After the recent release of Limbo, I’ve dived head first into the indie game ‘scene’. My taste for engaging and original video game content that seeks to achieve a greater level of artistry had been well and truly enticed. Limbo’s foreboding atmosphere; fiendish puzzles; brutal set pieces and subversion of video game norms resonated incredibly well with me and a great many gamers. In addition to this, for me personally, it was also how well the game managed to achieve such a strong connection between the gameplay and its narrative; a feat rarely achieved in video games.
Generally, a developer can utilise a number of different components to present a narrative within their game such as: dialogue, cut scenes, text files, audio logs, gameplay and the environment. Now, think back to the latest game you have played and consider which of those you received the most narrative information through. Consider also any of the major, triple-A releases over the past year and how they presented story information to yourself or the player. The chances are that the game in your mind told most of its narrative through a combination of cut scenes and dialogue, with perhaps some influence through text files and audio logs. Although it is an unquestionably harder task to utilise as an output for the narrative; telling a story through the gameplay or environment is often completely ignored.
Still, I have issues with games that rely so heavily on cut scenes to supply story information and character development. Doing so can create such a disconnect from the actual game thus conflicting the inherent expectations of the experience of playing and destroying the possibilities of exciting storytelling techniques in video games. Trying to involve the player by attaching arbitrary quick-time events is not a suitable fix for the issue and instead frequently results in unnecessary deaths. Thankfully, text files are fading in use with an emphasis on audio logs which at least allow the player to continue playing whilst receiving story details but can be drowned out if the player encounters a combat situation for example (this happened to me regularly in Bioshock). Beyond these relatively easy and direct methods of narrative presentation lie the gameplay and the environment; harbouring the potential of the unique storytelling capabilities of video games.
There are a select few games that have bravely employed the environment as a means for storytelling. A quick look at the games in Valve’s library such as Half Life, Portal and Left 4 Dead have all had a great emphasis on telling a story through the world the player inhabits. Of course the player can completely ignore this information if they wish but at least the opportunity is there for those who wish the discover more. Nevertheless, the connection of story and gameplay is far more elusive and to discuss it I must return to the humble indie game, and to Limbo.
Whilst it is not the first game to implement an engaging story, Limbo does so in such a unique way that requires the player to formulate an overarching interpretation from the narrative information present. I’ll try to describe the following ideas in the quickest way possible as I imagine Russian literary formalism is not on the list of your most exciting subjects to read. However, one concept that I believe can be applied to Limbo to understand its construction and that has also transferred into the study of narrative film is that of the fabula (story) and syuzhet (plot). Essentially, in the example of a film, the fabula refers to the complete chain of events in the narrative and the syuzhet refers to the actual presentation of those events in the film. For instance, the film Memento follows Leonard and his investigation into the murder of his wife. Yet, the narrative is presented in the film in segments that jump from different periods of time or are shown reverse (syuzhet) which the viewer then has to rearrange in their mind to create the overall story (fabula).
Now these terms could be taken and applied fairly easily to a game such as Limbo as it is also not so forthright in the presentation of its narrative. The game itself becomes the syuzhet, providing scraps of story information as we progress through the environment and experience the gameplay. These small cues in the game world are the catalyst for our own fabula construction. We can start to piece together a larger picture of the world of Limbo. How has the Boy arrived there? Why he is there? What are the different puzzles and inhabitants he encounters representations of? What are the fates of the Boy and his Sister?
There are already innumerable theories circulating so shortly after the game’s release which shows the power a well constructed, interpretive narrative can have and that the gaming community is willing to support one as adventurous as this. I do not wish to discuss these for the fear of ruining the experience for someone who is yet to play the game. It is clear though that Playdead have managed to craft a game that manages to tell its narrative, minus the trappings of conventional game storytelling, through simply the gameplay and the environment. I have no doubt that the developers will remain forever silent on the definitive fabula, if indeed they believe there to be one themselves. I would like to think they will leave the gaming community to thrive within this meta-game. It is fantastic proof that to develop a video game with a realised narrative you do not need thirty minute cut scenes or hundreds of hours of dialogue or pages of exposition but gameplay that reflects the purposes of the story and has a direct involvement in conveying it.
For those who are interested in more games that succeed (with varying effectiveness) to harmonise narrative and gameplay I shall list those I have played and also enjoyed below. Play them and decide for yourselves what they mean to you and I would be more than interested in hearing your thoughts. You may discover something completely different to other’s interpretations that will stay with you far longer than the replay value of many other games.
Limbo - XBLA
Braid - XBLA/PC - A gem of a game from Jonathan Blow with interesting mechanics and an incredibly well executed finale.
Every Day The Same Dream - Free/Browser Based - A short yet powerful examination of some aspects of modern society.
The Company of Myself - Free/Browser Based - An excellent experience, masterfully written with cleverly implemented gameplay mechanics.
