Sequels tend to do one of two things: one, act as a method by which a developer can lean on past works and positive critical acclaim to drive quick, easy sales for fast cash, or two, allow developers a chance to soften up the rough edges of a title and see their initial vision through to a better, more polished end the second time around.
The former, much like in Hollywood, is abused far too often and really gives sequels as a whole a bad wrap, to the point that even talking about anticipation of an upcoming sequel draws snappy comments and glaring looks from those smug, thumb-your-nose types who like to ramble on about how sequels are cop-outs that ruin creative thinking and are instead developer cash-ins on an old idea gone stale because they couldn't do something new and exciting. Yeah, we both know the types. But in a world where developers like EA can crank out an entirely "new" sports game every 9 months, or a market that will actually accept (and gladly support) eleven different Mario Party games - not even copy cats, mind you - since 1999, can you blame them?
The answer is no, especially since for every Mario Party or Madden (well, maybe every 2-3) there is instead a fresh, new, interesting concept that just needs a few adjustments to really shine or perhaps has a new tale to tell outside of its original one. Can you imagine what gaming would be like if we didn't have sequels? We'd never have Half-Life 2. You would never know of the wonders of Hyrule in 3-D (or reimagined 2-D for that matter). There would be no Final Fantasy 7 to spark the JRPG craze, no Grand Theft Auto 3 to practically define 'sandbox' gaming as we know it. And of course, more recently, we wouldn't have an Assassin's Creed 2. And that would be a real shame.
Granted, I'm not one of those people that really had that big of a problem with the first game. Yes I could see some small flaws but as a whole - and especially for a new IP trying to broaden or even change the definition of an entire genre - it was a near masterpiece of technical execution and a driving force in defining this generation of console's interactive entertainment. Sure there were some glitches, yeah not everything was totally polished and if you really forced yourself to be a completionist but didn't like it you would easily get frustrated, but as far as first passes go it was really a tour de force. But at that point I'm really reaching for reasons to fault the game aside from just admiting that even the best things aren't perfect.
That is, of course, until now. Assassin's Creed 2 is so much more vast, detailed, immersive and open-ended that it makes the first game look like a tech demo by comparison. I will not lie when I say that this was easily my most anticipated game of the year and I went in expecting great things, only to be blown away by how much more improved and built up everything was. Does it still have flaws? Definitely. Is it better in every way than the original? Absolutely. Is it "Game of the Year"? Well I don't remember exactly everything that came out this year (I should probably do a retrospective and comment on that) but it is easily up there with the rest of them, and likely leading. If you liked the first one even a little bit - if some small bit got you pulled in but you got frustrated, or maybe you liked it but thought it was a bit bland, or were aggrivated with the glitchy PS3 version, or just never really got all that into it, just close this window right now and go get a copy because I can almost guarantee this game will convince you that Ubisoft knows what it is doing, and doing it well.
Story wise the premise is the same - you go back in time (kinda) to become an Assassin and learn more about his life and the ultimate part you (the 'present day' character) play in this story. Except that the sequel picks up almost immediately where the first one left off and does not lazily walk you through the tutorial. From the first second you power on the game you are thrown into a hostile situation and you must learn (or relearn) many of the basic moves by means of actively using, not passively learning and copying. It is, in my opinion, a much more captivating way to familiarize the player to the controls that keeps them interested and doesn't make them feel like they have to have their hands held the entire time. The way they explain the concept of the control method, "puppeteering" (where the 4 buttons each represent a part of the body at all times) is especially neat and I think conveys the system's intent much better than the first game.
The first thing you will notice, though, as things cool down is that this time the story is not so much about the 'Assassin' of the past as it is the person. You spend a fair amount of time living out Ezio Auditore's (our new Assassin) early adult life, meeting his family and setting the stage for his eventual transition into the role of the Assassin and how he gets involved in all this. In the first game, Altair was not exactly a mute but he often was merely a tool used by Ubisoft to tell the story or give it more of a central point. You never really learn much about him, he's not even really all that likeable (he gets demoted for basically being a self centered know-it-all) and he really never is that relatable for a few breif moments near the end of the game. It is clear that Ubisoft spent more of it's time developing and crafting a world around Ezio (who you play as 95% of the time anyway) instead of throwing the part away as a gameplay device and trying to focus as much on the present time, and it shows. It helps make the game feel like it can stand on it's own more because you at least complete Ezio's part in the game (save the soon-to-be-released DLC), making the now famous cliffhanger endings that much more bearable. With more time spent on characters in that world as well, it gives many more unique and powerful supporting roles that really helps bring Italy alive as you play and explore. The world feels bigger, yet less vacant. There are more people but they aren't just more empty faces in a crowd. And there's more story of the character you actually play and get invested in, not of the one you rarely see. Overall, the presentation is improved in nearly every way and it really shows.
Gameplay wise, again, nearly the same, but with noted improvements to fix what was seen as 'bad' with the first one or just to make things a bit more intriguing or fun. Your arsenal grows substantially, and while you still have your staples in the hidden blade, short sword and sword, you can now pick custom weapons that have different strengths and weaknesses (ability to deflect, damage dealt, etc) as well as a slew of new (and wicked deadly) methods to choose from. Try the poison, which you can use on an unsuspecting guard to send them flailing around in a beserk rage at those around him before he expires. Or the smoke bombs, to quickly get out of sticky situations without having to be constantly chased down and knocked over by guards. There are many more incredibly useful new toys to play with, but I'll do my best to save you the surprises for yourself in case you ever pick up the game. Suffice it to say that if you ever found yourself thinking that the fighting in the first game was too boring and repetitive, there are so many new weapons and gadgets to choose from that you'll be hard pressed to go even 10 minutes killing every guard the same way.
