Prey, Max Payne 2
I recently took a break from ArmA (which I've only just cracked the surface of) to finish off the remainder of Prey and start a proper play-through of a long-neglected copy of May Payne 2. Other than both being high profile FPS games (although Max Payne arguably isn't; it's more of a third-person shooter) that lie on the opposite end of the spectrum from ArmA's simulation-style realism, both Prey and Max Payne 2 have the dubious honor of having been purchased by me as $10 bargain bin titles, and I adjusted my expectations of them accordingly. That having been said, both games have been rewarding enough to have justified the time that I've put into them. They've also made me realize that my new-ish gaming PC isn't getting enough attention lately (World of WarCraft and Company of Heroes aside), and I really need to make more time for more Oblivion, F.E.A.R., etc.
Prey is graphically intense, not unlike a fireworks display on-screen; it uses some of the graphics engine from Doom 3, or some such thing. What surprised me is that the story and premise of Prey (which I was vaguely aware of before starting the game) are more compelling than I initially gave them credit for, and the first hour or so of the game had me fairly stoked. I definitely felt like I'd gotten a good bargain at $10, and I would venture to say that the producers were hoping that enough hype would have spread about Prey on the strength of that initial impression to make it a mega-hit.
It isn't that Prey started looking any worse after that first hour--it's just that the game didn't change much, if at all, between that point and the very end of the game. The environments and gameplay both became monotonous as hour after hour went by with the game experience being essentially the same from one minute to the next. This complete and utter lack of depth condemned the game to be a slog, although not an unpleasant one. Having finished Prey, I see absolutely no reason to return to it, nor would I really be interested in a sequel, unless there's some evidence that it goes in a radically new direction. Overall, this game would make a good case study in how a game project can get no single element (graphics, gameplay, story & art) wrong, yet still be lack-luster. It needs some kind of crazy hook, like F.E.A.R.'s impressive enemy squad AI, to make the experience memorable.
I'm enjoying Max Payne 2 much more than I enjoyed Prey, but this is largely because it's been years since I played the original (which I was a big fan of) and Max Payne 2 has me tripping on nostalgia. I haven't fired up the original to compare, but from what I can tell Max Payne 2 has the same gameplay, art style, and level design that is similar but larger in scope. Max Payne 2 feels a lot like an updated version of the first Max Payne that takes advantage of the advances made in computer hardware in the meanwhile.
One element that is noticeably missing from Max Payne 2 is the writing. I'm not trying to say that the original Max Payne had great writing, but it was particularly good for what the game was trying to be, and it added a certain intensity that made everything else about the game shine that much brighter. Max Payne 2 has a lot of trying-to-be clever moments, but overall the story and scripting fall flat, which I think is largely what makes the game unsatisfying when held up against the original.
Other than the writing, however, I'm hard-pressed to say why anybody who likes Max Payne wouldn't enjoy Max Payne 2. Its biggest fault is perhaps simply that it doesn't do enough to distinguish itself from the first Max Payne, but while it has lost some ground and in that respect fails to impress, it hasn't fallen far enough to cease being the self-mocking film noir, John Woo style bullet-ballet that one wants to see in a Max Payne game. That having been said, I've only played through the first two-thirds of the game, and I might yet see something in the last few hours that will completely ruin the experience for me.
As a final note, I finally snagged a copy of Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, and I've found everything that I've heard about it to be true: the core game is the same and the new control scheme makes trade-offs but comes out ahead overall. I was pleasantly surprised to find that RE4:Wii is offered at a reduced price point of $40, which is a nice gesture given that many Wii owners probably already own the GameCube, PS2, and/or PC version. I've only played about an hour of this so far, however, so I don't have a great deal to say about it yet.
ArmA: Combat Operations
Matt asked me a couple of days ago what's worth picking up these days, gaming-wise. I probably should have encouraged him to keep playing FF XII (did
anyone in my circle of friends make enough of a commitment to actually finish that?), pick up Guitar Hero, Devil May Cry 3, Soul Caliber 3, Metal Slug Anthology, Resident Evil 4, or something such thing. There's no shortage of great console hits that Matt hasn't played.
