a PS3 version has never been discussed... This game was solely targeted towards American console FPSers between the ages of 13-20ish. I really hesitate to bump the number higher, as the gameplay really isn't deep enough to warrant drawing in the hardcore crowd of RPGers, who are often older geeks.
Regardless, I am still unclear as to what aspect of the game really appeals to the American audience. Does the story or setting have a strong resemblance to western culture? No more so than other JRPGs. Do the characters feel like they bear the attitudes and personalities of typical American people? No, in fact, most characters are quite soft-spoken, perhaps with the sole exception of Rush, the main protagonist (the player) who is a total moron. I guess that's very much like the typical American 360 player after all, but why just him? How could you even feel anything but alienation from this character; he's impossible to respect in any aspect. Is the game trying to appeal to American non-RPG audiences by dumbing down what the RPG genre is and reducing any complexities down to random chance and your character levels? .... I think we found a winner!
That's exactly what Last Remnant's gameplay is: a shitty, random, washed out version of what a tactical RPG is usually like. Of course, instead of viewing this as a weakness, Square promotes them as innovative features.
Here's a taste: Instead of controlling individual characters, you give commands to an entire squad, consisting of up to 5 characters each. You eventually get to control practically a battalion, with multiple squads under your command. Giving orders to a group is fine and all, but what ultimately ends up happening is that each of your groups members deliver individual commands. It completely defeats the purpose of the group-system in the first place, as you have none of the advantages and all of the problems. You can tell an entire party to attack, use spells, use skills or defend... But they all do different things. Say if you tell a party to use spells, only 2 of your party members will cast some spell of their choosing, and the others will run in and melee. You won't get to choose what spell these two use, or which of your characters will cast the spell. Switching your target to another enemy at equivalent distance will bring up a completely new set of options. You may only be able to defend this turn if you attack the enemies on the left, but you may only be able to melee the enemies on the right. Is there a particular reason that you are restricted in such a way? No! You can restart the fight, and have the exact same conditions, yet different combat options will be open to you. Last Remnant uses RANDOM chance to fluctuate the difficulty of battles. If you tell your party to attack with spells, the game may choose to have your weakest caster cast the spells and use up the party's aggregate mana. Conversely, telling your party to heal another party may have your slowest caster cast the heal... Which usually means that your allied party is already dead before the heal is completed. The inability to choose who will use what wildly changes how your battles will play out, meaning if you input a set of commands for a fight, you may end up failing miserably... Yet in the exact same battle, the same commands again may allow you to win handily because the random members and random skills chosen just happened to match up in such a way that it maximized the effectiveness of your party.
... That is an atrocity. To have the element of luck and nebulous party/combat management be the main deciding factor in your battles is a terrible idea from conception. Why not just roll dice at the start of the fight and be done with it?
But wait, it can't be that bad right? You can probably level up or gear up a little more to improve your chances. No. You can't. Although the skills chosen to be cast (and who casts them) are random, the option of possible commands that appear for your party are ALSO random. Some turns, for no reason, your party will not be allowed to heal. It doesn't matter if they have healing items on them, if they have no health, full health, lots of AP, little AP or no status afflictions... You just CAN'T. No reasons are ever given in this game, so you just got to tough it out until your heals or attacks start to appear. If you've got shitty luck, expect to watch your party get slaughtered when they cannot make any moves other than 'play it by the ear' for 5 consecutive turns. And what is 'Play It By the Ear'? That's when your party members get to do whatever the fuck they want, and you won't even know because all their skills appear as ???. It literally IS just rolling the dice for that turn. Although I'm telling you, sometimes even THAT doesn't appear as an option. Then you're really fucked and you mind as well just reload your closest save.
But what the fuck is the point? Sometimes you're unable to heal, and your only hope of healing is to select Play It By the Ear and hope to God that one of your party members will decide healing is a good idea. So if your party is technically capable of using a heal... Why the fuck wasn't the option there in the first place? Was it just funny to have it hidden? Why is there even a 5 command options limit in the first place? You have 5 things to pick from at random, and sometimes they're all shitty. But by the luck of the draw, your parties may do something that is actually helpful. There is no planning your battles, there is no skill and there definitely is no strategy. I've read some comments and reviews that compliments TLR for having an innovative level of strategic commanding... But nowhere have I found anyone who can tell me HOW they are being strategic. Simply put, these people are full of shit, and are probably indeed the never-played-a-RPG-before Americans that Square were hoping to please.
While in combat, you can maneuver your squads to deadlock other enemy squads... Once in deadlock, that's when the damage begins, pending your nebulous combat options above. There is also a strategic flanking damage bonus that you will never be able to capitalize on. Your squads can supposedly go around and attack an enemy squad at its rear for increase damage... But you simply cannot get this to happen because you cannot give your squad a command to go to a specific location on the battlefield. Everything you do is relative to the enemy squads. You can either stay put and do nothing where you are... Or you charge forwards towards the targetted enemy squad. There is no in between, there is no walking to the left edge of the battlefield, nor is there a 'Circle around the deadlock and flank them' command. This game is charge, charge, and charge.
Here's what I don't understand. Square tries to make the game easier to understand and play and not make it too overwhelming with information to the player... But they do it hiding everything. You do not get to see why certain spells cannot be cast, you don't get to know why you can't heal, you don't get to know who is even going to attack first in a deadlock. All this stuff is important, as it affects the way you're going to command the next turn. If your enemy is going to get off the attack first the next turn, you may want to avoid casting large-long-cast spells. If the enemy has been charging a long casting spell for the previous turn, you may want to have options to attack quickly and interrupt or run the hell away. But no, you're completely at the mercy of the game, who on a whim may or may not give you the commands to effectively deal with the situation.
