A while back, Rachel asked a question in our joint review of Assassin's Creed 2 about whether I thought the game was too easy. I answered specifically for AC2, but I think it hints at a broader question about video game difficulty in general. Should developers make games hard to challenge the player, or easy so they're more likely to succeed?
I think that games can be separated into two broad categories: skill games and scenery games. In "skill games", the objective is to develop a set of skills that are then used by the player to overcome increasingly difficult challenges. The fun comes from seeing yourself improve, as evidenced by succeeding at a challenge that once would have been too much for you to handle. Examples of this include Tony Hawk titles, music/rhythm games like Rock Band, and fighting games like Soul Caliber.
On the other hand of the spectrum, you have "scenery games". Now, don't mistake my point here to mean that scenery games don't require skill. It's just that in these games, the FOCUS isn't so much on improving your skill as it is exploring the game world itself. Scenery games might tell a great story. They might have interesting new locales to visit. They might allow the player to explore detailed environments freely. For example, think Assassin's Creed, most RPG's, or Resident Evil 4.
The key difference between these two types of games is: What motivates the player to continue? You don't play Rock Band thinking, "I wonder what happens after I beat this super-difficult song on Expert?" because you already know the answer - NOTHING. They just give you another, more difficult song to play. Your satisfaction must be derived from the accomplishment itself. Conversely, I doubt many people think, "I hope this next mission in Assassin's Creed 2 is CRAZY difficult and I fail a bunch of times. That'd be far more interesting than seeing where the story goes."
And that brings me full circle to the topic of this post. All games should start out pretty easy (even sequels...some people might not have played the original). That gives you a chance to learn the controls and adjust to the game. But from there, skill games should have increasingly ramping difficulty culminating in very difficult challenges, while scenery games should have much milder challenges to prevent the player from getting hopelessly stuck. I think the biggest mistake that developers make (looking at you Grand Theft Auto!) is taking a scenery game and cramming it full of immensely difficult challenges. Consider a game like Resident Evil 4. Some people complained that it was too easy, but is repeated death conducive to enjoying that game? If something scary happens, forcing you to frantically fight for your life, but you succeed, then you stay immersed in the gameworld and remain primed for the next scare. But if the difficulty is dialed up so that every scary event comes complete with multiple failures and do-overs, then the game becomes a tedious grind filled with barriers to progress.
Of course, the best possible situation is variable difficulty that allows new players and veterans to choose the amount of challenge they want to face. Some games do this well, and others not so much. But barring that, I'd rather see a game like Assassin's Creed 2 be a little too easy than too difficult, since with the former I still get to see everything the game has to offer, while the latter is just a recipe for frustration.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
WAA - Backyard Football '10
Backyard Football '10 is a pitiful attempt at a video game. It's supposed to be a sports game aimed at kids, so it has a bunch of "wacky" features, like being able to play at a carnival, or super moves that allow the ball carrier to spin around in circles. But remove the lame trappings and it's just a grossly dumbed-down version of football that pales in comparison to other established titles.
Backyard Football isn't really worth a full review itself, but I will highlight one particularly excruciating aspect of the game before I get to the WAA. The announcers in Backyard Football are supposed to be kids, and they spout "funny" lines (note: quotes are NOT accidental) as you play. It's not just that their comments are PAINFULLY unfunny. The real issue is that it doesn't even sound like something that young kids would find amusing. It's as if a bunch of corporate suits sat around in a board room and brainstormed about what children would find funny. Granted, some kids might laugh at these failed attempts at humor...the dumb ones anyway. But most kids will recognize this stuff for the tripe that it is.
Don't buy Backyard Football for your kids unless you hate them.
Here are the awards:
The "One With Combat"Award: "Hands"
Much like last week, there are no difficult Achievements in Backyard Football '10. "Hands" is particularly easy, as you just need 100 yards receiving with any player. Considering that the computer doesn't bother to play any defense, that shouldn't be tough.
The "Mile High Club" Award: "Tackler"
This is as close to a difficult Achievement as I could find. You need 8 tackles with one player, which just involves a lot of chasing your opponent around while on defense.
The "Seriously..." Award: N/A
None of these Achievements come close to qualifying as a grind. In fact, you can do all of them in a single game.
The "Little Rocket Man" Award: "Sacker"
Make a mad dash for the QB and bring him (or her) down!
The Scientist Gone Gamer Award: N/A
All the Achievements share the same logo, which is a pretty good indication of how sloppy this effort was. At least it's a decent icon.
Achievement Set Rating - 2
I gave this one a marginally higher score than last week's game (College Basketball 2K6) because there are 10 Achievements instead of 5. Beyond that, it's the same easy tasks and crappy icons. Note to self: do a more interesting game next week...
Achievement Difficulty Rating - 1
Set the halves to 15 minutes and you can do all of these in one game. 1000 points in less than an hour? Too easy!
Backyard Football isn't really worth a full review itself, but I will highlight one particularly excruciating aspect of the game before I get to the WAA. The announcers in Backyard Football are supposed to be kids, and they spout "funny" lines (note: quotes are NOT accidental) as you play. It's not just that their comments are PAINFULLY unfunny. The real issue is that it doesn't even sound like something that young kids would find amusing. It's as if a bunch of corporate suits sat around in a board room and brainstormed about what children would find funny. Granted, some kids might laugh at these failed attempts at humor...the dumb ones anyway. But most kids will recognize this stuff for the tripe that it is.
Don't buy Backyard Football for your kids unless you hate them.
Here are the awards:
The "One With Combat"Award: "Hands"
Much like last week, there are no difficult Achievements in Backyard Football '10. "Hands" is particularly easy, as you just need 100 yards receiving with any player. Considering that the computer doesn't bother to play any defense, that shouldn't be tough.
The "Mile High Club" Award: "Tackler"
This is as close to a difficult Achievement as I could find. You need 8 tackles with one player, which just involves a lot of chasing your opponent around while on defense.
The "Seriously..." Award: N/A
None of these Achievements come close to qualifying as a grind. In fact, you can do all of them in a single game.
The "Little Rocket Man" Award: "Sacker"
Make a mad dash for the QB and bring him (or her) down!
The Scientist Gone Gamer Award: N/AAll the Achievements share the same logo, which is a pretty good indication of how sloppy this effort was. At least it's a decent icon.
