dod_avalanche
I'd like to take a minute here to salute my personal favourite map of any FPS game: dod_avalanche. I'm not saying that it's the best FPS map--just that it's the one that I, personally, am the most addicted and attached to. Many others come close. But there is undeniably something special about Day of Defeat's Avalanche map.
Part of the magic is that dod_avalanche throws a bit of everything into the mix. There's a lot of close-quarters combat, a lot of effective sniper perches, lots of common hot spots, and a lot of places where stealth is paramount. The map is compact, yet feels epic in scope. Teamwork is vitally important to achieve victory (otherwise the map tends to just drag on endlessly), and there are useful positions for pretty much every character class. I find that dod_avalanche effectively showcases a wide range of what Day of Defeat--and FPS gaming in general--is all about.
One thing that I really love about DoD is the gritty, brutal feel of it. It feels authentic in a way that games like Medal of Honor and most other popular WW II FPSes don't. Certainly a big part of this has to do with the high lethality and characteristic feel of the weapons. I don't know what a Garand, Springfield, or K-98 rifle feels like in real life, but I sure as shit know how they handle in DoD; you could disable the weapon graphics and sounds, and I bet I'd be able to tell them apart based entirely on their ranged accuracy, firing rate, and effectiveness. I love Battlefield 1942, but one of the weaknesses of that game is that the weapons mostly feel quite generic. DoD is more like Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, which has frighteningly realistic-feeling firearms.
Getting back to dod_avalanche, though, it's one map that really showcases that gritty, DoD feel. I guess that's not really fair to say, actually, because DoD has so many great maps that do that. I even have to applaud a relatively weak map like dod_charlie for the fact that when I first played it, it really did sort of feel like I was storming the beaches of Normandy to a degree that I hadn't felt before. I remember lying on the beach behind one of those metal hull-breaker dealies for cover, and as a German machine-gunner was sweeping arcs of glowing death across the sand, I lined him up in the sights of my rifle, pulled the trigger, and the carnage stopped... for a couple of seconds, anyway.
Okay, I guess we've established that I have a soft spot for Day of Defeat. It only takes a few minutes of dod_avalanche action to remind me of that. Clearing out that crazy building on the east side of the map is a real rush--as is working my way to the roof to have a shoot-out with a sniper perched in the church belltower. Good times. One of my favourite camping spots on the Allied side is on top of that little archway where the Germans come out into the center courtyard. If you're discreet enough, you can pick enemies off as they filter out into the middle while keeping an eye on the far side--the east. Sometimes some opponents will run past you on their way to the belltower and you can plug 'em in the back. Of course, that spot is only effective until people get wise to your game and start looking for you there. :)
One thing that seems to have changed with DoD: Source, although maybe it's just my memory playing tricks on me, is that it seems to be a lot easier to spot other players now. With the original DoD, it was definitely the case that when a player sat still, it was really difficult to see them--assuming they were crouched in bushes, shadows, or some other fun form of cover. I clearly remember getting into some sniper wars where I knew where a sniper was hiding and I approached a window in their line of fire very, very slowly so they didn't see the movement, and then I lined up a shot (often I knew what window they were in but couldn't even see them myself) and took the sniper out. That's why snipers are generally supposed to move after taking a shot. :) Anyway, this sort of thing still happens to me in DoD: Source, but not as much. Maybe I'm just not playing as well as I used to. More time spent with the game will help with that problem.
That's my little rant about Day of Defeat for now. In other news, I'm making steady progress through Resident Evil DS, although I've stalled on just about everything else for now. I'm planning to log some serious RPG time soon with the usual stuff--FF IV Advance, Digital Devil Saga, Disgaea, and Xenogears. One of these days I'll have those suckers finished. I'm trying not to worry about Dragon Quest VIII for now. :) I nearly bought myself a copy of Icewind Dale: Ultimate Collection today, but I was reminded at the last minute that no matter how badly I'd like to play it, there's just no way that I'm going to find the time in the near future. I have placed a couple of essential pre-orders, though: Tales of Phantasia for GBA and Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. February has been a slow month for gaming, overall, but I think that the little break may actually help me to get more gaming done in March.