Even GIVEN the option to heal/attack/resurrect in this game, it is still a pain in the ass. If two parties are low on HP, even selecting which party to heal becomes impossible. You cannot target friendly parties. Instead you target the enemy party that your friendly parties have targeted. You can then cast a heal to heal the target of your target. Wow. Way to make it confusing, assholes. But worse, if two parties are targetting the same enemy squad... Which party are you healing? Now that will be fucking random again. You won't get to pick, and you're definitely not going to get a second command option to heal the other group. Again, either you tough it out and hope to God that next turn you get the options you want, or you restart.
This is a fairly long game, and there are way more problems than this. Stay tuned for TLR, Part 2.
HAWX, the Arcade Sim that Appeals to No One
I played through the entire campaign on PC with a Logitech 3D Pro in under 3-4 hours. I was beyond disappointed. I'm going to mostly compare it to the Ace Combat series, as it was intended as its primary competition in development, but really, you should keep in mind that whether or not you liked Ace Combat, it won't matter: this game appeals to nobody. You won't find much to like in this game whether you're a fan of arcades, simulators, or bullet-hell coin eaters.
After accepting the game for its surreal tone, and the ridiculous maneuvers and poor assist-off camera, all things that are recognizable from the in-game-footage trailers, I was hoping it'd at least match up to being somewhat entertaining as the Ace Combat series for me. That is, I wanted the game to have interesting mechanics, challenging missions, larger-than-life boss fights, and some wild environmentals like in Ace Combat. I got none of that.
HAWX is has 19 missions, all of which are either defend a specific airspace, escort a platoon or another aircraft, bomb a set of ground targets, slip through radar, or shoot up all your objective targets as they close in on your position. Or a combination of any of those. It gets pretty tiring after a while, since there really isn't much more to it than that, and you wouldn't be able to tell some of these missions apart. Their biggest and best gimmick was when your plane's electronic systems go haywire and you were unable fire any missiles. That's kinda funny, since I thought assist-off turned off all your computers anyway? Regardless, I like gimmicks, but if that's the best they can do, that's pretty lame. You have to really dig to find creativity or inspiration that went into the mission or map designs. (Oh wait, I forgot. They didn't design the maps, since they just took satellite images and converted them to landscapes. Fantastic.)
What did Ace Combat offer? You got to fight spaceships armed with laser batteries. Gigantic bomber fortresses with a cloaking field. Fly through caverns in training jets with no armaments dodging the detection of enemy ace fighter pilots. Sinking submarines with splintering ICBMs raining metal shrapnel from the sky. Flying through narrow vent openings in nuclear compounds to blast missiles within the silos ala. Death Star. Or dodging giant pillars of lasers fired from space. It was ridiculous but once you got past that, the game was actually enjoyable... It's an alternate universe. Think of the game more like a bullet-hell game where you slaughter hundreds of enemies until you get to the end where you fight a massive firepower-excessive boss. Those were always fun. The problem is that HAWX went halfway and fell short at pleasing anyone. You get past the insane flight mechanics (or lack thereof) but there really is nothing left for you to enjoy. HAWX's big problem is that past its thin unpleasant exterior shell, there is only a hollow, lifeless, generic game underneath, with an unfulfilling story, forgetable characters and monotonous gameplay.
Speaking of the plot, for a Tom Clancy storyline, wow... Was it ever predictable and just mundane. I won't spoil it for anyone here, but the story was something you could see coming a mile away, and wasn't particularly noteworthy anyway. Maybe they wanted to really keep it down to earth (relative to Ace Combat) and possibly even within the framework of the Tom Clancy novels, despite a few of the aspects about Artemis being outlandish, but what really bothered me, was the lack of personality in both of your wingmen. They both like money, whores and money. Did I say money? They can't get enough of that. At least, until they need to be patriotic all of a sudden. Then it's all honor and glory. But now they want medals. And women. And medals. Did I say medals? So first they fall in love with their new job in exchange for a vast sum of material payment, then they turn on a dime and decide they don't care about the pay at all and are willing to work for free? Inconsistent and contradictory doesn't even begin to describe it.
Furthermore, did they just cookie cutter these guys out of Army of Two or something? They're shooting down hundreds of pilots, tanks, bombers and reducing bases to rubble... Yet they mind as well be fist-pounding. Even when your own cities (read: civilians) are being burned to ash, its just an "Aw, shucks" here and there. There is not the slightest air of seriousness in any of the pilots you encounter, which really ruins immersiveness as to them, it really is just a video game. Coming from the pilot instructors who describe your movements as 'drifts' and 'power slides', I guess I shouldn't be surprised. At least in Ace Combat, when your cities are being destroyed, your wingmen are either too shocked or enraged to say much of anything like this.
Its even worse that at the end of every mission, you get the most juvenile dialogue out of these two, and its even REPEATED. As in, Ubisoft was too lazy to give them new lines for scripted triggers. And these are scripted dialogue lines, so obviously someone at Ubisoft didn't give a shit that you had to listen to the same ignorant crap that they already made you hear 3 missions ago. Beer, bling, tits and ass after every successful mission.
Thankfully, a few of the missions you fly will have your wingmen mysteriously not be by your side. I'm guessing that it's because of an infiltration directive or possibly they're off fulfilling their own missions at the time. What a relief right? Nope! They still come over your radio just as often (and their portraits show them flying in their planes??) to pester you with their frat-boy depiction of warfare. "Alright, score one for the good guys, we just sprinkled radioactive debris all over our cities. Let's go back for some booze! Oh, and some medals."
Ace Combat, which has little story-writing base, at least does fairly well throwing in lively characters with differing (usually foil) personalities. In some games, where your wingmen actually die, you do miss them somewhat, which is already leagues more than what I can say for my wingmen in HAWX (I've tried killing my wingmen, trust me, they can't die). I won't say the Ace Combat characters are deep, but compared to HAWX, they're the Mariana Trench. Your wingmen in AC will actually play a role in establishing relationships and connections with other NPC characters... Especially those you save in several missions. Even better is that those you SAVE and assist actually often come back to help you out in your final missions. Cue the cutscenes of a fleet of jet fighters, bombers and AWACS and heavily-accented Russians singing along with your wingmen (who could do without that?). Damn that is awesome, to for once, have the numbers on your side, a good payoff feeling for having saved so many people and struggled against impossible odds all the way up until the end. Characters actually mean something in AC, especially since the cutscenes show them having some persona outside of their cockpits. If anything, at least they have a face. In HAWX, you'll never see your wingmen's faces. Talon and Casper (your wingmen) are as generic as can be.
