Safety's Off

The 8 Best Damn Games of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:14:00 +0000

It’s fairly evident that 2011 was a great year for gamers, and although the myriad of titles available during the holidays are sure to occupy much space on many a gamer’s best of the year list, it’s important to look back a little further and remember the earlier blockbusters of the year. Although heavy-hitters such as Battlefield 3 and Skyrim are certainly killer games, I often find the most recent titles adorning these lists simply because the memories of their experiences are freshest in gamers’ minds. That being said, there were some seriously kickass games that released this year, and I’ve managed to narrow my personal list down to eight of the best titles 2011 had to offer. Take a walk with me.

8.) Battlefield 3

- While I never had the chance to play its true predecessor, Battlefield 3 was a hotly anticipated title that easily found its way onto every gamer’s wishlist the second it was announced. Although the launch of the game couldn’t have possibly been any rockier, DICE delivered the premier multiplayer FPS experience of the year. Jets make a triumphant return to the online warzones packed with 64 trigger-happy players, while the gunplay successfully builds on the lofty precedent set by its most recent predecessor, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The gunplay was visceral, the graphics were gorgeous, and the intensity was superglued on 11. Some technical issues still hold DICE's magnum opus back from being a whole-hearted recommendation of mine, but when everything works as it should, Battlefield 3 is a solid and adrenaline-soaked shooter that simply demands your attention.

7.) Deus Ex: Human Revolution

- There goes a saying in the vast world of Internet forums that whenever somebody mentions the original Deus Ex, somebody reinstalls it. If the not-quite sequel, Human Revolution, is any indication of the first game’s technical and story-telling prowess, then I can certainly see why. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a title with an incredibly unique aesthetic that paints an elegant and realistic portrait of our society’s potential future, and delves into subjects that could easily become controversial topics in the years to come. It was also really, really fun. I was a tad concerned about the merits of Human Revolution’s creative blend of FPS and RPG elements prior to the game’s launch, but once the game shows you what it’s capable of, you’ll find an ambitious title that refuses to compromise the integrity of either of its core components for the sake of mainstream appeal. Deus Ex: Human Revolution proved to developers around the world that depth doesn’t have to come at the cost of accessibility, and that video games can address mature topics in an engaging and enjoyable fashion.

6.) Dead Space 2

- The original Dead Space gave the survival horror genre a much-needed breath of fresh air, and eschewed much of the traditional wonkiness typically associated with its peers. The game controlled wonderfully, the scares were atmospheric and genuine, and combat was satisfying and unique. Dead Space 2 built on the rock-solid foundation of its predecessor, and kicked up the intensity about two billion notches without forgetting its fear-inducing roots. Although the action-packed title garnered some criticism for becoming too Michael Bay-ish in some regards, I found Dead Space 2 to be a logical evolution of the franchise while retaining its trademark gore-soaked terror. The pacing was damn near perfect, the combat was even better, and the game was absolutely beautiful to boot. Certainly one of EA’s finest titles to date.

5.) The Witcher 2: Assassin’s of Kings

- I had heard many great things about the first title in CD Projekt Red’s fantasy series, but never actually had a chance to play or see much of it. So when my killer new graphics card arrived and PC enthusiasts across the nation began using The Witcher 2 as a benchmark, I figured it was time to give the franchise a shot. I still can’t believe I let this game slip under my radar for so long, considering it was one of the most engaging and rewarding fantasy RPGs I had played since the original Fable (which I’m sure is a comparison that will elicit many confused and, perhaps, furious retorts). The narrative thread was truly mature in nature, and was immediately engrossing despite the steep learning curve and difficult to understand menu and combat systems. Perhaps the most impressive component of the title was its complete dedication to the concept of branching paths and ambiguous decision-making, which governed the majority of the game’s engaging storyline and made selecting a critical plot option require calculated thought and foresight. Despite its slight accessibility flaws, The Witcher 2 proved to be an immensely satisfying experience that was fascinating and enjoyable throughout the course of its well-written and even more skillfully-executed fantasy epic.

