Monika 1
Carole Lombard
Mass Effect
Don't read this if you haven't completed the trilogy! It's kind of quickly bashed-out because I wanted to get something down while things are still swimming around in my head. Might be up for some editing later on.
I completed this a week ago, and I was completely happy with the whole thing, the whole trilogy. I was so dark leading up to its release that I really didn't know anything about it - even who was in it (in terms of returning characters). Once it launched I stayed away from game sites and didn't even look at twitter. An incredibly refreshing way to play a game in these all-access, spoilers-everywhere times (I highly recommend this approach for story-led games). In fact, I didn't even know people were unhappy about the ending until a friend told me (and we're both spoiler-sensitive enough that he himself didn't know why, he'd only seen headlines).
Anyway, I'm really struggling with the idea of replaying the saga, even though I want to spend more time in those games. I'm pretty precious about Mass Effect, and the story and characters are very dear to me. The story I experienced is the only one I'm interested in, because that's the only way I see that universe, if you get me. The characters that lived and died, the choices I made... all that stuff is Mass Effect to me. There's no other interpretation. The notion of replaying for a 'better' outcome just feels so odd. It would be like remaking a classic movie and changing the ending (for the record, I never reloaded a save to go back on a decision or event that played out badly).
Well, I'm only a week out from it so maybe over time I'll warm to the idea.
Anyway, I'm really struggling with the idea of replaying the saga, even though I want to spend more time in those games. I'm pretty precious about Mass Effect, and the story and characters are very dear to me. The story I experienced is the only one I'm interested in, because that's the only way I see that universe, if you get me. The characters that lived and died, the choices I made... all that stuff is Mass Effect to me. There's no other interpretation. The notion of replaying for a 'better' outcome just feels so odd. It would be like remaking a classic movie and changing the ending (for the record, I never reloaded a save to go back on a decision or event that played out badly).
Well, I'm only a week out from it so maybe over time I'll warm to the idea.
My path through the story (what I can remember):
ME1:
Saved Wrex
Sacrificed Kaiden
Spared Rachni Queen
Romanced Liara
Sacrificed Council
Can't remember what I did about human leadership. I think I put Udina in charge
ME2:
Destroyed Geth heretics
Stayed faithful to Liara
Lost entire crew aside from Chakwas (tardy in going through relay)
Lost Thane and Jack in suicide mission
Destroyed the Collector base
ME3:
Spared Rachni (the cutscene afterwards with Grunt fighting put me through the wringer).
Cured the Genophage (Mordin died. I cried during that sequence, which is the only time that's ever happened thanks to a videogame).
Ended the war between the Geth and Quarians peacefully, although Legion sacrificed himself to upload his consciousness to the collective.
Romanced Liara
Lost friendship of Wrex because my lack of urgency in dealing with the bomb on Tuchanka led to Eve dying. Heartbroken about that
Chose synthesis ending.
I played a very righteous Shepard. Fair and always willing to do the best for everyone, but still very practical and serious about her job. Merciful in all but the most extreme circumstances and ruthless in combat.
Thoughts on 3 overall, and the ending:
Everything else was great. When EDI appeared in physical form I rolled my eyes at the SEXY ROBOT stereotype, but over the course of the game she actually proved to be my favourite new character by far. Kind of encapsulating one of the major themes of the story (machine intelligence, what is 'life', where is it all heading for biological creatures, and so forth). Pity about the alternate costume cameltoe though :rolleyes:
Javik was such a jerk! He wanted me to blow Legion out the airlock.
Some gobsmacking designs and environments. I was a bit disappointed in the lack of exploration, but then the focus of the game was a hurried gathering of forces rather than a leisurely galactic jaunt.
I thought the end was fine. I have no problems with lack of closure or ambiguity anyway - a lifetime of reading sci-fi has seen to that - and I fully expected the sacrifice of Shepard to be inevitable. In fact I spent most of the game confidently convinced that she was the catalyst. I'm a sucker for noble sacrifice though. If anything I didn't appreciate the young boy as the delivery mechanism for the final decision, but that's just because I didn't particularly like exposition time! coming from a child. Also, it kept reminding me of Jake Lloyd.
*shudder*
I didn't need or want to see any kind of epilogue with Garrus setting up a private investigation firm, or Joker and EDI's biomechanical kids running about. I loved that the ending was so final and literally transformative for the galaxy that it would have been a clean slate. The cycle is broken and everything can move in a new direction.
As for things that needed closure - the main stuff was served with endings - they just didn't come at 'the end'. During the course of that game I wrapped up two major plot threads of the saga - the Genophage and the war between the Geth and Quarian - both of which could have gone in very different directions. I don't know the nuts and bolts that lie underneath the surface, but I'm sure that many more things I did along the way impacted subtly on the course of ME3's story, and the choices I got to make (I had greyed-out dialogue with the Illusive Man at points, for example). It's not all about the very, very end. I think anyone focusing on the final decision is kind of missing the point. The journey is as important as the destination, if not more so. A friend said something that was absolutely bang-on: Think of the whole of Mass Effect 3 as the end of the Mass Effect story, not just the last five minutes. The Reapers had to be dealt with in order to bring the story to a close, but the method is almost irrelevant by that point - is it any better or worse than ME2's Contra III Boss fight? Personally, I was hugely relieved that it didn't come down to a boss fight, cos I frickin' hate them.
The last bits of the puzzle got explained, I made a decision based on the ideals of my Shepard. Fin.
Yes, the endings are superficially similar but they all have to be the ending of the story that was written. What differs is the player's interpretation of how things would continue from there. In one version the Reapers still exist, under the control of some kind of Shep-ghost master intelligence. In another all machine life is obliterated, leaving only a future for biological existence. The third is a shining, happy future of unity - a new stage of evolution for all. Is deciding the fundamental future of the galaxy not enough? It's all so subjective, which is why I think it's ridiculous to complain about. We were playing a series of games that allowed a lot of player freedom throughout, but ultimately we were playing the story that Bioware created. The only way I would have been upset is if I'd gotten to the end and my Shepard had acted in a way that completely betrayed her character, or threw in some ludicrous twist:
*Shep rips off mask* "Haha! I was a Reaper all along!"
I think Bioware did just plenty in giving us a wide range of choices and branches, but we have to be reasonable about the overall story - it has to stay within certain parameters just to make sense among everyone playing it. My story - while still being about the Reapers, the Genophage, and dozens of other threads - varied hugely from my friends on the specifics. Did people think there would actually be dozens of completely different endings, depending on whether or not you shot Conrad Verner in the foot? I may be wrong, but did Bioware ever explicity promise that we would all have vastly different endings? Vastly different stories along the way, yes - and we did.
Ah... I've ranted too long on this and I didn't mean to.
I liked it.
Drive
I saw a film that I liked so much I'm writing about it. How about that.
In the hands of a Brett Ratner or a Louis Letterier, and headlined by a go-to low-budget action star, Drive would be just another in the endless pile of merely competent, brainless action thrillers populating many a casual moviewatchers' DVD shelves. Fortunately this is one of those occasions where straight-up B movie fodder is transformed by a bunch of talented individuals into something rather more special, thoughtful, and very possibly timeless. Like getting Scorsese to direct Cape Fear or The Departed... still very much a genre piece, but gaining that particular edge that lifts it higher than any reasonable expectation.
Ryan Gosling plays the never-named 'Driver'. A classic existentialist movie character, a man of few words (at an outside guess I'd say he has less than 50 lines in the film), and ice cool self-confidence - the kind borne out of being extremely capable in his particular line of work, and very sure of his world. Working as a mechanic and stunt driver for the movies, and moonlighting as a getaway driver for hire, he's living the spartan, focused lifestyle of the single-minded professional. He's Léon, or Le Samourai's Jef Costello. That is, until he meets and becomes friendly with a new neighbour (Carey Mulligan) and her young son. Parallel to this is a local crime boss (Albert Brooks), who is fronting the money to start a legitimate racing team with Driver's garage boss and confidant (Bryan Cranston). The plot won't be spoiled in any way here, but needless to say things don't quite continue on this pleasant track.