Worse, I would have thought that the Ghost Team you save in the very first mission, who tells you they 'owe you one' and they 'won't forget'... never actually come back to repay their due. What a letdown. Everything is very impersonal in HAWX, you don't really feel anything from any of the characters, save whoever is debriefing you... Since he's probably barking his head off at you (if anyone has played GRAW2, it's the same sort of 'way too loud and obnoxious authority'). I figured hey, maybe since its a video game, and they've established that they're not aiming for realism... They'd actually try be entertaining instead.... Nope.
Characters aside, the storyline in AC's 3,4,5 and Zero still trumps that of HAWX. Sad to know huh? Fun events happen in AC, and you can have multiple mission choices. Depending on how well or what you do on your previous mission, your next mission may be something different. You may also unlock special planes by doing things differently. Your carrier gets sunk while you are being debriefed on it, so you get to emergency takeoff with whatever plane you want (a relief after being stuck with carrier-based planes for a good 3-4 missions). You deal with several layers of conspiracy and internal sabotage. You're led into traps. You have to fight people who were your allies in the past. You find unexpected help from people you thought were your enemies or who you thought were dead. You get framed for war-crimes that you didn't commit. They're not great plot twists, and some are more predictable than others, but at least they are there. For HAWX, they guide the player on a monorail of boredom: there are no alternative missions; you unlock planes purely by your grinded experience level; replayability is hugely lacking. Grinding experience and achievements to unlock new planes and their weapon packs (which you need to do if you want to use the other planes in Multiplayer) is not my idea of fun. There aren't any surprises either. People who start evil end evil... Those who start good end good. Not like it even matters, since everyone is so single-layered and predictable. The story basically follows the same stereotypical, overdone route. Its a war, and you're winning it step by tiny step. You don't ever feel like you're being pushed back, or have the carpet pulled out from under your feet... It's pretty linear, drawn-out progression.
HAWX singleplayer was a huge letdown. There's not much to do after you complete the campaign, other than doing it again on harder difficulties (or for achievements)... or free flight (fly around the map with no enemies). I don't remember for sure, but I don't think there were multiplayer modes outside of team deathmatch and coop either... So that will definitely get stale as well. Apparently most reviews have labeled the multiplayer as being the weakest aspect of HAWX, so I wouldn't expect any sort of recompensation by graduating from singleplayer to multiplayer - it only gets worse.
I'm fine with the fact that game developers can take liberty in modifying the genre or doing something new and unexpected with their game. It may not always work out, but it's innovative and progressive, and the only way for developers to foray into new territory, that may yet pioneer an unexplored direction of gaming. However, the main aspect, no matter what you're trying to do with the game, is to make it fun and entertaining. If this is sacrificed or lost in the concept, then the game just won't fly. HAWX is exactly like that, burdened with uninspired missions, maps, characters and gameplay, there really is no motivation to taxi to the runway, much less take off, regardless of whatever field of gaming you come from, sim-buff or arcader. Peel away all the fancies and shinies, if the game isn't fun to play, it appeals to no one.
One of the greatest, lingering facepalming moments in HAWX surely would have been the moment you hear from your wingman, "I haven't been in a battle like this since the Gulf War!"... Only for him to say again 3 missions later "I haven't been in a battle like this since the Gulf War!" .......... >_>
After accepting the game for its surreal tone, and the ridiculous maneuvers and poor assist-off camera, all things that are recognizable from the in-game-footage trailers, I was hoping it'd at least match up to being somewhat entertaining as the Ace Combat series for me. That is, I wanted the game to have interesting mechanics, challenging missions, larger-than-life boss fights, and some wild environmentals like in Ace Combat. I got none of that.
HAWX is has 19 missions, all of which are either defend a specific airspace, escort a platoon or another aircraft, bomb a set of ground targets, slip through radar, or shoot up all your objective targets as they close in on your position. Or a combination of any of those. It gets pretty tiring after a while, since there really isn't much more to it than that, and you wouldn't be able to tell some of these missions apart. Their biggest and best gimmick was when your plane's electronic systems go haywire and you were unable fire any missiles. That's kinda funny, since I thought assist-off turned off all your computers anyway? Regardless, I like gimmicks, but if that's the best they can do, that's pretty lame. You have to really dig to find creativity or inspiration that went into the mission or map designs. (Oh wait, I forgot. They didn't design the maps, since they just took satellite images and converted them to landscapes. Fantastic.)
What did Ace Combat offer? You got to fight spaceships armed with laser batteries. Gigantic bomber fortresses with a cloaking field. Fly through caverns in training jets with no armaments dodging the detection of enemy ace fighter pilots. Sinking submarines with splintering ICBMs raining metal shrapnel from the sky. Flying through narrow vent openings in nuclear compounds to blast missiles within the silos ala. Death Star. Or dodging giant pillars of lasers fired from space. It was ridiculous but once you got past that, the game was actually enjoyable... It's an alternate universe. Think of the game more like a bullet-hell game where you slaughter hundreds of enemies until you get to the end where you fight a massive firepower-excessive boss. Those were always fun. The problem is that HAWX went halfway and fell short at pleasing anyone. You get past the insane flight mechanics (or lack thereof) but there really is nothing left for you to enjoy. HAWX's big problem is that past its thin unpleasant exterior shell, there is only a hollow, lifeless, generic game underneath, with an unfulfilling story, forgetable characters and monotonous gameplay.
