Ok, the 14th of June release date for Alice: Madness Returns is nearly here, barely more than a fortnight away. I've had my eye on this since the very beginning of this blog, and while I continue to use it as a mild bashing post, I really want to hold out hope for it. I just watched the recent trailer showcasing the combat in more detail. Here it is on The Escapist: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/3318-Alice-Madness-Returns-Combat
My thoughts? This looks awfully generic in terms of mechanics. You hit them with swift attacks or heavy attacks, use the odd ranged attack, there appears to be form of "rage mode" involved...to be honest, folks, I've seen this too much before. Even the bosses have really obvious weaknesses: hit him while he's doing an attack to stun him and get more hits in? Goodness me, where do they get this from? For a fun example of these sorts of mechanics, see the Lord of the Rings movie games. There were great little hack n' slashers, before we saw too much of this sort of thing.
I have said before that we may have hit a bit of a wall with mechanics design the sense that only serious technological improvement will make more involved and original possible, so that could forgive the slightly boring looking fights...but I think I'll withhold that level of judgement for now.
I will point out that the aesthetic design is still fantastic. I could take any screenshot here and frame it - and I would. The bad guys and environments are gorgeous in their own unique way. Even the interface fits nicely with the rest of the screen, although I'm not sure whether the wrought-iron things at the edges are part of the game or just there for the trailer.
I do want this game to be good, and I don't doubt that Alice will shine as a beacon of great artistic and narrative design...but I want them to surprise me with the gameplay first. Otherwise it's gonna be average at best.
Comments down below :)
Alice: Madness Returns belongs to American McGee and EA. Trailer found on the Escapist.
Monday, 30 May 2011
Friday, 20 May 2011
Thinking about Portals
I've played Portal 2 recently. Long story short, I enjoyed it a lot. The gameplay was as unique as the first, the puzzles offered just the right amount of challenge - not too easy, not rage quit material - and the narrative was immersive and interesting, with great characters and witty dialogue (I always find it funny that one of the most important game franchises right now is essentially a comedy). It was a bit short, but that really just meant it wasn't over-long. All round, it was a good time.
However, it did make me think back to my original opinions on the first game. That was good too, which was of course surprising for something that was basically tagged onto two more important games in the Orange Box. In fact, I'd say one of the reasons I played Portal was because it came with Team Fortress 2 (same reason I played Half Life 2 at all, no not to completion). It's the other reason that worries me: because I had to.
In nearly all things, particularly the media, there are certain things that crop up that you can't ignore. They are there, like it or loath it, and if you don't watch/read/play, then you are officially BEHIND THE TIMES. I played Portal for a similar reason to why I dragged my self through the DVD of Twilight (rest assured, I didn't go back for New Moon): if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had a handle on something important in modern media. Yes, I said it, Twilight is important, if only in the sense that you need to have engaged in it in some way to get where the rest of the world is at.
It's the same with Portal (and many other games, I should add, but I don't want to develop too big a tangent here). Portal was and still is a big thing, everyone knows it, and even if you don't work in the games industry (and I hope to one day) if you have even a passing interest in games then you need to know what Portal is. I went into playing it knowing this, and I have to say it's what egged me on. If I didn't do this, I wouldn't be able to keep a handle on the state of my industry.
Does that strike anyone else as odd? I've always maintained that if something you want to do ever becomes something you only have to do, you should stop doing it. If a hobby becomes a joyless commitment, you should get out. And sure, I enjoyed the experience, but at the end of the day I was playing Portal because I felt I had to. Surely that's not how you approach a game?
I came into Portal 2 with a similar mindset. "Play this, finish it, because everyone one your course will have done so, and that makes it important." Damn, that's just cynical, to the point at which I'm thankful the game was as (really) good as it turned out, otherwise I might have spent the rest of the week in a state of misanthropic sulking, which isn't good when you're running a Friday D&D game.
