*** BEWARE! Here there be spoilers!! ***
(Note: I began writing this after completing ME3 and before the release of the extended edition, so I just left my thoughts on the original ending in place instead of redoing it AGAIN. Those who know how long it takes me to do these and yet still read these for whatever reason will appreciate that).
After having a few discussions with friends, I'm getting to the point that I feel speaking about Mass Effect 3 as a whole is becoming increasingly unavoidable. The amount of forum discussions (or, more appropriately, whining), press, and commentators taking shots at it is starting to get at me.
If you remember my Mass Effect 2 Review, I gave the game pretty high praise overall, and for good reason. Even after another playthrough in prep for ME3, ME2 remains extremely compelling and continues to prove it's worth as one of the best games of this generation.
ME3 is largely the same, with a few hit-or-miss tweaks thrown in to try and fix what was "broken" in the previous game. Some things that it does get right it does quite well: the weapon upgrade system is a welcome improvement from ME2 without being the confusing, inventory-crushing mess from the first game. Each weapon type (pistol, shotgun, smg, etc) have several different guns to choose from, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. You can buy better versions of specific weapons to improve their overall stats (weigh less, more accurate, etc) as well as add in 2 'mods' that allow you to more drastically change their usage. Maybe you want that shotgun increase your melee damage capabilities, just in case husks get a bit too close for comfort, while someone else might just want their shots to pierce through more armor. The system allows for a fair number of combos that really help you work with your class and preferred playstyle.
There is an even bigger choice when choosing weapons this time around, in that the amount of 'weight' you carry directly affects your power cooldown rates. So any class - not just a soldier - can load themselves up with all 5 weapons and go to town, but an adept's biotic powers will be significantly impaired. Unfortunately, I find that the balance tends to skew a bit too much towards going as light as possible: you can carry an SMG, pistol and assault rifle and still be near the 200% cooldown reduction mark, making powers EXTREMELY quick to fire off. Giving them even just a moderate number of skill points makes many of them very powerful, and since powers do not have "ammo" and weapons do, it helps to encourage really relying on your power pool to burn through enemy units. Having power cooldowns be a bit longer would've made them feel less 'spammy' and made the choice to use a power feel more impactful (going back to the 'infinite ammo' model from the ME1 days might have helped too).
Some 'improvements', however, feel more like a step backwards than a step forwards. I never thought they could make a system even less engaging than the planet scanning system from ME2, but I was very wrong. After spending a few attempts at randomly 'pinging' planets in ME3 and constantly hearing the LOUD BLARE REAPERS INCOMING! sound over and over, I was ready to go back to ME2 planet scanning just for some peace of mind. It doesn't help that this system is propped up almost entirely upon checkbox-style fetch quests that have no real gameplay on offer. Some of them even talk like perhaps they had been planned out as real missions at one point (please, we need you to go down to our planet and save our people!) but end up being nothing more than pressing down a single button to complete it.
The cover system also is starting to feel a little bloated and unwieldy, especially since so many actions are mapped to the same button. Take cover, jump, dodge, revive, sprint and vault are all mapped exactly the same and I often times found myself doing one of them when I really meant to do another one (like taking cover instead of reviving a companion, or vice versa). There are also several problems with cover as a whole, like some areas that appear to have space for you to shoot over but don't allow it, or cover that you look around and it points you straight into another object that blocks most of your abilities and shots. The over-abundance of grenades on harder single player difficulties also makes cover more frustrating than fun, as trying to find a place to reload or regen shields that isn't bathed in bullets means you are instantly greeted with 5 perfectly thrown grenades, ready to flush you back out into the shooting gallery. I understand you might want to make players shake things up and prevent turtling or overly-defensive play, but making your game utilize cover mechanics with such importance and then constantly punishing your players for using it doesn't seem like a very good use of the system.
The single player game was overall very impressive, but definitely left me scratching my head a few times. On one hand, the level of detail and amount of 'fan service', cameos, tie-ins and connections to previous Mass Effect games and decisions is absolutely astonishing. In fact, so much content is connected to previous games in some way that the 'new' characters and are few, far and in between and feel overall much weaker. While every decisions you ever made may not end up being the butterfly effect that destroys entire worlds, many of them come back to change small things or, at "worst", be mentioned in a few lines of dialogue. This, in and of itself, is incredible to me: the number of potential permutations is astonishing and really helps to reinforce that this is YOUR game, not anyone else's. (More on this later, as this is by and large the reason I wanted to write this review) The single player game took me over 50 hours to complete on the hardest difficulty (which was slightly easier than an ME2 insanity playthrough), so the content on offer here is very substantial.