4.) Marvel vs. Capcom 3

- As I’m sure most of you know by now (or, at least you do if you follow me on Twitter or listen to Dual Wielding) I’m a huge fan of Capcom fighting games. Having never really spent a significant amount of time with Marvel vs. Capcom 2 due to its unrelenting speed and brutal learning curve, I was hopeful for a fresh start with MvC3. It was love at first hyper combo. Not only is Marvel vs. Capcom 3 distilled morphine for my brain’s pleasure centers, it also opened me up to an entirely foreign world of comic book lore, which became a new guilty pleasure of mine. While my current relationship with its “sequel”, Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, has become one of conflicted emotions, the franchise continues to occupy nearly all of my mind’s free thinking time, and there aren’t many moments that pass by where I envision potential team arrangements or combos. I’m definitely hooked.

3.) Batman: Arkham City

- Batman: Arkham Asylum was a title that shocked everyone when it released two years ago. Not only was it the first game that successfully captured the essence of the Batman mythos, but it was a damn fine action game as well. Regardless of your interest in comic books or Batman, Arkham City takes the already successful formula of Arkham Asylum and blows the doors right off anything you might have come to expect about superhero games. A fully-realized open world setting, gorgeous graphics, a dark and brooding storyline with phenomenal voice-acting, and one of the most well-constructed combat systems this side of Bayonetta. Batman: Arkham City not only redefines what it means to be a licensed title, it raises the bar significantly for action games in general, with one of the best characters of all time standing atop its astronomically high standards.

2.) Skyrim

- You knew it was going to be on here somewhere, didn't you? Much like Chad, I was a huge fan of Oblivion, and although I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to sink into the successor to one of my favorite RPGs of all-time, I can already tell that it lives up to the impossible amount of hype surrounding its launch. Skyrim builds on the strengths of Oblivion while eliminating (almost) all of its weaknesses. Improved menu navigation, denser worlds, more interesting dungeons and quests, the list truly goes on. While the lack of direction in the beginning stages of the game was a tad overwhelming initially (much like it was for me in Oblivion) it wasn't long before the seductive embrace of the game's open world structure began to welcome me into its "just one more quest" arms. Considering I haven't even scratched the surface of what Skyrim has to offer, I'd say that's a pretty damn good sign.

1.) Gears of War 3

- There isn’t a single game that released this year that offered the amount of value and entertainment as Gears of War 3 does. As a Gears fanboy, I was sorely disappointed by the second game in the franchise after falling madly in love with the first entry in the trilogy. Thankfully, Epic Games heard my (and, evidently, many others’) cries and delivered the most expertly crafted shooter I’ve played since Call of Duty 4. Everything that was missing or broken about Gears of War 2 was promptly addressed with logical and kickass additions that make the overall package Gears of War 3 has to offer undeniably amazing. The storyline was unwaveringly excellent, the multiplayer is simply unparalleled in intensity, and Horde/Beast mode are enjoyable enough on their own to justify the $60 you pay for Epic’s latest…epic. I’d honestly wager that Gears of War 3 is the best deal since The Orange Box, and the fact that the game is so universally outstanding makes it my easy pick for Game of the Year 2011.

Why Video Game Journalism is Failing

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:28:00 +0000

Before I continue, I feel that it's important to preface this article by establishing that video game journalism in and of itself is not a bad thing - there are many fantastic writers in the field, and several of them are well-versed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they cover. However, for every Charles Onyett, there's a Jim Sterling - a professional with a knack for journalistic critique for every needlessly controversial amateur. With such a rift between the two types of game journalists, the concept of taking the whole entity seriously falls by the wayside when so much of the content that is pumped out of the mainstream news sites is trite, uninformative, or childishly incendiary. Allow me to demonstrate.

Modern Warfare 3 received insanely generic reviews for such a big-budget title.

Personal feelings about the title itself aside, IGN's Modern Warfare 3 review was unworthy of the term "review". While it was structurally and grammatically sound, the content present therein was hardly in-depth or analytical, and read more like a press release straight from Activision with mild hints of an opinion sprinkled throughout for good measure. In fact, if you examine the majority of the Modern Warfare 3 reviews, you'll notice that they all say, more or less, the exact same thing with only slightly different words. Most reviews in this generation of consoles have become increasingly more bite-sized, and have settled for becoming mere overviews while being perfectly satisfied with glossing over key points without digging into the meat of the games themselves. While the argument that a plethora of deadlines and an abundance of games makes for a limited amount of time to review each heavy-hitting title is certainly not unfounded, some of the biggest games of the year in the last generation of consoles (Halo 2, Half-Life 2, etc) released during very cramped timeframes where journalists were required to write roughly the same amount of reviews for similarly big-budget titles. Despite this, quality was still of paramount importance during such crowded times, while today we have arguably more complex games that are receiving considerably less attention than their somewhat antiquated predecessors.

