So over the course of my spare time in the last... 5 minutes or so i put the 8 hours of time into fable 3 necessary to complete it. I have never really been a huge fan of the Fable games, but i've finished the main storyline in all of them.
And yes, i have always been evil. Good/Evil systems in games and i have always had a funny relationship. I try to be good, i end up being evil. I try to be evil, i end up being evil. I act indifferent to the standard "this is how evil you are" meter, i end up being evi-... Well, i guess it's not that surprising. If i laugh at the sight of someone defenseless and innocent having thier head slammed into the ground by a freaking warhammer it's probably a good sign that i am evil.
My problem with the Fable games has always been thus: There's no challenge and there's no reason to do any of the extra things you can do.
In Fable 1, you had to actually be trying quite hard in order to ever die. 9 full ressurections in your pocket? Okay. In Fable 2 and 3 you can't ever die even if you physically, actually DIE in the real world.
With no risk (short of a scar nobody cares about), there's no reason to ever be cautious. Combat in Fable has never been about the threat of death. It's been about how much fun it is to cave someones skull in with a hammer. Or carve them up with a sword if you're BORING.
But that's the extent of all three games. Even in this one, there's not much reason to do anything except kill whatever you please, steal whatever you please. Buy every shop and house and jack the prices up to the maximum. People still love you as long as you take all the money and inject it into the kingdoms economy. I had about 8 million kicking around at the end of the game. And that's my own stash - there was also 7.9 million in the kingdoms coffers. Everyone still loved me even when they couldn't afford to eat or pay rent. And i did whatever the hell i pleased.
That's the other problem. There are no consequences to any of your actions until the last 25 minutes of the game. You can be Hero McDoucheyMurder but as long as you have the cash to transfer and make the appropriate decisions as king, everyone will either love or hate you. It's entirely your call.
Having to repair houses or people refuse to pay rent is needless faggotry. To what purpose does adding more needless busywork serve? Nothing. It's not like i was ever short of money to do it, but i only did it once or twice. Then i just stopped buying houses.
The removal of the standard menu based system in favor of a fancy looking but far less efficient "walk around your dressing room" is again - fancy looking but ultimately needless.
Having to go on a fetch quest before someone will like you? Great, that's what this game needed - more pointless crap. How about i just cave your skull in and move along to your identical-twin-completely-unrelated-person next to you. And then shoot her.
I still don't know why i played any of the Fable games. Or why i kept playing them. They were interesting enough to keep me moving the story along, but the humor is flat, the jokes are cliché, the sidequests are the same variation of "go here and stop every 30 seconds to fight things", the marriage and other aspects serve no purpose and you can't kill children. You can murder everyone but the kids are just standing there taunting. Why is it so bad to want to put a bullet into the little buggers?
I think that makes me a bad peron.
28 February, 2011
27 February, 2011
So, why the hell not?
I see it this way - on Steam alone i have 200 games. I'd be lucky if i've finished 20 of those. This discounts any console games either myself or my roommates happen to own. Games i'm unlikely to finish? Not anymore.
This is essentially wasted money if i don't play them through. And as it stands, the games industry as a whole is a bit... dry for new content No, really, i'm SO exited about the next big release... uhh... what was it again?
So, if i can tear myself away from Monday Night Combat long enough, i'm going to play through every game i own that can actually BE finished - and document my experiences with said game, here. Along with whatever else i feel like. Inbetween working, studying and being incredibly awesome. You know how it is.
This is essentially wasted money if i don't play them through. And as it stands, the games industry as a whole is a bit... dry for new content No, really, i'm SO exited about the next big release... uhh... what was it again?
So, if i can tear myself away from Monday Night Combat long enough, i'm going to play through every game i own that can actually BE finished - and document my experiences with said game, here. Along with whatever else i feel like. Inbetween working, studying and being incredibly awesome. You know how it is.