I think I actually prefer the first half of the film. There's a real tenderness and honesty to the growing friendship / possible relationship that builds not only between Mulligan and Gosling, but also Gosling and the boy. Clearly Driver has come from a murky past, but he's transformed by the pair. Although stoic and often silent, he's perfectly capable of being warm and charming in a genuine way. He even seems to acknowledge to himself that becoming close to these people is a kind of inevitability, something that's beyond control in his finely-structured existence. I found the lengthy set-up of these characters captivating, which of course earns the film every ounce of investment it needs for its subsequent trajectory.
There's a particular defining moment, a simple dialogue exchange that that makes you realise there's something much darker bubbling under this cool surface. It comes out of nowhere and it stood my hair on end. When Driver ultimately has to resort to violence he does so with absolute fearlessness and brutality, but the work done in the first half of the film keeps us with him.
Although it has a standard noirish B-movie plotline, it's the little choices it makes in individual scenes that I love. The overarching story is full of well-worn tropes, but in the moment to moment stuff it confounds expectations every time. A lifetime of film watching has loaded me with a smug self-confidence in second-guessing, but Drive really does its own thing. I don't mean the details of the story... I mean the things it decides to show, or how to show them. How you'd expect a clichéd character to behave, versus how they actually do in this film. How you'd expect an action scene to go down, or a car chase. I found it really refreshing.
Drive feels like a movie that Michael Mann or William Friedkin would have made in the 80s (and really the only thing that betrays its contemporary setting is its car models and the use of mobile phones). It's incredibly stylish, but also meaty. LA is shot with searing brightness during the day and given a warm glow at night, favourably comparable to To Live and Die In LA, Heat, or Collateral. Great 'city' movies. The full widescreen frame is never wasted and there are some truly beautiful compositions and visual moments. But the visual slickness is easily matched by a clutch of excellent performances and an emotional core. It also has a killer synth soundtrack (another thing that could place it bang in the 80s).
Sometimes you're watching a new movie and you know it's going to be one of those that's going to cement a spot in that often-maligned category of cult classic. One of those relatively low-key movies that just endures - the kind that people light up about when you remind them it exists ten, twenty years down the line.
It's cool, to put it simply. It's a really goddamned cool movie.
In the hands of a Brett Ratner or a Louis Letterier, and headlined by a go-to low-budget action star, Drive would be just another in the endless pile of merely competent, brainless action thrillers populating many a casual moviewatchers' DVD shelves. Fortunately this is one of those occasions where straight-up B movie fodder is transformed by a bunch of talented individuals into something rather more special, thoughtful, and very possibly timeless. Like getting Scorsese to direct Cape Fear or The Departed... still very much a genre piece, but gaining that particular edge that lifts it higher than any reasonable expectation.
Ryan Gosling plays the never-named 'Driver'. A classic existentialist movie character, a man of few words (at an outside guess I'd say he has less than 50 lines in the film), and ice cool self-confidence - the kind borne out of being extremely capable in his particular line of work, and very sure of his world. Working as a mechanic and stunt driver for the movies, and moonlighting as a getaway driver for hire, he's living the spartan, focused lifestyle of the single-minded professional. He's Léon, or Le Samourai's Jef Costello. That is, until he meets and becomes friendly with a new neighbour (Carey Mulligan) and her young son. Parallel to this is a local crime boss (Albert Brooks), who is fronting the money to start a legitimate racing team with Driver's garage boss and confidant (Bryan Cranston). The plot won't be spoiled in any way here, but needless to say things don't quite continue on this pleasant track.
I think I actually prefer the first half of the film. There's a real tenderness and honesty to the growing friendship / possible relationship that builds not only between Mulligan and Gosling, but also Gosling and the boy. Clearly Driver has come from a murky past, but he's transformed by the pair. Although stoic and often silent, he's perfectly capable of being warm and charming in a genuine way. He even seems to acknowledge to himself that becoming close to these people is a kind of inevitability, something that's beyond control in his finely-structured existence. I found the lengthy set-up of these characters captivating, which of course earns the film every ounce of investment it needs for its subsequent trajectory.
There's a particular defining moment, a simple dialogue exchange that that makes you realise there's something much darker bubbling under this cool surface. It comes out of nowhere and it stood my hair on end. When Driver ultimately has to resort to violence he does so with absolute fearlessness and brutality, but the work done in the first half of the film keeps us with him.
Although it has a standard noirish B-movie plotline, it's the little choices it makes in individual scenes that I love. The overarching story is full of well-worn tropes, but in the moment to moment stuff it confounds expectations every time. A lifetime of film watching has loaded me with a smug self-confidence in second-guessing, but Drive really does its own thing. I don't mean the details of the story... I mean the things it decides to show, or how to show them. How you'd expect a clichéd character to behave, versus how they actually do in this film. How you'd expect an action scene to go down, or a car chase. I found it really refreshing.
Drive feels like a movie that Michael Mann or William Friedkin would have made in the 80s (and really the only thing that betrays its contemporary setting is its car models and the use of mobile phones). It's incredibly stylish, but also meaty. LA is shot with searing brightness during the day and given a warm glow at night, favourably comparable to To Live and Die In LA, Heat, or Collateral. Great 'city' movies. The full widescreen frame is never wasted and there are some truly beautiful compositions and visual moments. But the visual slickness is easily matched by a clutch of excellent performances and an emotional core. It also has a killer synth soundtrack (another thing that could place it bang in the 80s).
Sometimes you're watching a new movie and you know it's going to be one of those that's going to cement a spot in that often-maligned category of cult classic. One of those relatively low-key movies that just endures - the kind that people light up about when you remind them it exists ten, twenty years down the line.
It's cool, to put it simply. It's a really goddamned cool movie.
The more things change...
Flicking through issue one of Edge magazine, from 1993. A handful of 'visionaries' predict the near future:
"In about five years CD-ROM is going to absorb entertainment, education and information. There's a growing palate of what I call enabling technology, which allows the consumer to think of himself as the artist." - Peter Gabriel
Bang on, really. This very blog is a prime example of someone using enabling technology to broadcast every tired little thought he has to the world.
"Games aren't going to be played by the 13 year-old shut away in his room; they're going to be connective, interactive. I forsee a day when you go to a movie theatre, there's about 300 people there, and between you, you all play the movie. From your seats, you control what happens. The technology is here today..." - Mark Lewis (then president of Electronic Arts)
OK, people play games together over the internets, but individually they're mostly still 13 year-old boys (mentally or physically) shut away in their rooms. And I think he was predicting Heavy Rain, which is probably as good a story as you're going to get with 300 writers.
"Within a few years from now, we'll start to see cable and satellite direct broadcast games where you select from a menu of games and it'll constantly download new parts of the game into your machine while you're playing." - Jez San
Jez is right on the money here. Perhaps only just starting with streaming content from the likes of OnLive and Blizzard, but Steam and console download services fit the bill for online browsing and purchasing.
"Telephone and cable companies will lay the information super highway and it will be one of the greatest technological developments of the 20th century. but someone will still have to fill up the highway. It won't be a new entertainment form, but a more sophisticated version of what exists now." - George Lucas
Pull over, I'm going to be sick.
...And from the reviews section, the concluding lines from the review of Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES:
"There's one thing bad about it; if the best cart around is a compilation of old eight-bit games, it doesn't say much about the standard of new games, does it?"
Oh snap.
"In about five years CD-ROM is going to absorb entertainment, education and information. There's a growing palate of what I call enabling technology, which allows the consumer to think of himself as the artist." - Peter Gabriel
Bang on, really. This very blog is a prime example of someone using enabling technology to broadcast every tired little thought he has to the world.