One major factor is that as of next week I am switching employers. The new work environment might help me to take more time to myself for hobbies like gaming, although that is far from certain. What is fairly certain is that the change of pace will be refreshing, at any rate.
Robotron 2084
I just wanted to take a quick minute to react to a review for Robotron 2084 (part of the XBox 360 arcade) that I saw on some site called
Extreme Gamer:
Robotron has to be the weakest link in the line up of Midway games for Xbox Live Arcade. Simply because of Midways Smash TV which is a superior game that is more fun. Add in other stellar additions like Mutant Storm and Geotromety Wars and its hard to see any redeeming factors in Robotron 2084. It's interesting to play this game a few times, but you would have to be an old schooler to get into Robotron for any extended period of time.
I strongly disagree with these statements. First off, I didn't play Robotron 2084 for the first time until the game was more than fifteen years old, and I loved it. I'd actually played Smash TV a bunch of times before I'd ever played Robotron 2084, and I like Robotron 2084 much better. Robotron is a very "pure" kind of game--it elegantly provides challenge without complexity, and it's the sort of thing that you learn to play in 10 minutes and spend the rest of your life trying to master. In my opinion, it also has some of the best retro graphics and sound of any video game; I find it visually entertaining and the sound effects are rich and memorable. It surprises me to see a reviewer tear into Robotron 2084, especially while supporting Smash TV in the same breath.
Resident Evil DS
Big things are happening for me on the work-related front lately, and that has been keeping me really busy. Still, I've managed to find time to play through the first bit of Resident Evil DS. I haven't made it very far yet, but I have some strong early impressions. I'm impressed with how faithful this adaptation of Resident Evil is to the original PlayStation game from nearly a decade ago, although the graphics aren't as impressive as I was hoping for--I guess I've just been spoiled by the modern Resident Evil games, particularly those for GameCube. Resident Evil DS is quite challenging, particularly since the controls are fairly awkward (which is true to the original game, of course), and I have a hard time imagining how the game would impress upon more casual gamers than myself. It seems like a pretty hardcore title to me, not only because can be unforgiving and has a steep learning curve, but also because it is a more slow-paced game that focuses on exploration and puzzle solving rather than fighting and action. Then again, that's true of the other, more recent Resident Evil games out these days, except perhaps for Resident Evil 4 with its gorgeous "over the shoulder" point-and-shoot system. Serious Resident Evil fans will know what they're getting into with Resident Evil DS.
Another game that I've been logging some time with this past week is Day of Defeat: Source. Day of Defeat is one of my all-time favourite FPS games, and this adaptation of it for the Half-Life 2 engine faithfully carries on the tradition. DoD is by the makers of Counter-Strike and in many ways it is accurate to think of it as Counter-Strike in a World War II setting. There are important differences, however: in DoD, there is continuous respawn, and maps are won or lost based on the capture of objective points. The capture point system works a lot like Battlefield 1942 except that capture points do not double as spawn points; generally each side only has one spawn area that cannot be overrun by the opposing side (spawn camping is sometimes still possible, but it is considered cheating.) You don't have to buy equipment as in CS; rather, you choose a character class and that determines your equipment for the next time that you spawn. The maps in DoD are fairly small and dense--they closely resemble the style of Counter-Strike maps, but the theme is obviously World War II battlegrounds, particularly urban environments. The maps in Day of Defeat (and in Counter-Strike) are the best part of the game for me, personally, and I've grown quite attached to several of them, although I often get the names mixed up. Also, as with CS, DoD has great play controls and the overall "feel" of the game is very satisfying. There's a bit of a learning curve there, especially since you can only play online so there are no dumb bots to practice against, but once you get up to speed, I find that DoD provides one of the best FPS rushes of any game I've ever played. Counter-Strike is very similar, of course. :)
I'm mildly tempted to pick up Grandia III, but there is of course no way in hell that I'll be able to find the time to play it right now. I need to take some time to catch up on games that I already own first. I also happened to catch the
preview of Generation of Chaos for PSP over on RPGFan.com, and man does that game ever look good. Those RPGs just keep piling up--in a way, it almost makes me pine for the good ol' days when worthwhile RPGs were few and far between, so when one did arrive it was a really big deal, and it was never difficult to give each one a lot of attention. But I suppose that you can't have too much of a good thing in this case.