Achievement Set Rating - 2
I gave this one a marginally higher score than last week's game (College Basketball 2K6) because there are 10 Achievements instead of 5. Beyond that, it's the same easy tasks and crappy icons. Note to self: do a more interesting game next week...
Achievement Difficulty Rating - 1
Set the halves to 15 minutes and you can do all of these in one game. 1000 points in less than an hour? Too easy!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Dante's Inferno - NOT for the sensitive souls
Not very long after finishing Assassin's Creed 2, I started up Dante's Inferno (a b-day present from Rachel). It's a lot of fun. It's also so over-the-top batshit insane that I worry it's warping my very psyche. This is coming from a guy that has played through any number of Call of Duty/Grand Theft Auto/"insert crazy death and mayhem title here" games. But Dante's Inferno is so far beyond any of those, I find myself coming up with buffer activities before bed just so I don't have dreams inspired by this f'd up game.
NOTE: If you are easily offended, stop reading this post. Seriously. Maybe tomorrow I'll talk about something more uplifting. There's always WAA in a couple days. Heck, even if you're fairly difficult to offend, I'm still not sure you should continue.
What really strikes me about Dante's Inferno is how cavalier it is about human suffering. Granted, the game takes place in Hell. As in the place where the damned go to suffer eternally. So it's only natural that things should be a bit on the bleak side. But how about a big spiky metal pole with human beings impaled on it, writhing and moaning in agony? And that's not even an object with which you can interact...it's just a piece of scenery. This game is not bashful in the slightest with its depiction of human torture, and the sounds in particular drive the point home a bit too convincingly for my comfort.
The suffering isn't reserved for humans, as Dante metes out a fair bit of hyper-violent punishment to the minions of the Underworld. Lots of blood and guts in this title, as well as enemies getting torn apart, strangled, decapitated, and other forms of violence I lack the vocabulary to describe.
If you like a heaping helping of sex with your violence, then Dante's Inferno is definitely the game for you. There's quite a bit of nudity, bare breasts in particular. In fact, this is the first game I've played with female nudity (search the archives if you want to hear about my first brush with male-full frontal in a video game). Now, I'm not one of these Quaker types that thinks there's anything inherently immoral about the human form "au naturale". Breasts are just breasts, after all. But how about 50 foot tall breasts with giant, convex (???) nipples that waggle what appear to be tongues (double ???) at you? It's a sight that's more than a little disturbing.
But the craziest thing I've encountered so far in this game are the babies with knives for hands. Yeah, you read that right...babies. Tiny infants that attempt to stalk and murder you. And you have to fight them, including the tearing apart deaths and such. The game explains that these are unbaptized babies that never had a chance to find the "one true religion". So...it's justified then? I'm not sure I get it. Shall I assume that Buddhist babies become knife-wielding maniacs?
To be fair, I get the impression that Dante's Inferno is taking the piss out of hardcore Christian theology (especially Catholicism) in many places. One could conclude that the whole game is a meditation on the hypocrisy of a religious system that give power and wealth to those who claim to hold the keys to salvation, which is meant for all but doled out to the privileged few. But then I get an Achievement like this one and it makes me wonder:
"Bad Nanny" - 10pts
Kill 20 unbaptized babies
No matter how you spin it (and Penny Arcade has tried), that's pretty messed up...
NOTE: If you are easily offended, stop reading this post. Seriously. Maybe tomorrow I'll talk about something more uplifting. There's always WAA in a couple days. Heck, even if you're fairly difficult to offend, I'm still not sure you should continue.
What really strikes me about Dante's Inferno is how cavalier it is about human suffering. Granted, the game takes place in Hell. As in the place where the damned go to suffer eternally. So it's only natural that things should be a bit on the bleak side. But how about a big spiky metal pole with human beings impaled on it, writhing and moaning in agony? And that's not even an object with which you can interact...it's just a piece of scenery. This game is not bashful in the slightest with its depiction of human torture, and the sounds in particular drive the point home a bit too convincingly for my comfort.
The suffering isn't reserved for humans, as Dante metes out a fair bit of hyper-violent punishment to the minions of the Underworld. Lots of blood and guts in this title, as well as enemies getting torn apart, strangled, decapitated, and other forms of violence I lack the vocabulary to describe.
If you like a heaping helping of sex with your violence, then Dante's Inferno is definitely the game for you. There's quite a bit of nudity, bare breasts in particular. In fact, this is the first game I've played with female nudity (search the archives if you want to hear about my first brush with male-full frontal in a video game). Now, I'm not one of these Quaker types that thinks there's anything inherently immoral about the human form "au naturale". Breasts are just breasts, after all. But how about 50 foot tall breasts with giant, convex (???) nipples that waggle what appear to be tongues (double ???) at you? It's a sight that's more than a little disturbing.
But the craziest thing I've encountered so far in this game are the babies with knives for hands. Yeah, you read that right...babies. Tiny infants that attempt to stalk and murder you. And you have to fight them, including the tearing apart deaths and such. The game explains that these are unbaptized babies that never had a chance to find the "one true religion". So...it's justified then? I'm not sure I get it. Shall I assume that Buddhist babies become knife-wielding maniacs?
To be fair, I get the impression that Dante's Inferno is taking the piss out of hardcore Christian theology (especially Catholicism) in many places. One could conclude that the whole game is a meditation on the hypocrisy of a religious system that give power and wealth to those who claim to hold the keys to salvation, which is meant for all but doled out to the privileged few. But then I get an Achievement like this one and it makes me wonder:
"Bad Nanny" - 10ptsKill 20 unbaptized babies
No matter how you spin it (and Penny Arcade has tried), that's pretty messed up...
Friday, March 5, 2010
Assassin's Creed 2 - Closing Thoughts
So in Rachel's last post, she spilled the beans - we finished the game last weekend. The ending came abruptly, to say the least. There were some major reveals, but a ton of loose ends were still out there, questions left unanswered, and suddenly the credits were rolling.
I won't reproduce her post here, but definitely check it out if you want to know how we felt about the end (my feelings mirror hers, but with fewer expletives). Instead, I'll close this series on my end by talking about how this series has progressed between AC1 and AC2.