Speaking of the plot, for a Tom Clancy storyline, wow... Was it ever predictable and just mundane. I won't spoil it for anyone here, but the story was something you could see coming a mile away, and wasn't particularly noteworthy anyway. Maybe they wanted to really keep it down to earth (relative to Ace Combat) and possibly even within the framework of the Tom Clancy novels, despite a few of the aspects about Artemis being outlandish, but what really bothered me, was the lack of personality in both of your wingmen. They both like money, whores and money. Did I say money? They can't get enough of that. At least, until they need to be patriotic all of a sudden. Then it's all honor and glory. But now they want medals. And women. And medals. Did I say medals? So first they fall in love with their new job in exchange for a vast sum of material payment, then they turn on a dime and decide they don't care about the pay at all and are willing to work for free? Inconsistent and contradictory doesn't even begin to describe it.
Furthermore, did they just cookie cutter these guys out of Army of Two or something? They're shooting down hundreds of pilots, tanks, bombers and reducing bases to rubble... Yet they mind as well be fist-pounding. Even when your own cities (read: civilians) are being burned to ash, its just an "Aw, shucks" here and there. There is not the slightest air of seriousness in any of the pilots you encounter, which really ruins immersiveness as to them, it really is just a video game. Coming from the pilot instructors who describe your movements as 'drifts' and 'power slides', I guess I shouldn't be surprised. At least in Ace Combat, when your cities are being destroyed, your wingmen are either too shocked or enraged to say much of anything like this.
Its even worse that at the end of every mission, you get the most juvenile dialogue out of these two, and its even REPEATED. As in, Ubisoft was too lazy to give them new lines for scripted triggers. And these are scripted dialogue lines, so obviously someone at Ubisoft didn't give a shit that you had to listen to the same ignorant crap that they already made you hear 3 missions ago. Beer, bling, tits and ass after every successful mission.
Thankfully, a few of the missions you fly will have your wingmen mysteriously not be by your side. I'm guessing that it's because of an infiltration directive or possibly they're off fulfilling their own missions at the time. What a relief right? Nope! They still come over your radio just as often (and their portraits show them flying in their planes??) to pester you with their frat-boy depiction of warfare. "Alright, score one for the good guys, we just sprinkled radioactive debris all over our cities. Let's go back for some booze! Oh, and some medals."
Ace Combat, which has little story-writing base, at least does fairly well throwing in lively characters with differing (usually foil) personalities. In some games, where your wingmen actually die, you do miss them somewhat, which is already leagues more than what I can say for my wingmen in HAWX (I've tried killing my wingmen, trust me, they can't die). I won't say the Ace Combat characters are deep, but compared to HAWX, they're the Mariana Trench. Your wingmen in AC will actually play a role in establishing relationships and connections with other NPC characters... Especially those you save in several missions. Even better is that those you SAVE and assist actually often come back to help you out in your final missions. Cue the cutscenes of a fleet of jet fighters, bombers and AWACS and heavily-accented Russians singing along with your wingmen (who could do without that?). Damn that is awesome, to for once, have the numbers on your side, a good payoff feeling for having saved so many people and struggled against impossible odds all the way up until the end. Characters actually mean something in AC, especially since the cutscenes show them having some persona outside of their cockpits. If anything, at least they have a face. In HAWX, you'll never see your wingmen's faces. Talon and Casper (your wingmen) are as generic as can be.
Worse, I would have thought that the Ghost Team you save in the very first mission, who tells you they 'owe you one' and they 'won't forget'... never actually come back to repay their due. What a letdown. Everything is very impersonal in HAWX, you don't really feel anything from any of the characters, save whoever is debriefing you... Since he's probably barking his head off at you (if anyone has played GRAW2, it's the same sort of 'way too loud and obnoxious authority'). I figured hey, maybe since its a video game, and they've established that they're not aiming for realism... They'd actually try be entertaining instead.... Nope.
Characters aside, the storyline in AC's 3,4,5 and Zero still trumps that of HAWX. Sad to know huh? Fun events happen in AC, and you can have multiple mission choices. Depending on how well or what you do on your previous mission, your next mission may be something different. You may also unlock special planes by doing things differently. Your carrier gets sunk while you are being debriefed on it, so you get to emergency takeoff with whatever plane you want (a relief after being stuck with carrier-based planes for a good 3-4 missions). You deal with several layers of conspiracy and internal sabotage. You're led into traps. You have to fight people who were your allies in the past. You find unexpected help from people you thought were your enemies or who you thought were dead. You get framed for war-crimes that you didn't commit. They're not great plot twists, and some are more predictable than others, but at least they are there. For HAWX, they guide the player on a monorail of boredom: there are no alternative missions; you unlock planes purely by your grinded experience level; replayability is hugely lacking. Grinding experience and achievements to unlock new planes and their weapon packs (which you need to do if you want to use the other planes in Multiplayer) is not my idea of fun. There aren't any surprises either. People who start evil end evil... Those who start good end good. Not like it even matters, since everyone is so single-layered and predictable. The story basically follows the same stereotypical, overdone route. Its a war, and you're winning it step by tiny step. You don't ever feel like you're being pushed back, or have the carpet pulled out from under your feet... It's pretty linear, drawn-out progression.
HAWX singleplayer was a huge letdown. There's not much to do after you complete the campaign, other than doing it again on harder difficulties (or for achievements)... or free flight (fly around the map with no enemies). I don't remember for sure, but I don't think there were multiplayer modes outside of team deathmatch and coop either... So that will definitely get stale as well. Apparently most reviews have labeled the multiplayer as being the weakest aspect of HAWX, so I wouldn't expect any sort of recompensation by graduating from singleplayer to multiplayer - it only gets worse.
I'm fine with the fact that game developers can take liberty in modifying the genre or doing something new and unexpected with their game. It may not always work out, but it's innovative and progressive, and the only way for developers to foray into new territory, that may yet pioneer an unexplored direction of gaming. However, the main aspect, no matter what you're trying to do with the game, is to make it fun and entertaining. If this is sacrificed or lost in the concept, then the game just won't fly. HAWX is exactly like that, burdened with uninspired missions, maps, characters and gameplay, there really is no motivation to taxi to the runway, much less take off, regardless of whatever field of gaming you come from, sim-buff or arcader. Peel away all the fancies and shinies, if the game isn't fun to play, it appeals to no one.