Studies in 2-D Tournament Fighters
My buddy Rem was over last night and I gave him a brief, whirlwind tour of my 2-D fighting games collection. In order, we played Street Fighter III: The Third Strike (part of Street Fighter Anniversary Collection for PS2), Guilty Gear X2 (PS2), Marvel vs. Capcom (Dreamcast), Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (Dreamcast), King of Fighters 2001 (PS2), King of Fighters 2002 (PS2), and Capcom vs. SNK (Dreamcast). I wanted to finish out with Capcom vs. SNK 2 EO (GameCube), but Rem cried "enough!" and we played NBA Street Vol. 2 instead. :)
I am not a great fighting game player, but I am certainly a fan of 2-D fighting games. The genre holds almost a very deep, rich appeal for me, and I enjoy the best 2-D fighting games on many levels. I consider them to be very social games--ones in which one perceives a very direct connection with one's opponent--but they can also be a satisfying solitary activity through training and battling the CPU.
Fighting games have a surprisingly convoluted history. Although the tournament fighter genre seemed to appear out of nowhere (to the eyes of the mass public, at least) with the release of Street Fighter II in around 1993, there were earlier titles such as Karateka and Double Dragon that had established many fighting game conventions much earlier. Street Fighter II set a new standard of sophistication, however, and it cemented a certain style of fighting game--one that dominated the 90's and ended up also breaking into the 3-D realm starting with Virtua Fighter and Tekken.
It's important to distinguish between "tournament fighters" and "street brawlers," although some games such as Karateka blur the lines a little. In a tournament fighter, two players square off and fight head-on, generally involving a great variety of different moves to prevent the game from becoming predictable. In a street brawler, players generally cooperate to fight hordes of stupid computer players. That's the difference in a nutshell.
Street brawlers were very common in the 80s and 90s, leading up to the break-out of tournament fighters. Popular street brawler games include Double Dragon, Final Fight, River City Ransom, The Simpsons, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even a couple of arcade Dungeons and Dragons games. In many ways, a street brawler resembles a simple platform game (like Mario or Sonic) in which players can punch, kick, and jump. A very common feature of street brawlers is a small depth dimension to the play area, such that players can move in four directions along the ground. The gameplay mechanics tend to be strongly focused on positioning and timing; it's important to try to group enemies together and not be surrounded, while also striking at the right time to avoid being attacked, since dodging is usually difficult. There generally are not any sophisticated combos, and special moves are often delegated to a single button or a two-button combo (eg. jump + kick to do a drop-kick.)
Tournament fighters have deeper mechanics where many more moves and combos are available to the players, leading to a great deal of complexity. Street Fighter II was a run-away success that essentially defined the genre, and certainly helped to introduce the idea that a fighting game could take minutes to learn and a lifetime to master. Movement is generally faster and more furious, and the abilities to block and dodge attacks make the defensive aspect a bigger element of the game. Tournament fighters frequently feature very sophisticated combo moves that require a sequence of buttons and directions pressed with careful timing to execute. Some games in the Tekken series, for instance, feature a system of 10-hit combos that require 10 or more button presses to execute, and if the timing is off at any point during the combo it is interrupted.
Tournament fighters are generally split into two categories: 2-D and 3-D. Although the earliest 3-D tournament fighters (Virtual Fighter, Tekken, Battle Arena Toshinden) were obvious knock-offs of the same old fighting game formula, 3-D fighting games have since evolved along a different path from the 2-D genre, and the latest games including the Soul Calibur series definitely have a different feel from what 2-D tournament fighters have become in the meanwhile. It's worth noting that there are also 3-D street brawlers such as Die Hard Arcade and Fighting Force, but they are a highly marginalized genre, and generally when people talk about 2-D and 3-D fighting games, they implicitly mean to refer to tournament fighters.