So much of our perception of a sequel is directly tied to the quality of the original. For example, I've heard a lot of lukewarm comments about the newly released Bioshock 2. A lot of people seem to think that while it's a high quality game, it's also JUST a game, while the original was more of an "experience". It strikes me how difficult it must be to even make a follow-up to a game like Bioshock. It had some great gameplay innovations, one of the most immersive environments I've ever seen, and an absorbing story with a strong philosophical undercurrent. How do you match that experience, let alone surpass it? Bioshock wasn't perfect...you could fix some of the gameplay issues here and there. But that's not really enough to justify a sequel. And the story wasn't really begging for additional material, either. Maybe that's why Bioware can make a successful game like KOTOR or Jade Empire and then walk away (KOTOR 2 was made by a different developer)...they realize that those stories have been told and it's better to leave them that way.
In contrast, the original Assassin's Creed was an annoying game with deeply flawed structure that sucked all the fun out of the experience. But it also had some good ideas and technical innovations that laid the groundwork for a better game in the future. The question with AC2 is, how much of that promise did they realize? And I think it's fair to say that while some of the annoyances remained intact in AC2, this game is a much stronger effort than the first one. Thus we come to a somewhat counter intuitive conclusion: it might be possible that it's better to make a sequel of a game that I hated (but that had some promise) than a game I loved (but had realized most of the potential it could have ever had).
Why is AC2 a better game than AC1? It has better mission structure. No more traipsing down from the mountain tops at the beginning of every mission. The tasks to be completed are more varied. There are better set pieces to break up the more ordinary missions. No more sword fights with a hundred guards after every assassination. A lot of the petty annoyances have been eliminated, like guards who start chasing you for no reason (though the minstrels fill in where the beggars left off in the original). You get a wider variety of weapons and skills. There are little trappings, like improving the villa and hunting down glyphs, that will entertain some and be ignored by others (the perfect format for side quests). Ezio is just a better character than Altair, because more time was spent thinking about who he is and what his motivations are.
There are other reasons too, but you get the idea. AC2 is a better game than AC1. But it's not perfect...indeed it still has glaring flaws. The plot is too scattershot. The villains are not well characterized, so it's difficult to get invested in foiling their plans. Too many of the assassinations still boil down to chasing after a target through the streets of the city and pouncing on his back from behind (not very assassin-like). Tons of plot threads come and go with no resolution.
But as crazy as it sounds, I'm kind of looking forward to AC3. Yes, even though the ending was terrible. And even after all my (and Rachel's) complaints. Because the foundation for a great game is still there, and Ubisoft took a big leap from AC1 to AC2. If they can do the same for AC3, particularly by focusing the story and defining the characters (on both sides of the battle) in a way that gets the player invested, I think they have a chance to produce something really memorable.
That's it for me on AC2 (at least, until it's time for WAA), but keep an eye on Rachel's blog for her final post on the game.
I won't reproduce her post here, but definitely check it out if you want to know how we felt about the end (my feelings mirror hers, but with fewer expletives). Instead, I'll close this series on my end by talking about how this series has progressed between AC1 and AC2.
So much of our perception of a sequel is directly tied to the quality of the original. For example, I've heard a lot of lukewarm comments about the newly released Bioshock 2. A lot of people seem to think that while it's a high quality game, it's also JUST a game, while the original was more of an "experience". It strikes me how difficult it must be to even make a follow-up to a game like Bioshock. It had some great gameplay innovations, one of the most immersive environments I've ever seen, and an absorbing story with a strong philosophical undercurrent. How do you match that experience, let alone surpass it? Bioshock wasn't perfect...you could fix some of the gameplay issues here and there. But that's not really enough to justify a sequel. And the story wasn't really begging for additional material, either. Maybe that's why Bioware can make a successful game like KOTOR or Jade Empire and then walk away (KOTOR 2 was made by a different developer)...they realize that those stories have been told and it's better to leave them that way.
In contrast, the original Assassin's Creed was an annoying game with deeply flawed structure that sucked all the fun out of the experience. But it also had some good ideas and technical innovations that laid the groundwork for a better game in the future. The question with AC2 is, how much of that promise did they realize? And I think it's fair to say that while some of the annoyances remained intact in AC2, this game is a much stronger effort than the first one. Thus we come to a somewhat counter intuitive conclusion: it might be possible that it's better to make a sequel of a game that I hated (but that had some promise) than a game I loved (but had realized most of the potential it could have ever had).
Why is AC2 a better game than AC1? It has better mission structure. No more traipsing down from the mountain tops at the beginning of every mission. The tasks to be completed are more varied. There are better set pieces to break up the more ordinary missions. No more sword fights with a hundred guards after every assassination. A lot of the petty annoyances have been eliminated, like guards who start chasing you for no reason (though the minstrels fill in where the beggars left off in the original). You get a wider variety of weapons and skills. There are little trappings, like improving the villa and hunting down glyphs, that will entertain some and be ignored by others (the perfect format for side quests). Ezio is just a better character than Altair, because more time was spent thinking about who he is and what his motivations are.
There are other reasons too, but you get the idea. AC2 is a better game than AC1. But it's not perfect...indeed it still has glaring flaws. The plot is too scattershot. The villains are not well characterized, so it's difficult to get invested in foiling their plans. Too many of the assassinations still boil down to chasing after a target through the streets of the city and pouncing on his back from behind (not very assassin-like). Tons of plot threads come and go with no resolution.
But as crazy as it sounds, I'm kind of looking forward to AC3. Yes, even though the ending was terrible. And even after all my (and Rachel's) complaints. Because the foundation for a great game is still there, and Ubisoft took a big leap from AC1 to AC2. If they can do the same for AC3, particularly by focusing the story and defining the characters (on both sides of the battle) in a way that gets the player invested, I think they have a chance to produce something really memorable.
That's it for me on AC2 (at least, until it's time for WAA), but keep an eye on Rachel's blog for her final post on the game.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
WAA - College Hoops 2K6
Ready to pad your gamer score with 1000 easy points? Then welcome to College Hoops 2K6, this week's featured game for WAA!
Before I delve into these, a few quick points so you can understand just how easy these Achievements can be.
- You can put the game on any difficulty level, including the easiest, and still get the awards.
- You can adjust all the sliders in the game to favor the players and gimp the computer.
- You can push the game clock to the maximum, giving yourself plenty of time to accumulate the necessary totals.
- You can turn off any rules that might get in your way, like goaltending, fouls, backcourt violations, and the like.