"Games aren't going to be played by the 13 year-old shut away in his room; they're going to be connective, interactive. I forsee a day when you go to a movie theatre, there's about 300 people there, and between you, you all play the movie. From your seats, you control what happens. The technology is here today..." - Mark Lewis (then president of Electronic Arts)
OK, people play games together over the internets, but individually they're mostly still 13 year-old boys (mentally or physically) shut away in their rooms. And I think he was predicting Heavy Rain, which is probably as good a story as you're going to get with 300 writers.
"Within a few years from now, we'll start to see cable and satellite direct broadcast games where you select from a menu of games and it'll constantly download new parts of the game into your machine while you're playing." - Jez San
Jez is right on the money here. Perhaps only just starting with streaming content from the likes of OnLive and Blizzard, but Steam and console download services fit the bill for online browsing and purchasing.
"Telephone and cable companies will lay the information super highway and it will be one of the greatest technological developments of the 20th century. but someone will still have to fill up the highway. It won't be a new entertainment form, but a more sophisticated version of what exists now." - George Lucas
Pull over, I'm going to be sick.
...And from the reviews section, the concluding lines from the review of Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES:
"There's one thing bad about it; if the best cart around is a compilation of old eight-bit games, it doesn't say much about the standard of new games, does it?"
Oh snap.
Bergmarathon: Dollar
Ingrid Bergman is my favourite 'Classic Hollywood' actress, but it occurred to me there are a bunch of films from her pre-Hollywood days that I haven't seen. I've decided to rectify this by making my way through her career (as much as I can) and offering up my usual half-baked thoughts.
Dollar (1938) Gustaf Molander
A fast-talking drama/comedy of manners, Dollar concerns the relationships of a trio of wealthy Swedish couples. The hook is that everyone in this setup seems to lust after someone other than their own spouse, and quite openly. While nothing untoward actually appears to have happened there's still a great deal of flirting and jealousy creating tensions within the group. Everything comes to a head when they find themselves under the harsh gaze of an American millionairess while on a skiing trip.
I really enjoyed this film a lot. It's brisk at 74 minutes, and the snappy dialogue and general vitality of the performers keeps things rattling along. Although everyone on show gets a decent amount of screen time Bergman is clearly the center of attention, playing a somewhat bitchy role with obvious relish. Elsa Burnett gets the bulk of the comedy, playing the overbearing and meddlesome American (referred to as Ms. Dollar for her wealth). Ultimately it's a story about being open and honest with your feelings and there is a genuine romantic heart to the film, with everything being resolved happily in the end.
Dollar (1938) Gustaf Molander
A fast-talking drama/comedy of manners, Dollar concerns the relationships of a trio of wealthy Swedish couples. The hook is that everyone in this setup seems to lust after someone other than their own spouse, and quite openly. While nothing untoward actually appears to have happened there's still a great deal of flirting and jealousy creating tensions within the group. Everything comes to a head when they find themselves under the harsh gaze of an American millionairess while on a skiing trip.
I really enjoyed this film a lot. It's brisk at 74 minutes, and the snappy dialogue and general vitality of the performers keeps things rattling along. Although everyone on show gets a decent amount of screen time Bergman is clearly the center of attention, playing a somewhat bitchy role with obvious relish. Elsa Burnett gets the bulk of the comedy, playing the overbearing and meddlesome American (referred to as Ms. Dollar for her wealth). Ultimately it's a story about being open and honest with your feelings and there is a genuine romantic heart to the film, with everything being resolved happily in the end.
Top Ten of 2010 - Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty
Twelve years in the waiting and seven in the making, Blizzard finally let the world in on its continuing saga of the war between the Terran, Zerg and Protoss. Undoubtedly one of the most eagerly anticipated sequels in gaming history, and one with an almost impossible expectation to live up to.What Blizzard did to pull off the resounding success that is Starcraft II, is 'simply' polish it to gleaming brilliance. Starcraft is probably most famous among RTS fans for its almost perfect balance, which is without doubt a major factor in its continued popularity. A legitimate sport has been made of the game as a consequence of it. Starcraft II doesn't mess very much with the formula in terms of the makeup of the various factions. What it does do is wrap the package in phenomenally high production values and offer a multiplayer component that is second to none.
Back to the game itself for a bit though. The storyline picks up a few years after Brood War left off, with the Queen of Blades and her Zerg swarm vanished without trace, the Protoss retreating from the spotlight and Jim Raynor leading a rag-tag rebel group intent on taking down treacherous emperor Arcturus Mengsk. Raynor gets involved in a race to uncover ancient artifacts, which also brings the Zerg and Protoss back into the action. A fateful encounter between Raynor and former human 'Ghost' Sarah Kerrigan - now the corrupted and dreaded Queen of Blades - seems inevitable.
The presentation of the story in Starcraft II is done via the modest 'hub world' of Raynor's battlecruiser. Between missions you can move around the ship, talk to key crew members to advance their own stories, unlock bonus missions, and research and upgrade equipment. The heavy 'rednecks in space' feel of the original game is in full effect, but while the characters are somewhat stereotypical, the quality of the acting and visual design is top-notch.
Many RTS series are trying to find ways to push the genre forwards from the simple base-building of old. With its Dawn of War and Company of Heroes series, Relic is focusing down onto small groups of units under direct control and individual character progression, merging the genre into more of an RTS/RPG hybrid. Supreme Commander is going the other way, offering action on an unprecedented scale. Blizzard on the other hand keep the campaign mode of SCII fresh by pretty much never repeating themselves. I can't recall any two missions in the game where all I did was build a base and an army, and march it across the map to wipe out my opponent.
There are stealth missions involving single characters or small groups, there is a train robbery mission, there's one in which rising and falling molten lava reveals and hides parts of the map in turn. There's a mission where the entire map is being consumed with fire, forcing you to keep uprooting your base and units and re-establishing them. Another where you have to defend a base during a day/night cycle, completing objectives across the map during the day, while the night part brings overwhelming hordes of creatures to bear on you. The range of things to do in the campaign mode means that it never for one moment feels repetitive or stale. On top of that there's an element of branching structure, where certain missions (and eventual technologies) are available or not depending on your decisions and dealings with major characters.
Optionally through the missions are secondary objectives that bring you rewards in the shape of points to spend on Zerg and Protoss research. Money is also rewarded for successful missions, and this can also be spent on upgrades to your units, vehicles and buildings. You can't simply afford everything, so choices have to be made on where to spend these resources.
The storyline wraps up the chapter very nicely, while obviously paving the way for the next instalment - Heart of the Swarm - in 2012, telling the Zerg side of things. It may not be the greatest story ever told but it's done with such warmth, humour and style that it's totally compelling. However, the campaign is only half of the package of Starcraft II.Once you're done following the story it's time to jump online and pit yourself against other people on Battle.net
Now, we all know Blizzard have a long and celebrated history with their devotion to the online side of their games. Notwithstanding the behemoth that is World of Warcraft, they have continued to refine and support Starcraft and Diablo II for over a decade. Still patching and tweaking things after all this time. Their relaunched Battle.net service brings everything together for their three core series, and it's a really slick piece of work.
You can jump right in against other players and fight your way up the rankings, but first it's best to play a series of unranked matches that determines whereabouts you should start when you do go competitive. Battle.net takes all the stats from your games and figures out who you ought to be playing against, skill-wise. As long as people aren't hustling the system you should mostly get matched against a fair competitor. Starcraft II online is thrilling stuff, and while I'm certainly not very good at it I still enjoy it immensely. The replay functionality is very helpful here, not only for your own mistakes but also to see just how others play the game. Battle.net also keeps track of crazy numbers of stats for the truly dedicated.
If you have friends on Battle.net it's also a great social game to boot. Lobbies of players can spectate on matches, chatting in their own channel and viewing the action freely or from the point of view of any player. They also have access to information such as current construction, unit breakdown, economy, and even how many actions per minute the players are performing. Blizzard have done as good a job as possible to maintain the spectator sport feel of Starcraft online play.