On top of single player of course is the multiplayer addition, which surprisingly does not feel as lame or tacked on as I thought it would be. The idea is relatively simple - a very basic 'horde mode' type gameplay with different potential enemy types, maps, and difficulties to choose from - but is layered with interesting choices in terms of your chosen class, weapons, and mods. Unfortunately, the whole multiplayer affair seems to be designed as a long-term monetization scheme, relying on a 'booster pack' system to unlock new weapons, characters, mods and powerups. You can unlock them all simply by playing the game, but chances at rare items will require you to beat 3-4 missions to afford enough in game currency for one 'pack', meaning you'll be puting in hundreds of hours into the game just to try and unlock one specific item or class that you'd really like to play. I would've preferred a system where you can just buy whatever specific item you'd like, but then again I've never liked the 'booster pack' mentality in any form. I suppose there is some portion of our brains that loves that RNG, lottery-style system of acquiring upgrades, but having to play for several hours just to buy a chance at an item really kills it for me.
I also wish that the classes would've been treated like they are in single player, where you start with half your skills and earn the second half through leveling, as starter characters are EXTREMELY weak due to having almost no skill points. It takes being almost level 12 or 13 before you start seeing your powers and weapons have significant effect on enemies, and while you do level relatively fast if you do well, having to be ineffectual in 1-2 games just to get to the point you can be useful just does not feel very cool. And while we're on the topic of character powers, why can you not remap them? Some characters have the same abilities mapped to different buttons, and it becomes VERY CONFUSING swapping between them.
Overall, I'd say multiplayer was a welcome addition to the game, but I'd like to have seen it be used a bit less as a post-retail monetization scheme and more about getting to fight big waves of enemies with your friends. Also, let's be a little less brutal on the galactic readiness decay next time, ok?
So we've established that the game is a very strong entry into the series, chock full of some amazing content and, while not perfect, definitely worth a playthrough. So why did I feel so strongly about writing this if it's nothing more than a strong-but-not-stellar entry into a popular franchise you've probably played already anyway? Simple: the overly dramatic fan response to the ending. I have it on top of the review, but I'll put it here again just to make sure you are really interested in continuing on, full spoilt.
*** BEWARE! Here there be spoilers!! ***
I've heard many complaints about the ending, and while some are definitely valid (the ending is somewhat confusing and disappointing), I think by and large they miss the mark/point and take a very narrow minded approach to defining the 'ending' and band wagoning has taken it to even greater whiney heights than it really deserves. Allow me to do what I can to explain why I'm disappointed - but not RAWRRAWRRAWR ANGRY - at the game's ending by going through some of their major complaints.
1) Normandy/Squadmates escape through a mass effect jump
This one resonates the most with me, because I asked myself the same question as I watched it. A team member who was on the grund with me ended up on the normandy, taking a mass effect jump as it was 'blowing up', and ends up on the random planet with joker/
2) Mass Effect Relay destruction is supposed to cause total system annihilation!
This one I don't agree with at all. The argument here is that in ME2's DLC 'Arrival', you destroy a mass effect relay and that ends up causing the entire system to be wiped out. However, not only does ONE event not a pattern make, but the ways in which they are destroyed are very different. In arrival, you destroy a mass effect relay by running an asteroid into it. This is a completely uncontrolled, brute force method that has (predictably) unintended consequences. Whatever causes the relayed to stop functioning in ME3 is NOT, in any way, required to have the same side effects. It is roughly equivalent to saying that because you ran a train into your car to stop and the car exploded, turning the keys to the 'off' position will also cause the car to explode. No points for the whiners on this one.
3) Entire races are stranded and this is completely ignored!
This is a little of yes and a little of no. It is true that the fleets of many of these races are now stranded in the Sol system, but it can be presumed all fleets (except probably the quarians) are not the entirety of those races. They have a chance to continue living on their own home planets regardless of where the bulk of their military force is now caught.