- You can adjust your individual players to max their stats, while doing the opposite to your opponent.
Combine all of these, and you're looking at some of the easiest Achievements ever made.
The "One With Combat"Award: "Score 40 Pts With Any Player"
Pts is points in case you can't tell. So after you've messed around with all the settings and matched up your supermen against a bunch of weaklings, every shot you take that's closer than midcourt range will go in. You'll be able to amass 40 points before the first half is even close to done, let alone the game.
The "Mile High Club" Award: "Get 6 Blocks With Any Player"
This one is only difficult because it counts on the computer to get a shot away, which is pretty tough considering the frequency with which they turn the ball over. To facilitate this award (and for the sake of comedy) I adjusted my opponents so they were all 4 foot 6 and my own players were all well over 7 feet tall. The blocks came fast and easy after that.
The "Seriously..." Award: "Get 45 Rebounds With Any Team"
These Achievements are so crazy easy that none could be described as a grind. I guess the rebounding one comes the closest though. If you're using your superteam, then heave up midcourt shots so that you can rack up offensive rebounds.
The "Little Rocket Man" Award: "Make 15 3-Ptrs In One Game"
The fun here comes from seeing how far you can get from the basket and still make your 3-pointers. HINT: with max stats, it's REALLY far!
The Scientist Gone Gamer Award: "Get 20 Steals With Any Team"
Sega decided to go with hyper-literal icons and titles for these Achievements. At the very least, you'll never be confused as to how you get these awards.
Achievement Set Rating - 1
Five total Achievements. All of them are earned for accumulating stats. Nothing for winning a championship (or even a game!). Super boring icons and titles. A set really can't get much worse than this.
Achievement Difficulty Rating - 1
Again, with the proper settings this set is a piece of cake. You're looking at all five Achievements and 1000 points in about an hour.
Before I delve into these, a few quick points so you can understand just how easy these Achievements can be.
- You can put the game on any difficulty level, including the easiest, and still get the awards.
- You can adjust all the sliders in the game to favor the players and gimp the computer.
- You can push the game clock to the maximum, giving yourself plenty of time to accumulate the necessary totals.
- You can turn off any rules that might get in your way, like goaltending, fouls, backcourt violations, and the like.
- You can adjust your individual players to max their stats, while doing the opposite to your opponent.
Combine all of these, and you're looking at some of the easiest Achievements ever made.
The "One With Combat"Award: "Score 40 Pts With Any Player"
Pts is points in case you can't tell. So after you've messed around with all the settings and matched up your supermen against a bunch of weaklings, every shot you take that's closer than midcourt range will go in. You'll be able to amass 40 points before the first half is even close to done, let alone the game.
The "Mile High Club" Award: "Get 6 Blocks With Any Player"
This one is only difficult because it counts on the computer to get a shot away, which is pretty tough considering the frequency with which they turn the ball over. To facilitate this award (and for the sake of comedy) I adjusted my opponents so they were all 4 foot 6 and my own players were all well over 7 feet tall. The blocks came fast and easy after that.
The "Seriously..." Award: "Get 45 Rebounds With Any Team"
These Achievements are so crazy easy that none could be described as a grind. I guess the rebounding one comes the closest though. If you're using your superteam, then heave up midcourt shots so that you can rack up offensive rebounds.
The "Little Rocket Man" Award: "Make 15 3-Ptrs In One Game"
The fun here comes from seeing how far you can get from the basket and still make your 3-pointers. HINT: with max stats, it's REALLY far!
The Scientist Gone Gamer Award: "Get 20 Steals With Any Team"Sega decided to go with hyper-literal icons and titles for these Achievements. At the very least, you'll never be confused as to how you get these awards.
Achievement Set Rating - 1
Five total Achievements. All of them are earned for accumulating stats. Nothing for winning a championship (or even a game!). Super boring icons and titles. A set really can't get much worse than this.
Achievement Difficulty Rating - 1
Again, with the proper settings this set is a piece of cake. You're looking at all five Achievements and 1000 points in about an hour.
Assassin's Creed 2 - The Shit is About to Hit the Fan
No, not here. I'll just be doing a nice normal post responding to Rachel's last set of questions. But we did play some Assassin's Creed 2 last night. Stuff happened. A face was made by Rachel. Words were shouted at the heavens. So yeah, let's just say if you're a fan of the occasional outburst, you might want to be monitoring Rachel's site for the next couple days. A storm is BREWING...
Here's Rachel's last post, with questions for me at the end. If you've already read it, skip down to JEFF RESPONDS to get my angle.
Title: Assassin's Creed II
Publisher: Ubisoft (2010)
Scientists' Stats -
Time Played: 16hrs 8min
Last Achievement Earned: Podesta of Monteriggioni
Last Significant Event: Collected last of the 6 Assassin's Seals
In Jeff's last post he commented on some specific game features and one of the side quests. He left off with: "And back to Rachel. It seems like the story is still too nebulous for you (I don't disagree). Maybe it's missing a character to give it some cohesion. What character would help? A sidekick? Love interest? A better defined villain?
Also, let's say Ubisoft greenlights Assassin's Creed 3 (pretty much a lock). They come to you and say, "Rachel, you're our biggest fan. It's your pick - where and when is AC3 set?" What's your choice. Bear in mind that the general parameters of the game (running around a few cities, climbing buildings, assassinating targets) will be the same. A place or time that works well with conspiracy theories would also be a plus."
Oooh, excellent questions! I think you've hit the nail on the head with the nebulous thing and I think it's the villain that's dropping the ball here. Or villains in this case since it's the Knights Templar and it is a group. Anyway, it would be better if the group was better defined. As it is you just hop around from place to place being told whom to kill and that they are Knights Templar. But they don't have much to do with each other and it's mostly about oppressing local merchants. Now, I'm all for relieving oppression but we're supposed to be going after a super powerful weapon and I would enjoy it a bit more if the villains acted like they were trying to cover up a conspiracy rather than just control all trade in the region. Ok, sure, boo monopolies but, really, something that could be discussed in a Senate committee does not always make for fascinating video game fodder. And I know I've already said it but I sure would like to see other Assassins. As far as I can tell Ezio has three contacts and not one of them is an Assassin. Where the fuck are my compatriots? What if I need advice or tips on how to be stealthy (and holy shitballs does Ezio ever need advice on how to be stealthy!)?