Another interesting point to note is that street brawlers have always contained an exploration element, although it has frequently been drastically limited by the linear progression of most street brawler games. Certain titles like River City Ransom chose to exploit the exploration element to provide a more open-ended gaming experience, and the results were truly fantastic. Grand Theft Auto III, one of the most influential games of all time, can be said to have evolved as a 3-D street brawler mixed with a driving game and a heavy exploration element. The controversy surrounding GTA3 has always overlooked that it is GTA's quest-like exploration element that makes it a success, rather than the gratuitous violence.
Anyway, let's skip back to 2-D tournament fighters. :) While I was playing with Rem last night, I made a few simple observations. Please understand that my take on 2-D tournament fighters is by no means sophisticated; I partake of them in a strictly casual sense, and although my experience with them goes back a long way, it is not deep experience by any means.
The 2-D fighting games that I played last night seem to fall along a spectrum from the more mindless "jump and bash" variety to very technical feeling games. The difference, mainly, seems to have to do with the degree of difficulty in getting the timing of the game down as well as a bit to do with the pacing. In a game like King of Fighters, for instance, the feel is fairly technical--it requires some concentration and skill to properly attack and defend, and button-mashing doesn't generally work out very well. In Marvel vs. Capcom, on the other hand, the jump n' bash strategy is a bit more forgiving because the simplicity of basic moves and the fast pace of the game make it that much easier to dismiss the busier elements of the on-screen action and focus on dishing out a rapid successon of blows. Capcom vs. SNK seemed to strike a very appealing balance between these two trends.
This distinction certainly didn't relate strictly to pace, of course--it had a lot to do with the variety and relative utility of the different moves availabe to each character. In a really technical fighting game, each player's decision of what moves to employ in a given moment is quite important, and so familiarity with those moves is vital. In a non-technical fighting game, most moves do roughly the same thing (hurt your opponent in obvious ways) so a variation in what attacks are employed doesn't drastically affect the outcome. Classifying a given fighting game as "technical" or "non-technical" is complicated, however, because within a given fighting game there are bound to be certain characters with a more technical fighting style and other characters with a less technical fighting style. Generally speaking, a fighting game does set a certain pace for the technicality of its overall feel. Street Fighter III has quicker characters and slower characters, but it's never quite as carefree in feel as Marvel vs. Capcom.
Another trend that was noticed was that certain games had a very clean look while others packed the screen full of distractions. Guilty Gear X2 and Marvel vs. Capcom were easily two of the most busy looking games, while Street Fighter III and King of Fighters generally make it very easy to tell the fighting characters and their moves apart from the backdrop of each level. Being something of a newbie to fighting games, Rem expressed a strong preference for the cleaner-looking games, and while I definitely agree that the clean look is better, I still have a huge soft spot for Marvel vs. Capcom and Guilty Gear X2.
In conclusion, damn did I ever have fun last night. Hopefully this crazy evening of fighting games isn't a one-off occurance. It would be fun to see Rem develop some real skill at this sort of thing. It would be fun to see me develop some real skill too, actually.
PSP?
"Fritzkrieg Games Week" is being held over for another week, and perhaps longer. :) I didn't manage to get the good ending in Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance yet, but I started just a little on Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow. It's difficult putting off Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow as it looks so great, and I might crack that one open sooner rather than later. I also made it further in Ace Combat 5, but I haven't started Devil May Cry 3 yet, nor have I made any progress on Xenogears (but I remember where I left off at least!)
One thing I wanted to post about is the growing appeal that PSP is starting to have for me. I've thought about getting one before as a portable media device for movies and mp3s, but not so much for the games. Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories looks good on it, and sure, I've been curious about Lumines, but what's really drawing my attention these days are games for it like Street Fighter Alpha 3 Max, Me & My Katamari, and
especially announced RPG games including a new Valkyrie Profile game, and a new Nippon Ichi RPG. It certainly isn't the boquet of wonderful games that the DS has to offer for the near future, but it's enough to grab my attention at least.
It's a shame that PSPs aren't cheaper, or simple curiosity might be enough of a reason to invest in one. Of course, I'm not sure that I have the time to spare for it anyway; my Nintendo DS and PlayStation 2 are sucking up almost all of my gaming attention these days. But I could imagine some kind of freaky future scenerio in which I am holding a PSP.