Edmund - PC Download - A potentially harrowing game yet not as well executed as the others.
If you are still interested in the conflicts between narrative and gameplay and how they can be tackled I recommend that you listen to the following Jonathan Blow lecture. It is very long running at 90 minutes but raises some very interesting points for debate.
2 August 2010
26 July 2010
Along for the Ride - Playing a Role in RPGs
Note: This is an article that I pitched to The Escapist which was declined but I decided to write as I feel it raises some interesting points.
‘You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG. You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe? But they're not RPG's.’ - Daniel Erickson, Writing Director (Bioware).
The RPG is a strange beast, constantly evolving and changing in the current video game climate. Right now, you would be hard pressed to find a game that does not include some form of RPG elements. However, that is a different subject entirely. What Erickson is referring to here is the JRPG genre in general and questioning the validity of calling these games, specifically Final Fantasy XIII, RPGs. In broader terms we could ask essentially; what is an RPG? A far greater question than could be answered here. If I had the time and resources I could trace the history of the role-playing game from its roots in Dungeons and Dragons style RP games, through its developments across console generations and the current elements associated with an RPG game to try and form a solid definition. Instead, I would like to scale the process down a few degrees and take an analytical approach towards Erickson’s statement to see if I can develop his thoughts any further.
In the broadest terms possible, it can be argued that all games are role-playing games. There is no denying at a basic level this seems inherently true. In the majority of video game experiences we are placed in control of a specific character. We take part in their story and see it to its conclusion. Does that necessarily mean that we are playing their role though? I would be inclined to disagree.
First, let’s consider what the term ‘role-playing’ actually suggests from a gaming perspective. I’m not searching for a definition but isolating some key associations. It assumes taking on another persona, one that is often completely different from your own. You assume full control of that created character guiding them through a situation, making choices and responding to others based on your created character’s mental processes. In some cases it may be that you decide to incorporate elements of your own psyche into your character but in those cases you are still playing a role, transferring elements of yourself into a new character in a fantastical situation.
With this is mind it seems that certainly a game such as Final Fantasy XIII, recognised as part of the biggest RPG franchises of all time, is actually contradicting the experience of role-playing. For example, the game offers the player control over six different characters. Only three can be used in battle at once but the story revolves around all six and their struggle to understand and complete their Focus. Yet, our ability to control and role-play these characters in severely limited. Consider Hope, a character that for the majority of the game’s introduction holds a strong grudge against Snow; blaming him for the death of his mother named Nora (this also conveniently turns out to be the acronym used for Snow’s rebel team! Coincidence? I think not. Daft writing? Most definitely). So, for a select few hours or so of the game whilst Hope is paired with Lightning we are told and told again and told again that Hope is really mad at Snow and at the next opportunity Hope will unleash the fury he has built up inside of him and quite possibly kill Snow. Of course, that is not the case. We must suffer by watching more cut scenes and listening to more dialogue with Hope consistently losing confidence at the final hurdle. Until at last, he plucks up the courage to say something and attempts to kill Snow.
Now, whilst I am not here to discuss the tedium of that character development I must ask; what was my role in those events? I certainly was not playing the role of Hope; I moved his avatar through each subsequent level; he was there in my party; I selected actions for him to use in battle; I chose which abilities he would learn on the Crystarium and I upgraded his weapon a number of times. However, none of these actions relate to myself, playing the role of the character. They function on another level, separate from the narrative or hidden away in menus which in turn make them very impersonal aspects of character development. At no point could I select Hope, walk up to Snow and decide at that moment I would attempt murder. At no point could I select Lightning and get her to abandon Hope in the forest because he was infuriating.
This is because in Final Fantasy XIII we have no direct control over the story and characters as they are already set in stone by the developers. No matter what minimal actions we are allowed to take, the end result will always be the same because from a narrative perspective those actions have no consequences. If we die we return to the last checkpoint; if we upgrade a character’s statistics or weapon they only become stronger in battles; if we decide to never use a character in battle they will never abandon us or if we rely on the same party combination throughout the whole game we cannot encourage them to develop stronger relationships. Therefore, I would argue that we do not play the role of the characters. We are relatively subservient guardians over their destinies; guiding them towards it without directly influencing the outcome.
As Erickson’s struggles to define Final Fantasy XIII, so do I. A ‘role-experiencing’ game? Indeed, it does not roll so well off the tongue and is so broad it probably defines every form of character driven fiction but it applies more to the game than ‘role-playing’. Let’s now briefly look to the other side and those games that seem to offer the full role playing experience. A whole host of fantastic games instantly spring to mind such as: Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fable. These games offer that full experience because they place so much emphasis on the player’s control over their character. I’ll narrow things down by taking one game as an example and of course, I am going to use Dragon Age: Origins.