But, knowing Matt, those answers didn't even occur to me at the time. He's more of a PC gamer than a fan of great console hits, and I knew that he was looking for something wholely new and boundary-pushing. I told him, "nope, nothing that I know of; let me know if you find anything."
And he did!
ArmA: Combat Operations not only kick ass, but it kicks
my ass with its uncompromisingly technical and challenging nature. There are many modern games that strive to be accessible and have a broad appeal; this one is the antithesis of that philosophy. As somebody who has been immersed in Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Battlefield games for years, I found that ArmA has made a complete noob out of me once more. The level of coordination and awareness that is necessary to succeed at this game stretches into the territory pioneered by the hardcore flight simulators of old. Anyone who thinks of FPS games as primarily an action game genre will be disappointed here.
I had a hard time pulling myself away from this game. ArmA is extremely immersive and all the more satisfying for its high challenge level. I've only been playing it for a short time, but it seems likely that I won't tire of this one for a long time. And that's good news since it'll take me a long time to reach a respectable level of skill at this one.
Speaking of games that kick my ass, I've been pretty frustrated with Art of Fighting and AoF 2. Those are some pretty cryptic fighting games, and my prior experience with the likes of King of Fighters doesn't translate well. Art of Fighting 3 is much more conventional, however. Although playing KoF hasn't helped me a lot with AoF, I'm hoping that somehow the reverse will hold true. If nothing else, I'm being educated somewhat in the ways of classic fighting games that I'd previously missed out on.
I'm also looking forward to
Guilty Gear XX: Accent Core coming to the Wii. I don't play nearly as much Guilty Gear as I should.
Finally, I waited too long to get a copy of Resident Evil 4 for the Wii, but once I do manage to snag a copy, I'm planning on a thorough play-through... assuming I can find the time, of course.
Geometry Wars on Steam
As per the title of this post, there is now one less reason to buy an Xbox 360. At only $2.50, this is arguably a better deal than X-Com: Terror from the Deep. :)
Console Wars Predictions
Over the past six months or so I've had time to take a look at what the Wii, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3 all have to offer, and I've made some important observations that have lead me to make a few predictions for the coming years:
Observation #1: The current gen of "next gen" consoles isn't ripe yet.
Frankly, not one of the Wii, Xbox 360, or PlayStation 3 is worth owning right now. If your interest is strictly in real games appreciated by real gamers, the only console that is an absolute must at present is the PlayStation 2 (yes,
two.) Aside from a handful of gems like Zelda: Twilight Princess and Gears of War, all that's really available for any of the new systems at this point in time are novelties. (You should also own a gaming PC and a Nintendo DS, of course.)
Case in point: in the time since the Wii came out (regular readers may recall that I bought mine on launch day), I've purchased more PS2 games than Wii games and spent much more time on my PS2 than on my Wii. I've been tempted to buy an Xbox 360 but every time I sit down to seriously consider it, I find that there aren't quite enough games available to make it worth my while yet (it is a close call, however; and oddly enough, a lot of the games that I do want are Xbox Live Arcade games.) The PlayStation 3 line-up as it stands right now is a complete joke, unless you're counting titles that are still in development.
Given all that, it's obviously too early to declare a victor in the console war. It may be tempting to say that the PS3 is bombing and the Wii is taking over, but we're still in the preliminaries as far as this battle royale is concerned.
Observation #2: The Wii is doing very well.
Nintendo has obviously hit upon a dynamite formula with the accessibility of the Wii and the hype surrounding it. The one thing holding this little dynamo back is that it isn't packing the kind of next-gen hardware under the hood that it's competition has; but frankly, gamers care about more than merely what games offer the best eye candy. Just look at how well the PS2 is still doing, and consider how visually appealing a game like Super Paper Mario is despite the fact that it lacks high-definition graphics.
From what I'm able to tell, the Wii has populated the popular consciousness in a way that the more hardcore Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 haven't. In addition to that, Nintendo isn't taking as big a risk on the Wii as Microsoft and Sony are on their products because each Wii sold pays for itself whereas the Xbox 360 and PS3 are both hefty loss-leaders. No matter how you paint the current picture, the bottom-line is that Nintendo is happy with their situation.