While it is true we don't know what happens to the fleet that gets stranded, I'm somewhat glad we don't. The amount of things that could happen there is extremely numerous (especially given your actions in the game), and I'd rather be involved in that playing out than just watching it happen in some kind of CGI or conversation. However, none of this has anything to do with the main point of the three mass effect stories - the reapers - and really acts as additional dénouement to Shepard's final actions, but I'm not too torn up that it is left out. I can see some people wanting to know, but honestly you could go down that road for a LONG time before everything was finally wrapped up in a neat little bow. Sometimes it's just better to let people imagine the details while you fill in the major events. We'll call this one even, though, just to be fair to those who might have specific major events or characters they would've liked to see wrapped up a bit more nicely.
4) War Assests don't matter!
This is also tricky. They do matter (it can change potential ending options and even the eventual fate of earth), but it probably feels very ineffective compared to the amount of 'options' presented in ME2.
5) None of my choices matter!
This is probably one of the more offensive complaints. If you think none of your choices matter because everything doesn't get plugged into some equation and directly affect the games "ending", then you clearly weren't paying attention to the entire rest of the game when choices you made not only in this game but also in previous ones made direct impacts to the events, stories, and even well-being of both your squadmates and the galaxy at large. You decide how to cure the Genophage, you decide how to deal with the Quarians and Geth, you decide how to deal with Cerberus... the list is pretty substantial. Honestly, I think that if you treat the entirety of Mass Effect 3 as 'the ending' (which, given the context of the events relative to the entirety of the story, it kind of is) then there are many subplots that are resolved almost exclusively by your action(s).
6) But the ending is just a giant Deus Ex Machina!
This is also a frustrating excuse. Did you not pay attention to the first part of the game? Your character stumbles face-first into a magical device that is supposed to be the Prothean's secret answer to beating the reapers, and you spend the entirety of the game chasing down some completely arbitrary solution that is conveniently never mentioned before in any other game despite the Reaper menace being very real and very known (by you and several others) throughout the entire series. Why is this wordlessly accepted at face value, but then seeing solution being some thing we've never seen before (which, duh) cause such vitriol? I vividly remember thinking to myself at about the hour 2 or 3 mark that I felt this would be a pretty sad way to end the series by just building some kind of special device that just hands me the victory after fighting on the ground against reaper agents all these years... so by that standard, the ending is actually a kind of improvement (yes, it still just wins it for me, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get it all back and ended up having an option of how to win and what that would mean). Point here is, yes, the ending can be viewed as a giant Deus Ex Machina, but then you're really just saying that the whole game is one.
There is more, but at this point, it does seem rather moot. Bioware released an 'extended cut' that very likely makes none of the haters happy and adds nothing of significant value to those who thought it was fine before (aside from longer, unnecessary ending sequences) and the whole thing has kind of died down. But when I sit down and look and see people trying to sue Bioware for 'false advertising' or report them to the BBB (or, worse, voting EA into the golden poo award simply for a lackluster ending to a video game), I really have to wonder where some of you people place your priorities. Or maybe I'm just not as diehard into games and needing closure to all my fantasy universes to be as perfect as I can pretend imagine it. I will say good on those who voiced their complaints or wrote about their dissatisfaction in a way that the developer can use and take with them to make their next series better.
It may not have been a perfect ending, and I'll certainly add my voice to those of us worried about it happening because it was rushed versus just trying something new, but to let the (relatively unimportant) final 10 minutes of a game ruin an otherwise amazing 150 hour trilogy because the known end goal (beat the reapers, save the galaxy!) was not well executed just seems.... unfortunate. If you've played ME1 and ME2, get ME3, enjoy ME3, and then *maybe* be disappointed at how it all ends. You'll still enjoy the 50 hours it took you to get there, that is almost guaranteed.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Reap on Ye Reaper Man
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The World's Worst Space Mining Simulator
(Alternate title after patch: Mass of Text 2: Revenge of the Paragraph)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I'm ASimPerson, and This is My Favorite Mass Effect Review on the Citadel
Observant readers of this site have probably noticed another contributor sitting up in the top left for sometime now. That person is, in fact, me. I'm not as verbose as Chris, but I hopefully be only slightly less skilled a reviewer.
