miércoles, 24 de noviembre de 2010

Uncharted is so screwed!


WTF?!

http://kotaku.com/5698269/mark-wahlberg-will-be-nathan-drake-deniro-could-be-drakes-dad

Max Payne was probably the worst movie I watched in the last two years (my wife even fell asleep during the first act). When you think of Mark Wahlberg, "likeable" and "funny" are not the first adjectives that come to your mind.

I have nothing else to say about this. I'm depressed.

sábado, 20 de noviembre de 2010

The Call of Duty school of writing



Call of Duty: Black Ops was released last week. Many streets here in Frankfurt are filled with ads showing a guy with two guns, one of them called Sally. I'm not going to play it yet because I don't have too much money right now and the UK release is a bit overpriced, so I'll have to wait until it's cheaper. But I realized that I never played Treyarch's 2006 game Call of Duty III because then I was only a PC gamer and this was a console exclusive. So now it's a good time for me to catch up...



A few days ago, Jeffrey Yohalem (an Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood writer) said in a Spanish interview that "the game mechanics are always more important than the script". Then, amazingly, he mentioned Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time as the main influence for his work. But as Ben Croshaw cleverly observed, PoP: TSoT is one of the best games ever made and is miles beyond its sequels even when the second and the third game have substantially better combat and overall gameplay. Why is that? Because TSoT has an amazing script.

So I've been playing for a couple of days the infamous Call of Duty III, who earned Treyarch the unfair reputation for doing the "bad" Call of Duty games. It has -*sigh*- decent mechanics, but no script whatsoever. Just "go there and shoot the bad guys" all the time, with the odd vehicle section here and there for a change of pace.

I guess after making this game somebody realized that they needed scripts for the Call of Duty games to make them less boring. So, starting with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, it looks like they decided that they had to blow our minds. I mean, literally. So then it was like this (total SPOILERS follow):


CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE:


"At the beginning of the game, you go in a car with the bad guys, they take you to a main villain and he shoots you in the head."


"So, how can we top that?"


"Then you go in a helicopter with the good guys, you run away from the same main villain, and then he... er, he throws an atomic bomb on you."


"That's so f***ing cool! After this, nobody will want to play a Medal of Honor game ever again..."



WORLD AT WAR:

"So, you've seen Call of Duty 4... Any ideas?"

"Nazi zombies?"





MODERN WARFARE 2:

"They really loved the atomic bomb bit. Now, give me something really shocking."

"You go and... shoot civilians with the bad guys, but then they shoot you in the head."


"That's so clever. And so original! So, how can we top that?"


"Er... Well, the good guy is... a main villain... and he shoots you... and then he pours gasoline on you..."


"You are a f***ing genius! We have GOTY material in our hands!"



BLACK OPS:


"So we have to top Modern Warfare or we are dead... Ideas?"


"Well, you go and shoot Fidel Castro in the head."


(Silence.)


"Only that... it wasn't him."


"That's... genius! Amazing! Modern Warfare, you are so screwed after this! So, how can we top that?"


"Well, after that, you... shoot... Kennedy."


(Silence.)


"Only that... well, you don't really shoot him. But they make you think that you shot him."


"Polish those Oscars! I mean, maybe there are no video game Oscars, but we're all going to be rich!"





So, here's the Call of Duty school of writing. Here's a good lesson for game designers all around the globe.

viernes, 12 de noviembre de 2010

Kane & Lynch 2 - Dog Days


The first Kane & Lynch game was a barely acceptable 3rd person shooter which was harmed by its relentless grimness. The story tried so hard to be dark that it didn't even make sense. Why did Kane endure Lynch's non-stop unreliability? I can only think of one reason: because both their names are in the title, so they must work together. But Lynch was directly responsible for most of the bad things that happened to Kane in this game. To add insult to injury, the player was forced to choose between a bad ending and a worse ending. This was like a lesson in how to punish the player.


Curiously enough, the second Kane & Lynch kind of "fixes" those problems: the story follows none of those endings (Kane still has his daughter and Lynch's friendship). Also, Lynch is now directly responsible for his misfortune after a big single mistake (OK, or maybe two...), and Kane and Lynch stick together by plausible reasons (so they can make an arms deal and then escape). The story is straightforward and is concentrated in a short period of time.


The biggest change from the previous game is in the mechanics: Kane & Lynch 2 is a typical current-gen cover shooter, and never strays from that formula. Thankfully, the game is intense and just long enough so it never gets really boring. The levels are well done and varied in their sameness. If you think about it, you are playing in the usual settings you can see in any other game ("office", "street", "warehouse"), but here they looks different... and appropriate. All's happening in Shanghai, which is amazingly rendered here, putting Army of Two: The 40th Day to shame.


But the most original feature in the game is the "cellphone camera" effect. The whole game looks as if we were watching a badly made video of the events. This effect is really unique, and the thing is, it just works. Combined with great acting and level design, the results are terrific.


For some stretches of the game, you really feel you are playing something special... but then you remember that you are playing just another cover shooter. I couldn't pinpoint what keeps this from being a classic... Probably the lack of polish in certain aspects (the multiplayer modes just didn't work in my PC... though maybe it's just that nobody in the world is playing this game), or the unlikeability of the characters (even if they've come a long way since the first Kane & Lynch). Certainly, Uncharted this ain't.


Honestly, I don't know if I should recommend this game to you... I loved it, but I'm aware that it's not a game for everybody. If you like gritty cover shooters, you may like this. Oh, and it's a great co-op game.

jueves, 4 de noviembre de 2010

Xbox exclusivity?

Now we know why Microsoft is charging you more for your Xbox Live subscription (if you live in North America or the UK):

Now in 2002, it was strictly multiplayer gaming. Now we get those Call of Duty map packs before anybody else does. We’ve got Gears and Halo, of course, as exclusives. We continue to get exclusives on the service as well. And we’ve gone from 400,000 members in our first year to 25 million.

Well, if I were an Xbox player, I wouldn't think "oh, I love these games but I don't want anyone else to play them". That would be selfish and stupid. But Microsoft is paying millions to developers so they don't sell PS3 versions. Do Xbox players get any real benefit from this? No. Microsoft does.

Also, an Xbox player has Gears of War and Halo. Microsoft could easily release Halo for PS3, but they don't want to, because it's all about strengthening the Xbox brand and hurting the competition. Does that benefit Xbox players at all? No. That's only good for Microsoft.

If Microsoft is the one reaping the benefits, why should the players pay for all that exclusivity nonsense? Are you kidding me?

miércoles, 27 de octubre de 2010

Playstation loyalty?

I own a Playstation. I purchase lots of games. I play as much as I can (which is not much lately, though). Then, the new Playstation loyalty program, "Playstation Rewards", should be perfect for me, right?

Well,

The tiers earn members access to mostly digital rewards, like exclusive PSN avatars that display member status in the program, dynamic themes and PlayStation Home content.

Avatars, dynamic themes and PlayStation Home content? The stuff you can keep if you terminate your PlayStation Plus subscription because nobody really wants it and it's kind of worthless?

You can count me the f*** out.

jueves, 23 de septiembre de 2010

Nerdrage: The Backlash

So GOG is back in business. Back to normal, I guess. But now a lot of users are aware of the fragility of downloadable games. After this ill-advised PR strunt, a lot of fans have now become haters, stating that they won't buy anything from them ever again because they feel betrayed. Yes, it was not nice, but I think they are overreacting, because we only lost access to downloads for a few days, and some trust. The games are still there, no-DRM and all.