One of the greatest, lingering facepalming moments in HAWX surely would have been the moment you hear from your wingman, "I haven't been in a battle like this since the Gulf War!"... Only for him to say again 3 missions later "I haven't been in a battle like this since the Gulf War!" .......... >_>
Friday, April 3, 2009
F.E.A.R. 2 - Children aren't scary anymore. They're just annoying.
I never finished Monolith's FEAR 1. It's a shame I am told, but I did thoroughly experience FEAR1's multiplayer through FEAR Combat to compensate for it. Although it doesn't fill in the singleplayer aspects I missed, since I already read about the plot development, I ruined any motivation to actually play through FEAR1, and jumped right ahead to FEAR2.
Firstly, before we do that, I must say, I liked FEAR Combat; its unique fast-paced, heart-thumping frenetic melee system; its awing display of sheer firepower without excessive effects flooding; its no-holds-barred deathmatch system where players were rewarded for their fearlessness. It did everything right in turning their slower singleplayer experience into an exciting, replayable multiplayer fragfest where you just could not find any better feeling than staking your enemies to the wall or exploding them into a cloud of blood with a hitscan weapon.
But that's the problem with FEAR2. They took everything great about the old FEAR and tossed it away, leaving nothing commendable, in singleplayer or multiplayer. Already, with just the sequel, the series seems tired and uninspired, the ideas worn thin.
The singleplayer feels like work. You slog through thousands of enemies, each taking nearly an entire clip unless you take the time to solidly put a burst of fire into the target's head. But there's the problem right there. You could carefully try to set up your headshots, by getting the initial surprise shots and slow-mo headshots... but what's the point? You'll kill 5-6 enemies this way, and then everyone else in the room (at least a good 20-30) will be alerted to your attention and you'll be caught out in the open without any slow-mo to save your ass from the hail of bullet-beatings you're about to receive. Trying to sneak around is impossible, since your enemies are literally superhuman anyway, and are capable of hearing your heartbeat and maybe even the tapping of your keyboard. And you often have to kill everyone in the room to progress the mission scripting to allow you into the next room. The player doesn't feel like he has a choice, but rather that he must tediously trudge through a sea of bodies to reach his destination. But here's the main question: Is it faster to run and gun through the hordes or is it faster to plan it out? The answer is quite clear in FEAR2: you rush, you spam everything you have, and you try to pick up just about everything you can. You turn your brain off, and you repeat an unpleasant task for the next few hours for the sake of some promised recompensation. Worse, whether you try to be smart or try to be accurate, the speed at which you drop bodies isn't going to change. Applying skills or thought to your task is an unrewarded waste of time. Like I said, it's akin to menial labour. Nothing you do will get you through it faster, you just have to sit it out.
Frankly, its level of boredom and mundane gameplay is compounded by the fact that everything is too easy! You may notice that you will not always be picking up armor and health whenever you see them like everything else in the game. But it's not because you're trying to save your health/armor boosts for the most efficient moment... It's because you just have too many of them and will never use them. With excessive healthpacks and armor abound, even on the hardest difficulty, the game was never in the least bit challenging. How are you even going to try to frighten me when I'm fully capable of singlehandedly annihilating armies without a scratch? the entire game feels like a method of conditioning you to become fearless of any possible threat... But not even for the right reasons. Fear Combat had you be fearless because the more you killed and the more you rushed, the more medpacks you'd receive from your fallen enemies. FEAR 2 has you fearless because it's too damned boring to be doing things any other way!
The weapons in FEAR2 don't help. Their variety is terrible, as certain weapons are often spammier versions of another, just with a larger clip and less damage; they're just the same weapon with just about the same average damage. The only thing you're really going to be taking into consideration is whether or not you want to fill up one of your few weapon slots with something that you may find no more ammo for later on. Weapons aren't creative either. Their effects are unimpressive at best, and even the Penetrator's effect has been scaled back. Most weapons though are very conventional, and lack the sort of high-tech feel that FEAR1 had. Now it wouldn't be an issue if your guns still felt powerful... But they don't. They feel cheap and tacky, as if you were firing pellets out of your plastic gun. The problem lies in a combination of the sound, the feel, the kick and the damage dealt. It's all wrong. Even the shotgun was terrible, until you got the Combat Shotgun, which was still mediocre, even in its most optimal situations. What ended up being the best weapon that gave you a sense of lethality? The sniper rifle. Yep. The conventional Sniper Rifle trumps the Laser Gun, the Pulse Weapon, the new Penetrator, even the RPG. Despite being carried by fairly normal trash mob opponents only halfway through the game, it only makes appearances in very specific sections where long range shooting is prevalent, so ammo is scarce. The problem is, Monolith wanted you to only really use the Sniper Rifle in these specific spots and throw away the gun right after, where they expected it to be useless. Essentially, the Sniper Rifle was a mini-game weapon, a gimmick. However, since it was the only weapon they got right, in the hands of a good player, it became your ultimate weapon to get you past the baddies that were just too much of a pain to dispatch any other way. For me, it WAS my Pulse Rifle, and was worth carrying around for 2-3 levels just to use it to clear a specific chokepoint room. That either says really good things about the Sniper Rifle, or really disgraceful things about the Pulse Rifle, the supposed BFG of FEAR2. Often times developers will put in a massive drawback to super-weapons, often a low rate of fire or ammo capacity... And Monolith gives the Pulse Rifle and Laser Rifle the same treatment. The problem is they took it too far. The Laser Rifle has very limited ammo and can deplete its entire magazine in 5 seconds, and considering it takes 3.5 seconds to down a single enemy, there is no place in the game worth using it. It has the lethality of the Link Gun from UT3. In fact, I'm sure its even weaker than that. The Pulse Rifle is worse. It fires a plasma fireball, which feels like the Shockball from UT3, except its a lot smaller, and is slow. Real slow. It is slower than the speed at which you walk at. You can literally out run this projectile even when its fired in your face. The speed of the fireball slows down as it moves away from the point of origin, so it gets even easier to evade. Forget using this weapon at long range, the fireball will slow to a crawl and self-detonate before it even gets anywhere close. An AOE superweapon with low accuracy that is effective only in short range, yet has a low rate of fire and small clip? Really? Who would use this thing? It's not even like the Gluon Gun in Half Life, since that, although short ranged, was very devastating and hard to dodge in close quarters. No, the Pulse Rifle is a single slow moving projectile that starts small and is easily dodged at close range, even more easily dodged at far range, and the AOE is easily predictable. You can't even use it like a slow-ass rocket launcher, since if it were like that, you'd at least be able to aim at the wall and the ground to use the AOE to your advantage. The plasma ball BOUNCES off every surface until the full distance is covered (also the point where the sphere slows down to a crawl and expires) before the AOE effect occurs. What a bitch.