My plan here is to start off with Bioware's blockbuster sequel to, um, its 2007 blockbuster Mass Effect. For reference, here's Chris's original Mass Effect review.
Mass Effect 2 (PC)
If Mass Effect (ME) was Bioware's attempt to get first person shooter gamers into RPGs, then Mass Effect 2 (ME2) goes even further in that direction. Oh, there's still character customization - Shepard can now customize his (sorry female Shepard fans) individual armor pieces according to function and can apply any color he wants. However, almost as though it was a reaction to the terrible customization UI in the first game, the broad range of choices for armor and weapons is now gone. For each kind of weapon Shepard can equip there anywhere from 2-4 choices at the end of the game, and there is no inventory for weapons and armor. I'm not crazy about that, but it does at least mean the death of the "you have too many items" dialog box. All characters (excepting class requirements and the rare character-specific items) can equip any weapon. Class still does play a role here, though, as the weapons characters are proficient with will have more ammo available.
Yes, I did state that correctly - ME2 brings back ammo management. While the first game's weapons could overheat but had unlimited ammo, ME2 has finite ammo. I'm personally not a fan of this change, as it seems to contradict some of the other changes. In addition, this now means that ammo needs to massaged and managed. While occasionally this calls for strategy (for instance, the "best" weapons for non-soldier characters only have 20-30 shots, so they need to be saved for when it's neccessary) this mostly just means most players will have to waste time looking for SMG clips on the ground, which isn't really a lot of fun.
The character abilities have also been simplified in ME2. Instead of allocating points to abilities, skills, and force powers biotics, each character has 6 areas to allocate abilities to. Experience and ability points are earned very sparingly - while Shepard still gains levels, experience and points and now earned only after missions. This also means the ability system is simpler. Instead of the Knights of the Old Republic style 3/6/9 points system (where each ability generally levels up after so many points, but you only expend one point at a time) like ME did, ME2 uses a 1-2-3-4 system (where the first level of an ability is 1 point, the second is 2, etc.). At the 4-point level, the ability gives you some stat bonuses and that's that.
Missions are definitely more discrete in this game than in ME. Each time a mission is completed in ME2, the game tosses up a summary screen with some text and how much money, experience, and ability points were earned. While some folks may welcome this, I found it sort of jarring—especially early in the game where upon completing a mission I was sent back to my ship, while I still had things to do back on the space station I was just on. Nonetheless, that's a pretty minor complaint.
I will complain about the mining, though. Those who played the first game may remember the infamous mining subquest. Well, at least that one was at least optional. In ME2, minerals are required to build weapon, armor, ship, and character upgrades. The only way to acquire minerals is process which I personally referred to as "strip mining the galaxy". Upon visiting a planet in a solar system, the planet is scanned for minerals, and then automated probes are sent to pick them up. The scanning is, at best, tedious. At least on the PC version (which I played), the mouse is dragged around a globe representation of each planet while a chart tells you the concentration of each mineral in the area over which the scanner currently is. To add insult to injury, the probes used to actually pick up the minerals are not free and must be bought (also, fuel is not unlimited either, but this only applies to travel within local clusters, not solar systems). Given that your ship is actually smarter in this game makes this even worse (i.e., why can't the ship scan the planet?). I suppose the only way this could be worse than it already is if I had to drive the Mako down to the planet and get the minerals, a la the first game. (Good news: no Mako missions in this game!)
Of course, this would not be a Bioware game without a healthy dose of plot. Being a sequel, it's pretty much a given that this game is darker than its predecessor, but fortunately it trends more toward The Empire Strikes Back end than, say, the second Prince of Persia game. NPCs now swear more, and Shepard's "neutral" dialog options are even a little more, well, angry than the first game. Of course, this is still a Bioware game, so everyone is still pretty much transparently good or evil, including Shepard. ME's "dialog wheel" is back, and again the vast majority of conversations will have three options that progress the conversation: Space Goody-Two-Shoes, Space Switzerland, and Space Nazi. Based on my experience, players will generally end up on one of the two extremes unless they're purposely switching around.