Through the game's foundation in choice and our own imagination we can play the role of our character; choosing how we would act in a specific situation or formulating an in depth personality for our character and choosing how they would react. We can choose which other characters we want our character to develop strong relationships with and in turn, they will receive statistical boosts in battle. Character development, gameplay and narrative are meaningfully tied together instead of awkwardly separated.
In my first play through as Rebecca, a female human noble warrior, I took the second route and forged a completely unique character. She began as a religious sceptic who was kind and compassionate to others but transfixed on avenging the death of her parents. Of course this incorporated some elements of my own personality but when considering dialogue options and some of the game’s significant choices I always considered my character’s mentality first. In addition, I made a number of choices throughout the game for the sole purpose of character development. For example, I decided that the discovery of Andraste's Ashes converted her to a believer in the Maker and her aspiration to see Alistair as king (whom she had formed a close bond with) led to her sacrifice in the defeat of the Archdemon.
In these situations we are offered a true, role-playing experience where we can craft our own original characters; shape the events of the story and become fully immersed within a different world. We are not limited, as in Final Fantasy XIII, to the enclosed path of the story and severely pre arranged stages of character development. In the majority of RPGs and games from other genres we lack a degree of control over the characters. We play their roles no more than when we watch Tony Stark, Frodo Baggins or Michael Corleone. We are given the illusion of role-playing but we are simply there; along for the ride.
‘You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG. You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe? But they're not RPG's.’ - Daniel Erickson, Writing Director (Bioware).
The RPG is a strange beast, constantly evolving and changing in the current video game climate. Right now, you would be hard pressed to find a game that does not include some form of RPG elements. However, that is a different subject entirely. What Erickson is referring to here is the JRPG genre in general and questioning the validity of calling these games, specifically Final Fantasy XIII, RPGs. In broader terms we could ask essentially; what is an RPG? A far greater question than could be answered here. If I had the time and resources I could trace the history of the role-playing game from its roots in Dungeons and Dragons style RP games, through its developments across console generations and the current elements associated with an RPG game to try and form a solid definition. Instead, I would like to scale the process down a few degrees and take an analytical approach towards Erickson’s statement to see if I can develop his thoughts any further.
In the broadest terms possible, it can be argued that all games are role-playing games. There is no denying at a basic level this seems inherently true. In the majority of video game experiences we are placed in control of a specific character. We take part in their story and see it to its conclusion. Does that necessarily mean that we are playing their role though? I would be inclined to disagree.
First, let’s consider what the term ‘role-playing’ actually suggests from a gaming perspective. I’m not searching for a definition but isolating some key associations. It assumes taking on another persona, one that is often completely different from your own. You assume full control of that created character guiding them through a situation, making choices and responding to others based on your created character’s mental processes. In some cases it may be that you decide to incorporate elements of your own psyche into your character but in those cases you are still playing a role, transferring elements of yourself into a new character in a fantastical situation.
With this is mind it seems that certainly a game such as Final Fantasy XIII, recognised as part of the biggest RPG franchises of all time, is actually contradicting the experience of role-playing. For example, the game offers the player control over six different characters. Only three can be used in battle at once but the story revolves around all six and their struggle to understand and complete their Focus. Yet, our ability to control and role-play these characters in severely limited. Consider Hope, a character that for the majority of the game’s introduction holds a strong grudge against Snow; blaming him for the death of his mother named Nora (this also conveniently turns out to be the acronym used for Snow’s rebel team! Coincidence? I think not. Daft writing? Most definitely). So, for a select few hours or so of the game whilst Hope is paired with Lightning we are told and told again and told again that Hope is really mad at Snow and at the next opportunity Hope will unleash the fury he has built up inside of him and quite possibly kill Snow. Of course, that is not the case. We must suffer by watching more cut scenes and listening to more dialogue with Hope consistently losing confidence at the final hurdle. Until at last, he plucks up the courage to say something and attempts to kill Snow.
Now, whilst I am not here to discuss the tedium of that character development I must ask; what was my role in those events? I certainly was not playing the role of Hope; I moved his avatar through each subsequent level; he was there in my party; I selected actions for him to use in battle; I chose which abilities he would learn on the Crystarium and I upgraded his weapon a number of times. However, none of these actions relate to myself, playing the role of the character. They function on another level, separate from the narrative or hidden away in menus which in turn make them very impersonal aspects of character development. At no point could I select Hope, walk up to Snow and decide at that moment I would attempt murder. At no point could I select Lightning and get her to abandon Hope in the forest because he was infuriating.