Where are the FEAR1 weapons that actually had some potential in the right hands? The Particle Weapon was godly, the G2, ASP, Penetrator could all kill with relatively few shots to the torso, and the Repeating Cannon, while difficult to use, was a guaranteed one shot kill at any range. Sorry to spend so much time on the weapons, but the weapons make up a huge part of the gameplay, and the gameplay is a huge part of any FPS.
The story was rather bland, although I appreciated the unveiling of the conspiracy and the developing surrounding the Harbinger project. While most of this stuff should be pretty obvious to those who played the first FEAR, their presentation was decent, without a lot of intrusive 'oh btw, this is what you missed'. However, there were too many PDAs and intel documents to collect. Basically 90% of what you learn about the conspiracy, the organizations, the characters, the buildup is all from reading PDAs. Even Doom 3 didn't go overboard with it like this. Anyway, having read the PDAs, the unfolding of the story was unsurprising, and your allies weren't of much help. 'She's attracted to you like pizza at an anime convention'? Is this something you'd expect special operatives to say?
In the early stages of the game, you'll immediately notice that something feels different with the UI of the game. Then you realise, you're wearing some souped up shades with an integrated HUD display and the most obnoxious color tint in the world. At one point, you'll take your shades off, and it'll feel like a breath of fresh air. Don't get used to it; it doesn't last, and you'll be trying to peer out of a coffin again. What bothers me is I don't get a choice. You have helpful things displayed with your shades, like your ammo and HP... but also an array of paranormal hallucinations, sudden visual lighting compensation failures and a constant flickering. You won't know whether or not the contacts on your glasses need resoldering or if someone is playing with the light switch. I guess that was Monolith's objective. But also, in that case, I'd whip off the glasses and throw them away at first indication of it's faultiness. I could do without the ammo and hp meter - the game is easy enough - but Alma's hallucinatory effects are not scary, just migraine-inducing. Get rid of the glasses and the game no longer aggravates brain tumors.
Scary, the game is not. Like I mentioned, the glasses contribute a large role to the problem, but once you get it in your mind that you're a walking deathdealer with full hp, armor and bristling with weapons, there's not a lot that can shake you up. Most of the hallucinations are just that, so they can't really hurt you. The paranormals can eventually deal damage to you, but it is so minimal, they mind as well just be tickling you with their ethereal feathers. Not like it matters, one single snapshot bullet from your weakest weapon will dispatch them. What a joke, was this supposed to be difficult for any one that wasn't trying to play on a gamepad with a capped sensitivity? When Alma shows up and starts ripping people to shreds, you'd think you'd feel a little bit anxious. But you don't. They are such clear cutscene moments, that you know you are not in control of your character, and thus, Alma won't hurt you. When Alma is finally capable of inflicting some pain, it's pathetic. She tries to strangle you... And after you spam melee to throw her off, she disappears. Considering how this hardly even makes you gag, you'll be conditioned into laughing off every encounter with Alma, and just casually walking by and snapshotting her telekinetic baddies with your pistol. What a scarefest. What happened to her super powers that she utilized to obliterate each one of your teammates one by one? So much build up, and then for what? She tries to choke you to death like she's the villain of a B-slasher flick after easily being capable of sending her acid tentacles through warped time and space?
Multiplayer is really no better. It's confined to very few modes, on very few maps. It's a bit like COD4 in that you have customizable loadouts for when you spawn in, and you can pick up additional weapons from map spawns or off your enemies. Your health automatically recharges in multiplayer, but you need to stand next to an ammo box to steadily regain armor. Health kits are still present, but I haven't found any outside of actually spawning in with them. You can also pickup health injectors, but not everyone drops them, unlike in Fear Combat. Nor do Health Injectors restore 50% HP anymore, but only a mere 25%. The weapons in Multiplayer are further dampened in strength, and the Sniper Rifle requires at least 2 bodyshots to kill a medium armored target. A highly armored target requires 3 bodyshots (or 1 headshot and a bodyshot). That's weaker than in singleplayer, but not by much. Comparing to Fear Combat, people on average take about twice as long to kill. Meleeing is no longer instant kill either. It will take more melee hits, depending on how much health or armor they have remaining. A fully armored target takes 3-4 melee hits to die. Why must you ruin a good high-risk/reward mechanic, Monolith? Another thing that is gone is sprinting. While in FEAR you could run forever by holstering your weapon, you could close distance fast, get around the map quickly, and still not be completely undefended, as you could still melee while running. FEAR2 does away with this by giving you a generic stamina bar, but it's ridiculously short and unhelpful. Your sprint doesn't do much to get you anywhere, and usually it's just not worth the risk to sprint a short distance without having the one-hit-melee to defend yourself.
