Games are about victory. Once the player has guided his/her character through all of the trials and tribulations of their chosen game, they expect to be rewarded with some kind of epic final endboss and/or cutscene. And while these kinds of final sequences often produce an unparalleled level of excitement and fun I always dread their coming. They signify the end. As the game begins to become more and more epic, and the fights more intense, I come to the horrible realization that this game is about to be over. I hate finishing games because of all of the time I spend to beat them.
At this point I should be making some kind of "so what" statement. So I don't like to finish games, what's the big deal? Well I've come to realize that the big problem with not wanting to finish games is that it makes the body of the game harder to enjoy. I find myself trying to slow the experience down, to artificially lengthen (go ahead and have a giggle at that, I did) the game. I do similar things with books, and to compensate I've started to read much longer novels, but it's hard to do that with games.
Back when I restarted my gaming hobby I was big on JRPGS. My favorite games Kingdom Hearts and FFX were massive 60+ hour affairs that left me more than satisfied when I finished them. But, when my tastes changed and I began to partake in more Western gaming, I noticed that my desire for length (haha) in a game never really went away. I still feel dissapointed when a game advertises "20+ hours of play!" on the back like it's some kind of great achievement.
Even my new favorite franchise Mass Effect is too short for my taste. I spent about 20-30 hours on each of my playthroughs of the game, and it never felt like quite enough. Now, with Mass Effect 2 I have gotten close to the end with one character, so I decided to make another so that I can sit back and savor the experience. I guess that's the problem. When I first get a game I blast through it way too quicjly because I expect it to outlast my initial burst of excitement, but I have beaten the majority of my recent purchases within a weak of starting them.
So what? Well, I guess all I'm saying is that sometimes its important to pace yourself, to let yourself get lost in a game for an hour or so every couple of days, to draw out that experience without panicking when you approach the end. The next time you play a game, let it sit with you, take your time, savor each moment because before you know it that epic endboss will be rearing its ugly head, and when it does, you want to be able to savor that too.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Broken Computer/Repaired Heart
Well the Dragon Age modding tools have officially destroyed my save files. With Dragon Age now left virtually unplayable I was determined to be mad at Bioware for a while for releasing a set of modding tools that can destroy your game WITH NO WARNING that it could do so; however, I found myself unable to be angry for long as Mass Effect 2 was just around the corner.
Let me get my fanboyism out of the way for a moment. KOTOR was probably my favorite game for a long time. The story, characters, and the control I had over the adventure kept me enthralled even though the game repeatedly crashed my PC. I unfortunately missed out on KOTOR 2 when my PC died sometime before its release and fell into playing JRPGs for solace (the horror). I actually missed Mass Effect's release and didn't even hear about the game until a friend brought it over for me to play. Long story short: I fucking loved it. The interesting (if fairly generic) story, the well developed characters, and the fun of kicking ass and taking names as Shepard reminded me why I loved Bioware so much. Plus, as my friend put it, there is a class that is basically a Jedi with a shotgun.
Now with the advent of Mass Effect 2 I have come to a startling and wonderful realization. Mass Effect 1 was kind of crappy. All my favorite parts were the story so I never thought too hard about the gameplay, but looking back at it now it seems archaic and kind of stupid. It was so liberating to have a combat system that made me excited to go into battle instead of wanting to skip the boring shooting sections so that I could get to the talking. It's a vast improvement.
But, Mass Effect 2 does more than improve the first game, it makes old game mechanics feel new. When I first picked up the game I thought it was so cool and added such tactical depth to have to change your heat sink. Then I realized that it was just reloading, but ME2 forces the player to pace their use of thermal clips and make sure that each weapon is getting the ammo it needs. The weapons too have a cool level of tactics. SMGs and assault rifles take down shields, heavy pistols and sniper rifles tear through armor, and shotguns... well shotguns are still a little OP, but hey, Jedi with shotguns! ME2 combines action and RPG almost perfectly. The shooter action keeps the combat heart-pounding, and the RPG elements allow for more strategic depth as the player has to know which characters to take when, and how to use them. This installment in the ME franchise has brought the combat up to the level of the story and made ME2 a strong candidate for my favorite game ever.