I've read some great comments in RPS, but in this case comparatively few users have stopped to think about this in a calm manner. One of them named "Kurina" wrote this opinion. I couldn't agree more:

I am definitely not a fan of the actions they have taken, temporarily closing down their website and leaving a cryptic message. It was not the smartest move, and has brought them some bad PR that they really do not need.

On that note though, I believe people are also overreacting to some degree. While access to the service was suspended, the website also clearly stated that games would be able to be downloaded again this Thursday. This was never in question or hinted at by cryptic statements. Games and accounts were not lost, and everyone would still be able to claim titles they purchased in the past.

This does bring to light how fragile our dependence on these services are though. All it takes is one problem, decision, or marketing stunt to impede our access to games. I hope many people are beginning to realize how they truly are putting all their eggs in one basket, by focusing on services such as Steam. The interesting part being, at least with GOG, their stunts do not prevent you from playing downloaded and archived games. If another service did this, good luck reinstalling and accessing them in the future.

While I do not appreciate the stunt, this will not prevent me from purchasing GOG titles in the future, solely for the fact that I know I can back them up and play games indefinitely regardless of what happens to the company itself.

lunes, 20 de septiembre de 2010

I knew this would happen...


...but this was much sooner than I expected.

GOG is down. I repeat, GOG is down.

I knew about the risks of spending money to buy non-physical games, and I wrote about them. But I never expected something like this to happen so soon, and I never expected it to happen to GOG. I trusted them. Many people trusted them, because they seemed to care about customers, and they were so nice... This shows the main issue against digital purchases: you are just "renting" the games and they could take them away from you unexpectedly.

This is just bad, any way you look at it. Some customers say "oh, but you should keep backups for your games", but then again:

-If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't buy digital games in the first place, I'd buy discs with nice cover art and goodies.
-I own 150+ games on GOG. How long would it take to download all those games, and where do I put them? Should I buy a couple of hard disk drives just for them? And hard disks fail after a while, you know.

We are now waiting to see if this is just a really stupid PR stunt for the end of the Beta stage or something, but nobody is OK with this. The trust is gone. We've been warned about the risks, and many people will think twice about buying digital next time.

viernes, 27 de agosto de 2010

'Please pay us as much as you can!'

One of the latest, most disturbing trends is to lock away some functions of the game if you buy an used copy. Publishers are getting bolder every day, so now a THQ employee has even said that buying second hand games is "cheating". They want people to pay $60 for every game.

Well, they still don't understand that some people will never pay $60 for a game. I know I never do: I wait until they they hit the bargain bin and cost 15 € (about $20) before buying anything. Anyway, for many people the basic economics for the current way of making second-hand games available is this: a kid pays $60 for a game, finds out that he doesn't like the game for whatever reason, sells it back, and then he buys another one. Do you see a pattern? If he can't sell the game, the chain is broken. A game sale disappears. Furthermore, he'll never buy the game in the first place because he knows that if he doesn't like the game for some reason, he'll be screwed. In the "best case scenario" for the games industry, he'll wait until the game costs $20-25 like I do.

Is it so hard to understand why this "preventing used games sales" will only bring harm to everyone? Also, it doesn't make any sense and goes against what we've been doing for centuries. Just imagine that you go and buy an used car from some guy. You sign the contract, the seller hands you the keys for the car... and then he says, "oh, there's one more thing. The "extra storage function" is only available for first-time buyers. That means that you should go to your nearest Ford dealership and pay them $3,000 to get the trunk key."

Can you see yourself in that situation? And can you imagine doing anything else than punching the seller's face straight away?

miércoles, 25 de agosto de 2010

Was I the only one waiting for This is Vegas?


It looks like This is Vegas has been canned.

This was going to be the next game created by Surreal Software, the studio behind the underrated horror classic The Suffering and its inferior (but still pretty good) sequel, and I have to admit that I was hoping they would create another great game. But something was not right. The colossal Midway was sinking, and it looked like this game could be a victim of it. Also, to our eyes the game seemed a bit pointless. What is it exactly? A mere GTA clone? A playboy simulator? Is there anything else to do other than just go from one place to another and "party"? With no interesting story or characters sticking out, it looked like they were taking too long for just a glorified HD mini-game collection.

Maybe we were wrong. Maybe there was a great game underneath. But then again, why did they choose to show only those parts of the game? Were they really building up a whole game based on the secondary, throwaway elements that filled up GTA's world for those moments when you wanted a break from the main story?

They've been working on this game for years and they've already spend $50 million. Are they really throwing all that work away? Even 3D Realms allegedly handed Duke Nukem Forever to another developer to finish it. Can't they just release what they have as a budget title, or as a downloadable game? Maybe they won't be able to sell it spectacularly for $60, but why not for $20? I would definitely buy it.

viernes, 20 de agosto de 2010

Beyond Good & Evil 2 watch

The chairman of Ubisoft says they are trying their best to make Beyond Good & Evil 2 the best game possible.

If you read the Kotaku article, you could believe he's serious and Ubisoft is still the same company it used to be, choosing innovation and quality above the "iteration method" (running a franchise to the ground with yearly sequels, like they did with Prince of Persia). But remember, until it's proven otherwise, Ubisoft is still the same company that ruined Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell not long ago. And don't forget about their really evil DRM scheme, which always makes me think of this joke.

lunes, 16 de agosto de 2010

APB sucks... so you know what comes next

I was really hoping for APB to be great, but then I tried the open beta-thing "Keys to the City" event... and what I found was truly horrible. Awful driving, bad shooting, boring missions, long loading times... I didn't want to write specifically about it here because I couldn't even keep playing for long and you know, it was just a beta, though it didn't seem too likely that they could fix all the major problems in time for the real release.

So it's not a surprise that the game tanked, so now the developer is firing everybody. It's sad, but as I usually say, if you make really bad games you'll go under.

After getting this bad news for Real Time Worlds, a former employee has written about it from an insider perspective in the comments section of Rock, Paper, Shotgun. It looks calm and impartial enough, unlike the comment from a former Obsidian employee who crapped on the game as soon as he found the first bad review for it.

Well, I'm not against snitching, but please let a game live or die on its own terms, and then tell us. Don't land the killing blow on it... What if you are wrong? And in the case of that Obsidian guy, he certainly was.

So here's the comment in its entirety. Why not?

What a fucking mess. I’m ex-RTW.

An outcome like this wasn’t desired by anyone at RTW, but game development is a weird business. A game can play poorly right up until only a few months before release, for a variety of reasons – Crackdown was awful right up until a month or two before it came out (some would say awful afterwards, too, but I’m trying to make a point :). Knowing this, it can blind you to a game’s imperfections – or lead you to think it’s going to come right by release. You end up in this situation where you’re heads down working your ass off, not well able to critically assess your own product. APB itself only really came together technically relatively late in its development cycle (and it still obviously has problems), leaving too little time for content production and polish, and lacking any real quality in some of its core mechanics (shooting / driving). It’s not that the team was unaware of these huge issues, but a million little things conspire to prevent you from being able to do anything about them. It can seem difficult to comprehend, it certainly was for me before entering the industry – ‘How did those idiots get X wrong in game Y?’. No team sets out to ship something anything less than perfection, but projects can evolve in ways that no one seems to be in total control of. All that said, it was pretty clear to me that the game was going to get a kicking at review – the gap between expectation and the reality was huge. I wasn’t on the APB team, so I played it infrequently, during internal test days etc. I was genuinely shocked when I played the release candidate – I couldn’t believe Dave J would be willing to release this. All the issues that had driven me nuts about it were still there – the driving was poor (server-authoritative with no apparent client prediction, ergo horrendously lag intolerant), combat impact-less, and I found the performance of the game sub-par on what was a high-spec dev machine.