Don't believe me? Think I'm just a jaded gamer who hates how "mainstream" one of his favorite hobbies has become? Take a gander at IGN's Resident Evil 4 review, and then give any review written in the last six months a glance. It's not just a matter of pages and word counts, it's a question of critical exploration versus socially-induced apathy. Video games are unique in that they provide a level of interaction and agency that other entertainment media completely lack, and as a result, lose much of the gravitas that video games can deliver through narrative-driven experiences. Based on the coverage and reviews you see today, however, you'd be forgiven for thinking video games were as infantile and simple as mainstream society often claims them to be.

"It's not just a matter of pages and word counts, it's a question of critical exploration versus socially-induced apathy."

Video games, like paintings or sculptures, deserve an exaggerated amount of attention to understand and identify the numerous intricacies they possess, and the best games often times unconditionally demand such attention. As it stands, only the so-called "arthouse" games receive this kind of professional investment by the press, while "dumb" or "simple" titles get the bullet point treatment and a score that (depending on which site you write for) is designed to either generate as little or as much controversy as possible. The fact that very little time is spent discussing the design decisions of the developers or how the mechanics interact with one another is a bold indicator of just how immature gaming journalism has become as the lowest common denominator continues to plummet and news sites constantly strive to appeal to such a demographic.

Bioshock was one of the few games that got the critical treatment it deserved.

While I'm not arguing that every review (or game, for that matter) is deserving of a 10-page magnum opus consisting of every possible perspective on the inner workings of the game in question, I do believe that the purpose of reviewing video games is largely misunderstood by both the industry itself and the gamers that demand them. It is most certainly possible to be succinct and concise without compromising critical details (as Roger Ebert has proven on numerous occasions in his film reviews) but video game reviews are written in such a simplistic fashion that it's difficult to see how anyone could develop an informed opinion after reading one. Critiques of game mechanics are short and under-developed, pacing and artistic direction get little attention, and the conceptions of value and functionality are almost completely undermined by the fact that reviewers are sent advance copies accompanied by gifts from the developers. How could anyone possibly determine the value of a $60 title if they: 1.) Did not purchase it themselves, 2.) Did not play it in a controlled, neutral environment free of outside bias, and 3.) Did not play the game for longer than a weekend?

Nothing less.

The problems with video game reviews don't end at the words that they consist of, however. It could be quite easily argued that the most fundamental problem with game reviews lies in the scale by which we score and rate such titles. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that video game scores are placed on a heavily-weighted scale that is ridiculously unrepresentative of the quality of the games they are assigned to. Apparently unbeknownst to a large number of gamers (and journalists), a 7 on a scale of 1-10 is not actually an "average" score. Speaking in purely mathematical terms, that role actually belongs to the number 5, which has been universally recognized as a "bad" score. In fact, many big-budget games are often viewed as "flops" if they fail to score under some heavenly-ordained number that is seemingly identified in accordance with the amount of hype the title is receiving prior to launch. Such a mentality is growing increasingly more widespread, and only creates additional problems for the credibility of video game reviews as scores become more and more meaningless to the average consumer.

Unlike film or literature, video games are experiences, and as a result, it shouldn't be unexpected for a wide variety of opinions to be expressed across a range of reviews. The fact that so many reviews currently read like carbon copies of each other is a depressing representation of the level of respect we give video games. This apparent disinterest in delving deeper into the complexities of video games extends further than just reviews, however, and is present in nearly every level of game journalism today. Opinion pieces and investigative reports, while certainly not completely scarce, are relatively underrepresented while press releases are continually regurgitated and previews (that are almost always entirely too positive) lack any form of subjective feelings about a title's potential shortcomings or missteps. Much of the personality that drives the grueling process of game design is depressingly absent from video game journalism, and although several sites attempt to tap into this largely unclaimed charm and character, (Destructoid being the most apparent) many of them forget that they are primarily paid professionals with a journalistic responsibility and integrity to uphold.