27 May, 2010
Metal Drift
Metal Drift is a hovertank based, kindof-but-not-really capture the flag style game developed by Black Jacket Studios. And you've never heard of them before because, like most game developers on Steam these days, they're an "Indie" group. And by group i think there's about 3 of them. But it's a really fun game, so i'm going to shamelessly "review" it. I'm not being paid nor am i friends with them. I just like the game.
The long and short of it, is you have teams of up to 6 players/bots on a reasonable sized field floating around in hovertanks trying to capture a ball by racing to the location of said ball (generally in the exact middle of the map) and taking it to the oppositions goal point, usually but not limited to a "base" of sorts. Often with a forcefield wall that only that team can pass through - often meaning that getting around the last corner before the goal does not mean you're safe from a rapid interception. If you can get around the corner properly - learning to control the tanks without bumping into a wall takes a bit of practice as they tend to slide, or... "drift" as it were, but once you adjust to it, the maneuvers you can perform are quite varied.
To assist you in your goal of ball capture domination, you have a variety of weapons and abilities that are unlocked as you play through a level up system. The only problem with this is that you do not choose what is unlocked - and while the weapons are fairly balanced insofar as the "basic" weapon can be just as deadly as the "last" weapon unlocked, the abilties are a completely different story. You can compare a slow firing powerful weapon to a fast firing weak weapon, but you can't compare the ability to self repair with the ability to teleport near the ball from anywhere on the map.
The 5 game maps themselves are all fairly samey looking. Being an indie title and having a fairly set scenario it doesn't really detract from the experience unless you're obsessed with the environment you are playing in. Some variety would of course be excellent, but not necessarily a requirement. The graphics in general are quite nice for an indie game, though there's no way to easily tell anyone apart on either team - one tank is red the other is blue. Though from the front and rear it can be hard to tell.
But the important factors are all there - it's cheap, it's fairly well balanced and it's fun.
The long and short of it, is you have teams of up to 6 players/bots on a reasonable sized field floating around in hovertanks trying to capture a ball by racing to the location of said ball (generally in the exact middle of the map) and taking it to the oppositions goal point, usually but not limited to a "base" of sorts. Often with a forcefield wall that only that team can pass through - often meaning that getting around the last corner before the goal does not mean you're safe from a rapid interception. If you can get around the corner properly - learning to control the tanks without bumping into a wall takes a bit of practice as they tend to slide, or... "drift" as it were, but once you adjust to it, the maneuvers you can perform are quite varied.
To assist you in your goal of ball capture domination, you have a variety of weapons and abilities that are unlocked as you play through a level up system. The only problem with this is that you do not choose what is unlocked - and while the weapons are fairly balanced insofar as the "basic" weapon can be just as deadly as the "last" weapon unlocked, the abilties are a completely different story. You can compare a slow firing powerful weapon to a fast firing weak weapon, but you can't compare the ability to self repair with the ability to teleport near the ball from anywhere on the map.
The 5 game maps themselves are all fairly samey looking. Being an indie title and having a fairly set scenario it doesn't really detract from the experience unless you're obsessed with the environment you are playing in. Some variety would of course be excellent, but not necessarily a requirement. The graphics in general are quite nice for an indie game, though there's no way to easily tell anyone apart on either team - one tank is red the other is blue. Though from the front and rear it can be hard to tell.
But the important factors are all there - it's cheap, it's fairly well balanced and it's fun.
22 May, 2010
Pardon me while i kill your family.
I play videogames. A lot of them violent in some way. Some of them involve "high" amounts of violence.
So if the media is to be beleived, this means i am going to kill you and your family at some point.
Check any website or "family" oriented page about videogames. You'll see something like "playing violent videogames increases the likelihood the gamer will commit a violent crime"
No. It doesn't. Not directly, at least. I've racked up "kills" in videogames that probably total higher than some cities. I've shot people in the face, sliced them in half, kicked them in the shins, slammed them into walls, kicked them off ledges. In some particularly hilarious ones, slammed them against walls with explosive weapons.