But the real killer, IMO, is the business model. This was out of the team’s hands. The game has issues, but I think if you separate the business model from the game itself, it holds up at least a little better. A large scale team based shooter, in big urban environments, with unprecedented customisation and some really cool, original features. The problem was that management looked at the revenue they wanted to generate and priced accordingly, failing to realise (or care) that there are literally a dozen top quality, subscription free team based shooters. Many of which, now, have progression and persistence of some sort – for free. The game would have been immeasurably better received it had simply been a boxed product, with paid-for in-game items, IMO. This may not have been possible, given what was spent on the game and the running costs, but the market is tough. You can’t simply charge what you feel like earning and hope the paying public will agree with your judgement of value. Many of us within RTW were extremely nervous at APB’s prospects long before launch, and with good reason, as it turns out.

They also failed spectacularly to manage expectations. When Dave J spoke out saying there would ‘not be a standard subscription model’, he unwittingly set expectations at ‘free to play’. When it’s announced that we’re essentially pay-per-hour, we get absolutely killed in the press, somewhat understandably. The game also announced far too early (though it kept being delayed), and had little to show but customisation for what seemed like years, largely because internally we (correctly) judged it to be the stand out part of the game. But we should have kept our powder dry. Our PR felt tired and dragged on and on, rather than building a short, sharp crescendo of excitement pre-release. We also went to beta far too early, wiser heads were ignored when it was pointed out that any kind of beta, even very early beta, might as well be public as far as generating word of mouth. The real purpose of beta is publicity, not bug fixing. We never took that lesson on board. We also made the error of not releasing fixes externally to many of the issues early beta testers were picking up, keeping the fixes on internal builds, I presume to lessen the load on QA. This simply meant that to early beta testers, it looked as though we were never bothering to fix the issues they found, when in fact, they were being fixed, simply being deployed back into beta very infrequently. This lesson was eventually learnt, but only after we’d pissed off a large number of early-adopters.

The sheer time spent and money it took to make APB is really a product of fairly directionless creative leadership. Certainly Dave J has great, strong, ambitious ideas for his games. But he’s a big believer in letting the details emerge along the way, rather than being planned out beyond even a rudimentary form. For most of the lifetime of APB, he was also CEO of the whole company, as well as Creative Director. His full attention was not there until it late in the day. This has ramifications for how long his projects run – many years, on average – and the associated cost. This, in turn, means that the business model options were constrained, conspiring to place APB in a really difficult position, commercially. Ultimately, it’s this pairing of a subscription model cost with free to play game play that really did for the game. And many of us saw it coming a mile off. I must admit I’m dismayed about the scale of the failure, however. Many of us thought APB might do OK at retail and sell a few hundred thousand, though struggle on ongoing revenue, and gradually carve a niche. But it absolutely tanked at retail I believe (though I’m not privvy to figures) I think due to the critical mauling it received. It never made the top 20 of the all format UK chart. It’s scraping along the bottom of the PC-only chart, a situation I’m assuming is replicated in its major markets. And being at the bottom of the PC-only chart is not where you want to be as a AAA budget game. God knows what the budget was, but when you account for the 150-odd staff and all the launch hardware and support, it was in the tens of millions of dollars.

MyWorld is an innocent bystander caught up in the demise of APB. Which is a real shame, because it is genuinely ground breaking, though not aimed at the traditional gamer audience. It was going great guns over the last year or so, coming on leaps and bounds, impressing everyone who saw it. MyWorld might as well have been a different company – there was very little staff overlap on the two projects, they worked under entirely different production methodologies, and because we were not the next in line for release we received very little attention from the execs (which was a good thing, to be honest). We knew that time was limited, and tried to encourage management to go the ‘google-style beta route – release a limited, but polished core feature set early, and iterate. What happens to it from here on out is not clear, but without the people who wrote it, the code isn’t worth a damn, so I can’t see the project being picked up. Management tried to get a publisher onboard to fund continued development, but the time scales involved meant that was always unlikely, despite some considerable interest from potential partners. God knows what will happen to it now the team are gone. Probably nothing. Years of my life were poured into that project, but it was a blast to make, and at least it was made public so I can point and say, “I helped make that”.

RTW tried something bold, and fucked it up. It tried to make what amounted to two MMOs at once, as well as self-publish. I have to hand it to Dave J. He’s ballsy. But in the end, we couldn’t do it, and I think the whole company will go under sooner rather than later. It’s a shame, too, as Dundee can’t absorb the level of game dev redundancies that are about to hit, which means the Dundee scene gets that little bit smaller. But that’s the price of failure, and we certainly failed. No excuses, really. We were well funded, hired some great engineers, designers and artists, and great QA guys. Ultimately, the senior management team must take responsibility. I think they had far too much focus on the company’s ‘strategic direction’ and not enough on day-to-day execution, which was where it really matters. And I think a huge part of the blame lies with Dave J, though I can’t emphasize enough how nice a man he is personally; ultimately APB has torpedoed the company, and it failed largely under his creative leadership. It has other issues (technical, for instance), but the design and the business plan are largely down to him and the board, and they are what have failed so irrevocably for the rest of us.

ExRTW

miércoles, 11 de agosto de 2010

The new censorship

As you can see in the comments from users here, the Steam software forces you to upgrade your version of Plants vs Zombies to the GOTY release even if you don't want it. Yes, even if you have disabled automatic updates for that game. They have blatantly ignored the choice made by players to keep the old version of the game, following the rules set by Valve to handle Steam.

This kind of disregard for what the player wants, taking advantage of the power they hold when they fully control your access to the games, is what makes me skeptical about digital downloads. They can tamper with your game in any way they think appropriate. Now they are saying, "oh, sorry, some character in the game may get us sued so we are removing it", but at some point you can log in to your game account and be confronted with a disclaimer telling you that "sorry, a big Earthquake killed 100,000 people in California so the Quake games are in bad taste and you can no longer play them". Or maybe one day you try to play "Rock and Roll Part 2" in a Guitar Hero / Rock Band game but then Gary Glitter is arrested for molesting a child, so then the song gets patched out of the game because some parents complained about it... You know what I mean!

And then I, as a player, will yell "stop screwing me! I just want to play my game in peace! Don't take anything away from me!". But now there's nothing I can do, because in the digital era nobody can hear you scream.

sábado, 31 de julio de 2010

Games that stop existing


A few days ago we commented about Plants vs Zombies being updated to modify its content. As an owner of PvZ on Steam, I'll be forced to get the censored version of the game the next time I download it.