Video game journalism isn't a boon to the industry, it's just not reaching its full potential in its current state. When a fledgling medium becomes wildly successful in such a short span of time, it's understandable that growing pains will be present, but as video games continue to evolve, the industry often fails to follow suit. While absolute ignorance of other entertainment media would be foolish and short-sighted, emulating it wholesale is equally so. A sensible combination of professionalism and charm is something the video game industry should strive to exemplify in every aspect of itself, and defying the traditional conventions we've come to expect from the entertainment industry is instrumental to obtaining the respect and reverence it so deserves.

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments!

- Adriaan Noordzij

Are Fighting Games Doomed to Repeat History?

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:41:00 +0000

Fighting games have recently enjoyed quite the revival in this generation of consoles, and as much as I love the fact that we’re practically being showered with fresh experiences and new games to tinker around with, a part of me can’t help but wonder if companies such as Capcom are forgetting their pock-marked history and are on track to repeat it. For those of you who are unaware, fighting games were quite the business in the early to mid ‘90s, with Street Fighter II enjoying a healthy amount of attention in addition to SNK’s King of Fighters games. Due to the commercial success of these games, fighter developers such as Capcom and SNK started releasing tons of mildly updated versions into the wild, effectively splitting the tight-knit community that had begun to rally around the most popular titles. Eventually, people stopped supporting these incremental iterations, and the fighting game scene died, or, rather, went into a deep hibernation. But that’s old news, right?

SF3: 3rd Strike hit arcades just as the fighting game genre was dying out.

Today, a handful of fighting games dominate the market, most notably Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition and Marvel vs. Capcom 3, while a few other franchises are trying to reclaim their lost glory amidst the heavy hitters. The resurgence of fighting games has breathed new life into the community, and events such as EVO have seen record turnouts, but can it all last with a business model that has already failed in the past? Capcom has released four iterations of Street Fighter IV to date, and has already announced a standalone expansion to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, but can the trend of tacking on a prefix or suffix here or there allow the community to remain as strong as it is today? What if by the time Street Fighter x Tekken releases, gamers are already anticipating a “Super” or “Turbo” edition, resulting in lackluster sales as gamers wait with bated breath for the updated and definitive version of the game? Such a premise isn’t exactly far-fetched, and as hyped as I am for both Ultimate MvC3 and SFxT, I can’t help but feel as if Capcom is beginning to notice that their “updated” business model is a profitable one.

Street Fighter X Tekken looks to mix things up in the fighter genre.

If one were to gauge player interest of fighting game expansions purely on sales numbers, they’d be ignoring one of the more critical components of the fighting game genre: community response. Take one look at the forums on Shoryuken.com or the comments on a reveal trailer for a fresh expansion, and you’ll get more information about how players feel than any numeric value could ever tell you. What’s most worrisome about this, however, is that many fighting game developers are based in Japan or other parts of Asia, and certainly very few are native to the United States. This disparity not only creates a sharp divide between community desires and corporate interests, but a difficult language barrier to transcend as well. Read a few interviews with Seth Killian (Special Advisor for Capcom) and you can see this rift at work; he explains tiresomely that he and his team are trying their best to relay community feedback to the developers overseas, but are finding it difficult to accurately convey the true nature of fan feedback.

Not all is lost, however. NetherRealm Studios (developers of Mortal Kombat 9) are a Chicago-based developer, and the amount of fan service that has gone into the development of their latest fighting game is evident. With a steady stream of DLC characters and a regular schedule of hefty updates based purely on community feedback, NetherRealm Studios truly exemplifies the term “fan service.” Whether or not you enjoy MK9 is beside the point, it’s the amount of dedication to their fanbase that is most impressive. Should the Japanese developers follow suit, we may be able to sidestep the very real possibility of repeating history and witnessing a second ice age for fighting games. It’s going to take some serious dedication and some corporate communication to get it done, but if the future of fighting games holds universally GGPO-enabled titles and franchises that behave as platforms, it will all be worth it.

-Adriaan Noordzij

Should Singleplayer and Multiplayer Be Reviewed Separately?