I'm an unrepentent and unapologetic Blizzard fanboy. I love the games they make and I love the way they go about making them, from visual design to company philosophy. Yes we have to wait for years, but I'll take their "Ready when it's ready" approach over any rush to a release date, especially when they deliver a game of this calibre. Not only my favourite of the year by quite a margin, it's right up there with the best I've ever played.
Top Ten of 2010 - Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect was released just a little too late to be included in my all-time top 100, where it would have secured a high spot. ME2 improves on the original in almost every way.For starters the overhauled engine is so much better you wouldn't believe the two were related. On PC it's much less of an issue, but the difference between ME1 and 2 on Xbox 360 is night and day. It's not just visual though... in every facet of the sequel Bioware stepped up and delivered the goods. In some quarters the streamlining of the interface was regarded as dumbing down, moving the game closer to an action adventure than an RPG. In reality it removes a lot of cumbersome and frankly unenjoyable busywork and lets the player focus on the thrilling story and enormously improved combat.
Mass Effect as a whole is totally irresistable to a space opera fan, and through both games it really feels like you're an integral part of this complex, expanding story. In true Bioware tradition there are tough choices to be made that significantly impact the subsequent path of the story, and beyond that there are dozens of callbacks to minor incidents from the first game (importing a character from ME1 is an absolute must). All this of course adds huge replay value. The choice to put instant Paragon and Renegade actions on a mouse click without ever telling you exactly what will happen is a brilliant move as well, with often surprising and hilarious results.
There's some astonishing performance work going on too. While there are always moments of iffy animation they are completely overshadowed by the quality of movement and expression in cutscenes. The writing and characterizations are also uniformly excellent (in particular the Asari character Samara blows my mind with her realism and performance), and the extent to which Bioware has gone regarding relevant dialogue depending on your characters is very impressive. It's a game with really no poor dramatic qualities to speak of. Structure-wise, where ME1 was an epic quest with a strong story thread, ME2 is more a sequence of short adventures with an overarching main plot - different but no less accomplished.
I seem to be alone in lamenting the loss of the planetary exploration aspect, which to me was a big part of feeling like I was truly 'out there' in the unknown reaches of the galaxy. I also seem to be alone in enjoying the planet scanning and mining aspect that they added in its stead (though even I admit that's not quite so addictive on multiple playthroughs).
Bioware have fashioned a compelling universe to play around in. It may borrow heavily from established sources but it has enough of a unique identity to stand on its own. Where a lot of game series slog through unwelcome sequels of decreasing value, here the proposed trilogy doesn't feel like enough. I really didn't think anything would beat Mass Effect 2 for me this year...
Top Ten of 2010 - Civilization V
The venerable Civilization series continues to refine and move forwards, ideas coming and going, and small but welcome visual upgrades marking each new instalment. I've loved Civ since my Amiga struggled to handle it almost 20 years ago, and while I've always been generally rubbish at it, it nevertheless keeps me enthralled and addicted with its legendary 'One more turn' gameplay, and of course the basic fulfilment of watching my empire grow.
Civilization V is actually very pleasing to look at, with nice effects and animations and a new terrain model that allows features to blend in more seamlessly with one another, giving more of a natural feel to the landscape while still being easy to read. As ever, my main enjoyment of playing these games is just seeing everything expand and improve, dipping into the Civilopedia for a bit of light history now and then. Aside from being a strategy game, Civilization encompasses a few interests of mine (ancient history, culture and the progress of technology), and while obviously only being on a very superficial level it still feels like I'm involved in something fascinating and educational - only the teacher is really cool.
From the changes, without going into boring specific details I'm most happy with the streamlined interface they've evolved from the console outing Revolution, the addition of City-States to mix things up nicely alongside the full-blown civilizations, and the decision to have only one military unit per tile (I always found stacked military units clumsy to deal with). Everything feels... cleaner. It's still incredibly difficult to get anything other than a military victory over the AI on harder difficulties though.
It feels like faint praise when really that's not the way I intend it, but Civ is like a comfy pair of slippers. I find it wonderfully relaxing. Winter especially benefits from a good long session huddled at the PC with snacks and coffee, click-click-clicking those turns away.
Top Ten of 2010 - Super Meat Boy
Another title in the list that wears its retro credentials on its sleeve, Super Meat Boy is a ferociously challenging platformer that demands every last drop of skill from the player.
The main thing about SMB is that it should be maddening. It should be throw-the-controller frustrating... but it's not. There's something about the presentation that's so goofy and cheerful that continual failure only raises laughs instead of ire. There's also a deep respect for the game itself. The control is so perfectly pitched and the levels so cleverly designed that not only are you sure that next time you'll crack it, you feel you owe it to the game to succeed. SMB doesn't cheat the player. It's hard but totally fair, and for the most part every failed attempt only serves to refine your sequence through a level. The first tricky jump becomes second nature as you focus on the second, and so on. Often you get your first look at a level and think "No way". But then you do it. You may do it after 100 attempts - but you do it. The satisfaction is unequalled.
And to be honest, as an oldschool arcade gamer it's nice to know you've still got it.
Top Ten of 2010 - Pac-Man Championship Edition DX
The original Pac-Man Championship Edition featured in my all-time top 100, and a little over three years later the follow-up has arrived to take its place, refining, expanding and improving the modern classic in every way (Pac-Man CE is even included wholesale as a mode in this version).
It retains the neon look of the original - already firmly established as a perfect visual choice for such an update - and once again focuses on timed score attacks rather than the more endurance-run nature of the Pac-Man of old. The new key factor is the 'Ghost Train'. Most ghosts now sleep in positions on the maze, and only wake when Pac-Man moves past them. When that happens they follow him determinedly, building to a line of up to 30 in the train. By eating a power pill Pac-Man can turn on the train and munch through it in a spectacularly satisfying fashion, speeding up as he goes while the sound effects increase in pitch. So, the core of the gameplay is to figure the most efficient path through each dot pattern, making sure to pick up all the ghosts on the maze as you go.
When pulled off successfully this becomes a beautifully flowing sequence, and the dot patterns and ghost layouts have obviously been painstakingly designed to that end. A perfectly executed set of patterns will always see a power pill appear, the resultant chomp through the ghost train giving a massive points boost before the maze resets for the next run. The flies in the ointment for the player are the handful of free ghosts that move about the maze, and the fact that the speed of the game increases as the points increase. At high levels Pac-Man becomes incredibly fast, requiring lightning reflexes and forward-planning if the patterns are to be maintained.
When things become a little too much - an error in movement or a bit of bad luck with the free ghosts - the player has a limited number of bombs they can use. A bomb blows away any ghosts directly next to Pac-Man, and sends the current train to the ghost box in the centre. The game also features a nifty 'bullet time' moment when a ghost gets too close, giving the player an essential extra moment to act. Lives aren't really a factor (unless you're incredibly incompetent you'll never run out before the timer does). It's all about chasing the score.
The original Pac-Man template is a piece of game design perfection. A few clever and well-considered tweaks to the formula were all that was needed to keep it not only relevant after thirty years, but absolutely essential for anyone with a true love of videogames in their purest form.
Top Ten of 2010 - Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light
When Crystal Dynamics announced GoL as a downloadable, isometric instalment of their Tomb Raider series it left a lot of people highly dubious and somewhat alarmed. Closer inspection however proved that the name Tomb Raider was absent, and this was clearly going to be some kind of standalone experiment with no impact or connection to the mainline Tomb Raider saga.Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light of course went on to become arguably the finest Tomb Raider game yet, with the possible exception of Anniversary.
Guardian of Light takes the form of a twin-stick shooter married to a heavy puzzler and collect-em-up. In doing so, Crystal Dynamics finally - maybe accidentally - found the perfect action template for its heroines' adventures. Combat (by far the weakest element of traditional Tomb Raiders) is no longer a confusion of wonky targeting and spastic camerawork. Teeming waves of enemies come from all sides, punctuated with thrilling but refreshingly fair boss fights. It's effortless, intense and enjoyable. It's Smash TV with puzzles.