Choices made in the first game can change the second somewhat significantly - the core plot will still be there, but just about everything around it will be different. (Hint, though: the "default" or "canon" choices from the first game are, fitting in the tone of the second, mostly the renegade options.) Your crew will be a mix of newcomers and old faces, and some other NPCs interactions are also flavored by choices you make in the first game. I think that's about all I can say without getting to plot spoilers, which I'd like to avoid for either game. Basically, your job is to, once again, save the galaxy against statistically long odds. The game makes it abundantly clear there will be a third installment as well, so go ahead and clear out some space on your 2012 day planner.
I'm late to the Mass Effect party. I only played the original after getting on sale on Steam back in January, figuring I should see what Chris and my brother had been going on about for the past two years. Turns out, they were on to something, and after beating the original I pre-ordered the second game. Since I finished the first game on a couple days before the second came out, this meant I had over a month of uninterrupted Mass Effect goodness. This is basically the gaming equivalent of getting into a TV show during the middle of its run, and then realizing that now you have to wait for the rest of the episodes to come out, just like everyone else. And here I am, waiting with baited breath with the rest of the Internet for the remaining downloadable content packs and the announcement of Mass Effect 3.
asim's "tl;dr" summary: they "fixed" inventory from the first game by getting rid of inventory management, combat edges closer to the FPS scale, but there's still a rich, deep RPG here that's addictive and fun. It's darker than the first game, but avoids overdoing the "edgy" thing.
In Memoriam
Last April 14th, the plug was pulled on the authentication for the original Xbox Live servers. Once the king of Live, and quite possibly the reason why Live still even exists, today Halo 2 is all but dead, as those who've managed to keep their Xboxes online since then are the only ones left. I played a lot on the last night and was hit with a wall of gaming nostalgia that I thought was only possible with games from my childhood. In particular, it brought back all those nights in college spent with my roommates from 2005 and 2006 when we'd go on there as a party, continually seek out the shotguns and plasma grenades, and make incessant "Juggernaut" references. ("I like your raincoat!", "You can't run!", "Jugs ain't got no power steerin'", etc.) So I guess what I'm trying to say is... thanks for the memories, Bungie.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Mass of Text
I've been playing "catch up" on the Xbox 360 since I purchased it last November, and so many good games have been coming out for it lately that I seem to be farther behind than I was when I first got it. Assassin's Creed, Rockband, Mass Effect, GTAIV, Beautiful Katamari, Lost Odyssey and Penny Arcade Adventures have all been released since I started playing the 360, and those were piled on top of the nearly half-dozen older 360 titles I was trying to dig through. With the exception of Lost Odyssey, I've at least made an attempt to play all the 360 titles I own, so I may actually be nearing the end of my stack. Of course, that doesn't include the Wii titles I am still chipping away at (Fire Emblem, Mario Kart) or would like to start (Baiten Kaitos [technically a Gamecube game], Okami, Boom Blox, No More Heroes, Lost Winds, My Life as a King... amoung others) or the dozens and dozens of DS games I am trying desperately to catch up on (just finished Dawn of Sorrows, although I got the "bad" ending so I may go back and try to get the better one, trying to start The World Ends With You). By then it will be fall, with its promise of AAA 360 titles (Banjo Kazooie, I'm looking at you) and possible surprises from Nintendo on Wii/DS. Just when I get a chance to catch my breath, things will start to really heat back up again.
That being said, however, I seem to be moving through games a little faster than reviews, which is why I am here: This week's item of interest is Mass Effect which, surprisingly, may be relevant to some because it is coming out on PC soon. So, allow us to begin, without delay!
Mass Effect
Mass Effect, at first glance, is BioWare's attempt to take your largest 360 install base (people who love FPS's) and entice them into playing an RPG. The battle system is not your standard RPG turn-based battle system: it is much more fluid and action oriented, leaving a large majority of the 'RPGis' portions to be done between battles. I've personally never played Knights of the Old Republic (a travesty, according to many) but I hear the battle system is similar to how those play. You can still 'pause' combat, when you are attempting to make some kind of choice - to use an ability or switch weapons, for instance - but generally speaking your battles will be much more fluid and fast paced than standard RPG's tend to be.