Observation #3: The Xbox 360 has been a bittersweet experience so far.
There are a lot of things that I love about the Xbox 360 experience, from the lineup of Xbox Live Arcade titles (including classic stuff like Geometry Wars and Pac-Man Championship Edition) to the excellent controller design and the overall look and feel of the console itself. This is a huge upgrade from what the original Xbox was like, in my opinion.
However, there are also a lot of stories about frustrated Xbox 360 owners who have had their consoles break down (sometimes repeatedly), and there's the spotty support for original Xbox games. These cracks disturb the otherwise elegant Xbox 360 experience in a jarring way, which reminds users that they are dealing with the sort of sloppily engineered, brute-force kind of products that Microsoft seems to be only capable of making. This state of affairs may turn around in time (I've heard anecdotal evidence that the Xbox 360 Elite doesn't break down as much as), but while Microsoft works on patching their products, their competitors are making additional progress as well.
Observation #4: Japanese developers are focused on the PS3.
The PS3 is doing so poorly so far with its games line-up that I'm almost tempted to believe what some of the critics are saying about Sony being in serious trouble this time. It troubles me to hear developers saying that PlayStation 3 development is so difficult while the Xbox 360 positions itself as a platform for casual games made by smaller developers. And as much as I'm looking forward to Devil May Cry 4 and Metal Gear Solid 4, those titles alone may not prove to be enough to justify the purchase of an $800 behemoth.
But the fact of the matter is that developers in Japan are dead serious about making PlayStation 3 games, and from where I stand, support from companies like Capcom, Konami, Namco, and Square-Enix is the most important factor. Games like Devil May Cry 4 and Metal Gear Solid 3 aren't rushed productions aimed to cash in and get out; rather, they are generally seen as long-term commitments by companies like Capcom and Konami to establish a lasting presence. It would take something of a disaster to bring the PlayStation 3 down, and in spite of what some alarmists might be saying, that disaster hasn't happened yet. (And yes, it's also true that the PlayStation 2 got off to a painfully slow start in 2001 and ended up being the clear victor of the last console war.)
Observation #5: Electronic distribution and retro game products are becoming a serious factor.
Each of the current consoles has an online service that gouges gamers for the ability to play old games. I've complained long and hard about how unfair it is that old games simply go away rather than being continually republished, and the current model of electronic distribution is finally stepping up to resolve that issue. These are also obvious cash cows for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, as they are able to rehash old hits and make a fair chunk of change while bypassing the costly process of putting physical copies of games on actual store shelves.
In addition to making it a little bit easier for the major players to cash in on the video game industry (while creating some opportunity for little guys as well), these direct-download games also provide a big draw for casual gamers who are looking for simpler, more pure games that aren't encumbered by millions of dollars of production value and frustratingly complex game mechanics. This is merely one of the reasons why console gaming has attained a noticeably broader appeal in the past year.
Prediction #1: None of the new consoles is going to die off.
This is perhaps the least secure of my predictions, but I don't think that any of the current industry players (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) will screw up badly enough to take them out of the picture. The last console generation (PS2, Xbox, GameCube) firmly established that there is, in fact, enough room for three major console platforms, and there is still plenty of brand loyalty going around.
Furthermore, each of the current console systems offers something that the others don't. The Wii is a great choice for casual gamers and family-oriented gamers (a formula that worked well enough for the GameCube), the PlayStation 3 has the appeal of Japanese producer support and cutting edge hardware (including the ability to play Blu-Ray movies), and the Xbox 360 still holds sway with the utterly un-influential, yet lucrative jock-gamer crowd. These consoles are only in competition with each other where they cover common ground, and it seems to me that they each still hold a large enough corner of the industry on their own to survive.
Prediction #2: Nay-sayers won't drag the Wii down (but Nintendo's history of family-oriented gaming might.)