I could point to the over-hype from the Portal fandom as a cause for this attitude (jeez guys, it's good but it ain't "the perfect game"), but that would be the easy way. Plus, it would mark it as a problem, when really it's kind of how it works in commercial media. If you want to work in any industry, then damn it, you have to make the effort to keep up. I'm just hoping it doesn't take the fun out of it one day.
What about you? Have you ever felt that keeping up with your professional interests was taking the fun out of it? Comment, by all means :)
Portal, Portal 2, Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2 and The Orange Box are the property of Valve. Twilight and New Moon belong to Stephanie Meyer.
However, it did make me think back to my original opinions on the first game. That was good too, which was of course surprising for something that was basically tagged onto two more important games in the Orange Box. In fact, I'd say one of the reasons I played Portal was because it came with Team Fortress 2 (same reason I played Half Life 2 at all, no not to completion). It's the other reason that worries me: because I had to.
In nearly all things, particularly the media, there are certain things that crop up that you can't ignore. They are there, like it or loath it, and if you don't watch/read/play, then you are officially BEHIND THE TIMES. I played Portal for a similar reason to why I dragged my self through the DVD of Twilight (rest assured, I didn't go back for New Moon): if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had a handle on something important in modern media. Yes, I said it, Twilight is important, if only in the sense that you need to have engaged in it in some way to get where the rest of the world is at.
It's the same with Portal (and many other games, I should add, but I don't want to develop too big a tangent here). Portal was and still is a big thing, everyone knows it, and even if you don't work in the games industry (and I hope to one day) if you have even a passing interest in games then you need to know what Portal is. I went into playing it knowing this, and I have to say it's what egged me on. If I didn't do this, I wouldn't be able to keep a handle on the state of my industry.
Does that strike anyone else as odd? I've always maintained that if something you want to do ever becomes something you only have to do, you should stop doing it. If a hobby becomes a joyless commitment, you should get out. And sure, I enjoyed the experience, but at the end of the day I was playing Portal because I felt I had to. Surely that's not how you approach a game?
I came into Portal 2 with a similar mindset. "Play this, finish it, because everyone one your course will have done so, and that makes it important." Damn, that's just cynical, to the point at which I'm thankful the game was as (really) good as it turned out, otherwise I might have spent the rest of the week in a state of misanthropic sulking, which isn't good when you're running a Friday D&D game.
I could point to the over-hype from the Portal fandom as a cause for this attitude (jeez guys, it's good but it ain't "the perfect game"), but that would be the easy way. Plus, it would mark it as a problem, when really it's kind of how it works in commercial media. If you want to work in any industry, then damn it, you have to make the effort to keep up. I'm just hoping it doesn't take the fun out of it one day.
What about you? Have you ever felt that keeping up with your professional interests was taking the fun out of it? Comment, by all means :)
Portal, Portal 2, Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2 and The Orange Box are the property of Valve. Twilight and New Moon belong to Stephanie Meyer.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Snippets
I occasionally come across things I'd like to write about, but can't find enough to say (unless it's 1am and I feel like rambling; see the previous post). Here's some stuff that has crossed my mind recently:
1) Max Payne 3 needs to be released. I've been replaying the first two, and they were just too damn cool. A really good demonstration of a narrative-focused game that doesn't skimp on the mechanics (Quantic Dream take note). I will point out that Max's gravelly voice, while suited to the character's personality and the style of the game, didn't fit the face until the 2nd game. First time around he looked like John Leguizamo should have been voicing him. I had so much fun diving around and shooting bad guys, while the rich characters and wonderful environments ("wonderful" used here in an odd sense, I realise) helped make the gameplay matter more, rather than the gameplay just providing an alternative to turning the pages of the novel the creators really wanted to write. Yeah, I didn't think much of Heavy Rain.
2) I now dislike Valve a little bit. They forced Troika to release Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines on the same day as Half-Life 2 just because they wanted to have their game out first. Jerks. They killed Troika and the game's sales as far as I'm concerned. Y'know, if you ignore the crippling bugs in the original build of the game. Thank god for the unofficial patch.