That's the worst thing of downloadable games: they can be modified by the provider, and you can't do anything about it. And it even could be worse: the game could just disappear, like Street Racing. This Facebook game was just removed from the internet surprising all its paying customers. This is one of those games in which you buy in-game stuff with real-life money. So may have "invested" a lot of money buying virtual advantages that no longer exist. You are basically screwed.


We all trust that our downloadable games will be there for as long as we want them on Steam, on Xbox Live Arcade, on PSN... but is there a real guarantee? Or can they just say "sorry, you can't play anymore" when they consider that the fan base is not big enough to justify the expense and we have to accept it?


This is what I don't like about downloads... Unless proven otherwise, we are just renting the games. They don't usually disappear, but if they do, can we do anything about it? Or are we just going to be told "sorry, it's over. But you can play our other games!" like with Street Racing?

miércoles, 28 de julio de 2010

Say goodbye to the MJ zombie

Plants vs Zombies was our Game of the Year for 2009. It had laughs, very clever design and a lot of memorable zombie characters. One of the best ones took inspiration from Michael Jackson and his Thriller video, with hilarious results.

Well, if you haven't bought and played this game yet, be quick, because the old version is going to be pulled from game providers (Steam, etc) and replaced by a different build. Seemingly, after his death it's not funny anymore to laugh with Michael Jackson, even after he's been laughed at for several years now. I don't know what PopCap is going to do to replace that memorable enemy, but it won't be easy to match the kind of inspiration and lunacy the original MJ zombie had.

Goodbye, MJ zombie! We'll miss you!


UPDATE: If you have bought the Steam version of the game, then download it right now and select the "Do not automatically update this game" option to keep the old version. The game takes very little space (25 Mb), so you won't regret it!

2nd UPDATE: Here's the new dancing zombie!

3rd UPDATE: JR just sent me this link, and it's perfectly appropriate to illustrate this situation. Trying to "protect the value of a brand" shutting down everything that looks even remotely as a "copyright infringement" only leads to destroy creativity and can even be counterproductive. If Andy Warhol tried to paint those iconic Campbell soup cans nowadays, he would be sued out of existence. Just think about it.

FINAL UPDATE: Forget about disabling automatic updates. Even if you do that, Steam forcefully upgrades your version to the GOTY release. That's not nice, Valve, that's not nice at all...

POST-FINAL UPDATE: Some guys have found a way to keep MJ in the game. It's not perfect, but it seems to work.

miércoles, 14 de julio de 2010

Never say this is the last game

Did you love the Monkey Island games? Well, then you'll love Deathspank. This is the first game from Ron Gilbert in a very long time, and it's good.

It's nice to see Gilbert creating cool games again. The Monkey Island games became crappy and too cartoony after he left! To his credit, he has created something new and exciting. Other designers are happy to make the same game over and over again, with Hideo Kojima being the worst offender, or even Hironobu Sakaguchi, who made his long, prosperous career possible after he went all out to create a "Final Fantasy" which was supposed to be Square's last game. So what's he doing now, after leaving Square-Enix? The Last Story, which will probably be his "last game", again. You have to be kidding me!

Do you know who has been actually frank about creating the same game over and over again until we can't take it anymore? Yes, you guessed it right... Well, the guy responsible for creating Kevin Butler and the ad which kind of proved that Killzone 2 had amazing graphics after all has been hired by Activision. So I guess Activision wants to look less evil now, and this is probably the right person to whitewash Robert Kotick's wrongdoings. I can't imagine what he will do, but I'm sure it will work, because he's clever and we gamers have really short memories.

viernes, 9 de julio de 2010

Jimbecility - A bullet in the head


I shouldn't care about idiots making the world a worse place. After all, I didn't write any blog post about George W. Bush in eight years. But after he single-handedly started a wave of critical hate against a truly great game, and then he kept kicking it at any possible chance until that was it, I've decided that I've had enough with this twat who fancies himself a video games professional writer.


I didn't even want to acknowledge his existence ever again, but his latest act of stupidity is too amazing to let it just slip away. As part of a commentary about the difference between video game violence and real violence, he says: "to illustrate my point, I want to show you a bit of footage that it's a bit disturbing, so I want to warn you now." and then he shows the footage.


This guy is never one to be taken too seriously, because his rants are always so over the top that you don't really know if he is serious or not. So, what is he going to show us, a clip of the death of Bambi's mother?


Well, most of Sterling's followers are teenagers who don't know better, so they don't immediately identify the 23-year-old footage of the Bud Dwyer suicide. So a lot of young readers are expecting some of the patented tongue-in-cheek antics to be expected from him, they keep watching, and they are unexpectedly "rewarded" with a close up of a man shooting a gun into his own face.


Can an immature blogger sink any lower to prove an obvious, sophomoric point? The poor wretch goes on to say something equivalent to "See? Real violence is not disturbing at all. His head didn't blow up or anything like in video games". No, but I got to see a stream of blood gushing down a recently dead dude's face, and now I have to try to sleep after seeing that.


And to cap it all off, this pathetic, unineuronal excuse for a video games journalist thinks it's a good idea to end his simplistic rant taking a plastic gun out of an envelope and placing it in his mouth. Oh, how funny! I'm going to die laughing. And after 150 comments, none of his faithful readers seems offended or anything. Oh, the internets.

martes, 6 de julio de 2010

Killed by bad reviews

Sega has confirmed that there will be no sequel for Alpha Protocol, crushed by slow sales and middling reviews. Because yes, reviews actually have a strong influence on sales.

I didn't want this to happen. The game is very good, but for some reason American reviewers really hated it, specially a short-sighted idiot from Destructoid with a taste for self-promotion (with features like "Jimpressions", "the Jimquisition", and probably something called "Jimbecility" in the near future) who was so off-the-mark as Tom Chick was when he "reviewed" Deus Ex ten years ago in a perfect storm of cluelessness. According to Chick, Deux Ex was a "cliché-riddled game" with "an uninteresting story", "generic soundtrack" (wait, what?!), and "isn't all bad, though; I'd say it's only 90% bad". Amazing words for what is now considered one of the best games in history (or even the best, period).

Now Alpha Protocol is getting the bad rap, even if a lot of people is really enjoying the game. This reminds me of what's been happening to M. Night Shyamalan for the last few years. All of his new movies have been torn to pieces by critics, and the last one is no exception. The Last Airbender has at this point a pitiful 8% at Rotten Tomatoes, which means 92% of the American critics hated it.

But the thing is, a lot of people went to see The Last Airbender. After earning $40 million during its first weekend, it's not a disaster. So Shyamalan's planned trilogy could very well happen, if word of mouth is good and people keep going to watch it.

It didn't go that way for Alpha Protocol. European reviews were usually kinder, and I was even considering to buy the PS3 version (I originally bought it for PC) to support Obsidian's effort. But now it's too late. I guess a future for RPGs with lots of choices is now crushed, as it was for Deus Ex, one of the few games with real significant choices. In the amazing coverage by RPS celebrating Ten Years of Deus Ex, some people express their disappointment because nobody followed the trail opened by it: "I just assumed that games were going to be like that in the future."