And, ironically enough, you hardly even have to fight if you don't want to. New gameplay options like blending and hiring helpers can get you much farther much faster than just brute force slayings ever could. Need some guards distracted? Hire some courtesans to flirt with them while you sneak past. How about need some guards moved so you can go for the kill on the guy they are guarding? Call over some theives and have them steal from one of the guards and they will give chase. Maybe you just want to get through a crowded, guarded area without being seen. Blend in with crowds and even walk with them undetected (and not just select people like the first game - pretty much any group of peope). Of course, if you prefer the brute force method, round up a few mercenary friends to fight by your side as you take down a large group of enemies. There are many ways to help keep the pressure off you so you don't have to fight 40 guards between you and your next true victim.
Speaking of victims, the story plays out much more like a story now and much less like a list of chores you need to accomplish before you are given your allowance. No more choosing from a list of side missions that are available and being forced to complete some number of them before you are allowed to proceed. Everything you do plays its part in the story and helps to set up the next kill in a very linear, easy to follow fashion. Side missions are still there - races make a still-aggrivating comeback, as well as do small-fry assassinations and new events like "beat ups" - but they are entirely optional and usually only give money and completion. Many of the hired, non-story assassinations end up being quite challening and fun, and there are so many that if you do every side mission between 'real' ones that you could easily go 3-5 hours between story bits just exploring and completing things that have recently opened up to you. Even more OCD things - like feather collecting - make an appearance, but even they are more well organized and better executed than the first.
The main storyline offers enough different gameplay to really show off the new system and keep you interested while not becoming too monotonous (with one notable exception being the 'fetch' quest at the end, but even then that's probably not too bad unless you just ignored every side item available to you ever), all the while improved and expanded on with a better story and characters to really help it along. At this point if you honestly think the game is still "repetitive" you either need to be doing something different every 5 seconds, in which case you need professional help for some supercharged ADHD, or you just have a vendetta against the game and like to use popular buzzwords to slap it down. Between your new toys, the new missions and the much better story and characters, there is really no reason for you to go around doing the same thing every time except your own laziness.
Graphically the game is a marvel of the raw power of this generation of devices (just like the last), but is even more pleasing because instead of harsh, bland desert to see for miles around you get things like green mountainsides, vast oceans or bustling cities. Somehow the facial animations and lip-synching seem to have taken a bizzare step in the backwards direction, often being difficult or awkward to look in close ups but otherwise fine at long distance, but otherwise animation is generally smooth and impressive. The new kills and counter kills are incredibly brutal (and an absolute joy to watch) although the occasional hiccup/glitch can sometimes leave you stealing money from out of the air or breaking the 'knee' of a wall but considering all the incredible things it tries to accomplish I can almost say that I'm amazed it doesn't happen more. All together it's significantly more polished than the first ever was, but it leaves me wondering if perhaps they are capping out the raw throughput of current-gen tech and are just having to find weird or different ways to hide it in the world as it grows and evolves.
When all is said and done, Assassin's Creed 2 is everything done right in a sequel: Improvements across the board in almost every possible way while really expanding the scope of the game and helping cement it's style in place. It is extremely difficult to think of a reason NOT to recommend this game as I believe even people who strongly disliked the first have a good reason to give this one a try, and people who loved the first have no excuse for not already owning it. A few minor flaws aside, Assassin's Creed 2 helps Ubisoft prove it has a winner in it's newest franchise that only left me wanting more, which I will get in the form of DLC in January and Feburary. After that, well, it's probably another 2 years of wondering exactly where the next game will take place and patiently waiting for even the smallest hints of news about it. After seeing how much they improved between #1 and #2, I can't wait to see what they can do with the third iteration.
Friday, December 25, 2009
A Killer Sequel
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
ctl-c, ctl-v
I feel as though I've neglected the "ranting" portion in lieu of the deluge of games that I have played recently. That being said, here are a few things that have been on my mind as of late. Granted, they will not be as detailed as the game reviews (I tend to prefer that more to writing down thoughts that end up making me angry or require a very significant amount of research in order to be more fair), but it's at least something to think on.
Firstly, the whole Fox / Mass Effect deal. I have not gotten around to playing the game yet (and if Blue Dragon continues on like it is, I won't get around to it for a while yet), so my comments on this will be breif. This is basically yet another way that video games get singled out over other media (music, movies, books, et al) on "questionable content". Ever since the "hot coffee mod" hit the scene, it is as though games must be squeaky clean, positive reinforcement learn-fests before they are approved by the media. The woman who went off on Mass Effect (basically saying it contains full frontal nudity when it does not) eventually retracted, admitting that once she actually saw the game she obviously saw herself being in the wrong. She went on to state there is more sexually explicit content in your average 1 hour showing of Lost or Desperate Housewives than there was in this 40+ hour epic adventure. The fact that even the loony Jack Thompson didn't see enough in this game to fight against it shows that either hell itself has frozen over, or it was really no big deal (I personally believe the answer is "both").