This is because in Final Fantasy XIII we have no direct control over the story and characters as they are already set in stone by the developers. No matter what minimal actions we are allowed to take, the end result will always be the same because from a narrative perspective those actions have no consequences. If we die we return to the last checkpoint; if we upgrade a character’s statistics or weapon they only become stronger in battles; if we decide to never use a character in battle they will never abandon us or if we rely on the same party combination throughout the whole game we cannot encourage them to develop stronger relationships. Therefore, I would argue that we do not play the role of the characters. We are relatively subservient guardians over their destinies; guiding them towards it without directly influencing the outcome.
As Erickson’s struggles to define Final Fantasy XIII, so do I. A ‘role-experiencing’ game? Indeed, it does not roll so well off the tongue and is so broad it probably defines every form of character driven fiction but it applies more to the game than ‘role-playing’. Let’s now briefly look to the other side and those games that seem to offer the full role playing experience. A whole host of fantastic games instantly spring to mind such as: Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fable. These games offer that full experience because they place so much emphasis on the player’s control over their character. I’ll narrow things down by taking one game as an example and of course, I am going to use Dragon Age: Origins.
Through the game's foundation in choice and our own imagination we can play the role of our character; choosing how we would act in a specific situation or formulating an in depth personality for our character and choosing how they would react. We can choose which other characters we want our character to develop strong relationships with and in turn, they will receive statistical boosts in battle. Character development, gameplay and narrative are meaningfully tied together instead of awkwardly separated.
In my first play through as Rebecca, a female human noble warrior, I took the second route and forged a completely unique character. She began as a religious sceptic who was kind and compassionate to others but transfixed on avenging the death of her parents. Of course this incorporated some elements of my own personality but when considering dialogue options and some of the game’s significant choices I always considered my character’s mentality first. In addition, I made a number of choices throughout the game for the sole purpose of character development. For example, I decided that the discovery of Andraste's Ashes converted her to a believer in the Maker and her aspiration to see Alistair as king (whom she had formed a close bond with) led to her sacrifice in the defeat of the Archdemon.
In these situations we are offered a true, role-playing experience where we can craft our own original characters; shape the events of the story and become fully immersed within a different world. We are not limited, as in Final Fantasy XIII, to the enclosed path of the story and severely pre arranged stages of character development. In the majority of RPGs and games from other genres we lack a degree of control over the characters. We play their roles no more than when we watch Tony Stark, Frodo Baggins or Michael Corleone. We are given the illusion of role-playing but we are simply there; along for the ride.
29 June 2010
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Review
This should not be a tough sell. Gaming's biggest mascot plus the high quality of the preceding game surely set the sequel up as a classic? However, with sequels there is always a fear that the game is just rehashing old ideas and slapping a '2' on the end. Super Mario Galaxy 2 avoids this issue completely and in fact, manages to be a better game than the original.
You've heard it fifty times before: Princess Peach is kidnapped by Bowser and Mario has to rescue her, this time by travelling to different galaxies and collecting power stars. For the sequel Mario once again gains the help of the Lumas in his quest who offer him a ship (oddly in the shape of Mario's head) that requires the power stars to reach distant worlds and eventually Bowser. The universe Mario traverses is set out in a similar fashion to the older S/NES games with each world split into multiple levels, linked together by paths that require you to complete the previous level to continue. Along the way Mario will come across hungry Lumas, that when fed enough star bits will transform into new galaxies.
Yet, what makes Super Mario Galaxy 2 so fantastic is the sheer variety in gameplay that will keep you playing and moving on to the next galaxy...and then the next...and the next. Each galaxy has a number of stars for you to collect, in addition to a 'comet medal' which opens new challenges on certain galaxies. Although this sounds repetitive, there never comes a point where you will be bored with the game as each new galaxy offers so much diversity. Tricky platforming sections, exhilarating boss fights, imaginative power ups, excellent level design, responsive controls and enjoyable mini games all mix together to produce that quintessential Mario formula.
Power ups are a key part of this formula and the majority of them are very enjoyable to use. Some return from the original, such as 'Ghost Mario' and 'Bee Mario' but there are also a number of new additions. 'Cloud Mario' allows you to generate a cloud platform when you spin for reaching distant areas and the 'Drill' allows you to carve through planets even sometimes allowing the exploration of their innards. In addition, Mario can now call upon the help of Yoshi who has the ability to eat enemies, latch on to flowers to swing new locations and devour a number of fruits that then change his own powers. The power ups are spread so well across the game that you will most likely encounter each one before you finish it.
Completing the game is a fairly easy task to accomplish; a minimal amount of stars are required to reach the final showdown with Bowser but that is certainly not the conclusion of the game. A whole new world becomes available with more galaxies and stars to collect after the credits. From here the game's challenge for the core gamer truly begins. Once all 120 gold stars have been collected, green stars appear on all of the galaxies. These stars do not require you to defeat bosses or reach a galaxy's end but are hidden throughout them. They work as a simple gameplay extension but are fun and challenging to collect as they require you to utilise all of Mario's skills to retrieve them.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is what all sequels should be; continuing with the aspects of the original that worked well and improving or developing new and interesting ideas. Where Super Mario Galaxy was the training, Mario Galaxy 2 is the live mission offering a comprehensive gaming experience that, even I will admit, does not need a well developed, highly character driven story. Instead, you receive the most satisfying gameplay on any platform that provides enjoyment for the casual and challenge for the core. Forget 25 kill streaks on Call of Duty, this is what gaming is truly all about.