I think a sidekick would be a bad idea but I would venture to say there's already a love interest. Our Ezio he likes his women and he's got this irrepressible boyish charm. Yes, that's right, the phrase "irrepressible boyish charm" does in fact describe our ruthless assassin. I'm glad he hasn't let his job change him. Anyway, the love interest. While I feel Ezio is more than happy to share his love far and wide he does have some good chemistry going with Rosa. She doesn't show up a lot but, really, he's busy with all the stabby so I can see how she's not around a lot. But when she is I definitely think there's something there and I like their chemistry. I don't think this decreases the nebulous factor (sticking with the villains on that one) but it is a fun part of the game.
I thought a lot about the locale for ACIII and, at first, I thought it'd be cool if it was set in France when the Knights Templar were hunted. I figured it'd be really easy to incorporate an Assassins story there but it turns out ACII is set after the dissolution of the Knights Templar (poss why the group seems so scattered and aimless??? or, more likely, the AC series is maybe not the place to go for accurate history:). So instead I'm going with Istanbul (Constantinople). The political backdrop would be the Ottoman Empire. So much can be done with that and there's even a lot more city possibilities so it would not only have to be Istanbul. It makes sense to me that the Assassins group would remain more to the East since they originate in the Middle East and the architecture possibilities (as we saw in ACI) are fantastic and endless for the free running. I'd also like Ubisoft to take another crack at getting the hero right. It's nice that Desmond Miles isn't all WASPy looking and it's great that Ezio appears to be from his time period. Altair, on the other hand, was a major visual/audio fail in ACI. Of course, he had the awesome outfit but he didn't look and sound as he should have to be from where he was from (Prince of Persia fail anyone????).
So we're at the point that comes in almost every game that bores me. It's the part between the set-up and the finale when you get to go round doing quests, collecting crap and every once in a while performing a mission. As that is the case I'm going to leave comments regarding that stuff more to Jeff since it's his area of expertise. For my part, I'm going to focus on the lighter side of the game. Our villa kicks all kinds of ass! We've done all the improvements and it's making florins like we've got money trees stashed in the corner. I love the routine: arrive home, check the books that Sis is keeping and collect money, go talk to your architect and look at the villa model and pick improvements. Huzzah! But you know what's the icing on the cake? The art gallery! We've got a fantabulous gallery! All the regions that Ezio explores (kills in) are full of art merchants and you can buy all the paintings and they hang in the gallery at his villa. It's super sweet and they're real paintings. I've actually seen some of them in person when traveling so it's really cool to see them appear in the gallery.
Another freaking awesome cosmetic feature of the game is Carnival. Ezio is in Venice during Carnival (what we from Louisiana call Mardi Gras) and it's a party in the street. Everyone is in costume and there are tons of celebrations and even fire breathers! It's super sweet. Conveniently, Ezio can avoid notoriety by donning a mask. He's still in his uber-awesome, uber-conspicuous outfit (totally tripped out with weapons) but one tiny mask that you can hardly see under his hood makes everyone mistake him for someone else. Mind you, this is the same guy that, in that outfit, spent the first 10 hours of the game shouting, "I am Ezio Auditore!" after every kill. Ah well, most people at Carnival are drunk anyway so maybe that explains it.
And now let's send out some questions for the gamer. Jeff, what do you think about the high-brow puzzles, artwork, artifacts, and that you're best buds with DaVinci? What did you think about the flying machine? Interesting or useless addition to the game mechanics/missions? Also, do you think the missions are too easy? What do you think of my Rosa comments? And finally, what is your favorite cosmetic aspect of the game?
JEFF RESPONDS:
Before I get into my response, I just want to say that (1) Rachel's comments about a stronger villain are spot-on and (2) I'd definitely play a third game if it was set in Turkey.
Regarding the high brow puzzles, allow me to explain how this works. Hidden on historical landmarks throughout the city, you can find glyphs. These glyphs represent gateways to hidden information embedded in the Animus. A prior subject (pre-Desmond Miles) found some secrets and left a trail of breadcrumbs for you to follow, knowing that only an assassin (not a Templar) would be able to unravel the mystery. Then he went insane. Actually, considering the state he's in as he talks to you in these hidden memories, I'd say it was an ongoing process.
Anyway, you find the glyphs, you solve a little "mental challenge", and then you get a piece of video that shows the secret. Is it effective? Well, finding the glyphs means crawling around on famous architecture like a monkey, which is pretty much the best part of AC, so that's good. The mental challenges? They're sort of all over the map. Sometimes they show you a bunch of famous pieces of art and then want you to pick the ones that have a common feature. That's pretty cool. But other times they want you to click on a specific spot, maybe while a little beeping noise is playing "Hot and Cold" with you. That's not so great. Finally, the videos. They're REALLY short, like a second each at the most. The idea is that eventually they'll stitch together into something amazing and provocative, I guess. Since I haven't finished them, I couldn't say yet. Just know that there's 20 of them, which seems like a lot of repetition. I could have done with around six of these or so. Once you hit 20, the payoff better be great to go to that much trouble.
DaVinci is cool, but he's mostly just there. He's the smart science/math guy. Like in one of those ensemble cast caper movies where there's the smooth talker, the guy who's good with disguises, the big strong guy, etc. And there's always a guy who's good with computers and can hack anything in seconds or decode encrypted messages. That's DaVinci. I don't think they go into any strong characterization there.
The flying machine is a nice little set piece, but ultimately it's there and gone pretty quickly. You never see it again. The best I can say is that I thought the controls were going to be annoying to learn, but I completed that sequence on my third try, so that's not too bad.
Too easy? Well, in the first one every mission concluded with a giant clusterfuck...sort of a mosh pit populated by Altair and 20 or so guards that you needed to kill one by one. Which sucked, both because it was dull and it wasn't much like being an assassin. With this one, you can get away a lot easier after performing an assassination. In one mission, I took out an evil-doer on a boat surrounded by a horde of soldiers. Then I just hopped into the canal (this was in Venice) and swam to freedom. Apparently nobody thought to station some of those guards near the water. "Stop him...he's SLOWLY swimming away!" I have more lengthy thoughts on the game's difficulty, but I'll save that for another post.