Next, we have the presidential race. I've yet to dive TOO deep into the race, as I've already grown incredibly tired of this campaign. It started so early, and people have been speculating and guessing and prophesying for so long that I grew both bored and apathetic. I know who I want to be MY candidate, I can do my own research. I don't have to watch disingenuous attempts at "involving the american public" through the You-tube debates, or at all this baby kissing and hand shaking. I don't care about Hillary's every movement nor Guiliani's insane comments. Perhaps I've become incredibly jaded in just the past 4 years, but now it seems to be "same old, same old". Haven't we been here before? "Washington Insider vs. the "breathe of fresh air" outsider. Candidates trying to fight it out as to who is capable of NOT being the same failure as the incumbent. This all sounds... familiar. I certianly didn't need all that extra lead in time they were throwing at me, starting so incredibly early to try to build up the hype machine and raise even more money (I thought we were supposed to be stopping all that? Whatever happened to campaign finance reform and working away from money buying the seats?) These fools do next to nothing while in office - not on immigration, not on security, not on protecting our freedoms or net neutrality or tax reform, big government and over-budgets, a busting sub-prime market.... the list goes on and on - and yet they want me to pay attention to them now? Where do people find the energy to back this kind of rhetoric? Some of these people have been in political power for years, even decades, and they have what to show for it? Once I get passed my primary, and we start narrowing down candidates for me to focus on... then I can get more into it. But right now it's really just tiring to keep up with news about how these people try to undermine each other and slit each others throats day in and day out. I speak in generalities, of course - not EVERYONE is like that in all aspects - but most talk shows or internet sites, or even news stories certianly make you feel as though this is always the case. Anything to grab some eyeballs and captivate audiences, eh?
So much for not being "too deep into the race"! I didn't know I had it in me, really. Serious topics aside, here are a few tidbits about the group of 360 games I've played recently but haven't had the chance to comment on yet.
Gears of War
I've actually played the game before, but I've never really owned it (and just recently started "reviewing" things again) so now seems as good a time as any to mention it. For the most part, I absolutely refuse to touch the game as a "single player" experience. That is not a statement against the single player campaign, either; the story, characters, gameplay and pacing are all very good. But, having now played through the game twice on co-op, playing the campaign with just one person feels very "boring" or bland, despite the fact that Gears of War is, indeed, a very high quality game. Graphically the game does impress - even more so in HD - although I can't really say that the game inspires a sense of awe or amazement (perhaps this is coming from a present perspective on the game, as compared to when it came out over a year ago). The graphics are indeed great and you'll be hard pressed to find even newer games that look significantly better (though there are a few), but to me the "wow" factor almost always stems more from style than it does from technical prowess. I can say "wow" to pictures of Crysis, yet generally feel no recolletion of the games pictures aside from a few trees and rocks. Maybe some sand. (Also, I've never played the game...) Gears gives me much the same feeling. Characters aside, the graphics impress but are generally "forgettable". You go from some boring, drab, run down building to another boring, drab, run down building... and the process kind of repeats itself. Oh, and in case the buildings weren't bland enough for you, you also go underground only to be surrounded by even more boring scenery like rocks! The rain during that factory level is rather cool, and as I've said before the Characters are well done, other than that it's just more boring, "realistic" looking graphics that focus too much on earthy, dark tones than it does Style. No More Heroes leaves me more impressed overall Graphically than this game does, if only because it oozes a very unique sense of design. However, graphics really mean next to nothing to me in terms of games. It's nice to move forward in terms of more detail or more action on-screen, but without the right style you really can't do much to stand out.
So, obviously, the most important part of Gears is gameplay. The "cover" system seems to give Gears a significant boost over just about every other series in the genre, adding in a nice layer of strategy/pacing where most games tend to be more about "run and gun" or being fast with the trigger. Active reloading really highlights the extra level of strategy and attention required to do well in the game. You can't just constantly spam reload and expect to blast your way through enemies. A well timed active reload, though, can shave seconds off your reload times and really help you out in a pinch.
As with any kind of game like this, the co-op really makes it shine. I admit that playing the game just by yourself can be fun, but playing with a friend makes the game all that much better. The most confusing part of the game is how the story is centered around 4 characters, yet the game remains only 2 player co-opable. Perhaps Halo 3's 4 player co-op has me spoiled, but Gears of War practically screams for it to be enabled for 4 players. Hopefully Gears of War 2 will up the ante and allow 4 friends to take down the Locust together.
Pacing is kind of a mixed bag, something that is also important to me in shooter/adventure type games like this. I do not like finally overcoming a hard or difficult part only to die and have to repeat the process over and over again. A few times is acceptable - blowing through the game would not be fun, either - but being stuck at the same area for nearly an hour really starts to frustrate. I will admit I'm not the best player out there, but playing on co-op and on the middle difficulty setting should not see 2 people stuck for nearly an hour. The hardest parts in the game are, arguably, where you "split up". This makes it doubly difficult because, firstly, you do not have anyone to back you up or cover you and, more importantly, you cannot be ressurected if you die which means that you BOTH have to start over from the last checkpoint. Co-op can allow two people with unequal skill to play on the same level, and these "splits" can really slow you down when one player has a difficult time getting through their portion of the level. It makes the game less "fun", makes the good player feel bored and the bad player feel worthless. I can appreciate that the designers probably wanted to challenge players in these portions but couldn't they have been a little more forgiving, especially with regards to checkpoints? At least not having to replay the entire split would have made things a little more bearable while keeping the difficulty up.
Sp, I guess this game has a multiplayer component? I don't really know. I really enjoy the cover system and the game mechanics from a single player perspective... but it seems like it would be incredibly boring in multiplayer. I've played local multiplayer with friends, and that wasn't nearly as much fun as teaming up in campaign or as other multiplayer games (Smash Bros, Halo 3, etc). I guess if you really like the system but want the challenge of facing a human opponent you might play this over live, but I don't really see it as being something I would enjoy doing (even just to get the acheievements).
Overall, the game is definitely worth playing. If you're like me and just want to experience the campaign, grab a friend and rent the game over the weekend - it is easily beatable in 1 sitting, or you could break it up over a few if you are playing on the higher difficulties. COG tags, acheivements and multiplayer could keep you coming back for more, if you like collecting things or flexing your muscle over live. Even I have played the game through multiple times. My last playthrough was the third time I've beaten the game and it is just as fun as it was the first time. The game is still $50 for a reason... because it is a stellar 360 exclusive. Even if you are like me and don't particularly care for the genre, it is worth it just for the co-op experience.