I've heard rumblings that the Wii is over-hyped and that Nintendo's creative vision with the Wii is bound to plateau before long, which are points that I don't disagree with, but even if those things do become obviously true, the Wii can still enjoy a healthy lifespan and a lot of fan support if Nintendo can leverage their massive install base to get good titles from 3rd party developers. There are going to be lots of Wii users by next year--there can be no doubt of that--and it hasn't escaped the attention of the big game publishers that there's a lot of money to be made off of Wii games right now. That's bound to draw out some surprise hits and fuel even more popularity for Nintendo's products.
That's not to say that the Wii is a shoe-in to win the current console war. It's easy to see how the big picture could unfold exactly as it did the last time around, with Nintendo's product ultimately slipping to fringe appeal status and finishing in a lucrative (but un-sexy) third place. What Nintendo has in the Wii that they didn't have with the GameCube is simply an opportunity to make a much bigger splash than they did last time, and so far they've been succeeding brilliantly--so brilliantly, actually, that they may yet manage to become the number one console of this generation. But with the Wii's lack-luster hardware and shaky appeal for hardcore gamers, it's easy to see how reports of the Wii's imminent victory are grossly exaggerated.
Prediction #3: Owning an Xbox 360 may turn out to be unnecessary for hardcore console gaming fans.
As much as I've come to admire how elegant the Xbox 360 can be (when everything is working smoothly), it still has a primarily American appeal, and a lot of those kinds of sports games and FPS action titles (things like EA Sports titles) can also be had on the PS3 anyway. I am sorely tempted to get an Xbox 360--and will likely crack before the year is out--but I suspect that what will end up happening is that I'll get a great deal of enjoyment out of my 360 up until the point where the PS3 and the Wii are getting enough new releases every month to shut the 360 out of the picture. It is possible that the 360 will see enough exclusive titles to hold its own, or that the PlayStation 3 will do poorly and leave enough of a gap for the 360 to fill, but neither of those situations strikes me as the most likely scenerio.
Basically what I'm calling for here is for history to repeat itself, with a catch: it's possible that Nintendo and Microsoft will gain enough ground to weaken Sony's position and put the PS3 at some spot other than first place. If Sony can pull off a great line-up of PS3 games, on the other hand, I don't doubt that we'll end up with PS3 eventually dominating the market, just as its predecessor did. A more interesting question might be whether or not the Xbox 360 can keep up with the Wii given that Nintendo is so much stronger of a player this time around. My overall prediction is that by 2009 we'll have PS3 as the most desirable console for real console gamers, with the Wii in second and the Xbox 360 in third.
SNK on PS2
It's a shame to admit, but my SNK fan-dom goes through phases, while my Capcom fandom remains rock-steady. When it comes to those domain where the twain shall meet (eg. the ever significant realm of Capcom vs SNK 2), part of me
wants to walk the hardcore path of the SNK fan, but the draw of the Capcom side is too much for me to resist. I grew up with 1943, Mega Man, and Street Fighter II. I continue to love Resident Evil and Devil May Cry. The Capcom Classics Collection, and vol 2 thereof, are among my very favourite retro game compilations. By comparison, my affection for games like Samurai Spirits ("Shodown"), Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, and Metal Slug is aptly described as wannabe.
It's because of this that when I saw the $60 price tag on Metal Slug Anthology for PS2, my desire for the title crumpled and I left it on the shelf at the store. Even now, this isn't really a decision that I regret, although I will likely yet end up purchasing this title at some point when the SNK fanboy wannabe within me wells up sufficiently. Since, while my affection for Capcom remains more steadfast than what I feel for SNK, when the pangs for SNK action strike, they strike hard.
Cue my having taken notice of a recent
Scott Daylor blog entry on 1UP.com. It turns out that SNK has some exciting new titles
in development, including an American release of
Neo-Geo Battle Coliseum. Holy shit!
In addition to the Art of Fighting Anthology that was recently released, we're also going to be seeing Fatal Fury Battle Archives this summer, and King of Fighters XI is in the works. That's a whole lotta SNK fuel for the PS2. I'm bracing myself for the onslaught.