Speaking of which, GoL doesn't scrimp on the brain requirements either. Puzzles range from perfunctory, immediately-obvious efforts to level-spanning head-scratchers. However, as with all the best game puzzles a little experimentation and logical thinking should get you through without the need to reach for GameFAQs. I got stuck a couple of times, went away and came back to look at things anew and almost immediately cracked it. It balances things just right, as bogging the player down too much at any point would be a serious flaw in such an energetic and fast-flowing game.
Replayability comes in the form of challenges. Score targets for the levels, collecting 'red skulls' hidden throughout the game, speed runs and finally individual goals regarding boss fights or dexterity. Weapons can be unlocked and enhanced with the powers of found artifacts, and Lara herself can benefit from the effects of certain items. A nice, albeit very light action-RPG element.
The game looks great. While it obviously lacks that profound sense of being in ancient, cavernous spaces that the Tomb Raider games evoke, a broad range of textures, lighting, physics and particle effects really bring the world to life. Control is smooth and intuitive and it's generous with autosaves. You can sit and play through the whole thing in a few hours, or nibble away at it piece by piece, either way suits.
Much grumbling was done about the game not releasing with a proposed co-op mode. This followed later and while I understand co-op seems to be some sort of essential make-or-break for contemporary gamers it really doesn't sway me one way or the other. I found GoL to be an enormously enjoyable single-player experience, and I would welcome many more instalments in this particular treatment of Lara Croft's adventures.
Top Ten of 2010 - Final Fantasy XIII
I'm sure this isn't going to be a particularly acquiescent appearance in the list, but since politics and the opinion of the masses doesn't matter to me one bit I can go ahead and state that Final Fantasy XIII is one of my favourites in the series, possibly even taking the number two slot after XII.Let's face it: Japanese RPG stories are almost always rubbish, and the characters barely anything more than the thinnest of sketches. Random encounters are an unwelcome relic of the past, and most turn-based combat systems are dull and needlessly lengthy. What keeps you playing them is the stat/gear levelling compulsion. So, make a JRPG with a story so baffling you give up even trying to follow it, but give it a combat system so dynamic, intense and fun it won't even matter.
Oh, and make it staggeringly beautiful to boot.
And by golly is FFXIII beautiful. Frequently on my journey through the game I'd just stand still and gaze around the environments I was in. Environments that only became more impressive as the story moved on. I loved being in this world and because it was so filled with eye candy I didn't even care about the ultra-linear progression, or the slow feed of the whys and wherefores of the tale. To match the visuals it has a superb soundtrack, one that deviates quite significantly from the expected FF norms. Even now just thinking back on some of the sights and sounds of this game I get a warm feeling.
However, what really kept me focused and utterly addicted throughout a 55-hour completion time was that combat system. Sure early on you can get away with hitting X on everything, but a) that's boring, and b) you won't learn anything for later, when pressing X won't get you very far at all. Soon enough you're juggling strategies constantly, micromanaging a particular technique here, whipping out an item there, and the game does not stop to let you ponder a move. Later boss fights are tremendously intense and satisfying, and even lesser encounters are made hugely enjoyable by the stagger/juggle system, which puts the combat more into the mold of a Devil May Cry or Bayonetta. It's no idle addition that you're scored for speed after every fight... employ ill-thought out tactics and you may not only score lowly, you may lose altogether. There's a special satisfaction upon finding the right combination and timing of attacks for a particular enemy, cutting a ten-minute encounter down to thirty seconds.
The next step for Final Fantasy is going to be very interesting indeed, either for its continued push through the boundaries of expectation, or its defeated retreat into tried and trusted norms. Either way, FFXIII stands as a pivotal moment where a genuine chance was taken, and in the most conservative of genres that's merit enough.
Top Ten of 2010 - Red Dead Redemption
I'm not a fan of the Grand Theft Auto games, largely for their story and character content but also for the fact that if you drop me into a sandbox world where I don't care much about the story I tend to just wander about a bit then get bored. I had no intention of even checking it out until a friend told me it was a free roaming open-world game. Red Dead Redemption makes my list purely because of its world.Content-wise RDR falls down in a few places. Spending such a large amount of time in the world naturally sees you repeating many incidental encounters (though it was a long time before I simply started shooting first when faced with another ambush), and I could have done with a lot more in terms of 'ambient challenges'. But the story is the focus of the game that Rockstar wanted to make. It's just a pity that almost everything about the story feels like a wasted opportunity.
John Marston is supposedly a fearsome man with a violent past, and although admittedly he's trying to get away from that, circumstances put him in a situation that calls upon his particular expertise. The problem is that he never really gets to show it. Marston is pushed around from pillar to post by a succession of completely despicable characters, whom you feel Marston ought to put a bullet through without a second thought. He goes along with whatever busywork they need doing - often at odds with his own character - in the service of his own ultimate goal. So the storyline betrays the character you're initially very excited about being in the shoes of, and keeps you rolling along with a series of repetitive 'Go here, kill these guys' missions. Indeed, in my desire to unlock the third and final area of the map I decided to plough through a large chunk of the Nuevo Paraiso missions in one sitting, which nearly put me off the game for good (I can see how it would become tiresome for anyone playing the game for the story, rather than despite it).
Perhaps the most disappointing thing is the climax of the story, because it's so good, and kind of shames the laziness of everything that has gone before it. Rockstar bravely lets the player settle into an almost idyllic civilian life, completely cranking down the pace of the action, which makes the end of Marston's story all the more affecting when it comes.
All that sounds like a game-killer, and quite honestly it would be were the game not so completely captivating in every other way.
I'm a sucker for a Western, you see, and RDR gave me the opportunity to exist in an incredibly well-realised chunk of the Old West. I poured close to 50 hours into a game I could have burned through in less than 20, simply because I spent so much time enjoying the scenery, the hunting and gathering, and the hugely fun and rewarding treasure hunts (I remarked many times that they could keep adding treasure maps to the game as downloadable content and I'd lap them up). I only pushed the story forward in order to open up more areas to explore. It's a genuinely beautiful game - I'd pull up my horse and spend time watching the sun set behind the mesas of Nuevo Paraiso (the game's Monument Valley analogue), or just spend hours of gametime walking about in the wilderness, swinging the camera around for the best views (and looking out for the game's fearsome cougars).
Mechanically the game is rock solid (pun probably intended). The guns feel weighty and have a great action, and the horse riding is a whole lot of fun. Hunting bears in a stormy forest at night became an experience on a par with the best survival horror. Add to that a very well considered multiplayer component and you have a gameworld that's a pleasure to drop in and spend a significant amount of time with.
So, a Rockstar open-world sandbox game with a fairly rubbish story and unlikeable cast managed to become one of my favourites of the year. I really am a sucker for a Western.
Top Ten of 2010 - Hydorah
Three years in the making, Hydorah is a true labour of love for retro-inspired creator Locomalito and music collaborator Gryzor87. Locomalito's game design philosophy makes for joyful reading for any oldschool fan, and Hydorah encompasses everything about it beautifully.
Heavily inspired by classic horizontal 'memorization' shmups - most notably the Gradius series - Hydorah casts the player as pilot of a lone fighter, battling waves of an alien menace before facing a boss at the end of each stage. Enemies drop items that automatically upgrade the ship along the way, from speed boosts to main weapon power. Special weapons with limited uses can also be collected, and are selected prior to each level. There is also a small branching structure along the route to the final stage for added replayability.
The level of care and attention that has gone into the visuals of Hydorah is gobsmacking for a one-man effort. Beautifully designed pixel art that instantly transports you back to the arcades of the mid-80s. Smooth, detailed animations and wonderfully varied environments. Simply put, if this game was in an arcade in the 80s it could stand proudly alongside a Gradius II or R-Type. Equal respect goes to the music, while not being the expected chiptune accompaniment to the retro visuals it's nevertheless a superb synth soundtrack that fits the action perfectly.
The game is challenging, but like all the finest memorization shmups you learn it section by section and (unless you're having a particularly bad day) you inch a little further with each session. Indeed, when an in-development demo was released a while back it did prove brutally difficult, mainly down to unforgiving hitboxes. Criticisms were taken onboard and the final product addressed all the issues.