Crackdown
Crackdown can be gracefully summed up in two words: Agility Orbs. While on the surface crackdown
seems like a "GTA-clone" - a title which has now completely replaced the original term, "Sandbox
Game" - after playing it for about an hour you will see that this can hardly be farther from the
truth. Crackdown involves a large open city that requires no loading (in fact, didn't GTA have loading? and lets you go anywhere you want and do anything you want. Honestly, that is where the comparisons stop, which means that they are just the same genre of game. Beyond that, they couldn't be more different.
GTA is a rather slow paced game. You work your way through the game's "narritive", perhaps indulging yourself in one of the world's many glorified mini-games to increase your "stats", make some money or gain access to new items or areas. Outside of the missions you generally have very littl reason - or desire - to pick fights with people as it will either get you killed or in trouble with the law. Ironically the main draw of GTA is not the sandbox elements (although that makes the game more fun by giving you the opportunity to take the game at your own pace and freedom to do whatever you'd like to do) but in the expertly crafted and cleverly driven narrative contained within. There are many true "GTA-clones" that do not sell nearly as well as Grand Theft Auto for this exact reason. Saint's Row, for all that it added to the "sandbox" mechanism, just doesn't cut it when compared to the story of Grand Theft Auto. Why else would Rockstar be able to sell both Vice City and San Andreas, not to mention the entire collection of "stories" games, when 85%+ of the sandboxing elements in these games are the same as they have always been. Ooooh, they added motorcycles, big whoop! You can finally swim? Game of the Year CONFIRMED!
Look, Grand Theft Auto and many any other sucessful series - Zelda, Final Fantasy, Halo, Call of Duty, etc - are games that largely maintain the core elements of their genre while pushing the genre forward with smaller, more controlled innovations, high production quality and excellent Narratives. Let's face it, Link has been doing the exact same thing since the original Legend of Zelda - navagating a large and compelling overworld and navagating perilous dungeons to expand his arsenal and finally fight Gannon/Vatii/Windfish... whoever. It's the same game! But the games sell well not due to individual parts, but taken as a whole; a sum of its parts.
So where does Crackdown fit in all of this? Well, as someone who is guilty of calling Crackdown "that game no one wanted that came with Halo 3 Beta" and "how original, yet another GTA clone" I feel compelled to prevent you from making the same mistake that I made. Crackdown takes the sandbox idea and gives it a shot in the arm. Your character starts out far from "normal" and just becomes more and more superhero-esque as you proceed through the game. From the start you can already jump several stories high, allowing you to climb buildings, scale mountains or clear obstacles with a single bound. Grand Theft Auto generally starts you off slow... access to only the first town, only a couple of missions available, not much you can work on until you get the story going. Crackdown throws this out the window. You turn the game on and, if you want, you can go straight for the last boss. Considering that you make him weaker by defeating all of his underlings I'm sure it would make things alot more difficult, but you really can do ANYTHING you want. You are limited solely by your current "skill levels" (you probably can't scale some buildings without getting your agility up first) but, for the most part, the world is your oyster.
What's even better is, the game throws action at you almost non-stop; the streets are crawling with gang members (who, by the way, don't seem to like law enforcement) and if you really thin their ranks in a short amount of time, they send "hit squads" to really make your life interesting. You aren't waiting around for someone to cause trouble, or driving through large cities trying to get to your next mission (perhaps the greatest downfall of Grand Theft Auto being so massive in scope). In fact, it's usually so much fun to jump from rooftop to rooftop, sniping enemies or sending heat-seeking rockets into a group of unsuspecting Volk that you will probably forgo driving entirely (that, and civilians have this bad habit of always jumping out in front of you, which gets you in trouble with the law...).
Agility Orbs really add to the sense of exploration and reward you for climbing huge structures and making big leaps of faith. But since there are more than 500 of them scattered throughout the city, the act more like pez candy than they do anything else. You get one, and from that vantage point you can see at least 3 others. Next thing you know, you've collected 40 and you are the complete other side of the map... and going strong. I can't quite put my finger on it but something about jumping from rooftop to rooftop, jumping 35 feet vertically and hundreds of feet horizontally just feels fun no matter how you slice it. Add in the addictive "collecting" quest behind agility orbs (encourages scaling buildings and big jumps) and hidden orbs (encourages exploration and clever thinking with some difficult jumps) and you can entertain yourself for hours on end just trying to collect them. On paper it sounds ludicrous, I know, but once you start playing they are like Lay's... you can't eat just one! (Can I even say that? Is it copyright protected or something? In fact, do they even use that slogan anymore?)
The game is not without flaws, though. In order to acheive this faster paced, more "action/arcade" style of gameplay it has to sacrifice any semblance of a strong narrative ("Bad guy X is in charge of bad thing Y, go kill him!" is hardly a storyline) and compared to the main gameplay, the "side quests" feel lacking or annoying. Driving a car is about as easy as trying to firmly grasp a wet bar of soap - you can do marginally well at slower speeds, but you might as well walk at that point. Boss's, especially the later ones, are more an excercise in patience than anything else. They are ALWAYS the same, the only thing different between them is the number of small-time lackeys that you will have to take out before you get to them (hence my most of the last bosses are in buildings and other closed enviornments, where you are forced through narrow passages and rooms and therefore cannot help but face all the weaker enemies). The strength of the core gameplay, however, helps to augment the tedious nature of the "main story"... especially since round-house kicks to the gut and rockets to the face NEVER seems to get old.