Let me get my fanboyism out of the way for a moment. KOTOR was probably my favorite game for a long time. The story, characters, and the control I had over the adventure kept me enthralled even though the game repeatedly crashed my PC. I unfortunately missed out on KOTOR 2 when my PC died sometime before its release and fell into playing JRPGs for solace (the horror). I actually missed Mass Effect's release and didn't even hear about the game until a friend brought it over for me to play. Long story short: I fucking loved it. The interesting (if fairly generic) story, the well developed characters, and the fun of kicking ass and taking names as Shepard reminded me why I loved Bioware so much. Plus, as my friend put it, there is a class that is basically a Jedi with a shotgun.
Now with the advent of Mass Effect 2 I have come to a startling and wonderful realization. Mass Effect 1 was kind of crappy. All my favorite parts were the story so I never thought too hard about the gameplay, but looking back at it now it seems archaic and kind of stupid. It was so liberating to have a combat system that made me excited to go into battle instead of wanting to skip the boring shooting sections so that I could get to the talking. It's a vast improvement.
But, Mass Effect 2 does more than improve the first game, it makes old game mechanics feel new. When I first picked up the game I thought it was so cool and added such tactical depth to have to change your heat sink. Then I realized that it was just reloading, but ME2 forces the player to pace their use of thermal clips and make sure that each weapon is getting the ammo it needs. The weapons too have a cool level of tactics. SMGs and assault rifles take down shields, heavy pistols and sniper rifles tear through armor, and shotguns... well shotguns are still a little OP, but hey, Jedi with shotguns! ME2 combines action and RPG almost perfectly. The shooter action keeps the combat heart-pounding, and the RPG elements allow for more strategic depth as the player has to know which characters to take when, and how to use them. This installment in the ME franchise has brought the combat up to the level of the story and made ME2 a strong candidate for my favorite game ever.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Dragon Age Module
I purchased Neverwinter Nights 2 mainly because of its much lauded toolset. I had intended to create the most brilliant module of the century, get drafted into Bioware's cadre of elite RPG designers, and spend my days talking about elves and buying wenches (can you still do that?). Unfortunately for me I found that the toolset strained my feeble attention span, and I played the main campaign instead.
Now that Dragon Age has been released, I have a chance to redeem myself. I finished off the slightly glitched download process about an hour ago, and spent the intervening time learning how to create an area. With any luck I'll have the basic systems worked out by the end of the week and be on my way to wenches and elves.
Now that Dragon Age has been released, I have a chance to redeem myself. I finished off the slightly glitched download process about an hour ago, and spent the intervening time learning how to create an area. With any luck I'll have the basic systems worked out by the end of the week and be on my way to wenches and elves.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
A Man of Few Words
The silent protagonist established himself as a gaming giant right at the outset. Early silent protagonists existed largely because game stories used to boil down to: Evil things over there, KILL! Nowadays games' stories have become as nuanced as any story based media (well, some of them have) and we have the hardware and the funding to create long, well written scripts. So why do games like Half-Life decide that their main character will never speak?
For some games it's simply a matter of precedent and difficulty. Link and Mario don't speak because they never have, and characters in CoD games don't speak because it's difficult to represent someone talking when you see everything from their eyes (see The Darkness for a prime example).
For other games though, the silent protagonist becomes a symbol. In the classic platformer Jak and Daxter, Jak never once speaks. I used to think that was just a joke because Daxter always talked over what Jak was about to say, but recently I realized that it was more meaningful than that. The player takes control of Jak, and just like him, has no say in what they have to do next. Sure the player can decide what order to get the precursor crap in, but in the end all of the decisions are made by Keira who gets her motivation from the sage Samos.
Jak acts as the body of the group, Daxter the voice, Keira the mind, and Samos the will or the spirit. While it may sound stupid I think the developers may have actually been thinking about that when they made the game. The player has no say in their own goals, they have to meet the requirements set for them by the game, and the side-characters are the ones who exhibit those requirements. That's exactly how Jak is. He cannot argue because he cannot speak, so he performs his duty without question, as does the player.
The Half-Life series uses the silent character to represent a battle of wills. In Jak and Daxter, Jak is controlled by a single will, but in Half-Life, Gordon Freeman finds himself at the center of a power struggle that he cannot control. The G-Man sets him out on his journey in Half-Life 2, and continues to try to gain power over him in the episodes. The vortigaunts try to battle against G-Man, but Gordon is left out of the mix. Without the ability to speak out against this management of his life, he goes from being a character to being a pawn, and the player has no choice but to go along with it.