Alpha Protocol is truly one of the few games in which the player can actually shape the story in visibly different, complex ways, even changing your allies and foes and getting to fight different people as a consequence. Despite its few weaknesses (the actually decent combat system is hated by many), expect in a few years some articles wondering why this great game failed.

jueves, 24 de junio de 2010

Sony, you won't get my money this time

You've probably heard about Playstation Plus. For 50€/50$ a year, you get very big demos (or "full game trials", but they are still demos, right?) and lots of games:

As a member you can expect to get your hands on at least four games a month at no extra charge. Each month there will be a selection of one PSN game, two minis and one PS one classics available on PlayStation Store for you to download. You also get premium avatars and dynamic themes each month, many of which are exclusive to members.

Whaaat??? I'm sold! No, but wait, because there's a catch... You only have access to all those games as long as you subscribe. The day you stop paying the service, you lose them all (except for special offers like the downloadable version of Little Big Planet)

So your they are not really "free" games, and you are paying to keep them for a limited time. They don't use that word, but you will be renting those games. (So, if during your Playstation Plus subscription there's a special offer to buy them cheap, can you still buy them or you are stuck with this rental?) That is one of the things I hate about this current generation of digital downloads: you don't want to think about it too much, but you know that sooner or later the service will be discontinued and you won't be able to download the stuff you paid good money for anymore. So my beautiful list of games from Steam will be gone, just like that... But at least you accept that as something that will happen in the distant future. In this case, "your" games are like hostages being held by Sony, and if you ever get tired of this service, Sony will say to you "if you ever want to see your loved games alive, you have to pay the ransom!". Are you prepared to give up all the games you've collected during your time as a Playstation Plus subscriber?

I was prepared to be a day-one customer because I thought I would keep all those games. But now I'm not going to join in, even if they promise me a downloadable version of Uncharted 2 with a personalized welcome message from Nolan North... unless they change their mind so I get to keep the games. Maybe if we all rejected this system, Sony would get the message. Otherwise, they will understand that most customers see this rental as an acceptable service, and others will copy it in the same way many publishers are already copying EA's nasty Project $10, including (naturally!) giants like the evil Ubisoft, THQ, and even Sony itself!

Playstation Plus is not that great. The only "big thing" about it would be cross-game chat, and that's not even a launch-day feature (I'm sure they will offer it in the future, though). So my advice is, buy the games you want from the Playstation Store, and forget about paying to have a taste of games you'll still have to buy. Otherwise, you'll be helping to move the games industry in the wrong direction.


domingo, 13 de junio de 2010

Splinter Cell - Destruction

Splinter Cell: Conviction feels wrong. It's one of those games that (if you care about Splinter Cell, anyway) makes you think "this is not going the way it should", like Deus Ex: Invisible War, which wasn't a bad game, but it also deviated too much from what a Deus Ex game should be.


Conviction is a mess in many ways. First, Sam Fisher doesn't feel like the same character. He's old and battered, as he should be, but now he looks ape-like, and his eyes have pretty much disappeared. Even if the graphics are really detailed, he looks less human than ever. He's now an unstoppable killing machine.

The story is as subtle as a jackhammer. Somebody killed his daughter, so he wants revenge. This is the excuse to present him as somebody who doesn't care about anything, and who just kills everyone in his path with no remorse, unlike all the previous games which were about surgical strikes and careful stealth. Very early in the story (like, in the second level or so) you discover that she's not dead after all (spoiler!!), but does that change anything? No, not really: Fisher continues on a rampage, and the game keeps beating you on the head with images and dialogues about your daughter, over and over, after we just don't care because we know that she's still alive, though Fisher doesn't seem to care about anything else, even about Irving Lambert. Oh, the game tells you with a throwaway line that you killed your best friend (a very optional choice from the previous game) but Fisher never shows any pain or guilt about that whatsoever. So no "Oh, I thought my daughter was dead, so I didn't mind killing my best friend. I'm an idiot!". There's a scene that tries to suggest that by projecting words like "guilt", "lies" and such on the walls in giant letters (again, sublety!), but when Fisher finally catches up to what was obvious for the player a few hours earlier, he doesn't show regret, but anger. At this point, I guess we are supposed to feel sorry for Fisher, but he just looks stupid. Yes, the game is full of bad writing, and that's just a sample of it.
.
.
SC: Conviction also seems to believe, like Batman: Arkham Asylum, that showing a lot of people dying is cool. The "climax" of the story takes you through a virtual tour of empty, boring White House hallways and rooms with lots of dead people around you. Family entertainment! (Modern Warfare 2 did something similar with the Washington setting in smaller doses, and it worked considerably better). Also, there's a lot of torture (inflicted by the protagonist!) that seems ripped straight from THQ's The Punisher.
.

So there's a lot of bad shooting? What else? Well, everything is streamlined for the dumb, assuming players will be overwhelmed unless the game holds your hand all the time (the stylish messages telling you what to do and where to go get old very soon). You don't even have to hit a crouch button: if there's a big pipe in your way or you have to enter an air duct, Fisher ducks automatically. Also, you are really fast, and you can climb a very tall building in 30 seconds. Altair and Ezio never were so quick. It feels almost like a parody.

Still, the game still forces you to be more or less stealthy, not only in those annoying "if an alarm sounds, you are instantly dead" stages but also during the rest of the game, because if the enemies discover you, it's pretty much impossible to line up a shot with a keyboard and mouse. I didn't have any trouble at all playing the unfairly maligned Alpha Protocol, but shooting in the PC version of Splinter Cell: Conviction is just a pain. And that is too bad, as Sam Fisher is no longer a spy: he's now a soldier. We even get a contrived Modern Warfare-like flashback to the first Iraq war which soon becomes a below-average cover shooter that feels jarringly out of place and stupid (you are wounded and can't take too many hits, so why don't you just stay of the road to avoid the enemy soldiers? But there's an invisible wall...). This is not Splinter Cell! What is this, Soldier of Fortune Payback?

Ubisoft seems to be doing everything wrong lately. Now I see it's not by chance that the Splinter Cell series director called it quits a few weeks ago. And just now, the guy behind the Assassin's Creed series has also left the building after completing the new, unnecessary "Assassin's Creed 2.5" sequel. Ubisoft Montreal, one of the best game studios in the world, seems to be in trouble. And we all just believed the rumours when somebody said that Michel Ancel had left Ubisoft too. Hmm... Something has changed. Ubisoft is no longer a company where creativity is respected and high quality is always to be expected. I hate what they are becoming now.
.
One more thing: I finished the game in one day. But, unlike all the previous Splinter Cell games, I don't think I will be playing this one ever again.

viernes, 11 de junio de 2010

Scary new games


There are lots of new games at this time of the year. It's E3 again! Well, Los Angeles is too far and I couldn't afford the journey anyway. I could afford a trip to this year's Gamescom in Cologne, but it's still too early to know if I will be able to go. Well, what about all the new games? There are just too many, so let me talk about just a few of them.


The Guitar Hero games were getting stale, so Neversoft's main competitor Harmonix has decided to present the new, innovative Rock Band 3. Now there's a keyboard, and there will even be MIDI guitars and the possibility to connect your real MIDI instruments (like my really nice Roland drum set) to the game. The good thing about this is probably that these games are slowly leading advanced players to real musicianship, as the advanced difficulty is almost like playing a real instrument. The bad thing is that, well, you are still playing along other people's music. What I like about playing (about real playing, not the make-believe variety that these games brought to the table) is that you can change the solos, improvise, try a new rhythm to make things more interesting. Because I'm a musician myself, I feel there's still a limit to what these games can offer me. I don't want to play along a song: I'd rather just play a song, because I can, because I have the chops for it.