In many ways, I approve of these kind of steps forward in the genre. The RPG essentials are there - leveling up, inventory management, special skills, party members, experience, etc - but instead of being wrapped around a battle system that has been designed, perfected, and then run into the ground repeatedly, Bioware introduces a completely new, fast paced battle system. Think of it as an advancement of the genre - like Active Time Battle or FFXII's Gambit system - but instead of trying to improve upon the old model, they just threw it out and started from scratch. While I do love standard, turn based combat (Blue Dragon, FF everything, etc) it is nice to see a new twist to the battle system every now and then. Several other games have proven these kind of action-oriented RPGs could work (Diablo, etc) so it's no surprise that Mass Effect's approach works very well.
That is to say, of course, it works whenever you are actually able to battle. The amount of preparation necessary to keep your party up to date and ready to battle is borderline insane. The weapon customization options available to you are deep, so deep that you will often find yourself lost in a whirlpool of tungsten bullets and medikits. With a possible 4 weapons, dozens and dozens of customizable weapon mods and ammo, and 2 other (current) party members to keep track of, you will often (I can not stress that enough) find yourself sitting there sifting through all of your items and messing with your party's equipment for 30 minutes or more. Add to this that you are almost always swamped with items after each mission (one look into a medicine cabinet, next thing you know you are knee deep in Assault Rifles... no wonder these people we came to find are all dead) and the sweet, delicious, run-around-and-kill-stuff parts of the game are completely overshadowed by the constant "YOU HAVE TOO MANY ITEMS, PLEASE SELL SOME" spam you see each time you decide to look down at something. This makes it difficult to play Mass Effect for extended periods of time, as you will slowly begin to become annoyed by the constant barrage of seemingly meaningless, yet utterly important, inventory management.
It does not help, of course, that the menu structure and buy/sell mechanics surrounding items are, at best, an annoyance and, at worst, an obstacle. Sometimes I felt like my character should level up in mercantilism (which, FYI, is not really a stat) because of the work it took me just to search for a new upgrade or sell all of my unwanted items. With no discernible way to search, sort, or even organize the nearly 200 items your characters are dragging with them through each of their dangerous, life threatening misadventures, the process of trying to determine whether an item is worth saving or selling becomes not only unbearable, but moot. You are likely to stumble upon 50 new weapon mods and 20 new guns on your next mission to save someone's puppy (who knows how), so if you did really need it you are bound to run into it (or something better!) during the next fun part of the game. If the game was even the slightest bit more intelligent on how it managed your items - let's start by letting me equip items while at the store, or even just letting me see what my party members are currently wearing while shopping on the Normandy - it might become less of a chore and more of a chance to really customize and tweak your party for each new planet. As it stands now, however, your best bet is probably to just plow through as much as possible, selling anything you pick up as you go. Once you start having a really hard time with enemies, spend 20 minutes (the same amount of time it would have taken you even if you had been updating all this time...) and put your spoils of war to good use.
Another gripe on the battle system is your squad mates which, as is the standard with co-operative AI, are completely useless at best and often a hindrance. I cannot begin to count the number of times my teammates stepped into my line of fire, or would just blindly run out and get killed by the enemy. Other times, they would take cover in some of the better positions... and then do nothing (or next to nothing). The game is nice enough to let you at least manually control their special moves, which is nice in pinch when you could really use another classes ability other than your own. It makes you wonder, though, why the enemy AI does not suffer from the same fate. Ruthless and cruel, the enemy (especially in the early levels) seems to dauntingly out-number you at every turn and often times you end up dead, a fate only further frustrated by the poorly designed auto save feature.
I suppose, however, that is not to say that the AI is crafty more so than the tutorial is, well, non-existent. Even for someone who has been a gamer all his life, the endless list of buttons, menus, options and skills is available to you almost instantaneously, and without proper introduction. In one sense this is nice, because as you replay the game you can get right back in to the action and don't have to waste hours trying to force your way through a tutorial, but a baptism by fire isn't exactly the best way to try to introduce your users to the game mechanics. It took me nearly 10 hours of gameplay before I realized that my mobile APC had a cannon on it - a fact discovered by sheer accident. Of course, perhaps the reason they never explained the APC portions are because it handles so poorly and drives so slowly that maybe giving you something to try and learn on your own would mask the otherwise mediocre gaming experience. Traveling on foot had its quirks (not being able to "run" unless in combat, constant interruptions by loads and, worse, elevators) but trying to drive, let alone fight, in that giant hunk of worthless metal was torture. Add to that the fact that the giant sandworms (or whatever they were) can kill you while in your vehicle in one hit (despite taking nearly a dozen to take down) and the experience as a whole can be quite frustrating.