Oh, and this game is FREE. Anyone with even the most modest PC can download it, plug in a pad and experience one of the finest traditional shmups in recent years. So, what are you waiting for?
Top Ten of 2010 - Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World
To tie in with one of the best films of the year (shame on you for not seeing it), rather than take the obvious lazy route of 3rd-person action adventure/collect 'em up, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World - The Video Game takes the form of an old-school scrolling brawler. Entirely appropriate considering the film and the comic it's based on chart the adventures of a loser-ish videogame obsessed slacker who just happens to be the best fighter in his province. In order to win the right to date his new flame, Scott has to defeat her seven evil exes in battle. Cue several levels of scrolling mayhem capped with boss fights.What makes this more interesting than countless Final Fight wannabes is the progression system of the characters. From an initial selection of four, your choice starts the game slow, weak and lacking in moves. Here's the point at which casual attention turns elsewhere, because expectation says that the game should be played through, Double Dragon style in one sitting. That's not the way this works. SPvtW:tV also mixes in RPG elements that are crucial to successfully completing the game. As you make your way through the stages you acquire money and experience. Money is used to increase your stats such as strength, speed and HP, and experience levels you up to unlock a variety of moves. The idea is to play over and over, pushing forwards a little more each time as you're able to. It is simply impossible to take a starting character and beat the game from the off.
Happily, what this means is that you will finish the game despite its first appearance as soul-crushingly difficult. Yes, you may have to level up until you're so ridiculously overpowered you can't lose, but you still have to put in the effort to get there. Mostly it's very fun to do so. There are some niggles, largely due to the sometimes slapdash feel it has. It's unfair in all the ways brawlers are (getting stuck in a loop of knock down / recover in time to be knocked down again is always fun), it's rough around the edges in terms of the interface, and it can be dangerously buggy if you're unlucky.
Everything else shines though. The visuals (directed by pixel art maestro Paul Robertson) are beautiful evocations of 16-bit glories, and chiptune legends Anamanaguchi provide one of the videogame soundtracks of the year. Considering its nature it's ironically a really good game to relax to as well. I often fire it up just to 'grind' through the lower levels and accumulate some cash (at this point the enemies are no kind of threat).
Despite its flaws, technical shortcomings and initially offputting difficulty, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World proved to be a bit of a gem for those of us prone to misty-eyed reminiscences of pixels and chiptunes gone by.
Predators
Haha, no. Not those kind of Predators. Though a trawl through the history of The Predator in videogames might be interesting, if only for the fact that I'd have to point out that Aliens Vs Predator on the Jaguar was, in fact, utterly rubbish even when it was new.
Back on track... I'm one of those insufferable bores that thinks the Amiga was the greatest gift to home computing and computer games. You may have heard of us - desperately clinging onto copies of Amiga Format well into the late 90s, mumbling things about multitasking and BOBs and how Monkey Island 2 was perfectly playable even with a single disc drive thankyouverymuch.
As I'm occasionally wont to do, I've spent a couple of days off wallowing in nostalgia. The result of which is that I've recorded and uploaded one of my favourite old megademos to Youtube, amazed that it doesn't seem to be there already. Just the interesting bits, mind - there are a few sections that don't lend themselves too well to simply watching (a couple of games and interactive things).
ENJOY.
Back on track... I'm one of those insufferable bores that thinks the Amiga was the greatest gift to home computing and computer games. You may have heard of us - desperately clinging onto copies of Amiga Format well into the late 90s, mumbling things about multitasking and BOBs and how Monkey Island 2 was perfectly playable even with a single disc drive thankyouverymuch.
As I'm occasionally wont to do, I've spent a couple of days off wallowing in nostalgia. The result of which is that I've recorded and uploaded one of my favourite old megademos to Youtube, amazed that it doesn't seem to be there already. Just the interesting bits, mind - there are a few sections that don't lend themselves too well to simply watching (a couple of games and interactive things).
ENJOY.
Limbo
It seems that once again I find myself the dissenting voice among the choir.
XBLA's 'Summer of Arcade 2010' continued with the release of this long-in-development indie darling. A game whose specifics were kept under wraps for a long time, and one that maintains a veil of secrecy amongst its players. That spoiler-saving attitude is fairly essential for a game that relies heavily on an element of surprise and mystery.
Unfortunately that element of surprise is what kills it for me.
Limbo is built around a mechanic of unavoidable instant death, a series of puzzles and traps to be overcome by trial and error. Checkpoints are scattered liberally - literally before every event, every new encounter in the landscape. Die, learn, overcome, move on, die, learn, repeat.
The stark black and white visuals and minimalist sound design conjure up an imposing, gloomy atmosphere. It reminds me a lot of Knytt - a mostly empty landscape peppered with incident. Most of all it completely nails the feeling of lonely exploration. If only it were a game more attuned to rewarding rather than punishing the player.
For me, Limbo fails as a gaming experience because it constantly pulls you out of its own carefully constructed atmospheric space. That eerie, prickly feeling is totally undermined by the fact that you're restarting checkpoints over and over again. Any good faith built up by the presentation is utterly destroyed by frustration. Frustration at not even being able to forsee most instances of failure. Most importantly this results in a complete lack of satisfaction or feeling of accomplishment on solving any of its puzzles.
It's beautiful but it's simply not fun.
XBLA's 'Summer of Arcade 2010' continued with the release of this long-in-development indie darling. A game whose specifics were kept under wraps for a long time, and one that maintains a veil of secrecy amongst its players. That spoiler-saving attitude is fairly essential for a game that relies heavily on an element of surprise and mystery.
Unfortunately that element of surprise is what kills it for me.
Limbo is built around a mechanic of unavoidable instant death, a series of puzzles and traps to be overcome by trial and error. Checkpoints are scattered liberally - literally before every event, every new encounter in the landscape. Die, learn, overcome, move on, die, learn, repeat.
The stark black and white visuals and minimalist sound design conjure up an imposing, gloomy atmosphere. It reminds me a lot of Knytt - a mostly empty landscape peppered with incident. Most of all it completely nails the feeling of lonely exploration. If only it were a game more attuned to rewarding rather than punishing the player.
For me, Limbo fails as a gaming experience because it constantly pulls you out of its own carefully constructed atmospheric space. That eerie, prickly feeling is totally undermined by the fact that you're restarting checkpoints over and over again. Any good faith built up by the presentation is utterly destroyed by frustration. Frustration at not even being able to forsee most instances of failure. Most importantly this results in a complete lack of satisfaction or feeling of accomplishment on solving any of its puzzles.
It's beautiful but it's simply not fun.
Game Room ~ Road Fighter
Last week Microsoft launched its repackaged attempt to bring the golden age of arcades to the home and contemporary gamers. Krome studios have been tasked with a 3-year project to emulate a large number of classic (and of course not-so-classic) arcade titles for play on the Xbox 360 and PC. The service launched with a selection of 30 games, plucked from the vaults of Atari, Konami and Intellivision. Mana from heaven for gamers such as myself? Read on!
Upon loading you're presented with an empty arcade space to fill with purchased cabinets. 240 Moonbucks to play on a single platform, or 400 to play on either. There's also the option to pay for individual credits, but only a wealthy lunatic would go there. Various themes, decorations and props can be placed to clutter the whole thing up, with more unlocked as you reach goals within each game and 'level yourself up'. Your arcade becomes populated with the avatars of your Xbox Live friends. Or randomly-generated nobodies if you choose to play on PC.
Classy.The real draw of this whole shebang is of course highscores. Microsoft's previous abortive attempt to bring the competitive spirit of classic arcades to Live stuttered and failed amid a lack of support and an unintuitive scoreboard system. Game Room does a sterling job of this part. Each game has score tables for friends and world rankings, while a handy news menu keeps you up to date with the triumphs of your rivals. Replays can be saved and uploaded, and specific challenges sent out.