Co-op is a plus for this game, but no split screen co-op is a crime. There's no way it isn't feasable to do 2 player co-op on the same screen; it just screams of a way to make more people purchase copies of the game or invest money into Xbox LIVE. I appreciate that co-op is there - and that it was available over LIVE - but making that the only option is just mean.
You can easily extend your enjoyment of the game, especially if you are a completionist type. Stat points, agility orbs and Hidden orbs will keep even the most meticulous of collectors busy for dozens of hours over normal game play, if not drive them a little insane (why, oh WHY can't they show us where that last orb is. If you have 499 out of 500, isn't that ENOUGH? Just show me where that last one is. Even a hint would be great. You can keep track of which ones I've already collected - how else do they not respawn? - so help me out. Show me on a map where the ones I collected were, or start showing orbs on the map after I collected 75% plus. Having to comb over that insanely huge city for ONE orb is grounds for cruel and unjust punishment). Vehicle races, time trials, and leaderboards extend play for the more competitive amoung us, giving proof of bragging rights between friends... or the world. I think... I haven't really used them yet (too busy with the real game!).
Crackdown takes the tried-and-true "go anywhere, do anything" sandbox method and ratchets up the action to keep you on your toes. Seemingly Limitless enemies, collectable items, time trials and side quests give offer up plenty of entertainment and leave you always doing something. "Supply points" provide a great long-distance travel mechanism, while attempting to not totally ruin the size and scope of the world (they also help keep your full on ammo and give you a wide selection of guns as you "borrow" them from the other gangs). Free downloadable content gives you a little more to do, and pay content even throws in some new vehicles and more side quests to do (although, admitedly, I've never downloaded or played the pay conent). This fresh new take on the sandbox genre might not last you as long on the main story as Grand Theft Auto would, and lack of a true "story" leaves you with very little purpose or direction, but the gameplay is just plain fun. There are so many used copies floating around that it is a crime - no pun intended - for you to not own this game. There is plenty to do and see (and kill!) and you will have a very hard time putting it down. In a genre where everything has to live in the shadow of Grand Theft Auto, Crackdown does very well in making a name for itself and definitely deserves your attention.
Call of Duty 4
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not exactly a "fan" of first person shooters. I can play them and enjoy them, sure, but I generally do not do so on my own dime (Half-Life being the exception. You could also count Metroid Prime but, honestly, that's adventure). Owning a 360 comes at a price, though; First person shooters do so well on the system that one can't help but run into several "quality" titles every now and then, even if it is a genre I'm not exactly fond of.
So, when I was offered the opportunity to play Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, I reluctantly accepted, mostly because they needed my 360 anyway and I wanted to keep an eye on it. Multiplayer with people I know is perhaps the one saving grace to a first person shooter, outside of a truly emmersive story (hence my caving to the Half-Life series). Ever since Goldeneye on my N64, first person shooters have redeemed themselves in my eyes with a quality multiplayer component. I remember next to nothing of Halo 1 and 2 campaign, but have tons of great memories of 16 player LANs with epic, hour long capture-the-flag matches and nail-bitingly close Slayer matches.
Unfortunately, Infinity Ward seems to have something against playing system link but also having mutliple people on the same console... so even though there were 5 of us, only 4 of us could play. I offered to sit out, but since there was an extra copy of the game... why not play single player? It would at least give me something to do while waiting for them to finish playing.
From a single player perspective, the game did not "break boundaries" in any way, really. I like how it played, and the story was interesting enough (especially how the two stories wove together by the end). Certianly not up to Half-Life standards, but it gets the job done. Some of the "non FPS" levels provided a nice break from the staple "first person, run and gun". Shooting that huge gun from the airplane, providing your character (on the ground, not the one you were playing currently operating the gun) a chance to escape was especially fun. The "stealth" level was also nice to play, although the directions sometimes seemed ambiguous and would sometimes get me dangerously close to a guard... or worse, caught.
It is not a long affair - I beat the game within a 24 hour time period, without even really trying. I played some Galaxy, met with some friends, you know... lived a rather normal life. It is not as though I really had to play the game non-stop to beat it. 6-8 hours, maybe less if you are really good. Then again, I didn't play on the hardest difficulty except for 1 level, and if you played on that I'm sure the game would take you alot longer (but be alot more frustrating, too).
Multiplayer seemed to have much more promise, mixing RPG like elements (leveling up, gaining access to new items, skills, etc) to the standard FPS gameplay (run and gun, shoot, grenades... why am I explaining this?!?) and even using a class system to allow you to customize your guns and items. While I haven't played it myself, friends I know who are big FPS buffs play Call of Duty 4 multiplayer more than Halo 3 mutliplayer, and that's saying something. Personally, though, I don't really like playing FPS's multiplayer without friends, so I've never played and therefore can't really vouch for the system. I can safely suggest it, though, as many people I know would whole heartedly support it (and they are usually very picky).
This game kind of comes across as a toss up. The main story is fun, and if you are really itching for a good FPS then it is worth, at the very least, a rental. You can most definitely blow through the main game in a weekend, even perhaps on veteran. If you've been playing Halo 2 multiplayer for the last few years, then a purchase is almost assuredly in order. The RPG elements give you something to work towards while you play (besides, you know, just being the best and winning all the time) and that can definitely add to the "addictive" nature of online gaming and rank-climbing. On the console versions you can even "reset" to level 1 once you reach the level cap, all for a special symbol being placed next to your name... and you can do it 10 times! Experience doesn't even seem to be tied directly to how well you do (you get more experience for more kills and winning, but you don't move backwards for losing or doing poorly) so even on your off days you can make some progress and those of us (me) who aren't as good could slowly work our way towards those higher ranks. It's more than likely that you already know whether or not you want this game (actually, that you already OWN this game or not, considering how many it has sold) but if you are on the fence, well... you are definitely missing out.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly...