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:43:00 +0000

With the recent release of Battlefield 3, many critics have noted the large disparities in quality and enjoyment between the game’s campaign and multiplayer modes. The general consensus seems to be that BF3′s singleplayer experience strays away from the formula that makes Battlefield such an enjoyable shooter in favor of something more in the vein of the Modern Warfare series. Some have even gone so far as to say that the campaign mode in Battlefield 3 is notably bad, while the multiplayer stands head and shoulders above the competition. This begs the question – should singleplayer and multiplayer components of video games be reviewed separately? Or should they be graded as a single entity with a score that considers the overall package?

Prefer reading? Click the link below!

This hotly debated topic isn’t exactly new, but with some of the biggest current-generation titles offering deep and addictive multiplayer experiences with narrative components as a mere bonus, it’s worth bringing up again. Most people aren’t going to buy a game such as Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 solely for the singleplayer experience, and likely couldn’t care less about the dramatic, globetrotting plots of either franchise. As it stands, do review scores alienate this growing demographic, or do they provide a well-rounded analysis of everything the game has to offer?

There are a few caveats to the prospect of reviewing the singleplayer and multiplayer components of a title independently. Most notably, games with a lack of multiplayer may be perceived as less valuable, while those who focus solely on versus modes might be docked a few points for omitting a story mode to accompany the online antics. Secondly, evaluating multiplayer experiences can be a slippery slope, especially when playing titles pre-launch with favorable, predetermined conditions established by the developer to ensure a smooth session for reviewers. A prime example of this conundrum is Gears of War 2, which suffered from an unbelievable amount of matchmaking and netcode issues for months after the game launched. Most reviews, however, failed to mention any of the myriad of problems the game suffered early on, and many gamers (myself included) were left wondering why Epic’s hotly anticipated sequel scored so high when it clearly wasn’t ready for retail.

A singleplayer experience is mostly static in its presentation, and can easily be evaluated accurately prior to launch day, but in the case of multiplayer, it’s not so simple. Although it’s understandable that sites want to release reviews for heavy hitters as soon as the embargo lifts, it might be a pleasant change should a shift in the way that these titles are reviewed emerge. Perhaps dividing the initial review into two parts (one with the full, completed review of the singleplayer, and a first impressions segment for multiplayer to be completed later) would be the optimal way to deliver the most honest and fair analysis of big budget titles.

Another tricky aspect of separating campaign and versus modes is that multiplayer games tend to evolve and expand over time, and it’s difficult to grade a game based on its potential. Some titles have had extraordinary growing pains, only to emerge on the other end as addictive experiences with little to no overbearing issues. Giving so much attention to a multiplayer component only to have the score nullified further down the line somewhat defeats the purpose of dedicating additional time and effort to seeing how developers deliver the online experience in the weeks after launch.

Similarly, when discussing potential, should games be docked points for failing to include additional modes that would fit within the game’s established framework? What if Left 4 Dead was given an eight out of 10 instead of a 9 because it lacked a Team Deathmatch or Capture the Flag mode? Conversely, what if Borderlands was an online-only title that could only be played in co-op? How each of these hypothetical situations would be addressed depends on the reviewer, but they present an interesting challenge when attempting to assign a score to a game based on the way the developers intended for it to be played.

In the case of Battlefield 3, the game is clearly designed with multiplayer as its primary focus, and the game apparently reflects that mentality. While the singleplayer experience isn’t phenomenal, I’ve found it to be fairly enjoyable, but when comparing it against the chaotic and cinematic multiplayer experience, it appears to be much worse than it really is. When reviewing the game as a whole, this stark contrast presents an imbalanced dynamic between what is essentially two completely different games. The mechanics and visuals may be the same, but what the player experiences in each respective mode is so vastly different, it almost seems unfair to evaluate the campaign based on the merits of the multiplayer. It could be argued that some singleplayer experiences are merely extended, story-driven tutorials for the endless hours you’ll likely spend in the multiplayer modes, but is such a concept giving the singleplayer an equal chance to shine on its own?