Let me give you an example: it's cool to follow Pink Floyd's "Another Brick on the Wall", but what happens if you just want to jam for a while and just keep playing? Here's a video of my old band doing just that. But with Rock Band you just mimic the song, and that's the end of it. Will Rock Band titles give you that opportunity in the future? That would be really cool. But would regular players even want that? I'm not the best person to answer that.


Super Scribblenauts promises adjectives that offer a lot more options than before. But are these new options any fun? Because the problem with the first game was not the lack of options, but their faulty implementation. Guys, we don't want more options, we want better options. This time you are not fooling anyone with the "hey, you can do anything!" hype. Just give us a good game, OK?


Homefront is... well, just a stupid far right wet dream turned into a videogame. Inspired by one of the most absurdly paranoid movies ever, Red Dawn. It's usually easy to present the Russians as the bad guys, but in this case the developers try to sell the idea of a Communist invasion making it look as real as possible, if real means "Korea is just like Nazi Germany". You know, Modern Warfare 2 wasn't just a good example of great storytelling, but at least they bothered to create an acceptable -even if flawed- excuse for the main conflict (you know, that level). Now it's just "Koreans are crazy and want to kill us all!"). I'm curious about the game, but I can tell you now that I'm not going to pay a cent to fuel paranoid fantasies, even if it turns out to be really good.

There are just too many new games to comment about all of them, so I just won't. Oh, but there's another thing... Today Super Mario Galaxy 2 has been released in Europe. You should definitely check out that game. It's awesome.

lunes, 7 de junio de 2010

Alpha Protocol's rift - A mystery

A few days after Alpha Protocol's release, a lot of us are still shocked about all the bad reviews it got in the good old USA, which forced people like me or these other Spanish guys to hastily defend the game even before we were done with it. The game has been received warmly elsewhere and players all over the world love it, as I showed at the end of my full review, so why all that hate?


Vlad Andrici tries to study this phenomenon in this article, trying to check all the facts and find an explanation, but it still doesn't make any sense. What is going on? Now, I hate to turn too paranoid, but I've come to think that there are some reasons that don't have anything to do with the quality of the game. First, as Andrice points out,


I've noticed for a long time that many magazines/review sites tend to overlook some pretty noticeable problems that certain games coming from big-ass publishers and developers have, while the "not so hyped" games tend to be hammered for the same issues.


That is so true! If a GTA or a Metal Gear Solid game is released, it automatically gets top marks. Yes, it's a completely populist attitude but it's not going to go away soon (most players actually go crazy if they don't get those unrealistic reviews, anyway). But some game must be seen in a negative light so it doesn't look like reviewers love just everything. And it looks like it's Alpha Protocol's turn.


Also, I hate to turn to ideological explanations, which always look crazy no matter how you present them, but I'm really starting to think that American reviewers are not OK with having a company called "Halbach" (a dead ringer for Halliburton) as the bad guys in Alpha Protocol's story, while the head of the effing islamic terrorists is depicted as a man of his word. Blasphemy!

But I don't know what to think. Thankfully, this game was released a bit earlier in Europe, so when bad reviews started to drip from the US, a lot of people already knew that the game was much better than what they were being told. And you can influence someone to not buy a game, as in this case, but it's different if you are already playing the game... and enjoying it.

I hope this whole thing is not disastrous for Obsidian. As far as I'm concerned, they have delivered the goods with their latest game. If my review didn't convince you yet, I'm telling you again: Alpha Protocol has great writing, and decent gameplay, so if you love RPGs, you should definitely try it.

And speaking of good writing, I really enjoyed this in-depth article by Chris Breault about how important writing is, and about the way careless scripting can ruin the whole experience, using Splinter Cell: Conviction as an example of how bad a game can be because of that. You should read it!

BONUS: Someone sent me this article which says that core gamers are male and casual gamers are female. Well, SuperViv, JR and I are both things at once, and we are not hermaphrodites! Or, at least, I wasn't the last time I checked. Let me have a look again...

martes, 1 de junio de 2010

Alpha Protocol - A review (kind of)



WHAT I THINK (This review has two parts. Go to the end of this entry to jump straight to what players think)

This is not just a review. This is a defense.



Alpha Protocol is a great game. Professional troll Jim Sterling from Destructoid has decided to wage a war against it to see if the internet follows his lead. But he is wrong.

Let's be serious for a minute. Sterling claims that AP is a 2/10 game. Really?

If you read from an alleged former Obsidian worker that the game was mismanaged by Chris Parker, even if that happened to be true, it wouldn't mean that AP is a waste of your time. It may be just the opposite, depending on your tastes. This is not an AAA game that you have to like. This is a game that may interest you if your favourite games are Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines.

What is wrong with this game, then? A lot of people say that AP doesn't offer great shooting and a great cover system. But, you know, GTA IV didn't either. It didn't matter because the game was cool. AP is not a shooting game. It's an RPG game with shooting.

Other people say that it's crippled with bugs (if "I don't like what they did here" or "sometimes the menu takes too long to appear" can be considered game-killing bugs). Well, in my two playthroughs I didn't find a single bug. My game never crashed, and I didn't find any weird stuff like the things that players around the world are finding in Red Dead Redemption (I'm sorry if I'm picking too much on Rockstar's stuff). I think they are prejudiced against Obsidian because of their previous games, and now "Obsidian = buggy games" is another internet meme.

About the mini-games? During the first hacking mini-game I was completely lost. But it was my fault. After that, the mini-games were fair enough. But, of course, you need to spend some points in your tech skill so they don't become a nightmare later. Same with the shooting: some reviewers/players automatically assumed the shooting was abysmal because it felt so imprecise at first. (Have you played Deus Ex lately? You couldn't hit anyone at first)

Maybe my positive opinion comes from the fact that I chose to play first the game without shooting anyone. Yes, it's possible to play this in that way. If you do that, it plays basically like Splinter Cell (why nobody hasn't declared this game a "Splinter Cell rip-off" yet?), . A couple of weeks ago I decided to try the "big" version of Splinter Cell: Double Agent (I had played the alternate "small" version using my Wii), and the whole thing is almost unplayable, either on PC or on PS3 (I own both versions). This isn't mentioned in most reviews (maybe because they played it on Xbox 360 and it didn't suck there?), but that was a mess. AP is alright.

(A brief aside (mild spoilers): It's possible to finish the game without killing anyone, with two exceptions: you throw somebody off a bridge in a cutscene and he's ran over -this is listed as "death by collateral damage" in your statistics-, and there's a boss battle against a main character who is placed in a tower that you can't reach to subdue him with martial arts. This is intended by design, because if you follow the story closely you will hear about his father, a senator, who is probably intended as a future villain if a sequel is made.)

Before you say "oh, but I want to shoot people!" I'll say that after finishing the game I started another playthrough allowing myself to shoot just everybody, and it still feels OK. The shooting in all the Splinter Cell games previous to SC Conviction was worse! I can only assume that in 2010 players are now expecting Call of Duty production values in every single game.

The music is OK but nothing special. The main theme is a blatant "James Bond Theme" rip-off, so bad that it makes you wonder how it got approved (maybe Chris Parker really liked it). Shockingly enough, there are no themes by Alexander Brandon (main composer from Deus Ex) listed in the credits, though he allegedly contributed music and audio. He left Obsidian after working in this project, like Allen Kerry, the lead character artist. (Was Parker as unreasonable as that anonymous guy said?).