Assassin's Creed
It is kind of difficult to put into words just what is so amazing about this game. Despite watching two other people play most of the game (including seeing several plot twists and even the ending) I still felt a need to go out and obtain a copy of the game for myself. This is the kind of game that is both fun to play and fun to watch, where literally anything can happen and you are ENCOURAGED to use environnments and stealth to your advantage, while not being forced into doing so if you don't want to. Sure, anyone can probably take on 20 guards at a time once they get the "core" mechanics of the game down and nothing really changes from the first boss to the last one, but that core gameplay is so good that you can play through at your own pace and honestly never really notice it.
There are some, however, that did complain about how "repetitive" it was and how boring it became... and it makes me wonder just what game they were playing. Is Halo 3 "boring and repetitive" because you basically spend the entire game shooting enemies? Is Super Mario Galaxy "boring and repetitive" because you spend most of the game jumping? Hardly. So what is the beef with people and Assassin's Creed? Why is it so special that it deserves this criticsm? Pehaps people were over-hyped for the game. Perhaps they were expecting something bigger, or better, or different than what Ubisoft ended up providing. But that would make me wonder... what exactly were they hoping for?
Now I admit that the game does have its share of flaws. The story, as good as it was, falls flat on its face in the end because it amounts to nothing more than a big tease. The game does a fairly good job of not forcing you to do anything you don't want. You can use rooftops or "blending" to avoid guards and confrontation in general. The main story, however, takes it to a near minimum, requiring only 2-3 "investigations" before you are allowed to assassinate your target... which means you could literally blow through the main game if you really wanted. Someone who takes time to explore the city and accept all the side quests, however, could spend hours on just one assassination mission alone.
This is really the only point of ontention I have with the game: the "investigations" are generally well mixed and offer a fair amount of variety of things to complete (albeit, some of them are fairly boring; sitting on a bench, listening to a conversation? Not exactly the pennacle of interactive entertainment...) but your choice of "optional" side quests is very limited in scope. Not counting collectable flags and templars(AGAIN with punishing 99/100 collectors? ugh!), optional quests include one of two options: saving citizens or climbing to look out points. Now, these acts in and of themselves are not terrible. Saving citizens is both fun and challenging because it makes sure to throw several guards at you at once, theoretically making it a more challenging engagement then you are used to. When done correctly, they are entertaining diversions to the stealth, run around and ignore guards style gameplay. The problem arises when there are citizens trapped in large, market like areas... and it seems as though there is a never-ending flow of guards to face. Sure, 4 or 5 are OK but once you are on guard 10 or 11 because that pack of 7 guards roaming that area found you (which they almost certianly will) it can really seem to drag out the fight, especially since you originally intended to only be fighting a few men and be on your way.
Climb points are much more fun, as they tend to have you go into interesting portions of the city to "synchronize" and give you an idea of what is in the area. Climbing anywhere and everywhere almost never gets old, a few of the larger buildings present almost puzzle-like challenges that require more thinking than just holding up on the stick and waiting, and the wide-pan view of the entire freaking city from way up in the air never fails to impress. It provides you a good escape from running around on rooftops or sneaking around in the streets, and in my opinion gives the game alot better pacing and flow then just trying to steamroll your way through the main events in the game (which would surely agitate and frustrate me). Sandbox games allow you to "go anywhere, do anything", but rarely does one encourage it so openly.
Flags and Templars add a "collectable" aspect to encourage even more exploring but with no in-game interface for keeping track of which ones you have already gotten and which ones remain, it can be frustrating to complete (even with help from a map) and usually offers only smaller diversions for players who catch them out in the open on their way to other areas or while on the run from guards.
What Ubisoft could have done to make the game feel less "repetitive" (a designation which I firmly deny to be true but entertain as a possibility nonetheless, as obviously someone feels it is true) would be to add in a greater number of "side quest" options and pull back on the number available in a given area. No one wants to feel like they should complete the same task TWELVE TIMES or more before having "finished" and area and preparing for the boss, but if you want to rescue all citizens or climb all viewpoints you just might. Instead, put a max on perhaps 2-4 (a larger cap for viewpoints, perhaps upwards of 8) and add in some other tasks to mix it up a little. Maybe pretend that the templars built "secret underground tunnels" and have Altair find and "explore" 2 of them, opening them as "waypoints" between different areas of the city. Or maybe an "Assassin's Challenge" to see how many guards Altair could stealthily kill in a set amount of time; that would even allow you to compare results with friends over xbox live. Maybe have a "training camp" similar to the tutorial area in Masayf where Altair is required to perform a certian number of moves in a give time frame. As you can see, turning those 12 "save the citizen" tasks into 3 or 4 groups of 3 or 4 tasks each would help to increase the variety of gameplay and keep the game from feeling "repetitive".