As we move into the next generation of gaming we can think more about how our games impact the players, and what message they can convey. The silent protagonist, and other old gaming tropes, can become meaningful decisions on the developers part. Gordon Freeman and Jak represent a new breed of character, one that the player becomes and imprints themselves on. When I play Half-Life I make my own Gordon Freeman, I fill his shoes and feel his confusion. The silent protagonist can draw the character in, and make them feel what a person would feel.
For some games it's simply a matter of precedent and difficulty. Link and Mario don't speak because they never have, and characters in CoD games don't speak because it's difficult to represent someone talking when you see everything from their eyes (see The Darkness for a prime example).
For other games though, the silent protagonist becomes a symbol. In the classic platformer Jak and Daxter, Jak never once speaks. I used to think that was just a joke because Daxter always talked over what Jak was about to say, but recently I realized that it was more meaningful than that. The player takes control of Jak, and just like him, has no say in what they have to do next. Sure the player can decide what order to get the precursor crap in, but in the end all of the decisions are made by Keira who gets her motivation from the sage Samos.
Jak acts as the body of the group, Daxter the voice, Keira the mind, and Samos the will or the spirit. While it may sound stupid I think the developers may have actually been thinking about that when they made the game. The player has no say in their own goals, they have to meet the requirements set for them by the game, and the side-characters are the ones who exhibit those requirements. That's exactly how Jak is. He cannot argue because he cannot speak, so he performs his duty without question, as does the player.
The Half-Life series uses the silent character to represent a battle of wills. In Jak and Daxter, Jak is controlled by a single will, but in Half-Life, Gordon Freeman finds himself at the center of a power struggle that he cannot control. The G-Man sets him out on his journey in Half-Life 2, and continues to try to gain power over him in the episodes. The vortigaunts try to battle against G-Man, but Gordon is left out of the mix. Without the ability to speak out against this management of his life, he goes from being a character to being a pawn, and the player has no choice but to go along with it.
As we move into the next generation of gaming we can think more about how our games impact the players, and what message they can convey. The silent protagonist, and other old gaming tropes, can become meaningful decisions on the developers part. Gordon Freeman and Jak represent a new breed of character, one that the player becomes and imprints themselves on. When I play Half-Life I make my own Gordon Freeman, I fill his shoes and feel his confusion. The silent protagonist can draw the character in, and make them feel what a person would feel.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Late to the Game
With the recent release of Modern Warfare 2, I finally decided to take a look at Infinity Ward's first Russian killing simulator CoD 4: Modern Warfare. The reason it took me so long to get around to it was that I was afraid that it would play like the earlier installments in the CoD series. Don't get me wrong. I loved CoD 2, but there was always something wrong with the pacing. The game forced you to do everything on your own, plus allies were dumb as posts, grenades could kill you from halfway across the map, and you needed to unload entire clips into enemies before they died, but the game had good action and fun characters, so I stayed playing.
Modern Warfare got immediate points for making enemies die very quickly. This made me feel pretty cool as I mowed down legions of enemies with a single clip, and improved the pacing. Unfortunetely, Modern Warfare didn't address my main issue, which was that the game makes you do everything. And I do mean everything. Not only do you have to plant all the C4, snipe all the bad guys, and take point every time, but in most gunfights enemies infinitely spawn until you decide to push forward.
The last point is the one I would like to discuss. While I'm fine with being to go to guy to complete objectives, I am not okay with making my success a crapshoot. Every time we got pinned down and had to advance it was up to me to do so, and most times I would get gunned down running into enemy fire. To make up for that I decided to stay back a bit, kill some dudes, and then try to rush their weakened defenses. Of course, the defenses were never weakened. Enemies respawned so quickly that, by the time the guy I had just shot fell to the floor, another dude was taking his place. This meant that I had to just run like hell through enemy fire to get my allies to move up and to get the enemies to stop spawning. When I died, instead of feeling like I had made a mistake, I felt like the developer had.