This is exactly what I'd always wanted Live Arcade to be about, and indeed I've spent the past week engaged in furious highscore battles with my friends list.
On the technical side there's been a lot of grumbling from certain quarters about the accuracy of the emulation, with MAME being touted as the yardstick with which to measure. Let's never forget though that MAME itself is a work in progress, and is constantly being tweaked and changed. If someone is running Game Room side-by-side with a genuine cab and pointing out the differences then fair game. Otherwise, shut up and play.
On the subject of game pricing... there's a sense in the gaming community that old stuff shouldn't hold much value. I've been guilty of this myself sometimes. Where to draw the line though? For me, Gravitar is worth every... point... of 240 points, whereas I may baulk at being charged anything for Adventure on the 2600. Isn't that like saying I wouldn't want to buy a Blu-ray of an old film, just because it's old - regardless of any restoration work that had to be done? Sure, I can play all this stuff for free on MAME, but I like to think that given the opportunity to legitimately pay for a working version of an old game I'll take it. If keeping these titles alive in the face of endless military shooters means I have to cough up some dollars, I can live with that.
By the way, Game Room is exclusively about arcades as far as I'm concerned. You won't find any 2600s or Megadrives or whatever comes later bolted onto cabinets in my arcade.
Game Room nicely recreates the sights and sounds - though thankfully not the smells - of the old arcade scene. Only without bigger boys stealing your credits, or one guy staking an immovable claim to your favourite cabinet.
Road Fighter
I immediately gunned for Gravitar, Lunar Lander, Asteroids and Tempest, then I started looking at the other offerings. To say that this unassuming Konami title has taken me by surprise is an understatement. It's grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and refused to let go. It's absolutely tremendous.
I like me some top-down racing action. There's something really good about the feel of a road scrolling smoothly along beneath your vehicle, dodging and weaving through opponents. Road Fighter is a simple beast: you have a limited amount of fuel with which to clear several stages, all the time avoiding rivals and obstacles, and collecting bonuses. Crashing depletes your fuel gauge and when it's empty it's game over. Other road users range from harmless slow-moving traffic to dangerous drivers that actively try to shunt you into the barriers. Water, oil slicks and roadworks are thrown into the mix for good measure.
Taking a hit isn't neccessarily the end of the road though - steering into the skid can recover control before a crash, losing just a few seconds rather than a precious chunk of fuel. Stay clean for long enough and bonuses make an appearance - a jet plane, train and Konami Man himself. Bonus fuel cars can be driven into to add a little to the reserves, and serve as a stacking points bonus if you hit each one without a crash.
Road Fighter completely embodies the just one more go spirit of a great arcade game. Simple controls, colourfully attractive visuals and twitchy gameplay that begs to be mastered.
This is exactly what I'd always wanted Live Arcade to be about, and indeed I've spent the past week engaged in furious highscore battles with my friends list.
On the technical side there's been a lot of grumbling from certain quarters about the accuracy of the emulation, with MAME being touted as the yardstick with which to measure. Let's never forget though that MAME itself is a work in progress, and is constantly being tweaked and changed. If someone is running Game Room side-by-side with a genuine cab and pointing out the differences then fair game. Otherwise, shut up and play.
On the subject of game pricing... there's a sense in the gaming community that old stuff shouldn't hold much value. I've been guilty of this myself sometimes. Where to draw the line though? For me, Gravitar is worth every... point... of 240 points, whereas I may baulk at being charged anything for Adventure on the 2600. Isn't that like saying I wouldn't want to buy a Blu-ray of an old film, just because it's old - regardless of any restoration work that had to be done? Sure, I can play all this stuff for free on MAME, but I like to think that given the opportunity to legitimately pay for a working version of an old game I'll take it. If keeping these titles alive in the face of endless military shooters means I have to cough up some dollars, I can live with that.
By the way, Game Room is exclusively about arcades as far as I'm concerned. You won't find any 2600s or Megadrives or whatever comes later bolted onto cabinets in my arcade.
Game Room nicely recreates the sights and sounds - though thankfully not the smells - of the old arcade scene. Only without bigger boys stealing your credits, or one guy staking an immovable claim to your favourite cabinet.
Road Fighter
I immediately gunned for Gravitar, Lunar Lander, Asteroids and Tempest, then I started looking at the other offerings. To say that this unassuming Konami title has taken me by surprise is an understatement. It's grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and refused to let go. It's absolutely tremendous.
I like me some top-down racing action. There's something really good about the feel of a road scrolling smoothly along beneath your vehicle, dodging and weaving through opponents. Road Fighter is a simple beast: you have a limited amount of fuel with which to clear several stages, all the time avoiding rivals and obstacles, and collecting bonuses. Crashing depletes your fuel gauge and when it's empty it's game over. Other road users range from harmless slow-moving traffic to dangerous drivers that actively try to shunt you into the barriers. Water, oil slicks and roadworks are thrown into the mix for good measure.
Taking a hit isn't neccessarily the end of the road though - steering into the skid can recover control before a crash, losing just a few seconds rather than a precious chunk of fuel. Stay clean for long enough and bonuses make an appearance - a jet plane, train and Konami Man himself. Bonus fuel cars can be driven into to add a little to the reserves, and serve as a stacking points bonus if you hit each one without a crash.
Road Fighter completely embodies the just one more go spirit of a great arcade game. Simple controls, colourfully attractive visuals and twitchy gameplay that begs to be mastered.
Final Fantasy XIII
Here's a thing: I spent a chunk of the evening earlier writing out an entry on Final Fantasy XIII, which I recently completed. As it went on, the points about it I wanted to make just got mired deeper and deeper into defending it against it's many vociferous detractors, and I couldn't be bothered any more. My intention to write positively about the game had been poisoned by the need to win hearts and minds.
So, here's my potted version:
Final Fantasy XIII is one of the best JRPGs I've ever played. At this moment I'm quite happy to say it's my favourite in the series after XII. It was a streamlined, action-packed, eye-popping experience that was more purely fun to play than almost any RPG I've tried. I loved the world, liked the characters, found the pacing to be perfect (I literally never tired of it or felt it dragged), and revelled in the gloriously entertaining combat system. It was a bold experiment that - for me - completely paid off.
Check it out. You might like it, you might hate it. I only ask that you go in without preconceptions or expectations of what you think a Final Fantasy should be.
So, here's my potted version:
Final Fantasy XIII is one of the best JRPGs I've ever played. At this moment I'm quite happy to say it's my favourite in the series after XII. It was a streamlined, action-packed, eye-popping experience that was more purely fun to play than almost any RPG I've tried. I loved the world, liked the characters, found the pacing to be perfect (I literally never tired of it or felt it dragged), and revelled in the gloriously entertaining combat system. It was a bold experiment that - for me - completely paid off.
Check it out. You might like it, you might hate it. I only ask that you go in without preconceptions or expectations of what you think a Final Fantasy should be.
Heavy Rain
Heavy Rain is not a good videogame.
By almost all measures of videogame critique it falls way short. The controls are unresponsive and often abstract, the animation is stiff and awkward, 'gameplay' - nebulous term as it is anyway - amounts to nothing more than going through the motions of a scene until the opportunity to move on presents itself. Most of the time these sections deal in activities so mundane the only result is patience-trying tedium. You cannot fail, the plot moves on regardless.
This would be fine if the game were striding boldly into new arenas of storytelling. That, at least, would be something worthy of praise. Unfortunately Heavy Rain is hampered on these fronts by the dramatic quality of a made-for-cable thriller starring C-list actors delivering C-list performances, and a ludicrous plot shot full of holes.
The thing is, those cheap thrillers are often highly watchable. Maybe for the wrong reasons, but nevertheless - when time is ticking down and Frank Stallone, Don Swayze and Zeppo Clooney are closing in on their man, you're clutching the edge of your seat and munching on popcorn all the same. Of course, you've also spent the film laying on comedy commentary and pointing out every duff moment for laughs. Heavy Rain entertains immensely in the same way. Probably not what self-proclaimed writing genius and videogame auteur David Cage had in mind.