Overall the game represents a refreshing and exhilirating experience supported with meticulous attention to detail and enviornment design. The "little" things never fail to impress, from the unique camera angles available as "memory glitches" during cut scenes (that generally give a more cinematic feel to the story unfolding before you), the amount of care that must have gone into creating each city and character, and the "back story" behind the TRUE story. If you only go through the game with putting for the minimum amount of effort and never read any of the emails, pay attention to the detail given to you in each investigation, or watch the more cinematic camera angles in the cut scenes, then you really are missing out of some of the true entertainment and "magic" that this game possesses. Participating in the story as it unfolds, watching the characters interact and seeing Altair's transformation from "know-it-all" rogue to "inquisitive, learned informant" plays out very well and helps to slowly dole the truth behind the story to you in bits and pieces that give you just enough information to cause you to think, without unveiling the true secrets until the appropriate times. Some twists are more expected than others, but sometimes it is not the plot twist itself that remains interesting, but the journey that led to it. Altair's (and Desmond's) role in the whole thing become some of the most intriguing parts of the whole setup, and again, the story fails by seemingly dropping the game to an "end" sequence in a big tease of a cliff hanger more than a true "resolution" one would expect. In many ways, it plays out like an episode of LOST, but without the smoke monsters and attractive female lead character.
It is hard to recommend this game as a "rental" because in order to fully appreciate it you need to approach it with an inquisitive mind and not be straining to beat the game within a certian time limit. Truly exploring the world and story could push your play time well over 20 hours, and while collectable flags and templars can add several more hours on top of that, it still wouldn't scratch the surface of most RPG type games. I suppose if you think you can somehow squeeze that whole 20 hour play session into one rental period then by all means save the money; as fun as the game is, it does not really have any replay value outside of a full completion. Just know that you will probably miss out on alot of the game by restricting yourself to a certian time frame and trying to brute-force your way through the game. I would instead recommend a purchase; the story and gameplay are worth the monetary investment and freedom from time restraints, especially considering you can find the game as low as $30 to $40 already (depending on if you are looking to buy the 360 or PS3 version). The game is just plain fun, the story is cinematic and engrossing (even if a bit predictable), and the production values and attention to detail are top notch. Hopefully, the brisk sales will encourage Ubisoft to release "downloadable content" in order to expand on the game and keep us involved until they can release a sequel.
Well, there you have it. Four more games put on the chopping block and disected for your reading (and, perhaps, wallet's) pleasure. Considering that Super Tuesday was this week, and several other major stories have been brewing as of late (5 huge fiber optic cables in the ocean accidentally go offline in 1 week? sounds fishy to me...) expect the blog to shift back to a more half/half rant and review style then it has been as of late. For those interested in games, though, here's what I'm currently playing (and, therefore, you should expect reviews for coming shortly):
Title, System (comment)
Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations, DS (This has been completed, so definitely this one)
Blue Dragon, 360 (completed for the most part, few achievements aside, so you'll see this soon)
Halo 3, 360 (completed, but don't expect multiplayer to be talked about much on my part)
Undertow, 360 XBLA (Played through single playet campaign, at least)Uno, 360 XBLA (Played it some... isn't that enough?)
Games I'm currently playing that you'll see in the future:
Enchanted Arms, 360 (Just started... expect within a month or so. It is a JRPG so it may take a while)
Advanced Wars: Days of Ruin, DS (Also just started... expect campaign impressions soon, but replayability will keep it being mentioned for a while)
Viva Pinata, 360 (Been playing off and on, kinda far so I have initial impressions but there's alot of game left here)
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Achievement Unlocked! (Rant Version)
Thank you for indulging me. Now that I've had a couple of nice days off, I'm ready to get back into ranting before the REAL holidays begin.
Most importantly, graduation. It is a very strange feeling, not having school to worry about. Ever since I started school at Georgia Tech it was like all I ever did was worry about school: what's that next project? When's the next test? What's my grade? What classes am I going to take next semester. Limitless questions, endless options, tons and tons of problems and always something new to look out for meant that even holidays were spent doing homework, working on group projects, or studying for tests. Now that I'm done done - not just "done with this semester, on to worrying about the next one" done - life seems so much more... enjoyable. Not that life at Tech wasn't enjoyable; while it was grueling and taxing it was also loads of fun and I made a plethora of new friends that I still talk to on a frequent basis. But when I was in school, I could never seem to really enjoy myself because there was always that other thing I knew I should be doing: studying, working, organizing, updating, researching.
Even though this week hasn't been easy on me - finding an apartment, setting up internet/gas/electricity, changing addresses and phones and all that moving nonsense - I've actually found that I enjoy myself even though I still feel rather busy. Maybe my mind has finally released its death grip from my emotions and allowed me to enjoy my free time with friends and family for a change, but after being home for the holidays it makes me half wish I had just taken a job here to be even closer to home because, aside from a few people, I really miss them and they are all people I really enjoy being around. Things have been so hard on my family recently - mother getting engaged, grandmother dying, my moving, brother bombing in college, lawsuits and financial issues and all that jazz - that I'd feel better being able to keep up with them week to week instead of month to month.
But, I know I'll enjoy myself in Austin - I still know quite a few people there, and I'm really near to 2 great friends - and being close to Houston will at least give me the capability of coming home if need be, even if $4 gas starts to scare me away from doing so.
It is odd to think of myself as a "adult", and I suppose that on some level I will never feel that way. I've always been a "son" and even though now I'm out of college and well on my own I still find a need to have a "parent" watching over me to make sure I'm not screwing up. Not of my own necessity, but just as a matter of... it has always been there and feels odd when it isn't. Finding an apartment on my own was probably the first LARGE decision I've made without ANY input from my parents, and while I know I did my research and know that I made the "right" decision, not having someone there who knew "the ropes" to look towards for a thumbs up or thumbs down kind of approval was very strange.
We'll see how life takes me from here: next up is actually moving - which should happen sometime before I start work on the 7th. Once I do start, my family swears up and down I'll be clamoring to go back to college... but at this rate, I sincerely doubt that.