As an aside, I'm also excited about future Guitar Hero releases, particularly Guitar Hero III. In conversations with some friends about Guitar Hero, the subject of the music involved comes up. Yes, it would certainly kick ass to be able to play my favourite rock songs on Guitar Hero, and yes, it would make the game much better. One point that seems to often get lost in the discussion is that Guitar Hero is still loads of fun even when the music sucks; I can barely stand to sit and listen to stuff like Boston or Dire Straits, but playing their hit songs on Guitar Hero is not the same experience by a long shot. This is relevant because I'll certainly be picking up Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s even though I'm actively disinterested in a lot of the tracks that it contains. These days I'm so eager for new Guitar Hero stuff that I'll gladly play tracks ranging from annoying to mediocre just for whatever challenge those tracks has to offer.
Odin Sphere
With plenty of competition for my attention circling around, Odin Sphere still manages to steal time out of my busy schedule, and so far has gotten nearly eight hours of it. It's an excellent piece of work, but a very challenging RPG (then again, I did select "Normal" difficulty rather than "Easy") that requires a lot of careful attention to progress through.
Odin Sphere is extremely item-heavy, with item farming and crafting taking the spotlight as the single most important element of strategy required to both level your character and survive difficult levels. Experience points are rewarded for eating food, which also regenerates HP; some foods are actually low in HP restoration while being high in XP or vice-versa, which requires making trade-offs when deciding which items to pursue.
To give you an idea of the kind of flow involved in this game, imagine clearing enemies and collecting seeds. These seeds may be planted in the ground to grow fruit which yields some HP and XP, or they may be fed to a chick to mature it into a hen which can be slaughtered for meat that yields more HP and XP, or the egg that hatches the chick may actually be cooked along with vegetables in order to yield still more XP back at the town. Now imagine that all three of these strategies must be employed all at once to ensure that you level efficiently while still having access to HP regeneration during combat situations when you most need it, and you have a pretty accurate picture of what the strategies in Odin Sphere are like. There's also an alchemy system in the game which I won't bother to go into here, but suffice to say that it makes things yet more item-centric.
One of the serious flaws of this game is that I found the menu controls to be very disorienting at first. It's not often that I play a game where I actually need to stop and think about the controls in order to avoid making mistakes, so I've found Odin Sphere jarring in that respect. One major example is that the circle button is used to call up the item selection menu, yet selecting an item and pressing circle again actually dismisses the menu; the X button is what is used as "accept" in all menus while circle cancels (during combat, X jumps.) This has lead me to accidentally dismiss the item menu when I'm trying to use something, and worse yet, to accidentally use items that I wanted to save. Another example is that one typically wants to plant seeds in the ground (press the X button to use the seed), but in some situations, such as when feeding a chick, one wants to drop the seed instead (press down and X.) I recently made a blunder where I planted three seeds in the ground when I intended to drop them, which was a complete waste since such actions cannot be undone (also I didn't have enough phozon generation stuff with me to make use of the seeds anyway, and even if I had, those seeds were useless to me--which is why I was trying to feed them to the chick.)
I've also been disappointed with the gameplay, but it's worthwhile in its own way. What I was hoping for is a very responsive system such as the control scheme that one finds in Castlevania games, but Odin Sphere has a much more technical feel with the timing being much slower and methodical. This slow pace of this system is emphasized not only by the main character's sluggish movement, but by the stamina meter that cuts otherwise long chains of rapid attacks fairly short. Button-mashing in Odin Sphere is a surefire way to lose, so if you're not up for some challenging gameplay, I would steer clear (this ain't no Kingdom Hearts.)
The scope of the game seems quite large, since almost eight hours of playtime hasn't brought me anywhere near the half-way point from what I can tell. Unfortunately, this raises concerns that I won't have the endurance to actually finish Odin Sphere, but there is some hope in that the game ends up presenting the same storyline from the viewpoint of several different playable characters, which could make for some good plot twists and refreshing gameplay variations. I'm still far too early into the game to make a lasting judgment call, but while Odin Sphere isn't going to appeal to every RPG fan, it is definitely worthwhile.
Game Series Gone Astray
I was reflecting today on some game series that I deeply admire but have gone so astray that I don't expect much out of any new releases under their respective labels. It's a real heart-breaker to reflect on what massive influences these games were back in the day, and yet how little they have to offer at present.