What do you guys think? Are multiplayer-centric titles not given the treatment they deserve? Or is it perfectly fair to review such games with the whole package in mind? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Battlefield 3, Origin, and You

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 04:33:00 +0000

Although the community’s lamentation of the lack of Steam support for Battlefield 3 is not completely unfounded, it’s a little ridiculous to think that people will skip out on one of the biggest games of the year simply because they have to download a new client to play it. During my time with the Alpha build of Battlefield 3, Origin performed just fine, and although it wasn’t the prettiest application, it accomplished everything it needed to.

In order to fully understand what EA is trying to do with Origin, think of the client as a new console launch. The software needs a killer app to draw people to it, and once the initial audience has been captured with that kickass game (in this case, BF3) they’re more likely to stick around and use everything the software has to offer. Remember, just because you have to download Origin to play BF3 doesn’t mean your Steam account suddenly becomes useless and that platform goes to hell. The two are competing rivals, sure, but that doesn’t mean that the consumer can’t use both. They’re both free, they both act as digital distribution software, and if anything, the direct competition with one another will ultimately benefit customers.

Although it’s quite likely that most EA games will launch exclusively on the Origin software from now on (actually, you can count on it) there may be other titles that also launch on the service, which ultimately gives gamers more options, and provokes price wars to compete for your hard-earned cash. If the fact that you can’t play Battlefield 3 on Steam is enough to convince you that the game isn’t worth your money, let’s be honest, you probably weren’t very interested to begin with. In the long run, this could be a shitty move and really hurt the franchise, but at least it’s a hell of a lot better than Modern Warfare 2’s PC options and actually has some semblance of potential. Snuff out your torches and put the pitchforks back in the shed, people, it’s Battlefield 3. Battle-fucking-field 3! C’mon!

Bastion - Video Review (XBLA)

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:41:00 +0000

Bastion is a quirky and unique Xbox LIVE Arcade-exclusive made by the talented team at Supergiant Games, and aims to deliver an immediately accessible and narrative-driven action RPG under the clever guise of an indie game. On most fronts, Bastion succeeds, although a few missteps hinder it from being the quintessential XBLA RPG experience that many were heralding it to be prior to the game’s launch. The burning question remains then: is it worth your hard-earned Microsoft Points?

One of the things that Bastion gets down almost perfectly is its presentation. The game’s art style is both strikingly beautiful and organic all at once, and the environments (of which there are many) are sufficiently varied and vibrant. The soundtrack is outstanding, as well, blending a unique mix of Western and folk music that feels suitably lonely and melancholic where appropriate. The rich detail of each individual level helps immerse you further in the intriguing world that Supergiant Games has created, so it’s especially disappointing that the narrative doesn’t quite deliver on the expectations that the graphics serve up.

The storyline itself is fairly original, revolving around the events that transpire after a terrible event dubbed The Calamity sweeps the lands and wipes out the majority of the world’s population. You take control of the game’s protagonist, known simply as “The Kid” as he heads out to the Bastion, a predetermined safe haven whose sole inhabitant is an old man who narrates your entire experience throughout the game. Much has been made of Bastion’s dynamic narration system, and although it is a clever story-telling and tutorial mechanic all in one, some holes in the writing lead to a general sense of confusion during several different moments during the storyline. In order to remain appealing, the narration isn’t exactly straightforward, and the narrator frequently speaks in riddles that only serve to convolute the already minimal explanation of the story. This is a real shame, considering that there are flashes of brilliance throughout your time with Bastion where hints of a backstory and a bit of flesh on the skeletal context you’re given enrich the experience, only to be dulled by convoluted narration that feels a bit extraneous and too enigmatic for its own good.

Bastion is an action RPG at heart, and as such, has a fairly heavy emphasis on combat. Fortunately, beating up bad guys in Bastion is enjoyable, although it grows somewhat repetitive rather quickly. You’re given two weapon slots, each completely open to any type of sword, hammer, musket, or bow you wish to carry with you on your quest. Although you’ll likely find a favorite combination of weapons that works for your particular playstyle pretty quickly, using them doesn’t become stale until you’ve fully upgraded their capabilities. A few of the weapons also appear to be clearly superior to others and simply better suited to a wider variety of situations, making them easy choices for most players who want to play the game in the most efficient way possible.