While I can understand enjoying frustrating gameplay, I can't abide by gameplay that relies mainly on luck. If I was lucky I managed to survive the hail of bullets, and enemies stopped spawning. If I wasn't, then I would die and have to try again... and again, and again etc. Game devs need to look at why their players are having trouble with sections to analyze difficulty. I'm fine with dying for making a stupid mistake like stepping on a grenade, or trying to run and gun in a CoD game, but I shouldn't have to make a leap of faith to advance the combat. Dying because I was unlucky pisses me off, whereas dying because I messed up makes me want to try again.
Modern Warfare got immediate points for making enemies die very quickly. This made me feel pretty cool as I mowed down legions of enemies with a single clip, and improved the pacing. Unfortunetely, Modern Warfare didn't address my main issue, which was that the game makes you do everything. And I do mean everything. Not only do you have to plant all the C4, snipe all the bad guys, and take point every time, but in most gunfights enemies infinitely spawn until you decide to push forward.
The last point is the one I would like to discuss. While I'm fine with being to go to guy to complete objectives, I am not okay with making my success a crapshoot. Every time we got pinned down and had to advance it was up to me to do so, and most times I would get gunned down running into enemy fire. To make up for that I decided to stay back a bit, kill some dudes, and then try to rush their weakened defenses. Of course, the defenses were never weakened. Enemies respawned so quickly that, by the time the guy I had just shot fell to the floor, another dude was taking his place. This meant that I had to just run like hell through enemy fire to get my allies to move up and to get the enemies to stop spawning. When I died, instead of feeling like I had made a mistake, I felt like the developer had.
While I can understand enjoying frustrating gameplay, I can't abide by gameplay that relies mainly on luck. If I was lucky I managed to survive the hail of bullets, and enemies stopped spawning. If I wasn't, then I would die and have to try again... and again, and again etc. Game devs need to look at why their players are having trouble with sections to analyze difficulty. I'm fine with dying for making a stupid mistake like stepping on a grenade, or trying to run and gun in a CoD game, but I shouldn't have to make a leap of faith to advance the combat. Dying because I was unlucky pisses me off, whereas dying because I messed up makes me want to try again.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Liquid Addiction
I have come here today to discuss one of the most unfortunate plagues upon gaming society. It has ruined the pacing of many an RPG, caused people to spend hours clicking on flowers to find the right ingredients, and rendered healing magic meaningless. Yes my friends, I come here to discuss: the potion.
The potion has been an RPG staple for many a year and I only just realized how much I hate it by playing Dragon Age: Origins and Morrowind. In both of these games your character is setting out on an epic quest to kick ass and blah blah blah, and in both games you are hindered by your character having to slam a potion down every few moments so that they can survive through the encounter. This does not make me feel like a bad ass. When I have to take a break from fighting every few moments to nurse my wounds over a bottle of red liquid I feel like I must be playing the game wrong.
The unfortunate truth is that, in all likelihood, I'm not. Many RPGs expect the player to die if they deign to never use potions, and while this would be an okay way to play a survival RPG, it doesn't make sense in epic fantasy. Take Dragon Age for instance. In Dragon Age your party will usually consist of a mage along with a smattering of warriors/rogues. Now, this mage will usually have two jobs. One is to nuke the hell out of high powered opponents, and the other is to heal the warriors/rogues. But, the way the game is scaled, a mage will run out of magic pretty early on in the fight, leaving the party high and dry. That's where potions come in. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a rare occasion that I had to use a potion, but I swear I drink potions more often than I swing my sword. This pacing makes the game feel clunky, and makes me feel cheated and annoyed (especially when I run out of potions).
To fix this problem game designers need to redo the pacing of combat such that mages can consistently heal the party. One solution is to designate a specific type of mage to healing duty (eg. Priests, clerics etc.), but another solution (that would fit in Dragon Age's class system) is an unhinged magic system. In this unhinged system damaging, buffing, and debuffing magic will reduce the mage's mana supply normally. Healing magic, however, will be relegated to another system. The mage could use the blood magic/entropy system of Dragon Age and absorb health from dead opponents or from enemies. They could even use other mages' mana supplies for healing by stealing magic, but that only shows one kind of mage.