You've heard it fifty times before: Princess Peach is kidnapped by Bowser and Mario has to rescue her, this time by travelling to different galaxies and collecting power stars. For the sequel Mario once again gains the help of the Lumas in his quest who offer him a ship (oddly in the shape of Mario's head) that requires the power stars to reach distant worlds and eventually Bowser. The universe Mario traverses is set out in a similar fashion to the older S/NES games with each world split into multiple levels, linked together by paths that require you to complete the previous level to continue. Along the way Mario will come across hungry Lumas, that when fed enough star bits will transform into new galaxies.
Yet, what makes Super Mario Galaxy 2 so fantastic is the sheer variety in gameplay that will keep you playing and moving on to the next galaxy...and then the next...and the next. Each galaxy has a number of stars for you to collect, in addition to a 'comet medal' which opens new challenges on certain galaxies. Although this sounds repetitive, there never comes a point where you will be bored with the game as each new galaxy offers so much diversity. Tricky platforming sections, exhilarating boss fights, imaginative power ups, excellent level design, responsive controls and enjoyable mini games all mix together to produce that quintessential Mario formula.
Power ups are a key part of this formula and the majority of them are very enjoyable to use. Some return from the original, such as 'Ghost Mario' and 'Bee Mario' but there are also a number of new additions. 'Cloud Mario' allows you to generate a cloud platform when you spin for reaching distant areas and the 'Drill' allows you to carve through planets even sometimes allowing the exploration of their innards. In addition, Mario can now call upon the help of Yoshi who has the ability to eat enemies, latch on to flowers to swing new locations and devour a number of fruits that then change his own powers. The power ups are spread so well across the game that you will most likely encounter each one before you finish it.
Completing the game is a fairly easy task to accomplish; a minimal amount of stars are required to reach the final showdown with Bowser but that is certainly not the conclusion of the game. A whole new world becomes available with more galaxies and stars to collect after the credits. From here the game's challenge for the core gamer truly begins. Once all 120 gold stars have been collected, green stars appear on all of the galaxies. These stars do not require you to defeat bosses or reach a galaxy's end but are hidden throughout them. They work as a simple gameplay extension but are fun and challenging to collect as they require you to utilise all of Mario's skills to retrieve them.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is what all sequels should be; continuing with the aspects of the original that worked well and improving or developing new and interesting ideas. Where Super Mario Galaxy was the training, Mario Galaxy 2 is the live mission offering a comprehensive gaming experience that, even I will admit, does not need a well developed, highly character driven story. Instead, you receive the most satisfying gameplay on any platform that provides enjoyment for the casual and challenge for the core. Forget 25 kill streaks on Call of Duty, this is what gaming is truly all about.
14 March 2010
Mass Effect 2 - Review
Mass Effect 2 opens with an intense introduction scene, essentially resetting the game for newcomers to the series without ruining the consistency for players of the first game. The game then continues two years later as Shepard once again takes up the task of saving humanity; this time from a race of human harvesting insectoid-like creatures, fittingly called, Collectors. Shepard joins with Cerberus, the human equality group seen in passing in the first game under direct control from The Illusive Man. Think of him as Ernst Blofeld meets Alan Sugar. Shepard must bring together a selection of the galaxy’s fiercest fighters, skilled biotics and intelligent technicians to eliminate the Collector threat.
The original Mass Effect was excellent, yet also suffered from a number of flaws. Luckily the majority of these flaws have been addressed in the second instalment. Most notably, the combat. You can instantly feel that you are playing a different and improved game. The controls feel a lot smoother and enemies react differently depending on where your bullets hit. A headshot provides more damage; a shot to the leg will cause them to stumble. In addition, the overheating system has been removed and replaced with standard ammo clips. It may sound like an unimportant difference but the combat experience is greatly improved because of it. There is no more waiting around in cover for the heat to dissipate allowing for more action oriented combat. Although, the combat has kept some tactical elements; you can still direct your squad to specific locations and order them to use specific powers sometimes in combination with your own for devastating effect. Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to charge head first into battle if they are not given any direction, causing some annoying deaths.
Another major improvement is the classes. There is a stronger distinction between classes with each given their own specific ability alongside returning powers from the first game. For example, the ‘vanguard’ class, a mix of combat and biotics, is granted the charge ability. This allows them to...charge towards an enemy dealing damage and sending them flying backwards for an easy kill. This further personalises your own Shepard and encourages multiple playthroughs to try out each class.