In addition to your main weapons, you’re given a Special Skill which is occasionally weapon-specific, and also customizable. Some of these skills include hand grenades, scatter shots with your musket, or spells to convert one particular enemy into a temporary ally. These can turn the tide of a battle fairly quickly, and are often times better suited to offensive situations, although a select few are able to get you out of a bind if needed. Other modifiers are present in the game, such as Spirits, which act as passive buffs to your character when equipped at a distillery, or Invoked Gods, which behave almost exactly like the Skulls from Halo and provide a more difficult experience alongside a number of savory XP boosts and rewards.

If it weren’t for these Gods, Bastion would be entirely all too easy. Its default, unaltered difficulty is a joke, and it wasn’t until I turned on a fair number of Gods that I began to actually have any kind of trouble with the game. Without the Gods on, I didn’t die a single time in my playthrough, a number which only changed by a small few after invoking some good ol’ fashioned wrath at the Bastion’s local shrine. The easy difficulty wouldn’t be such a big deal if it didn’t hurt the game’s combat so much. You’ll find yourself growing tired of mashing X to just get to the end of another level, only to do the same thing five minutes later in another world. There are a few challenge areas that test your smarts and speed to break up the monotony of the “go-here-get-this-come-back-do-it-again” gameplay, but Bastion begins to get a bit boring about halfway through, which is a shame because the game appears to explore some hidden potential in the later levels without ever fully realizing it.

Bastion plays wonderfully, using a control scheme that makes sense immediately and allows you to explore all that the game’s combat system has to offer right off the bat. The ability to alter your evade’s direction during the animation is one of the smartest design decisions the game employs, and overall everything feels appropriately responsive. The only significant gripe I have with how Bastion handles lies with the game’s targeting system, which is never properly explained nor is it particularly consistent. This becomes especially apparent when participating in some of the game’s challenge rooms, which require reasonably precise accuracy and positioning. Although it’s not a huge problem and doesn’t really crop up too often in the main chunk of the experience, the targeting system still bugged me enough (and forced me to restart a few challenge rooms) to make it worth mentioning.

At 1200 Microsoft Points, or $15 to us Earth-folk, Bastion is a fairly priced title. The main storyline is meaty enough to justify the purchase, and if you enjoy the game enough the first time around, there’s a New Game Plus mode which has all the usual trimmings of such an option. Much of the game’s additional value comes from this mode, and anything you missed from your initial playthrough or the desire to piss off every single God and make the game as ridiculously difficult as possible for yourself will help make that $15 especially worthwhile. A lack of any sort of co-operative mode is an almost expected oversight, but would’ve worked wonders in extending Bastion’s lifespan and enjoyment.

Bastion is a game that tries very hard to be both accessible and more complex than it needs to be, and as a result its narrative feels a tad contrived when it could’ve been a fairly compelling, yet simple RPG experience that resonated with a large core audience. Despite the game’s enjoyable, albeit repetitive combat and gorgeous art style, a lack of variety from a gameplay perspective makes this polished indie title a good game, rather than a great one. If the simplistic, hack-n-slash gameplay and striking art style are enough to satisfy you, you’ll find a fun little title that proves to be a worthy distraction from your gaming mainstays. Just don’t expect it to have the narrative depth of Braid, or the more refined combat of Castle Crashers.

Is Call of Duty Dead? Dual Comm. w/ TheFingersHurt!

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:58:00 +0000

I’d definitely consider this to be my favorite commentary so far. I won’t be doing any more Black Ops stuff, considering I’ve recently sold the game while it still had some value. Not sure what’s next for commentaries, but if you have a suggestion, let me know! At any rate, enjoy the discussion, and feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts.

MvC 3 Could Learn a Thing or Two From Mortal Kombat 9

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:55:00 +0000

Before I continue, let me first preface this article by saying that much of my knowledge of Mortal Kombat 9 is garnered purely from interviews and videos, and therefore speculative. I won’t know for absolute sure how well the game delivers on its promises or hype until I get a chance to play the full retail release, so take that into consideration before reading. That being said, from the looks of things, the much-anticipated arrival of the next-generation iteration of the venerable Mortal Kombat franchise is shaping up quite nicely, and strangely enough, it looks as though it may actually be able to teach Capcom’s latest frenetic fighter, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, a few things about presentation and polish.