3) I really want the world to shut up about Minecraft. Yes, I can see that it's an interesting game, very innovative, I certainly admire Notch for his daring and design work. No, I do not want to pay money for it. Why? Because if I'm going to spend that sheer amount of time in a game, I want more to show for it than a building that does nothing and isn't real. The only project that I really like is that computer someone built in the game, because that shows some expertise and it DOES something. If I wanted a model of the Enterprise, I'd buy one. Why am I so cross about this? Every time I hear about Minecraft or get into a conversation about Minecraft, I keep getting the impression that if I don't love it, I'm somehow wrong in an objective sense. I don't like that because it of course isn't objective. The idea of being dropped into a game with nought but the tools and mechanics and left alone to do what you want is a worthy one to explore, and if that sounds like your cup of tea then fine, more power to you. Go play it. I, however, don't have fun like that. I like a purpose to a game beyond "doing whatever", that's why I hate The Sims. I'll stick to my games that some kind of narrative purpose, and the rest if the gaming world (so it seems) can f@*£ off and play Minecraft.
4) DC Adventures (or Mutants & Masterminds 3rd Edition if you like) looks like a really good game upon reading. If you like role-playing and superheroes, go look for it. If I get a chance to run some of it, I'll let you know how it plays.
5) D&D Heroes of Shadow is also a good book, should appease that player who wants to be evil. I mean, he still can't be, but he can pretend to be. Give him a fringe haircut and let him mope away about how much the world hates him and his magic sword.
Yeah, that's my little bites of opinion there. Comments down below, I imagine someone might just disagree with something :)
1) Max Payne 3 needs to be released. I've been replaying the first two, and they were just too damn cool. A really good demonstration of a narrative-focused game that doesn't skimp on the mechanics (Quantic Dream take note). I will point out that Max's gravelly voice, while suited to the character's personality and the style of the game, didn't fit the face until the 2nd game. First time around he looked like John Leguizamo should have been voicing him. I had so much fun diving around and shooting bad guys, while the rich characters and wonderful environments ("wonderful" used here in an odd sense, I realise) helped make the gameplay matter more, rather than the gameplay just providing an alternative to turning the pages of the novel the creators really wanted to write. Yeah, I didn't think much of Heavy Rain.
2) I now dislike Valve a little bit. They forced Troika to release Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines on the same day as Half-Life 2 just because they wanted to have their game out first. Jerks. They killed Troika and the game's sales as far as I'm concerned. Y'know, if you ignore the crippling bugs in the original build of the game. Thank god for the unofficial patch.
3) I really want the world to shut up about Minecraft. Yes, I can see that it's an interesting game, very innovative, I certainly admire Notch for his daring and design work. No, I do not want to pay money for it. Why? Because if I'm going to spend that sheer amount of time in a game, I want more to show for it than a building that does nothing and isn't real. The only project that I really like is that computer someone built in the game, because that shows some expertise and it DOES something. If I wanted a model of the Enterprise, I'd buy one. Why am I so cross about this? Every time I hear about Minecraft or get into a conversation about Minecraft, I keep getting the impression that if I don't love it, I'm somehow wrong in an objective sense. I don't like that because it of course isn't objective. The idea of being dropped into a game with nought but the tools and mechanics and left alone to do what you want is a worthy one to explore, and if that sounds like your cup of tea then fine, more power to you. Go play it. I, however, don't have fun like that. I like a purpose to a game beyond "doing whatever", that's why I hate The Sims. I'll stick to my games that some kind of narrative purpose, and the rest if the gaming world (so it seems) can f@*£ off and play Minecraft.
4) DC Adventures (or Mutants & Masterminds 3rd Edition if you like) looks like a really good game upon reading. If you like role-playing and superheroes, go look for it. If I get a chance to run some of it, I'll let you know how it plays.
5) D&D Heroes of Shadow is also a good book, should appease that player who wants to be evil. I mean, he still can't be, but he can pretend to be. Give him a fringe haircut and let him mope away about how much the world hates him and his magic sword.