The space exploration element has also undergone a major change. Now you pilot a miniature version of the Normandy across galaxies, stopping off at planets to detect anomalies and collect minerals for upgrades. The mineral collection mini-game is quite disappointing however. It simply boils down to moving a scanner across the planet’s surface and firing a probe whenever a mineral is detected. It gets very tedious, very quickly but of course it is completely optional. A little more thought into this area would not have gone amiss. The changes to the exploration emphasise the vastness of space you have to explore which is far more than the original did.
Bioware prides itself on its storytelling and they once again prove they are one of the best at it in the gaming industry. The story is suitably grand for a far reaching space adventure and some of the characters you interact with, whether they can join you or not, are quite remarkable. There are a number of tried and tested archetypes too; however they fit well within the game’s story. Conversations work in exactly the same way as the original allowing you to be good or bad through the use of the ‘renegade’ and ‘paragon’ system. The addition this time around is an interrupt feature during some exchanges. With a pull of the left or right trigger Shepard will take a decisive kind or aggressive action with some of the results being wonderful to witness. You’ll enjoy speaking to most of your fellow team members. Thane is certainly one of the most interesting characters on your team and the stories of his past kept me returning to speak to him.
However, at times though I thought that some characters were far too open too quickly. Arriving on the Normandy and then moments later revealing some of their innermost feelings removed the potential of spending time to get to know the characters like in Dragon Age: Origins. This probably reflects the target audience for Mass Effect 2 rather than the quality of the game’s writing and actually works as a fairly decent metaphor for the game as a whole.
This is because Mass Effect 2 is an incredibly streamlined action-rpg. The cluttered item management menus and extended character development grids have been removed for much simpler and refined options. This does not detract from the experience at all and actually helps to provide the game with a greater focus so you spend more time shooting and conversing and less time micro-managing your equipment and upgrades in clumsy menus.
You know a game is fantastic when after 14 hours of straight play time you finally decide to stop because you can no longer keep your eyes open. Mass Effect 2 shines in every aspect and is only let down in a few minor areas; which in the grand scheme of things do not detract much from the game at all. Offering an epic storyline in an expansive universe; interesting characters; satisfying and exciting combat, Mass Effect 2 is the best game of 2010 so far.
The original Mass Effect was excellent, yet also suffered from a number of flaws. Luckily the majority of these flaws have been addressed in the second instalment. Most notably, the combat. You can instantly feel that you are playing a different and improved game. The controls feel a lot smoother and enemies react differently depending on where your bullets hit. A headshot provides more damage; a shot to the leg will cause them to stumble. In addition, the overheating system has been removed and replaced with standard ammo clips. It may sound like an unimportant difference but the combat experience is greatly improved because of it. There is no more waiting around in cover for the heat to dissipate allowing for more action oriented combat. Although, the combat has kept some tactical elements; you can still direct your squad to specific locations and order them to use specific powers sometimes in combination with your own for devastating effect. Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to charge head first into battle if they are not given any direction, causing some annoying deaths.
Another major improvement is the classes. There is a stronger distinction between classes with each given their own specific ability alongside returning powers from the first game. For example, the ‘vanguard’ class, a mix of combat and biotics, is granted the charge ability. This allows them to...charge towards an enemy dealing damage and sending them flying backwards for an easy kill. This further personalises your own Shepard and encourages multiple playthroughs to try out each class.
The space exploration element has also undergone a major change. Now you pilot a miniature version of the Normandy across galaxies, stopping off at planets to detect anomalies and collect minerals for upgrades. The mineral collection mini-game is quite disappointing however. It simply boils down to moving a scanner across the planet’s surface and firing a probe whenever a mineral is detected. It gets very tedious, very quickly but of course it is completely optional. A little more thought into this area would not have gone amiss. The changes to the exploration emphasise the vastness of space you have to explore which is far more than the original did.
Bioware prides itself on its storytelling and they once again prove they are one of the best at it in the gaming industry. The story is suitably grand for a far reaching space adventure and some of the characters you interact with, whether they can join you or not, are quite remarkable. There are a number of tried and tested archetypes too; however they fit well within the game’s story. Conversations work in exactly the same way as the original allowing you to be good or bad through the use of the ‘renegade’ and ‘paragon’ system. The addition this time around is an interrupt feature during some exchanges. With a pull of the left or right trigger Shepard will take a decisive kind or aggressive action with some of the results being wonderful to witness. You’ll enjoy speaking to most of your fellow team members. Thane is certainly one of the most interesting characters on your team and the stories of his past kept me returning to speak to him.