But the key difference between myself and say, the kids involved in school shootings that apparently "practice" on games beforehand is that i can, hold onto your pants here because i'm about to explode them (cookie for getting the reference), CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE between FANTASY and REALITY.
The fact it's interactive means nothing. You can watch action movies and think being a gun toting action hero would be awesome. Or play a videogame like Aliens VS Predator and think stalking people only to rip thier spine out with the head still attached is great. This does not make you a danger to society. What makes you a danger is if you think any of these things are actually viable in the real world.
I've never fired a real weapon at a person. I've fired plenty of foam darts (Nerf guns are awesome, lets be honest) at people. I've fired a real weapon a few times at a target. I don't dream of re-enacting the highway sniper mission from GTA. I have several training swords and other hand-to-hand combat items around the house/yard. We do occasionally have a swordfight or something break out. But i'd never handle a real sword in a manner intended to harm another person.
The problem is not with the gamers, regardless of age, the gamer is not the person at fault - the fault lies with the parent. Either for not engaging the child and teach them the difference between the real world and a game, or for not teaching them the magical thing we call consequence while they were growing up.
You could go outside right now and punch the next person you see in the face, like i'm sure many gamers do in things like GTA. You do that in the real life and you may or may not get away with it. But if you don't, you're in serious trouble. You can't just carjack the next car to go past and drive away for a while. Actions in the real world have a consequence that makes the videogame equivalent look small. As i got older my parents told me i could do whatever i wanted if i was prepared to deal with the consequences. Oddly enough, i've learnt to keep out of trouble.
Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to go find a chainsaw, hessian bag and some overalls so i can go all Dr. Salvadore on your family.
So if the media is to be beleived, this means i am going to kill you and your family at some point.
Check any website or "family" oriented page about videogames. You'll see something like "playing violent videogames increases the likelihood the gamer will commit a violent crime"
No. It doesn't. Not directly, at least. I've racked up "kills" in videogames that probably total higher than some cities. I've shot people in the face, sliced them in half, kicked them in the shins, slammed them into walls, kicked them off ledges. In some particularly hilarious ones, slammed them against walls with explosive weapons.
But the key difference between myself and say, the kids involved in school shootings that apparently "practice" on games beforehand is that i can, hold onto your pants here because i'm about to explode them (cookie for getting the reference), CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE between FANTASY and REALITY.
The fact it's interactive means nothing. You can watch action movies and think being a gun toting action hero would be awesome. Or play a videogame like Aliens VS Predator and think stalking people only to rip thier spine out with the head still attached is great. This does not make you a danger to society. What makes you a danger is if you think any of these things are actually viable in the real world.
I've never fired a real weapon at a person. I've fired plenty of foam darts (Nerf guns are awesome, lets be honest) at people. I've fired a real weapon a few times at a target. I don't dream of re-enacting the highway sniper mission from GTA. I have several training swords and other hand-to-hand combat items around the house/yard. We do occasionally have a swordfight or something break out. But i'd never handle a real sword in a manner intended to harm another person.
The problem is not with the gamers, regardless of age, the gamer is not the person at fault - the fault lies with the parent. Either for not engaging the child and teach them the difference between the real world and a game, or for not teaching them the magical thing we call consequence while they were growing up.
You could go outside right now and punch the next person you see in the face, like i'm sure many gamers do in things like GTA. You do that in the real life and you may or may not get away with it. But if you don't, you're in serious trouble. You can't just carjack the next car to go past and drive away for a while. Actions in the real world have a consequence that makes the videogame equivalent look small. As i got older my parents told me i could do whatever i wanted if i was prepared to deal with the consequences. Oddly enough, i've learnt to keep out of trouble.
Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to go find a chainsaw, hessian bag and some overalls so i can go all Dr. Salvadore on your family.
10 May, 2010
Challenge.
So this will sound a bit like i've got my head firmly planted up my ass, but a lot of games these days don't present a lot of challenges to someone who has spent a lot of time playing videogames. By that, i mean anyone who grew up with them and/or always picks the hardest difficulty as a reflex. I fall into both of those categories i suppose. (Rest assured, i get sunlight exposure on a daily basis and shower regularly).