Now, for the good stuff. Despite all the criticism directed at the graphics because they could look much better, the character design is actually great (every main character is instantly identifiable), and unusually for a game made with the Unreal Engine, here people don't look like action figures.

And then, the story. Well, even Jeff Gertsmann, not a forgiving reviewer, admits that the story is so good that it makes up for the less-than-stellar shooting: "There are parts of Alpha Protocol that I feel are totally amazing and absolutely worth seeing, but you'll have to trudge through a lot of very disappointing stuff just to see it."

While it's true that Mike Thorton is a bit on the bland side and not a classic character (even the name -or alias- doesn't have a ring to it), other characters are. Mina Tang is very likeable as your main 'handler', and Nolan North, usually overused as a Nathan Drake sound-alike, breathes life in the likeably psycho Steven "Don't call me Steve" Heck.

And the freedom. Oh, the freedom. There's no other game like this. When you play it a second game, you see how every decision changes everything. Other games make the script ambiguous to avoid facing the consequences of what you did, but here it's taken to its full extent, with voice over recorded for any possibility. And the game is not linear! You can visit any of the three main locations in any order, so if you go to China after you go to the two previous locations your character complains because the two previous safehouses were really nice and now you are supposed to live in a dirty apartment. In my second playthrough, I went to China first, so he just said "This place is a dump!".

You really feel like you can shape what happens around you. It will not be the same at all if you try to say something flirty to a girl when she likes you and when she hates you. Your reputation is not just a statistic: it really changes how other people treat you. This is just amazing, and you wonder why other games don't do it.

And then you realize why: because people will tear you apart if you use up your resources trying to let you be free instead of having great shooting.


If what I said make it sound at least interesting, go play this game. If you still aren't convinced, keep reading and listen to what other players thought.


WHAT PLAYERS THINK


I recommend to go to this post in Rock, Paper, Shotgun and read the comments left by users. Many of them acknowledge that the game grows on you and that it's a great experience. Here's a sample of what some players think:


"The Sombrero Kid": "if this had come out before Dragon Age and Heavy Rain it'd've been universally praised and a masterpiece of non-linearity despite it's lack of polish."

"Ihzr": "Alpha Protocol is amazing. If you'd put it next to Mass Effect, it would be the same sort of comparison like between Stalker and Crysis: big budget polished shiny sparkly mainstream mediocrity versus... something else. A pretty amazing something else."

"Mitza": "It's a strange game, but it's really enjoyable. All the extremely negative reviews I've read are an absolute shame. This is the kind of game that deserves a sequel, because they could fix the major flaws and refine&improve the rest of the game."


"jaheira": "Just played AP for another three hours and it's getting better and better. Stealth works great. Amazing silenced pistol action. Some of the best dialogues I've experienced. Might be game of the year so far for me."

"Javier-de-Ass": "loved this game. (...) I've read some impressions from across the net, especially Americans seem to despise this game, and I simply can't relate to any of the criticisms. Not to the shotting [sic] complaints, not to AI complaints, not to general jank complaints (...). I didn't come across any big bugs in the game."

"Mercurial": "By modern standards to a modern audience this game is flawed.

However, look past all that and it's a real gem. The comparisons to Deus Ex and Bloodlines (sans bugs for me at least) aren't blowing smoke, the more I play it the more I see the similarities."

"BL": "Probably the best in any action-RPG ever made, in the history of videogames, so that should get some recognition I think. But as a shooter, it's below average."


About bugs and control:

"jaheira" again: "It's not buggy. One incident of getting stuck on the scenery is the only problem I've had in 11 hours."





"jti": "I'm playing the game with keyboard+mouse and am having no trouble at all. Nothing to complane [sic] about them."


And as a summary, a guy called Wulf summarizes my opinion about the general reception for this game. Just go and read it.

viernes, 28 de mayo de 2010

Alpha Protocol is a cool game

Jim Sterling from Destructoid is an idiot. He gives a 2/10 to Alpha Protocol, so you would assume the game is broken and unplayable.

You would be wrong.

I'm playing it right now. It's a compelling game, with decent stealth gameplay and a great dialogue system. For me, it feels like a decent Splinter Cell-like game (I've decided I'm not killing anybody and the game lets me do just that, just stalking everybody and knocking them out) in which I can make a lot of choices, developing further the black-and-white "kill this guy or let him live" mechanics from Splinter Cell: Double Agent. There are no other games like this right now.

The game accomplishes what it tries to do. So what if there's a texture-loading problem (Is that something you never see in a game? Have you played any game made with the Unreal engine lately?), if Mike Thornton seems to be a bit unlikeable (well, he is not, if you choose the right dialogue options.) and if the shooting is not as good as in other games? I don't remember Vampire: Bloodlines for it's great shooting or Deus Ex for its compelling, superbly voice-acted protagonist, and they are both classics. There's something else at stake.

Alpha Protocol is a good RPG, but of course it won't look good if you compare it (from a technical standpoint) with the big boys. I'm sure Sega, being as cheap as it is this days, didn't give them a huge budget for this, but the results are still decent. So don't believe what Destructoid and Joystiq say, and give this game a chance. I'll let you know what I think after I play it longer, but it's not a terrible game.

-------

But I'm not going to stop reading Destructoid yet! They are still a cool site. And thanks to them, I learn that Ubisoft has probably cancelled Beyond Good and Evil 2. If that is true, well... That's it, I'm done with Ubisoft. It was one of my favourite developers ever, but they've made huge mistakes one after another, ruining the Prince of Persia franchise with each new game, forcing the worst DRM possible on players and just being cheap for the sake of it. Where's the innovation, the support for different games? Beyond Good and Evil is a classic, and Michel Ancel is one of the best game designers around. Is he really gone from your company now, or is it just a nasty rumour?

Ubi, don't disappoint me.

lunes, 24 de mayo de 2010

They thought nobody would notice




Have you heard about the Max Payne 2 launch file fiasco? It's funny how Rockstar, a company that really, really hates piracy (just listen to the radio in GTA IV... They hate pirates as much as republicans!) finds it much easier to use the cracked files from pirates than to create their own no-cd files.


Well, I don't know if there's any relation, but last week I decided to install Manhunt. I want to get to the end of that game! (I've tried twice, but I got bored every time...) After that, I didn't try to play for a few days, and when I did, I was surprised to find that Steam re-downloaded the launch file for this already old (and probably no longer updated) game.


So... what do you think about this? Are they replacing the .exe files for their other games because they are also cracked by pirates, just in case they are, or what? I don't know what to think.

UPDATE: The plot thickens! More Rockstar games are having autoupdate issues!

To be frank, I didn't mind about the Myth launch file, but I do mind about my games not working properly. What is happening now is for me the PR disaster, not the original "problem".

WHAT THE...?! UBIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!


No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!


What in god's name is this!?!


Ubisoft is retroactively ruining the box art for probably their best game, just to trick unsuspecting customers into thinking that this is the PS2 version of their new (and not that interesting) Prince of Persia game.