However, at times though I thought that some characters were far too open too quickly. Arriving on the Normandy and then moments later revealing some of their innermost feelings removed the potential of spending time to get to know the characters like in Dragon Age: Origins. This probably reflects the target audience for Mass Effect 2 rather than the quality of the game’s writing and actually works as a fairly decent metaphor for the game as a whole.
This is because Mass Effect 2 is an incredibly streamlined action-rpg. The cluttered item management menus and extended character development grids have been removed for much simpler and refined options. This does not detract from the experience at all and actually helps to provide the game with a greater focus so you spend more time shooting and conversing and less time micro-managing your equipment and upgrades in clumsy menus.
You know a game is fantastic when after 14 hours of straight play time you finally decide to stop because you can no longer keep your eyes open. Mass Effect 2 shines in every aspect and is only let down in a few minor areas; which in the grand scheme of things do not detract much from the game at all. Offering an epic storyline in an expansive universe; interesting characters; satisfying and exciting combat, Mass Effect 2 is the best game of 2010 so far.
18 February 2010
100%, 10/10, 5 Stars and Two Thumbs Up
I'm sure you are interested in finding out why I am still yet to post the Mass Effect 2 review I promised last month. I have been working on it between playing the game and it is progressing well. However, I am not trying to do something original but at least different in terms of the review itself. I suppose it is quite hard to produce a unique review in a mass of hundreds of others.
The majority of Mass Effect 2 reviews are unanimous in hailing the game an absolute wonder and a (very) early contender for Game of the Year 2010. So, my problem is, one month later, writing a review that can still be considered interesting and not just retreading old ground. I am not in any way attempting to recreate something the likes of a Zero Punctuation video review but would like to divert from the current video game review formula. The majority of video game reviews today I feel focus far too much on two areas; isolating specific elements of a game and numerical scoring. These are the two issues I would like to address here.
The phrase, 'specific elements' could use a better description. By 'specific elements' I mean the sub-headings that are used to isolate certain areas that are involved in the construction of a video game. The graphics, sound, story, gameplay etc. I have a strong issue with games being reviewed in this way and then scored for each section individually to provide an average overall score. In some cases one of the sub-headings may not apply to a particular game, such as 'story' in Rock Band. Instead of retaining a level of consistency the review simply omits the 'story' section. This leads to review scores being averaged by fewer numbers potentially boosting the overall score. This is simply unfair reviewing, the game should be given a one in these situations so every game is scored equally.
Another sub-heading that I find trivial is 'graphics'. I have constant arguments with one of my housemates about graphics in video games. He loves them and whenever he sees a new game the first comment will almost always relate to the graphics; whether they are incredible or terrible. He has even said to me that if a game's graphics are so bad he will be unable to play the game. Where has this ridiculous fixation on graphics arisen from? Discounting so many games because of their bad graphics leads to ignoring so many fantastic games of new and old. It is as foolish as assuming all black and white films are slow and boring. The not so recently released Mega Man 9 is proof that many gamers see graphics as a small aesthetic pleasure rather than a focal point. Therefore in my review of Mass Effect 2 and those to come I will never include sub-headings. I may refer to specific elements of a game but they will be related to the game as a whole and never will they be judged or scored individually.
This leads onto the other of my gripes - numerical (or in some cases alphabetical) scoring in reviews. Reviewers describe to a great extent their thoughts on a game and then attempt to summarise those two-three pages of argument with a numerical conclusion. This of course leads to many gamers who are just in a rush to find out a game's quality jumping straight to the score at the end, potentially missing many important points the reviewer has made. Sites such as Metacritic have not helped this fixation by bringing together all of the scores a game has been given. Yet, many sites use different scoring systems and so they are all adapted to fit with Metacritic's leading to a number of potential mistranslations in the scores.
For example, 1up uses an alphabetised scoring system including pluses and minuses - how is that translated into Metacritic's numerical system? We can see an A+ equals 100%, A equals 95%, A- equals 90% and then continue in that pattern. This is taken from their website:
'1UP rates games on a scale of A+ through F. Anything we score in the A+ through A- range is considered excellent, B+ through B- is good, C+ through C- is average, D+ through D- is bad, and F is terrible.'
A game rated C, which is scaled as average, then achieves 65% according to Metacritic's scale but surely average should be considered as 50%. Currently a bad game is given 50% which is a unfairly favourable translation. In addition, if everything scored A+ through A- is considered excellent; what is the point of having all three if they all mean the same thing? This is creating unnecessary confusion, yet the pluses and minuses are nothing compared to what's next.
Gametrailers.com take the farce of review scoring to the next level with the inclusion of decimals in their scores. What is the point of awarding a game a 8.7 instead of an 8.6!? What aspect/s of the game lead it to being awarded that extra 0.1 of a score? How do these reviewers generate these numbers? In my opinion it is a complete joke.