Rosa is great...they really did a good job of creating some romantic tension there. Best cosmetic aspect? Definitely the villa (including the art) which Rachel already outlined. I also like the armor upgrades, though some of them look a little odd paired with Ezio's robes. And I like the fact that you can get historical information about people and places as you explore the game. It lends a sense of context to the proceedings.
This is where I ask some questions back at Rachel, but I think I'll just decline and cede the floor to my cohort. Then I'll flee the premises as quickly as possible to avoid getting caught in the cross-fire. Rachel, do you have any thoughts you'd like to share about our last play session? ;)
Here's Rachel's last post, with questions for me at the end. If you've already read it, skip down to JEFF RESPONDS to get my angle.
Title: Assassin's Creed II
Publisher: Ubisoft (2010)
Scientists' Stats -
Time Played: 16hrs 8min
Last Achievement Earned: Podesta of Monteriggioni
Last Significant Event: Collected last of the 6 Assassin's Seals
In Jeff's last post he commented on some specific game features and one of the side quests. He left off with: "And back to Rachel. It seems like the story is still too nebulous for you (I don't disagree). Maybe it's missing a character to give it some cohesion. What character would help? A sidekick? Love interest? A better defined villain?
Also, let's say Ubisoft greenlights Assassin's Creed 3 (pretty much a lock). They come to you and say, "Rachel, you're our biggest fan. It's your pick - where and when is AC3 set?" What's your choice. Bear in mind that the general parameters of the game (running around a few cities, climbing buildings, assassinating targets) will be the same. A place or time that works well with conspiracy theories would also be a plus."
Oooh, excellent questions! I think you've hit the nail on the head with the nebulous thing and I think it's the villain that's dropping the ball here. Or villains in this case since it's the Knights Templar and it is a group. Anyway, it would be better if the group was better defined. As it is you just hop around from place to place being told whom to kill and that they are Knights Templar. But they don't have much to do with each other and it's mostly about oppressing local merchants. Now, I'm all for relieving oppression but we're supposed to be going after a super powerful weapon and I would enjoy it a bit more if the villains acted like they were trying to cover up a conspiracy rather than just control all trade in the region. Ok, sure, boo monopolies but, really, something that could be discussed in a Senate committee does not always make for fascinating video game fodder. And I know I've already said it but I sure would like to see other Assassins. As far as I can tell Ezio has three contacts and not one of them is an Assassin. Where the fuck are my compatriots? What if I need advice or tips on how to be stealthy (and holy shitballs does Ezio ever need advice on how to be stealthy!)?
I think a sidekick would be a bad idea but I would venture to say there's already a love interest. Our Ezio he likes his women and he's got this irrepressible boyish charm. Yes, that's right, the phrase "irrepressible boyish charm" does in fact describe our ruthless assassin. I'm glad he hasn't let his job change him. Anyway, the love interest. While I feel Ezio is more than happy to share his love far and wide he does have some good chemistry going with Rosa. She doesn't show up a lot but, really, he's busy with all the stabby so I can see how she's not around a lot. But when she is I definitely think there's something there and I like their chemistry. I don't think this decreases the nebulous factor (sticking with the villains on that one) but it is a fun part of the game.
I thought a lot about the locale for ACIII and, at first, I thought it'd be cool if it was set in France when the Knights Templar were hunted. I figured it'd be really easy to incorporate an Assassins story there but it turns out ACII is set after the dissolution of the Knights Templar (poss why the group seems so scattered and aimless??? or, more likely, the AC series is maybe not the place to go for accurate history:). So instead I'm going with Istanbul (Constantinople). The political backdrop would be the Ottoman Empire. So much can be done with that and there's even a lot more city possibilities so it would not only have to be Istanbul. It makes sense to me that the Assassins group would remain more to the East since they originate in the Middle East and the architecture possibilities (as we saw in ACI) are fantastic and endless for the free running. I'd also like Ubisoft to take another crack at getting the hero right. It's nice that Desmond Miles isn't all WASPy looking and it's great that Ezio appears to be from his time period. Altair, on the other hand, was a major visual/audio fail in ACI. Of course, he had the awesome outfit but he didn't look and sound as he should have to be from where he was from (Prince of Persia fail anyone????).
So we're at the point that comes in almost every game that bores me. It's the part between the set-up and the finale when you get to go round doing quests, collecting crap and every once in a while performing a mission. As that is the case I'm going to leave comments regarding that stuff more to Jeff since it's his area of expertise. For my part, I'm going to focus on the lighter side of the game. Our villa kicks all kinds of ass! We've done all the improvements and it's making florins like we've got money trees stashed in the corner. I love the routine: arrive home, check the books that Sis is keeping and collect money, go talk to your architect and look at the villa model and pick improvements. Huzzah! But you know what's the icing on the cake? The art gallery! We've got a fantabulous gallery! All the regions that Ezio explores (kills in) are full of art merchants and you can buy all the paintings and they hang in the gallery at his villa. It's super sweet and they're real paintings. I've actually seen some of them in person when traveling so it's really cool to see them appear in the gallery.
Another freaking awesome cosmetic feature of the game is Carnival. Ezio is in Venice during Carnival (what we from Louisiana call Mardi Gras) and it's a party in the street. Everyone is in costume and there are tons of celebrations and even fire breathers! It's super sweet. Conveniently, Ezio can avoid notoriety by donning a mask. He's still in his uber-awesome, uber-conspicuous outfit (totally tripped out with weapons) but one tiny mask that you can hardly see under his hood makes everyone mistake him for someone else. Mind you, this is the same guy that, in that outfit, spent the first 10 hours of the game shouting, "I am Ezio Auditore!" after every kill. Ah well, most people at Carnival are drunk anyway so maybe that explains it.
And now let's send out some questions for the gamer. Jeff, what do you think about the high-brow puzzles, artwork, artifacts, and that you're best buds with DaVinci? What did you think about the flying machine? Interesting or useless addition to the game mechanics/missions? Also, do you think the missions are too easy? What do you think of my Rosa comments? And finally, what is your favorite cosmetic aspect of the game?
JEFF RESPONDS:
Before I get into my response, I just want to say that (1) Rachel's comments about a stronger villain are spot-on and (2) I'd definitely play a third game if it was set in Turkey.