For other (less evil) mages there could be a divine magic, or healing magic supply that is separate from their regular mana. A studio could do this simply by having two mana bars, or they could have a system where the mage's regular spells deplete the mana supply, while their healing spells only require that the mage have a certain amount of mana. This would mean that, as the fight wore on, mages would still be running out of spells, but they would be able to heal consistently. The designers would have to nerf the healing so that people couldn't get infinite super health up spells, or they could make it so that, as the magic bar went down, healing spells got more potent. Any one of these systems would make the tactics in RPGs far more interesting and keep us away from our red potion addiction.
The potion has been an RPG staple for many a year and I only just realized how much I hate it by playing Dragon Age: Origins and Morrowind. In both of these games your character is setting out on an epic quest to kick ass and blah blah blah, and in both games you are hindered by your character having to slam a potion down every few moments so that they can survive through the encounter. This does not make me feel like a bad ass. When I have to take a break from fighting every few moments to nurse my wounds over a bottle of red liquid I feel like I must be playing the game wrong.
The unfortunate truth is that, in all likelihood, I'm not. Many RPGs expect the player to die if they deign to never use potions, and while this would be an okay way to play a survival RPG, it doesn't make sense in epic fantasy. Take Dragon Age for instance. In Dragon Age your party will usually consist of a mage along with a smattering of warriors/rogues. Now, this mage will usually have two jobs. One is to nuke the hell out of high powered opponents, and the other is to heal the warriors/rogues. But, the way the game is scaled, a mage will run out of magic pretty early on in the fight, leaving the party high and dry. That's where potions come in. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a rare occasion that I had to use a potion, but I swear I drink potions more often than I swing my sword. This pacing makes the game feel clunky, and makes me feel cheated and annoyed (especially when I run out of potions).
To fix this problem game designers need to redo the pacing of combat such that mages can consistently heal the party. One solution is to designate a specific type of mage to healing duty (eg. Priests, clerics etc.), but another solution (that would fit in Dragon Age's class system) is an unhinged magic system. In this unhinged system damaging, buffing, and debuffing magic will reduce the mage's mana supply normally. Healing magic, however, will be relegated to another system. The mage could use the blood magic/entropy system of Dragon Age and absorb health from dead opponents or from enemies. They could even use other mages' mana supplies for healing by stealing magic, but that only shows one kind of mage.
For other (less evil) mages there could be a divine magic, or healing magic supply that is separate from their regular mana. A studio could do this simply by having two mana bars, or they could have a system where the mage's regular spells deplete the mana supply, while their healing spells only require that the mage have a certain amount of mana. This would mean that, as the fight wore on, mages would still be running out of spells, but they would be able to heal consistently. The designers would have to nerf the healing so that people couldn't get infinite super health up spells, or they could make it so that, as the magic bar went down, healing spells got more potent. Any one of these systems would make the tactics in RPGs far more interesting and keep us away from our red potion addiction.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Frustration
My recent lack of posts it mostly due to my new found obsession with Bioware's Dragon Age: Origins. The game seems to have taken my advice and eliminated good-bad scores (but they still have popularity scores with your allies) and it is filled with fun characters and scenarios. But, for all its solid storytelling I found myself drawn back to the game with its extremely difficult gameplay. Even the most common of random encounters can wipe you out, and leveling your characters requires some serious thought and effort. What makes the game so difficult though is its deep tactical combat. Each encounter requires a lot of thought and a deep understanding of how your party performs. You have to be able to use each character's abilities in conjunction with all of the others so that you can maximize the amount of pain your party can lay down. Even with mostly picture perfect tactics you can get wiped out just for not paying attention for a few seconds.
And that makes it awesome. It's so rewarding when you finally manage to survive and encounter you've been playing for the last half hour, or when you discover a new talent that gives your character a supreme edge. Every time I sign off I want to jump right back on in order to practice my tactics and bring my skills up to speed. Dragon Age frustrates you to be sure, but it does so in a way that makes you want to keep playing it so that you can get better and better. Now if you'll excuse me I've got some darkspawn to slay.... Damn. TPK.
And that makes it awesome. It's so rewarding when you finally manage to survive and encounter you've been playing for the last half hour, or when you discover a new talent that gives your character a supreme edge. Every time I sign off I want to jump right back on in order to practice my tactics and bring my skills up to speed. Dragon Age frustrates you to be sure, but it does so in a way that makes you want to keep playing it so that you can get better and better. Now if you'll excuse me I've got some darkspawn to slay.... Damn. TPK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)