I remember the days of Contra. Where almost nobody finished the game without the lives cheat. Because it was so damn hard. Games being hard by default with no difficulty setting was commonplace for some time. Many of the old 2D side scrollers were nearly impossible to beat. Those days are long over.
You've got three categories of videogame these days.
1: The regenerative health game. Cower like a chicken for 10 seconds and you are magically healed. These games have become extremely common, almost nauseatingly so. They make games easier to design. Doesn't matter if the enemies hit hard - if they don't move or don't rush your position you can just chip them down. Especially if they don't have a regenerative ability (and most don't). Most FPS/TPS games fall into this category nowadays. You have Halo 1 to thank for making it popular. These games are easy to beat. Making a mistake can be rectified by a large, solid object and a sip of coffee.
2: The standard health bar/system style games. Generally things like Dragon Age or just about any RPG, Batman Arkham Asylum, Killing Floor, Deus Ex, left 4 Dead, etc. These games can kick your ass if you're not careful, but generally offer a pretty good challenge overall. You learn not to just run out in the open, but at the same time you're not forced to spend your entire time hiding in a corner.
3: Nightmare mode. Also known as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mode. Also applies to games like Operation Flashpoint and ARMA. If you are getting shot at, you better cross your fingers and keep your head down. Oftentimes, one bullet in the wrong place and you drop like a sack of bricks. A lot of people don't like these games. I vary with them. STALKER was a nice game, and certainly kept me on my toes. ARMA annoyed me with the clunky controls.
This all comes into my mind as i play through Dark Void, a game i have been eyeing for some time, and got fairly average reviews across the board from many places. It was on sale for less than half the price of a newer game, so i picked it up. A quick recap of what the game does, and what annoys me about games these days.
1: regenerative health - check.
2: instant kill melee attacks - (mostly) check.
3: shitty arbitrary upgrade system - check.
4: escort missions - check.
5: "hardcore" difficulty is a cakewalk - double check.
One of the fun features of the game (besides the jetpack) is the abilit to fight through cover based combat vertically. Either using your jetpack to keep you on the underside of a platform, or standing on top of a platform, leaning over to shoot down at the ones below, who are gripping the underside of the platforms below you.
It adds a nice touch, but sadly there's a critical flaw. Melee attacks in vertical combat are instant kills. Always. Also, when moving from cover to cover (up or down, not sideways) the enemies basically never hit you. Meaning, you can simply bum-rush them and instant kill them with melee attacks. Most of the time, i don't fire a shot during these sequences.
The upgrade system is unneccesary and a total joke. There's 6 guns and your jetpack. fuly upgrading the basic assault rifle makes it completely annihilate basic enemies. Half the time i'm not even using the cover based mechanic. It's much easier to kick in the jetpack, hover across to them while shooting, land and punch them in the face. It's fun, but not challenging at all. But that's the problem with the entire game - it's just not challenging. And sadly there's no epic storyline to carry the game. It's not a -bad- storyline, it's just nothing new.
That's the problem with games today. Most of them follow the same formula, with little variance or deviation. You do get some excellent games out of it, and they often have a distinct feature. (The terraforming gun in Fracture, the cutting weapons in Dead Space, Jetpack in Dark Void, Prettymuch the entirety of Mass Effect 1. The combat systems in just about every JRPG released recently).. But at the end of the day, game developers fall into the same routine. Regenerative health, a simplified arbitrary upgrade system. Some kind of collectible journal or documents, dog tags, whatever. Space marines, or aliens that enslave or enslaved humanity. A mythical creature being brought back by an evil person/king/space pony.
But not everyone sees it the way i do. I know plenty of people that pick easy when they play a game. That play it to unwind, or blow shit up. They don't play it for a challenge. That's fine. I'm not saying i'm a better person than these people. We just have different ideas of how a game is best played. And that's fine.