Basically, FEAR2 Multiplayer has been toned down. It's not as fast paced, it's not innovative, and it doesn't reward players for doing something out of the ordinary like the first one did. It is a stale and uninspired multiplayer that feels like a tacked on afterthought component. When you really have no modes outside of TDM and CTF, things can really get boring. Even FEAR Combat was more exciting in CTF, with much larger map rooms, where teams would engage each other, tearing up the walls and peeping around corners (leaning is gone btw) with much faster runners attempting to circumvent the blockages and flank or snatch flags.
Sometimes you just don't mess with what works, and FEAR2 is a perfect example.
Firstly, before we do that, I must say, I liked FEAR Combat; its unique fast-paced, heart-thumping frenetic melee system; its awing display of sheer firepower without excessive effects flooding; its no-holds-barred deathmatch system where players were rewarded for their fearlessness. It did everything right in turning their slower singleplayer experience into an exciting, replayable multiplayer fragfest where you just could not find any better feeling than staking your enemies to the wall or exploding them into a cloud of blood with a hitscan weapon.
But that's the problem with FEAR2. They took everything great about the old FEAR and tossed it away, leaving nothing commendable, in singleplayer or multiplayer. Already, with just the sequel, the series seems tired and uninspired, the ideas worn thin.
The singleplayer feels like work. You slog through thousands of enemies, each taking nearly an entire clip unless you take the time to solidly put a burst of fire into the target's head. But there's the problem right there. You could carefully try to set up your headshots, by getting the initial surprise shots and slow-mo headshots... but what's the point? You'll kill 5-6 enemies this way, and then everyone else in the room (at least a good 20-30) will be alerted to your attention and you'll be caught out in the open without any slow-mo to save your ass from the hail of bullet-beatings you're about to receive. Trying to sneak around is impossible, since your enemies are literally superhuman anyway, and are capable of hearing your heartbeat and maybe even the tapping of your keyboard. And you often have to kill everyone in the room to progress the mission scripting to allow you into the next room. The player doesn't feel like he has a choice, but rather that he must tediously trudge through a sea of bodies to reach his destination. But here's the main question: Is it faster to run and gun through the hordes or is it faster to plan it out? The answer is quite clear in FEAR2: you rush, you spam everything you have, and you try to pick up just about everything you can. You turn your brain off, and you repeat an unpleasant task for the next few hours for the sake of some promised recompensation. Worse, whether you try to be smart or try to be accurate, the speed at which you drop bodies isn't going to change. Applying skills or thought to your task is an unrewarded waste of time. Like I said, it's akin to menial labour. Nothing you do will get you through it faster, you just have to sit it out.
Frankly, its level of boredom and mundane gameplay is compounded by the fact that everything is too easy! You may notice that you will not always be picking up armor and health whenever you see them like everything else in the game. But it's not because you're trying to save your health/armor boosts for the most efficient moment... It's because you just have too many of them and will never use them. With excessive healthpacks and armor abound, even on the hardest difficulty, the game was never in the least bit challenging. How are you even going to try to frighten me when I'm fully capable of singlehandedly annihilating armies without a scratch? the entire game feels like a method of conditioning you to become fearless of any possible threat... But not even for the right reasons. Fear Combat had you be fearless because the more you killed and the more you rushed, the more medpacks you'd receive from your fallen enemies. FEAR 2 has you fearless because it's too damned boring to be doing things any other way!
The weapons in FEAR2 don't help. Their variety is terrible, as certain weapons are often spammier versions of another, just with a larger clip and less damage; they're just the same weapon with just about the same average damage. The only thing you're really going to be taking into consideration is whether or not you want to fill up one of your few weapon slots with something that you may find no more ammo for later on. Weapons aren't creative either. Their effects are unimpressive at best, and even the Penetrator's effect has been scaled back. Most weapons though are very conventional, and lack the sort of high-tech feel that FEAR1 had. Now it wouldn't be an issue if your guns still felt powerful... But they don't. They feel cheap and tacky, as if you were firing pellets out of your plastic gun. The problem lies in a combination of the sound, the feel, the kick and the damage dealt. It's all wrong. Even the shotgun was terrible, until you got the Combat Shotgun, which was still mediocre, even in its most optimal situations. What ended up being the best weapon that gave you a sense of lethality? The sniper rifle. Yep. The conventional Sniper Rifle trumps the Laser Gun, the Pulse Weapon, the new Penetrator, even the RPG. Despite being carried by fairly normal trash mob opponents only halfway through the game, it only makes appearances in very specific sections where long range shooting is prevalent, so ammo is scarce. The problem is, Monolith wanted you to only really use the Sniper Rifle in these specific spots and throw away the gun right after, where they expected it to be useless. Essentially, the Sniper Rifle was a mini-game weapon, a gimmick. However, since it was the only weapon they got right, in the hands of a good player, it became your ultimate weapon to get you past the baddies that were just too much of a pain to dispatch any other way. For me, it WAS my Pulse Rifle, and was worth carrying around for 2-3 levels just to use it to clear a specific chokepoint room. That either says really good things about the Sniper Rifle, or really disgraceful things about the Pulse Rifle, the supposed BFG of FEAR2. Often times developers will put in a massive drawback to super-weapons, often a low rate of fire or ammo capacity... And Monolith gives the Pulse Rifle and Laser Rifle the same treatment. The problem is they took it too far. The Laser Rifle has very limited ammo and can deplete its entire magazine in 5 seconds, and considering it takes 3.5 seconds to down a single enemy, there is no place in the game worth using it. It has the lethality of the Link Gun from UT3. In fact, I'm sure its even weaker than that. The Pulse Rifle is worse. It fires a plasma fireball, which feels like the Shockball from UT3, except its a lot smaller, and is slow. Real slow. It is slower than the speed at which you walk at. You can literally out run this projectile even when its fired in your face. The speed of the fireball slows down as it moves away from the point of origin, so it gets even easier to evade. Forget using this weapon at long range, the fireball will slow to a crawl and self-detonate before it even gets anywhere close. An AOE superweapon with low accuracy that is effective only in short range, yet has a low rate of fire and small clip? Really? Who would use this thing? It's not even like the Gluon Gun in Half Life, since that, although short ranged, was very devastating and hard to dodge in close quarters. No, the Pulse Rifle is a single slow moving projectile that starts small and is easily dodged at close range, even more easily dodged at far range, and the AOE is easily predictable. You can't even use it like a slow-ass rocket launcher, since if it were like that, you'd at least be able to aim at the wall and the ground to use the AOE to your advantage. The plasma ball BOUNCES off every surface until the full distance is covered (also the point where the sphere slows down to a crawl and expires) before the AOE effect occurs. What a bitch.