In staying with the title, I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about Microsoft's "Achievement" system, which is a cross between the most genius and most fiendish thing I've ever seen added to a game system. While at first it seems like there isn't much to it, just some "score" to tell you what you've done in the game, if it is done right it really adds a lot of value and replayability to a game, not to mention challenge and, perhaps, bragging rights. There are several games that I've played on 360 that had their "game lifetime" extended significantly because I was trying to get more achievements points. XBLA games benefit from this especially, since theses kind of games tend to not have "goals" or a purpose and I would have quickly lost interest otherwise.
I am mesmerized by Hexic HD, stuck trying to get 75,000 points in timed or multiple black pearls simply because they are achievements. Kameo (which I'll talk about later) has some replability to it.... assuming it is not next to impossible to get "A" rankings in the score challenge mode. Carcassone was fun on it's own, but achievements made me play it more to try and get better and to challenge others online. Marble Blast Ultra (also later) gave achievements for both just beating a level and beating it on par time, which made me more likely to give levels several attempts when otherwise I would've just moved on (see: Mercury Meltdown). And while games like Metroid Prime: Corruption for Wii added an achievement-like system (basically playing Corruption gives you a type of "currency" you can spend on bonuses to the game depending on what you do), the system is not as well thought out or goal oriented as the 360 seems to be. In a day where games are taking fewer and fewer hours to beat (because they are charging you more for less), it is nice to have these extra "goals" to try and accomplish that add replay value and challenge to games I already own. Overall, it is an incredible system, and while it is not as "revolutionary" in terms of gameplay as the Wii was, it is still an incredible addition and I wish that all Wii games had the same thing.
Speaking of my 360, Rock Band has seen an INCREDIBLE amount of play recently. My roomates and I at GT became "Hall of Fame" inductees on medium (with me playing guitar), my other friends and I ended up getting about 3/4 of the way to Hall of Fame (with me singing), and even now my friends and I in Houston are attempting to play through the game on hard (with me playing drums). For the record, drums are HAAAAAARD. However, I find the drums the most fun to play, only because A) I'm already very good at singing so there is no real challenge aside from not falling asleep B) Drums are much more involved than singing or guitar and, while difficult, not as annoyingly difficult as guitar can be and C) because drums just feel more like playing a real instrument. My arms are flailing everywhere, sweat dripping down my brow, foot spasming from trying to do double taps without also tapping on the drum... all very difficult, but also very entertaining. I am getting better at them, but there are 1 or 2 rhythms that I just cannot for the life of me seem to be able to do, mostly revolving around alternating hitting the drum pad and tapping the foot petal during fast songs. Here's a hint, though: DON'T PLAY METALLICA. Songs are so much fun to play, but you basically just lose fans left and right because they are so hard. I mean, for us anyways. Not like we are the best of the best, I guess.
On other 360 news, Kameo (a launch title for the 360 back in 2005) is a rather fun game. I am not quite as sold on the way that their scoring system works, though. Basically, there are three different types of score multipliers: Carnage, Brutal, and Frenzy. As an action-adventure style game, there is alot of sort of free-range fighting with waves of enemies and mobs of trolls for you to dispense at your leisure. Every time you kill a troll, regardless of the circumstance, you get a "carnage" multiplier added. When you kill them in creative or especially brutal ways (for instance, pushing them off a cliff or throwing them into lava) you get a "brutal" multiplier. If you two trolls within 5 seconds of each other, you get a "frenzy" multiplier. So, obviously, it is better to get a hoard of trolls together and try to dispatch them as quickly and mercilessly as possible. Sounds easy, right? Ha. Think again. If you get hit, you lose multipliers. You also have a very limited set of movements and number of times you can use them before you have to wait for your power to replenish. By the end of the game I had somewhat gotten the hang of it, but I'm probably nowhere near to getting "A" scores on levels (required for Achievements), especially considering how many levels have random projectiles or awkward platformer-esque sequences. The game was certainly worth the $15 I paid for it, but at only 11 or so hours for game completion (if that, I'm being rather generous) and how bland the game looks (although for a launch game of the first "next gen" system, I may have been more impressed 2 years ago) I might have felt a little cheated if I had purchased it for $60. I'm glad I played it, but it was certainly no Banjo-Kazooie... which makes me worried about Banjo-Kazooie 3.
Marble Blast Ultra was a cheap little XBLA game that I purchased with some left over MS points after purchasing the Metallica songs for Rock Band... and a new Gamertag Avatar. (P.S. Can we please stop it with the point systems already? What am I going to do with that random 20 MS points or whatever that I have left?) The game is not nearly as difficult as Mercury Meltdown - most levels were beaten under par time on first attempt until I got up to the last 10-15, as opposed to Mercury Meltdown which has taken 3+ attempts since about the first 15 levels or so. Some of the last few Marble Meltdown levels, though, would be nigh-impossible for me to even consider getting under par time on. Just finishing them was impressive to me. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes marble-type games, it is fun and the online multiplayer could really extend its life, and for $5 or whatever the equivalent is you can't go wrong with a purchase. It is one of those games that I may play for a few minutes once a week or every other day just to have some fun and (slowly) work my way towards the online point collection achievement.
Lastly, let me leave you with a few impressions of Assassin's Creed. Having not played it extensively myself, but at least having a bit at a friend's, the game is quite fun and really achieves a good mix of "Prince of Persia" and "sandbox". I am amazed at home much fun simply climbing walls, running on roofs, or (my personal favorite), jump-assassinating guards can be even without following the actual plotline of the game. The game looks AMAZING in HD and, while it did have issues with freezing and glitching at first, it seems to have been fixed since then. Personally, I cannot wait to get this on my 360... but I'll have to hold out on playing until I get my HDTV so I can play it like it was meant to be played. No worries, though... I'm sure Super Mario Galaxy will keep me MORE than busy until then.