Screw it, I'm done buying Ubisoft games. I just can't believe they are so short-sighted, and after watching them build up a great franchise and then demolish it. I don't want any part in that.
But I have to calm down, relax... Is there a good part about this? Well, yes... At least some buyers will buy this release thinking it's a tie-in for the movie, or the new game, and they will be surprised to see it's much, much better.
Still, this shows that Ubisoft is doing despicable things again. I'm disturbed to see how one of my favourite companies has become a worthy competitor for Activision's "King of Evil" title.

lunes, 17 de mayo de 2010

How my enemies are doing

Rebellion seems to be in trouble.

Splinter Cell: Conviction is fighting hard to ensure that nobody will ever buy any PC Ubisoft title again. This is not going to end well.

This won't last. They are going to pay for what they've done. So it looks like there's justice in this world after all. Right?

My "gaming enemies" are just not those evil game companies! I also hate bad design and games that treat the players like cattle, and I totally agree with this opinion about what I enjoy (or hate) about videogames. I play games to be entertained, not to prove I'm "the best" at it. I like decent writing, nice graphics and getting from the start to the end with as little frustration as possible. I don't like competitive multiplayer, tough challenges and grinding.

viernes, 14 de mayo de 2010

The Saboteur is a very good game

Well, sometimes you have to bit the bullet and admit that you are wrong.

I tend to be nasty, really nasty about things that I don't care about. Last year I was very mean to Pandemic because I really hated the Mercenaries 2 demo and I expected The Saboteur to be "not very good", after reading Ryan Davis' review of it.

Well, I still bought it new because I was very curious about it, and unlike Mercenaries 2, it seemed playable. Well, I have to take back all that I said about it because I think The Saboteur is really good. Not in a "for what it is" way, like Legendary (review coming soon? hint: it's not as bad as everybody says) but with a heartfelt recommendation. This game is silly and certainly over the top, but also a lot of fun.

First, the game is really pretty. If like me you take the time to play in short succession this game and the already stale GTA IV (probably the worst looking game in my whole experience with the PS3, and I'm not kidding), The Saboteur just kills. The German-dominated areas are black-and-white, with isolate colour elements very well placed (fire and explosions, certain items), and then when the colour comes back, it really shows. It's not the usual bland current-gen colour, but intense primary colours. Think Uncharted.

The gameplay is just great, and not broken in any way (on PS3 I didn't find any game-breaking bugs in my 30-hours-for-the-story/45-hours-to-get-all-the-trophies playtime). The alarm triggering and evading system is quite good: when you create a disturbance (shooting guns on the street, or detonating a bomb), someone will come to investigate. If they see you, you have a moment to shoot the soldier(s) who see you before they blow a whistle for reinforcements. Then you'll see how the enemies physically arrive in cars, which is reasonable. It's definitely an improvement over the Just Cause or Mercenaries 2 method of "suddenly, dozens of enemy soldiers spawn from thin air and shoot at you from everywhere". This change deserves big points.

So the game is great about style and execution. What about substance? Well, here's possibly the "low" point about the game: it has not much to do with reality. For some people, it will feel "dumb", but it's clear that it's not out of stupidity, but because the developers realized that it would be more fun this way. Anachronisms abound, the most conspicuous of them being outdated zeppelins which fly through the skies and offer a setting for several story missions. But they are clearly intentional, and if Roger Ebert is right and games just can't be art, why shouldn't they do anything they can to be more fun? So the story isn't afraid to go crazy in places (nothing supernatural, though), and the shocking climax in the Eiffel tower is impressive.

It has also been said that there are some baffling similarities to Assassin's Creed. Yes, it's true, and it's a bit odd at times, but I think it's coherent with the "anything goes if it's fun" approach of the game. Also, the climbing is a bit more realistic (in AC the constructions seem to be a bit too square-ish at times). The developers don't even try to hide it, and they even offer you a car named "Altair". I think this approach fair, and it's more honest to incorporate those elements shamelessly than just creating a clone of another game while trying to pass it as an original. Anyway, I still think they should have gone all the way and put some soothing music when you reach a viewpoint...

Not everything is derivative, though. The stealth and bombing mechanisms are interesting innovations, and I wouldn't mind using them in other games. You can dress as a German soldier to do things not allowed for civilians and enter restricted areas. This is not a free pass, though: you can't move quickly and attract attention while you are wearing a disguise, and you can't stay too long close to other soldiers. It's a balanced and fair system. Also, the use of anachronistic songs (including compositions from the 60's and 80's) that sounds like 40's music works really well in the game.

What I liked the less about it was that there are just too many optional missions around, if you are a completist or an achievement/trophy hunter. These "freeplay events" are still fun, and they are thankfully varied, but there are still too many of them. At least they are all marked on the map, unlike the banners and feathers in Assassin's Creed, and you know you just can complete everything if you are willing to spend some time without the need of checking the internet for maps and clues. I don't like to spend too much time with that, but at least it's easy. I hate when it's just impossible to get 100% completion if you aren't a god with the controller.

So if you don't mind about some occasional stupidity, a cliché story and the obvious fakeness of it all (including French accents by American actors, and an English actor playing the Irish lead), this is just a great sandbox game. It's just sad how EA lost faith in it before it was even released, and now I'm actually sad that Pandemic is now closed. The irony!

NOTE: Yes, this game has some nudity! I thought it only happened during the first 30 seconds of the game. While trying to find some videos for this review, I found about this secret area. Damn! (Now I'll have to reinstall the game to visit it...) Too bad the busty and naughty Skylar keeps her clothes on all the time, even if your character gets to hump her (offscreen) several times. Bummer!

miércoles, 12 de mayo de 2010

Lost Planet 2 sucks?

Lost Planet 2 is a multiplayer co-op experience, disguised as a regular game. But even if you play it with other people, it's still mediocre. That's the word on the street. And a few reviewers are also aware of that. Other reviews just hop on the "big game, big scores!" chain that allows bad stuff like Rebellion's latest Aliens vs Predator to be considered a 70% or even 85% game by some people (even when those reviews still use expressions like "dated" or even "mediocre").

And I believe it! I couldn't even finish the Lost Planet 2 demo, because it was just... tough on me. Just consider this:

-No real story. It really feels like a regular multiplayer-only game.
-Brain-dead squad AI. If you aren't playing with friends, you are still supposed to do the work of four players, but the bots filling the other positions won't do anything.
-Unfair one-hit kills. Like, prepare to die. A lot.
-Awkward, slow controls.
-Infuriating design choices. You can't even pause the game, even during the single-player campaign. Wait, WHAT?! Also, just plain bad execution. Brad Shoemaker's review makes it quite clear:

At one point in the back end of the campaign, I was playing an online-enabled game, on the off chance that someone might randomly jump into the action. My Internet connection dropped out for a second and disconnected me from Xbox Live, at which point the game abruptly cut to a black screen with a "Disconnected from host" error message. In a single-player game. That set me back at least 30 minutes of progress and incidentally made me never, ever want to play Lost Planet 2's campaign again.


That is not admissible in 2010.

UPDATE: Destructoid is even more unmerciful, describing the game as "downright frustrating" and "a shell of a potentially great game, brought down by bizarre, dated and counterintuitive design decisions". Jun Takeuchi offered a good co-op experience with Resident Evil 5 (though many gamers who loved RE4 found it lacking) mostly by not changing anything, but in this case, he took what was good of the first Lost Planet and he has turned it into a pathetic mess.