Regarding the high brow puzzles, allow me to explain how this works. Hidden on historical landmarks throughout the city, you can find glyphs. These glyphs represent gateways to hidden information embedded in the Animus. A prior subject (pre-Desmond Miles) found some secrets and left a trail of breadcrumbs for you to follow, knowing that only an assassin (not a Templar) would be able to unravel the mystery. Then he went insane. Actually, considering the state he's in as he talks to you in these hidden memories, I'd say it was an ongoing process.
Anyway, you find the glyphs, you solve a little "mental challenge", and then you get a piece of video that shows the secret. Is it effective? Well, finding the glyphs means crawling around on famous architecture like a monkey, which is pretty much the best part of AC, so that's good. The mental challenges? They're sort of all over the map. Sometimes they show you a bunch of famous pieces of art and then want you to pick the ones that have a common feature. That's pretty cool. But other times they want you to click on a specific spot, maybe while a little beeping noise is playing "Hot and Cold" with you. That's not so great. Finally, the videos. They're REALLY short, like a second each at the most. The idea is that eventually they'll stitch together into something amazing and provocative, I guess. Since I haven't finished them, I couldn't say yet. Just know that there's 20 of them, which seems like a lot of repetition. I could have done with around six of these or so. Once you hit 20, the payoff better be great to go to that much trouble.
DaVinci is cool, but he's mostly just there. He's the smart science/math guy. Like in one of those ensemble cast caper movies where there's the smooth talker, the guy who's good with disguises, the big strong guy, etc. And there's always a guy who's good with computers and can hack anything in seconds or decode encrypted messages. That's DaVinci. I don't think they go into any strong characterization there.
The flying machine is a nice little set piece, but ultimately it's there and gone pretty quickly. You never see it again. The best I can say is that I thought the controls were going to be annoying to learn, but I completed that sequence on my third try, so that's not too bad.
Too easy? Well, in the first one every mission concluded with a giant clusterfuck...sort of a mosh pit populated by Altair and 20 or so guards that you needed to kill one by one. Which sucked, both because it was dull and it wasn't much like being an assassin. With this one, you can get away a lot easier after performing an assassination. In one mission, I took out an evil-doer on a boat surrounded by a horde of soldiers. Then I just hopped into the canal (this was in Venice) and swam to freedom. Apparently nobody thought to station some of those guards near the water. "Stop him...he's SLOWLY swimming away!" I have more lengthy thoughts on the game's difficulty, but I'll save that for another post.
Rosa is great...they really did a good job of creating some romantic tension there. Best cosmetic aspect? Definitely the villa (including the art) which Rachel already outlined. I also like the armor upgrades, though some of them look a little odd paired with Ezio's robes. And I like the fact that you can get historical information about people and places as you explore the game. It lends a sense of context to the proceedings.
This is where I ask some questions back at Rachel, but I think I'll just decline and cede the floor to my cohort. Then I'll flee the premises as quickly as possible to avoid getting caught in the cross-fire. Rachel, do you have any thoughts you'd like to share about our last play session? ;)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Guitar Hero: Aerosmith
Coming off a near week long rant about Infinite Undiscovery, it feels like I should switch to talking about a game I liked. Sadly, that isn't going to be the case today. A while back I rented Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and never got a chance to submit my two cents about it. I guess now's the time.
But first, a short history lesson. After Guitar Hero 1 and 2 took the world by storm, the publishers and developers parted ways, supposedly over creative differences about where the series was headed. Harmonix left to make Rock Band, while Red Octane was brought in to make Guitar Hero 3. I played them both and they each have some things to offer - Rock Band is more of a party game with the singing and drumming, while GH3 is for the intense (plastic) guitar enthusiast who wants to develop his or her skills. For whatever reason, Rock Band was pretty much the big winner in the battle for music/rhythm game supremacy, so Red Octane scrambled to make Guitar Hero 4, a carbon copy of Rock Band. In the meantime though, they pumped out a couple "band specific" GH games to make some dough.
That brings us to the BIG problem with GH: Aerosmith - it feels like a cheap cash-in. Understand that it's a full price retail game, so anyone buying it should reasonably expect to get the same value as other retail titles. Further, GH3 (like Rock Band) allows users to purchase new songs online, thus adding to their experience. Thus if Red Octane wanted to give fans some Aerosmith songs to play in GH, there was no need to make a specific game for the band. Just put the songs online and let people who enjoy the band download them for a fee.
I can only think of two legitimate reasons for this game to get made:
1. It introduces new game mechanics above and beyond GH3, making it a new experience and worthy of full price.
2. It's meant to cater to Aerosmith fans, and is therefore the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience.
Reason #1 flies out the window in a matter of seconds. Remember that Red Octane was scrambling to catch up to Harmonix's title even as they were busy claiming that the fans preferred their game. (It was a little like if Pepsi spent half their budget making commercials claiming that cola drinkers preferred their flavor to Coke, and the other half sending spies to steal the Coke formula so they could copy it.) These guys didn't have time to make new game mechanics for GH: Aerosmith, and it's obvious from the menu screen.
In fact, said menu screen looks suspiciously identical to the one in GH3. As does the career mode ladder, the loading screens, the song selection screen, the online menus, and, of course, the game itself. In fact, the tutorial is 100% identical to GH3. Anyone hoping to pick up some tips from Joe Perry is going to be disappointed!
The bottom line is that there are no innovations in GH:A. It's the same game as GH3, reskinned with some Aerosmith fan service. Which brings me to reason #2 - is it the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience?
Well, there are 41 songs in total. Not great, but not terrible. If you downloaded 41 songs, it would cost about the same as a new game, plus you wouldn't get a case, disc, manual, etc. (Of course, then your songs would all be associated with one game so you wouldn't have to switch discs to match various people's tastes.) Admittedly, 41 songs is a lot of Aerosmith...BUT WAIT! Actually, only 25 of those songs are by Aerosmith, including two versions of "Walk This Way" (one with and one without Run D.M.C.). There's also four songs from Joe Perry's solo career, and 12 songs from bands that...Aerosmith really likes? I couldn't really tell. If it's Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, then why am I playing "Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent? Rock Band fans should also note that some of the songs have already been available for download in that game (for example, "Hard to Handle" by the Black Crowes) so there's a good chance you already own a couple of these.