Now if you'll excuse me while i nerd out, i'm going to go play Pokemon Soul Silver.
I remember the days of Contra. Where almost nobody finished the game without the lives cheat. Because it was so damn hard. Games being hard by default with no difficulty setting was commonplace for some time. Many of the old 2D side scrollers were nearly impossible to beat. Those days are long over.
You've got three categories of videogame these days.
1: The regenerative health game. Cower like a chicken for 10 seconds and you are magically healed. These games have become extremely common, almost nauseatingly so. They make games easier to design. Doesn't matter if the enemies hit hard - if they don't move or don't rush your position you can just chip them down. Especially if they don't have a regenerative ability (and most don't). Most FPS/TPS games fall into this category nowadays. You have Halo 1 to thank for making it popular. These games are easy to beat. Making a mistake can be rectified by a large, solid object and a sip of coffee.
2: The standard health bar/system style games. Generally things like Dragon Age or just about any RPG, Batman Arkham Asylum, Killing Floor, Deus Ex, left 4 Dead, etc. These games can kick your ass if you're not careful, but generally offer a pretty good challenge overall. You learn not to just run out in the open, but at the same time you're not forced to spend your entire time hiding in a corner.
3: Nightmare mode. Also known as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mode. Also applies to games like Operation Flashpoint and ARMA. If you are getting shot at, you better cross your fingers and keep your head down. Oftentimes, one bullet in the wrong place and you drop like a sack of bricks. A lot of people don't like these games. I vary with them. STALKER was a nice game, and certainly kept me on my toes. ARMA annoyed me with the clunky controls.
This all comes into my mind as i play through Dark Void, a game i have been eyeing for some time, and got fairly average reviews across the board from many places. It was on sale for less than half the price of a newer game, so i picked it up. A quick recap of what the game does, and what annoys me about games these days.
1: regenerative health - check.
2: instant kill melee attacks - (mostly) check.
3: shitty arbitrary upgrade system - check.
4: escort missions - check.
5: "hardcore" difficulty is a cakewalk - double check.
One of the fun features of the game (besides the jetpack) is the abilit to fight through cover based combat vertically. Either using your jetpack to keep you on the underside of a platform, or standing on top of a platform, leaning over to shoot down at the ones below, who are gripping the underside of the platforms below you.
It adds a nice touch, but sadly there's a critical flaw. Melee attacks in vertical combat are instant kills. Always. Also, when moving from cover to cover (up or down, not sideways) the enemies basically never hit you. Meaning, you can simply bum-rush them and instant kill them with melee attacks. Most of the time, i don't fire a shot during these sequences.
The upgrade system is unneccesary and a total joke. There's 6 guns and your jetpack. fuly upgrading the basic assault rifle makes it completely annihilate basic enemies. Half the time i'm not even using the cover based mechanic. It's much easier to kick in the jetpack, hover across to them while shooting, land and punch them in the face. It's fun, but not challenging at all. But that's the problem with the entire game - it's just not challenging. And sadly there's no epic storyline to carry the game. It's not a -bad- storyline, it's just nothing new.
That's the problem with games today. Most of them follow the same formula, with little variance or deviation. You do get some excellent games out of it, and they often have a distinct feature. (The terraforming gun in Fracture, the cutting weapons in Dead Space, Jetpack in Dark Void, Prettymuch the entirety of Mass Effect 1. The combat systems in just about every JRPG released recently).. But at the end of the day, game developers fall into the same routine. Regenerative health, a simplified arbitrary upgrade system. Some kind of collectible journal or documents, dog tags, whatever. Space marines, or aliens that enslave or enslaved humanity. A mythical creature being brought back by an evil person/king/space pony.
But not everyone sees it the way i do. I know plenty of people that pick easy when they play a game. That play it to unwind, or blow shit up. They don't play it for a challenge. That's fine. I'm not saying i'm a better person than these people. We just have different ideas of how a game is best played. And that's fine.
Now if you'll excuse me while i nerd out, i'm going to go play Pokemon Soul Silver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)