Yeah, that's my little bites of opinion there. Comments down below, I imagine someone might just disagree with something :)
Sunday, 1 May 2011
A Disturbing Lack of Faith
I have come back from a really good session of Star Wars Saga Edition. It was the first session of a new campaign set about 1500 years before the films. The premise? All of the characters were Sith or employed by the Sith.
This made me think of something a reader (laydoth) said back when I wrote about the Black Crusade announcement a while back. In short, he said that playing inherently evil characters could exacerbate any PvP friction in a group; having a party wanting to kill each other does happen, even in a heroic game like Star Wars. Could having evil PCs make the game fall apart? Well...no. This is an account of the playing style of one particular player.
This was the guy who pulled a knife on an angry Wookie and publicly insulted a prominent Jedi master. While I admire the balls it takes to just do stuff in an RPG (I see no better motivation, really), it does often put his characters at odds with the rest of the party. Put simply, out of character we're laughing, in character we're facepalming. At least we could stop him from killing everyone in the room by reminding him of his character's assumed heroic nature, as per the themes of the game. Now his guy is acknowledged as being evil, I did fear we'd lose him to shooting all the NPCs and stealing their stuff, teabagging the corpses as he went.
Not so it seemed. Sure, he did pull a gun on one of the other PCs when he realised he was being paid way too low (the price of Intelligence 9, I afraid), but he also stuck with us even when offered a better job. He didn't just kill everyone, rather he thought about whether or not that would have been best for the group first, as you do when making a decision as to whether or not you should instigate something you can't stop.
If this proves anything, it's that role-players aren't always the violent animals their play style makes them seem. Their characters might bitch and moan at each other, and maybe use one another as meat shields, but none are out to get the rest killed just 'for the lulz'. Role-players are competent enough to consider actions before their characters take them, instead of just doing silly stuff and claiming it was "in character", even when they have every legitimate excuse to. I think Yahtzee Croshaw said it best when he said that "being a dick in a game is only fun when the game doesn't want you to be a dick; being a dick in a dick-simulator is just going along with it".*
So, I think a re-evaluation is in order: Black Crusade might be fine, folks won't be stupid when they can be. If Fantasy Flight make a heroically-themed 40k game, that's when the trouble will start.
This made me think of something a reader (laydoth) said back when I wrote about the Black Crusade announcement a while back. In short, he said that playing inherently evil characters could exacerbate any PvP friction in a group; having a party wanting to kill each other does happen, even in a heroic game like Star Wars. Could having evil PCs make the game fall apart? Well...no. This is an account of the playing style of one particular player.
This was the guy who pulled a knife on an angry Wookie and publicly insulted a prominent Jedi master. While I admire the balls it takes to just do stuff in an RPG (I see no better motivation, really), it does often put his characters at odds with the rest of the party. Put simply, out of character we're laughing, in character we're facepalming. At least we could stop him from killing everyone in the room by reminding him of his character's assumed heroic nature, as per the themes of the game. Now his guy is acknowledged as being evil, I did fear we'd lose him to shooting all the NPCs and stealing their stuff, teabagging the corpses as he went.
Not so it seemed. Sure, he did pull a gun on one of the other PCs when he realised he was being paid way too low (the price of Intelligence 9, I afraid), but he also stuck with us even when offered a better job. He didn't just kill everyone, rather he thought about whether or not that would have been best for the group first, as you do when making a decision as to whether or not you should instigate something you can't stop.
If this proves anything, it's that role-players aren't always the violent animals their play style makes them seem. Their characters might bitch and moan at each other, and maybe use one another as meat shields, but none are out to get the rest killed just 'for the lulz'. Role-players are competent enough to consider actions before their characters take them, instead of just doing silly stuff and claiming it was "in character", even when they have every legitimate excuse to. I think Yahtzee Croshaw said it best when he said that "being a dick in a game is only fun when the game doesn't want you to be a dick; being a dick in a dick-simulator is just going along with it".*
So, I think a re-evaluation is in order: Black Crusade might be fine, folks won't be stupid when they can be. If Fantasy Flight make a heroically-themed 40k game, that's when the trouble will start.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)