And what about the song selections? Well, there's "Dream On". "Sweet Emotion". "Love in an Elevator". "Rag Doll" is pretty good. But there's a lot of chaff to go with the wheat here. "Kings and Queens" was a commercial flop, for example. Are there a bunch of fans of "Combination" and "Rats in the Cellar" out there? I didn't realize. And what about the songs that are missing? Aerosmith had 21 songs make the Billboard top 40. Now, musical taste is highly subjective, but if you're making the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience, then they should all be on there, right? After all you're paying full price for a disc that's supposed to focus on just one band...their most popular stuff has to be on there! Well, of those 21 hit singles, only 8 are present while a whopping 13 (!!!) are MIA. So this game is supposed to be a tribute to Aerosmith and their fans, but it's missing over HALF of their greatest hits???
Again, musical preference is subjective. Maybe someone at Red Octane hated the movie Armageddon and didn't want "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" on there. So be it. And "Come Together" is a cover of a Beatles song, so the rights were probably tricky on that one. But no "Angel"? "Amazing"? For cripe's sake, no "Janie's Got a Gun"??? Some of these seem like no brainers to me.
As far as positives go, the developers spent some time motion-capturing the band and it shows in their on screen animations as you play (not that you'll notice since you'll be busy focusing on the notes). For better or worse, the onscreen avatars look eerily similar to the real Steven Tyler et al. And there are little interview blurbs between tiers in the career mode, though they appear to be stitched together from existing material.
So I guess if you consider yourself a hardcore Aerosmith fan (so hardcore that you obsessively followed Joe Perry's solo career, which puts you in rare company) and you don't already own GH3, then Guitar Hero: Aerosmith represents pretty solid value for you. For the other 99% of us, sticking with broader musical titles is probably the way to go.
But first, a short history lesson. After Guitar Hero 1 and 2 took the world by storm, the publishers and developers parted ways, supposedly over creative differences about where the series was headed. Harmonix left to make Rock Band, while Red Octane was brought in to make Guitar Hero 3. I played them both and they each have some things to offer - Rock Band is more of a party game with the singing and drumming, while GH3 is for the intense (plastic) guitar enthusiast who wants to develop his or her skills. For whatever reason, Rock Band was pretty much the big winner in the battle for music/rhythm game supremacy, so Red Octane scrambled to make Guitar Hero 4, a carbon copy of Rock Band. In the meantime though, they pumped out a couple "band specific" GH games to make some dough.
That brings us to the BIG problem with GH: Aerosmith - it feels like a cheap cash-in. Understand that it's a full price retail game, so anyone buying it should reasonably expect to get the same value as other retail titles. Further, GH3 (like Rock Band) allows users to purchase new songs online, thus adding to their experience. Thus if Red Octane wanted to give fans some Aerosmith songs to play in GH, there was no need to make a specific game for the band. Just put the songs online and let people who enjoy the band download them for a fee.
I can only think of two legitimate reasons for this game to get made:
1. It introduces new game mechanics above and beyond GH3, making it a new experience and worthy of full price.
2. It's meant to cater to Aerosmith fans, and is therefore the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience.
Reason #1 flies out the window in a matter of seconds. Remember that Red Octane was scrambling to catch up to Harmonix's title even as they were busy claiming that the fans preferred their game. (It was a little like if Pepsi spent half their budget making commercials claiming that cola drinkers preferred their flavor to Coke, and the other half sending spies to steal the Coke formula so they could copy it.) These guys didn't have time to make new game mechanics for GH: Aerosmith, and it's obvious from the menu screen.
In fact, said menu screen looks suspiciously identical to the one in GH3. As does the career mode ladder, the loading screens, the song selection screen, the online menus, and, of course, the game itself. In fact, the tutorial is 100% identical to GH3. Anyone hoping to pick up some tips from Joe Perry is going to be disappointed!
The bottom line is that there are no innovations in GH:A. It's the same game as GH3, reskinned with some Aerosmith fan service. Which brings me to reason #2 - is it the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience?
Well, there are 41 songs in total. Not great, but not terrible. If you downloaded 41 songs, it would cost about the same as a new game, plus you wouldn't get a case, disc, manual, etc. (Of course, then your songs would all be associated with one game so you wouldn't have to switch discs to match various people's tastes.) Admittedly, 41 songs is a lot of Aerosmith...BUT WAIT! Actually, only 25 of those songs are by Aerosmith, including two versions of "Walk This Way" (one with and one without Run D.M.C.). There's also four songs from Joe Perry's solo career, and 12 songs from bands that...Aerosmith really likes? I couldn't really tell. If it's Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, then why am I playing "Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent? Rock Band fans should also note that some of the songs have already been available for download in that game (for example, "Hard to Handle" by the Black Crowes) so there's a good chance you already own a couple of these.
And what about the song selections? Well, there's "Dream On". "Sweet Emotion". "Love in an Elevator". "Rag Doll" is pretty good. But there's a lot of chaff to go with the wheat here. "Kings and Queens" was a commercial flop, for example. Are there a bunch of fans of "Combination" and "Rats in the Cellar" out there? I didn't realize. And what about the songs that are missing? Aerosmith had 21 songs make the Billboard top 40. Now, musical taste is highly subjective, but if you're making the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience, then they should all be on there, right? After all you're paying full price for a disc that's supposed to focus on just one band...their most popular stuff has to be on there! Well, of those 21 hit singles, only 8 are present while a whopping 13 (!!!) are MIA. So this game is supposed to be a tribute to Aerosmith and their fans, but it's missing over HALF of their greatest hits???
Again, musical preference is subjective. Maybe someone at Red Octane hated the movie Armageddon and didn't want "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" on there. So be it. And "Come Together" is a cover of a Beatles song, so the rights were probably tricky on that one. But no "Angel"? "Amazing"? For cripe's sake, no "Janie's Got a Gun"??? Some of these seem like no brainers to me.
As far as positives go, the developers spent some time motion-capturing the band and it shows in their on screen animations as you play (not that you'll notice since you'll be busy focusing on the notes). For better or worse, the onscreen avatars look eerily similar to the real Steven Tyler et al. And there are little interview blurbs between tiers in the career mode, though they appear to be stitched together from existing material.
So I guess if you consider yourself a hardcore Aerosmith fan (so hardcore that you obsessively followed Joe Perry's solo career, which puts you in rare company) and you don't already own GH3, then Guitar Hero: Aerosmith represents pretty solid value for you. For the other 99% of us, sticking with broader musical titles is probably the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