Where are the FEAR1 weapons that actually had some potential in the right hands? The Particle Weapon was godly, the G2, ASP, Penetrator could all kill with relatively few shots to the torso, and the Repeating Cannon, while difficult to use, was a guaranteed one shot kill at any range. Sorry to spend so much time on the weapons, but the weapons make up a huge part of the gameplay, and the gameplay is a huge part of any FPS.
The story was rather bland, although I appreciated the unveiling of the conspiracy and the developing surrounding the Harbinger project. While most of this stuff should be pretty obvious to those who played the first FEAR, their presentation was decent, without a lot of intrusive 'oh btw, this is what you missed'. However, there were too many PDAs and intel documents to collect. Basically 90% of what you learn about the conspiracy, the organizations, the characters, the buildup is all from reading PDAs. Even Doom 3 didn't go overboard with it like this. Anyway, having read the PDAs, the unfolding of the story was unsurprising, and your allies weren't of much help. 'She's attracted to you like pizza at an anime convention'? Is this something you'd expect special operatives to say?
In the early stages of the game, you'll immediately notice that something feels different with the UI of the game. Then you realise, you're wearing some souped up shades with an integrated HUD display and the most obnoxious color tint in the world. At one point, you'll take your shades off, and it'll feel like a breath of fresh air. Don't get used to it; it doesn't last, and you'll be trying to peer out of a coffin again. What bothers me is I don't get a choice. You have helpful things displayed with your shades, like your ammo and HP... but also an array of paranormal hallucinations, sudden visual lighting compensation failures and a constant flickering. You won't know whether or not the contacts on your glasses need resoldering or if someone is playing with the light switch. I guess that was Monolith's objective. But also, in that case, I'd whip off the glasses and throw them away at first indication of it's faultiness. I could do without the ammo and hp meter - the game is easy enough - but Alma's hallucinatory effects are not scary, just migraine-inducing. Get rid of the glasses and the game no longer aggravates brain tumors.
Scary, the game is not. Like I mentioned, the glasses contribute a large role to the problem, but once you get it in your mind that you're a walking deathdealer with full hp, armor and bristling with weapons, there's not a lot that can shake you up. Most of the hallucinations are just that, so they can't really hurt you. The paranormals can eventually deal damage to you, but it is so minimal, they mind as well just be tickling you with their ethereal feathers. Not like it matters, one single snapshot bullet from your weakest weapon will dispatch them. What a joke, was this supposed to be difficult for any one that wasn't trying to play on a gamepad with a capped sensitivity? When Alma shows up and starts ripping people to shreds, you'd think you'd feel a little bit anxious. But you don't. They are such clear cutscene moments, that you know you are not in control of your character, and thus, Alma won't hurt you. When Alma is finally capable of inflicting some pain, it's pathetic. She tries to strangle you... And after you spam melee to throw her off, she disappears. Considering how this hardly even makes you gag, you'll be conditioned into laughing off every encounter with Alma, and just casually walking by and snapshotting her telekinetic baddies with your pistol. What a scarefest. What happened to her super powers that she utilized to obliterate each one of your teammates one by one? So much build up, and then for what? She tries to choke you to death like she's the villain of a B-slasher flick after easily being capable of sending her acid tentacles through warped time and space?
Multiplayer is really no better. It's confined to very few modes, on very few maps. It's a bit like COD4 in that you have customizable loadouts for when you spawn in, and you can pick up additional weapons from map spawns or off your enemies. Your health automatically recharges in multiplayer, but you need to stand next to an ammo box to steadily regain armor. Health kits are still present, but I haven't found any outside of actually spawning in with them. You can also pickup health injectors, but not everyone drops them, unlike in Fear Combat. Nor do Health Injectors restore 50% HP anymore, but only a mere 25%. The weapons in Multiplayer are further dampened in strength, and the Sniper Rifle requires at least 2 bodyshots to kill a medium armored target. A highly armored target requires 3 bodyshots (or 1 headshot and a bodyshot). That's weaker than in singleplayer, but not by much. Comparing to Fear Combat, people on average take about twice as long to kill. Meleeing is no longer instant kill either. It will take more melee hits, depending on how much health or armor they have remaining. A fully armored target takes 3-4 melee hits to die. Why must you ruin a good high-risk/reward mechanic, Monolith? Another thing that is gone is sprinting. While in FEAR you could run forever by holstering your weapon, you could close distance fast, get around the map quickly, and still not be completely undefended, as you could still melee while running. FEAR2 does away with this by giving you a generic stamina bar, but it's ridiculously short and unhelpful. Your sprint doesn't do much to get you anywhere, and usually it's just not worth the risk to sprint a short distance without having the one-hit-melee to defend yourself.
Basically, FEAR2 Multiplayer has been toned down. It's not as fast paced, it's not innovative, and it doesn't reward players for doing something out of the ordinary like the first one did. It is a stale and uninspired multiplayer that feels like a tacked on afterthought component. When you really have no modes outside of TDM and CTF, things can really get boring. Even FEAR Combat was more exciting in CTF, with much larger map rooms, where teams would engage each other, tearing up the walls and peeping around corners (leaning is gone btw) with much faster runners attempting to circumvent the blockages and flank or snatch flags.
Sometimes you just don't mess with what works, and FEAR2 is a perfect example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