Aside from the amount of time you have to spend customizing your characters, the overall game system is very well done. The number of different choices available to you - from character customization to item customization to even dialouge options - keep much of the dialog feeling fresh and adds a lot more credibility to the fact that you are, indeed, role playing. In many RPG's, your characters are on a set, linear path that you hardly (if ever) deter from. In large part, the story has been decided and the means by which it occurs was chosen long before you created your character. While much of this is still true in Mass Effect (the game does seem to end the same regardless of your choices) the path that you take to get there can be wildly different depending on if you act as a paragon or a renegade. Having played the game through twice, with the exception of a few major plot points, I felt like I was playing a completely different game. My first time through I was a female soldier class and acted in a largely paragonical manner (is that even a word?), while my second time through I was a male biotic who was as much of a Renegade as I could possibly be. The dialog trees, missions, and even character reactions to me were as different as night and day. Of course, this means nothing if you do not want to replay the game in the first place, which could be feasible if you have had enough of the tired inventory management system. With the story playing out in a totally different manner, and playing as a biotic being almost polar opposite to playing as a soldier, the game was as enjoyable as it was the first time I played through it - perhaps even more so since the biotic class relies on weapons much less and so it was not as important to nit-pick with my inventory.
Of course, if you don't like story, you might as well just give up right now, because Mass Effect stuffed to the brim with story - character development (dialog), plot development ("cut scenes") and background (text) are pervasive throughout the entirety of the game, from start to finish. Every planet you visit has some unique summary written about it, from a few sentences to several paragraphs depending on it's importance, which is no mean feat considering the massive size of the Mass Effect universe. You can talk with your squad mates between missions to learn more about their past, get their thoughts on the last mission, or just chat (the "just chat" options, however, are few in number and largely repetitious). To play Mass Effect without indulging yourself in it's back story and characters would be to rob yourself of the very essence that makes Mass Effect so unique and enticing, but at the same time spending 45+ minutes after each battle to try and see if your lieutenant has heard back from her sister about how school is going on Earth can become very tiresome very fast when all you want to do is gain more levels and kill more stuff (all the worse when you also have to upgrade weapons, sell items, and move between galaxies, all of which take up even more of your time). In some ways, Mass Effect is like a roller coaster: you trudge through the slow, uphill climb for the few fleeting moments of pleasure you get from the downhill rush.
As predicted, the whole Mass Effect "sex scene" story was blown way out of proportion, almost to the point of being pathetic. Someone at Bioware needs to get an award for genius in marketing because this probably drove more publicity for the game and spurred more sales than any other campaign I've seen in recent years. The scenes - neither of which are very long or, for that matter, explicit - have less in them that one might see on prime time TV (say, in your standard episode of LOST). Disappointing to some, I'm sure, but in the end nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.
Mass Effect, while by no means perfect, is overall a very enjoyable game. If you can take the game at a leisurely pace and really stop and experience the world BioWare has created, you will constantly be amazed and surprised at the amount of effort that has gone into creating the game. Of course, if you are impatient, or used to the speed and action of your more standard FPS's, Mass Effect will feel more like work than it is worth. I've personally played through the game twice, and could easily see myself playing through it a third time to play as the engineer class later on, which is a testament to just how much fun I found the underlying gameplay mechanics to be, but it is perhaps one of the most frustrating "good games" I've ever played. You will often times feel that the game is dragging, or even fighting you tooth and nail (bad AI, terrible menus, etc) but if you can overlook a few flaws and stick with the game you are in for one great roller coaster ride. Perhaps, when they release the game for PC this week, they will have many of these problems fixed. If they find a way to make the 360 version better, well, that's just icing on an already delicious cake.
Currently playing:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Crystal Chronicles:Ring of Fates (DS)
Mario Kart (Wii)
Tons of new DS games while in China.
What should be next (Still working on Mario Kart, sorry):
Penny Arcade Adventures: Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness (XBLA)
GTA IV (360)
Puzzle Quest (DS + XBLA)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Saint's Row (360)
Smash Brothers Brawl (Wii)
Undertow, (XBLA)
Bold games and completed and most likely. Saint's Row and GTAIV will probably be done together to show how they compare.
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)