There's a lot of talk out there about how groundbreaking this is, how important it is. Did anyone play Fahrenheit? Did people conveniently forget that developers like Bioware and Bethesda have been spinning yarns where the actions of the player have far-reaching, game-altering consequences for years? What's more, games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 offer significantly richer writing and 'digital acting' than Heavy Rain ever manages. It may feature *glimpses* of truly photorealistic characters (in the right light, from the right angle), but toss in some robotic animation and a trip through Uncanny Valley and it immediately falls apart. Plus the fact that the decades-old output of Infocom and Magnetic Scrolls effortlessly trumps it in the script department.
As my good friend Johnny Beatdown remarked:
"if you're claiming that your story is the most important thing to happen in videogaming, that story had better be pretty damn good."
The lineage of Heavy Rain comes from text adventures, through point-and-clickers, mixed in with laserdisc games and FMV-driven 'interactive movies' from the heady days of the mid-90s, and of course Cage's own Fahrenheit. Videogame creators desperately trying to present a more traditionally dramatic experience, elevating videogame narrative to something more worthy, maybe something to sit alongside the best that literature and cinema could offer. Only with the twist that you were in control, manipulating the story and characters to fashion a unique kind of adventure.
I've spoken on this before. My unashamedly alarmist attitude towards this encroaching notion that videogames can only truly be accepted as art - or even a respected entertainment medium - if they strive to emulate the cinematic experience. I'm sorry, but I want my games to be games. What's more, I want them to be good games. Is that too much to ask? Changing a baby's nappy or scrambling some eggs may be something that my characters would do, but performing them via a series of button prompts will never be something that I want to do.
Heavy Rain does a couple of things very right, but only by default due to its nature as a videogame. What I mean is, it does deliver some genuinely pulse-pounding QTE moments thanks to the player's foreknowledge that it's entirely possible to lose any of the characters at any point. This lends certain scenes a true sense of urgency and desperation. I will happily admit to finding one particular sequence almost unbearably tense. Also, it presents some tough ethical choices that reverberate throughout the narrative. But, like I said - you can't lose as such, you can just end up at a very bleak conclusion. Even that isn't necessarily wrong. The ending of Seven isn't necessarily wrong, and indeed Cage has commented that players should really only go through the game once, accepting the consequences of their actions and having whatever they come out the other end with as their own experience of the game.
Maybe because he knows that if you do play it multiple times the cracks start to show. Inconsistencies in the plot where the game isn't clever enough to adapt to things the player's characters have experienced or missed, for example. I'm aware of how impractical it must be to cover every possibility, to provide alternate paths for every decision (and on this point the designers of Mass Effect 3 must be in some kind of flowchart hell right about now), but if you can't do it don't do a half-arsed job of it anyway and hope people put the flaws down to stuff they missed.
Heavy Rain does have multiple possible endings, and gamers being gamers will generally try to see every single one of them. It's going to be a hard slog, though. This entry comes across as incredibly damning, but I did value my experience at the very least and I will play it again. If I seem like I'm raging against the game it's only because I'm feeling like the majority of mainstream opinion is misguided - they're using the wrong tools to judge it. Allow me to kick back a little.
Which brings me full circle to the statement that Heavy Rain is not a good videogame. It's an occasionally thrilling, very flawed, badly acted, often wonky-looking interactive movie which is very little fun to play, but nevertheless is kind of worth playing. Certainly worth talking about.
If only to know the enemy.
By almost all measures of videogame critique it falls way short. The controls are unresponsive and often abstract, the animation is stiff and awkward, 'gameplay' - nebulous term as it is anyway - amounts to nothing more than going through the motions of a scene until the opportunity to move on presents itself. Most of the time these sections deal in activities so mundane the only result is patience-trying tedium. You cannot fail, the plot moves on regardless.
This would be fine if the game were striding boldly into new arenas of storytelling. That, at least, would be something worthy of praise. Unfortunately Heavy Rain is hampered on these fronts by the dramatic quality of a made-for-cable thriller starring C-list actors delivering C-list performances, and a ludicrous plot shot full of holes.
The thing is, those cheap thrillers are often highly watchable. Maybe for the wrong reasons, but nevertheless - when time is ticking down and Frank Stallone, Don Swayze and Zeppo Clooney are closing in on their man, you're clutching the edge of your seat and munching on popcorn all the same. Of course, you've also spent the film laying on comedy commentary and pointing out every duff moment for laughs. Heavy Rain entertains immensely in the same way. Probably not what self-proclaimed writing genius and videogame auteur David Cage had in mind.
There's a lot of talk out there about how groundbreaking this is, how important it is. Did anyone play Fahrenheit? Did people conveniently forget that developers like Bioware and Bethesda have been spinning yarns where the actions of the player have far-reaching, game-altering consequences for years? What's more, games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 offer significantly richer writing and 'digital acting' than Heavy Rain ever manages. It may feature *glimpses* of truly photorealistic characters (in the right light, from the right angle), but toss in some robotic animation and a trip through Uncanny Valley and it immediately falls apart. Plus the fact that the decades-old output of Infocom and Magnetic Scrolls effortlessly trumps it in the script department.
As my good friend Johnny Beatdown remarked:
"if you're claiming that your story is the most important thing to happen in videogaming, that story had better be pretty damn good."
The lineage of Heavy Rain comes from text adventures, through point-and-clickers, mixed in with laserdisc games and FMV-driven 'interactive movies' from the heady days of the mid-90s, and of course Cage's own Fahrenheit. Videogame creators desperately trying to present a more traditionally dramatic experience, elevating videogame narrative to something more worthy, maybe something to sit alongside the best that literature and cinema could offer. Only with the twist that you were in control, manipulating the story and characters to fashion a unique kind of adventure.
I've spoken on this before. My unashamedly alarmist attitude towards this encroaching notion that videogames can only truly be accepted as art - or even a respected entertainment medium - if they strive to emulate the cinematic experience. I'm sorry, but I want my games to be games. What's more, I want them to be good games. Is that too much to ask? Changing a baby's nappy or scrambling some eggs may be something that my characters would do, but performing them via a series of button prompts will never be something that I want to do.
Heavy Rain does a couple of things very right, but only by default due to its nature as a videogame. What I mean is, it does deliver some genuinely pulse-pounding QTE moments thanks to the player's foreknowledge that it's entirely possible to lose any of the characters at any point. This lends certain scenes a true sense of urgency and desperation. I will happily admit to finding one particular sequence almost unbearably tense. Also, it presents some tough ethical choices that reverberate throughout the narrative. But, like I said - you can't lose as such, you can just end up at a very bleak conclusion. Even that isn't necessarily wrong. The ending of Seven isn't necessarily wrong, and indeed Cage has commented that players should really only go through the game once, accepting the consequences of their actions and having whatever they come out the other end with as their own experience of the game.
Maybe because he knows that if you do play it multiple times the cracks start to show. Inconsistencies in the plot where the game isn't clever enough to adapt to things the player's characters have experienced or missed, for example. I'm aware of how impractical it must be to cover every possibility, to provide alternate paths for every decision (and on this point the designers of Mass Effect 3 must be in some kind of flowchart hell right about now), but if you can't do it don't do a half-arsed job of it anyway and hope people put the flaws down to stuff they missed.
Heavy Rain does have multiple possible endings, and gamers being gamers will generally try to see every single one of them. It's going to be a hard slog, though. This entry comes across as incredibly damning, but I did value my experience at the very least and I will play it again. If I seem like I'm raging against the game it's only because I'm feeling like the majority of mainstream opinion is misguided - they're using the wrong tools to judge it. Allow me to kick back a little.
Which brings me full circle to the statement that Heavy Rain is not a good videogame. It's an occasionally thrilling, very flawed, badly acted, often wonky-looking interactive movie which is very little fun to play, but nevertheless is kind of worth playing. Certainly worth talking about.
If only to know the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