So, I have more or less ranted for a few paragraphs now without offering any kind of suggestion of improvement. Unfortunately, it looks like numerical scoring is here to stay, especially thanks to Metacritic. The Escapist, an excellent video game website, has decided to include a scoring system on it's reviews now and...has decided to go with a five star system. Fantastic, more confusion! To be fair to The Escapist team they do not appear too happy about using a scoring system and debated extensively before including one. However, as long as I remain independent I will never use numbers, letters, stars, hats, ticks, thumbs or iguanas to score games. Hopefully my opinions will come through well enough in the text so that no number is needed. You can always comment that it, 'sounds like a 7 to me' if you want. I won't mind; I'll just set my Mabari War Hound on you...
The majority of Mass Effect 2 reviews are unanimous in hailing the game an absolute wonder and a (very) early contender for Game of the Year 2010. So, my problem is, one month later, writing a review that can still be considered interesting and not just retreading old ground. I am not in any way attempting to recreate something the likes of a Zero Punctuation video review but would like to divert from the current video game review formula. The majority of video game reviews today I feel focus far too much on two areas; isolating specific elements of a game and numerical scoring. These are the two issues I would like to address here.
The phrase, 'specific elements' could use a better description. By 'specific elements' I mean the sub-headings that are used to isolate certain areas that are involved in the construction of a video game. The graphics, sound, story, gameplay etc. I have a strong issue with games being reviewed in this way and then scored for each section individually to provide an average overall score. In some cases one of the sub-headings may not apply to a particular game, such as 'story' in Rock Band. Instead of retaining a level of consistency the review simply omits the 'story' section. This leads to review scores being averaged by fewer numbers potentially boosting the overall score. This is simply unfair reviewing, the game should be given a one in these situations so every game is scored equally.
Another sub-heading that I find trivial is 'graphics'. I have constant arguments with one of my housemates about graphics in video games. He loves them and whenever he sees a new game the first comment will almost always relate to the graphics; whether they are incredible or terrible. He has even said to me that if a game's graphics are so bad he will be unable to play the game. Where has this ridiculous fixation on graphics arisen from? Discounting so many games because of their bad graphics leads to ignoring so many fantastic games of new and old. It is as foolish as assuming all black and white films are slow and boring. The not so recently released Mega Man 9 is proof that many gamers see graphics as a small aesthetic pleasure rather than a focal point. Therefore in my review of Mass Effect 2 and those to come I will never include sub-headings. I may refer to specific elements of a game but they will be related to the game as a whole and never will they be judged or scored individually.
This leads onto the other of my gripes - numerical (or in some cases alphabetical) scoring in reviews. Reviewers describe to a great extent their thoughts on a game and then attempt to summarise those two-three pages of argument with a numerical conclusion. This of course leads to many gamers who are just in a rush to find out a game's quality jumping straight to the score at the end, potentially missing many important points the reviewer has made. Sites such as Metacritic have not helped this fixation by bringing together all of the scores a game has been given. Yet, many sites use different scoring systems and so they are all adapted to fit with Metacritic's leading to a number of potential mistranslations in the scores.
For example, 1up uses an alphabetised scoring system including pluses and minuses - how is that translated into Metacritic's numerical system? We can see an A+ equals 100%, A equals 95%, A- equals 90% and then continue in that pattern. This is taken from their website:
'1UP rates games on a scale of A+ through F. Anything we score in the A+ through A- range is considered excellent, B+ through B- is good, C+ through C- is average, D+ through D- is bad, and F is terrible.'
A game rated C, which is scaled as average, then achieves 65% according to Metacritic's scale but surely average should be considered as 50%. Currently a bad game is given 50% which is a unfairly favourable translation. In addition, if everything scored A+ through A- is considered excellent; what is the point of having all three if they all mean the same thing? This is creating unnecessary confusion, yet the pluses and minuses are nothing compared to what's next.
Gametrailers.com take the farce of review scoring to the next level with the inclusion of decimals in their scores. What is the point of awarding a game a 8.7 instead of an 8.6!? What aspect/s of the game lead it to being awarded that extra 0.1 of a score? How do these reviewers generate these numbers? In my opinion it is a complete joke.
So, I have more or less ranted for a few paragraphs now without offering any kind of suggestion of improvement. Unfortunately, it looks like numerical scoring is here to stay, especially thanks to Metacritic. The Escapist, an excellent video game website, has decided to include a scoring system on it's reviews now and...has decided to go with a five star system. Fantastic, more confusion! To be fair to The Escapist team they do not appear too happy about using a scoring system and debated extensively before including one. However, as long as I remain independent I will never use numbers, letters, stars, hats, ticks, thumbs or iguanas to score games. Hopefully my opinions will come through well enough in the text so that no number is needed. You can always comment that it, 'sounds like a 7 to me' if you want. I won't mind; I'll just set my Mabari War Hound on you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)