Rainbow SixR6 has fallen a long way--from the gritty action/simulation hybrid that it used to be to the edgy console FPS that it's known as today. The original Rainbow Six was much more than a glitzy triple-A title made to appeal to Xbox fanboys; it was uncompromisingly technical in nature, more than a little bit scary, and close to as epic as any video game has ever been. The storyline was great, the gameplay was solid, and the overall feel of the game was excellent. R6 picked up a little steam with the sequel, Rogue Spear, which had tighter level design coupled with the same great formula as the first game. Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield (the PC version) made massive strides forward with graphics and gameplay, but the storyline had gotten too cheesy and the overall feel of the game was compromised; still, it was every bit the worthy successor to the series, and I loved it to death.
Where has R6 been since then? Currently it's little more than a series of closed-ended action FPS titles designed to be accessible to Splinter Cell fans. The Xbox market has turned Tom Clancy branded FPSes into a mainstream phenomenon, and completely sucked the venom out of them in the process.
Wing CommanderThe original Wing Commander (and it's gut-wrenchingly potent sequel) married Elite-inspired space combat sim gameplay with a level of cinematic drama that was extremely rare in video games of the era. Much like Rainbow Six, Wing Commander's was known for presenting immersive experiences with a believable sense of high stakes; in playing the game, one really feels as though one is making a difference, which is a potent thing for any game to offer.
Wing Commander had its ups and downs even during the glory days, with some titles diluting the series somewhat (Wing Commander Academy and Wing Commander Armada come to mind), but that just meant that there was lots of material for the die-hard fans to digest. The last good game in the series was Wing Commander IV, after which Wing Commander became something of an obscure relic, with a really bad movie adaptation being made--one which bears little resemblance to the world developed in the video games--and lately an Xbox Live Arcade title being branded after it which probably has more in common with Quake III Arena than it does with respectable Wing Commander games. As for the genre of space combat sims, there's not a whole lot of activity there at all these days.
Seiken DensetsuSeiken Densetsu started as a daring action RPG on the GameBoy with some excellent artwork and level designs, considering the platform. This would-be Zelda-killer made the jump to 16-bit glory with its sequel on the SNES platform. Under the English title of Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 2 completely astounded everyone who played it, with its rich gameplay, intricate world design, and drop-dead gorgeous pixel artwork. Squaresoft went on to produce Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger to the same level of quality (and then some), and both of those titles were huge hits in America, but Seiken Densetsu 3--acclaimed as having truly topped its predecessor--arrived too late in the SNES life-cycle, and it was not released in America.
Since then, Seiken Densetsu releases have been lack-luster to say the least. Legend of Mana is a mockery, Sword of Mana is a mere remake, and both Children of Mana and Dawn of Mana miss the point of the series entirely. Fans continue to cry out for a proper sequel to a game that hasn't been satisfactorily reproduced in over a decade, and the RPG production powerhouse Square-Enix continues to be unable to deliver.
ConclusionThere are some fairly obvious and important parallels that can be drawn between these games, with some important lessons therein. All three games thrived on creating intricate fantasy universes with epic storylines that thrust the player into the heart of world-changing events. All three games took the time to develop simple, but effective gameplay that allowed the player's skill to be the center of attention in spite of all of the production value being built into the game. And all three games were developed within already established genres (FPS, Space Combat Sim, Action RPG/Adventure) while pushing the envelope within those genres simply by taking them in fresh directions. Basically, these were all high quality, original games, and they were recognized for it.
Where the series eventually went astray, I suppose, were from trying to be too popular. It doesn't make sense to try to expand on an original idea by dumbing it down for a wider audience; that is simply a tactic for cashing in on a brand's good name and losing that good name in the process. Similarly, one can't force originality by getting too fancy or quirky with the game (as Seiken Densetsu has), nor can one make a game that much more popular by carelessly expanding its budget skywards (as Wing Commander did with it's final title.) Sometimes all a fan-base really wants is for a series to stay true to its roots and deliver the same level of quality that made the series a hit to begin with.