The argument here pulls a few classic examples from the age-old Western vs. Eastern development debate, and depending on which philosophy you subscribe to, you may furiously nod your head in agreement or facepalm based on the following. Before you accuse me of fanboyism (which is a common occurrence when discussing video games in a public space) allow me to point out that I am completely infatuated with Capcom’s latest fighter, despite its numerous shortcomings. Even so, after watching a number of trailers and reading a handful of interviews, Mortal Kombat 9 actually looks like a more complete and polished game than the popular superhero brawler. Here’s why.

An Actual Storyline

To some, a storyline in a fighting game seems completely and totally irrelevant, and in the grand scheme of things, that’s probably correct. However, when developers at least attempt to include some form of narrative in a genre notorious for its routine omission of such a feature, it’s an appreciated gesture and establishes some much-needed fiction to encapsulate the action. It gives each individual fighter depth and personality, which allows players to develop more tangible connections or understandings of their favorite characters. In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, we get a series of six fights that leads to an altogether boring (even on the Very Hard difficulty) final boss fight that concludes with two hand-drawn comic book-style panels, and a handful of meaningless text that doesn’t even make any sense, considering you just fought six random teams with absolutely zero connection to your character.

A lot of commotion was made about bringing Frank Tieri onboard to write for MvC 3, but the only thing that really stands out is the pre-fight banter between characters that have some sort of relevance towards each other. It’s truly a shame that Capcom had the Marvel license to work with and didn’t try to do anything unique or interesting with it whatsoever. It doesn’t hurt the gameplay (which is still fantastic), but it would’ve been enjoyable to see two beloved franchises interacting in some meaningful way. Even though Mortal Kombat’s story is one of the most convoluted and long-winded narratives you’ll find in any video game, it’s there for the fans to explore and enjoy, and that goes an incredibly long way towards fostering brand loyalty and passion. It’s disappointing that we didn’t see an equally ridiculous or nonsensical story in MvC 3, a feeling that’s only exacerbated by the incredible pre-rendered cinematics that hint at some sort of conceptual story that could have been something special.

Ridiculous? Sure, but admit it, it’s also kind of awesome.

Modes That Don’t Suck

The recent updates to Marvel vs. Capcom 3’s ridiculously sparse mode offerings include Shadow Mode, where you spar against AI “personalities” based on real people’s tendencies, and Event Mode, which tasks you with completing predefined tasks to earn titles and Player Points (which are pointless after unlocking the game’s four hidden characters). Mortal Kombat’s announced modes include the insanely awesome Challenge Tower, a 2 vs. 2 Tag-Team mode, The Krypt, and a lobby mode called King of the Hill (basically Endless Battle from Super Street Fighter IV). Ed Boon has stated that there are still a number of secrets to be unveiled in the near future, and DLC characters are in development. What’s more, even the standard fare modes have some additional flair that adds to their effectiveness and enjoyability. Little touches in the Training Mode such as highlighting the correct location to stand when performing a fatality make the game’s finer features immediately accessible and understandable.

In fact, the overall polish of MK9 makes the game appear much more synergistic and complete, and makes the product stand out on its own. Compare that to the half-assed, barebones setup of Marvel vs. Capcom 3, and you’ll begin to feel like there were some huge missed opportunities on Capcom’s end. In MvC 3, we get Player and Ranked Matches (both with some serious matchmaking issues), the aforementioned filler modes, a lobby mode that lacks a spectator option, and Mission/Training Mode, which both do very little to introduce new players to the concepts of a very complicated and flashy game. What blows my mind about this skeletal feature set is that Super Street Fighter IV had some fantastic modes that offered genuinely fresh ways to experience the game, as well as a spectator option and the ability to save replays. How these features never made it into Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is beyond me, but it’s utterly disappointing and slightly insulting to know that these omissions are entirely possible but never included. Spectator mode has been speculated to be patched in at a later date, as it was with the XBLA version of Marvel vs. Capcom 2, but considering we saw similar additions in the retail release of Super Street Fighter IV, I’m not exactly hopeful. Which leads me directly to my next point….

The Challenge Tower is a highlight of the mode offerings in MK9.

Ongoing Support & Keeping the Fanbase in the Loop

This is where the Eastern vs. Western development model argument really comes into play. Typically, Japanese games are finished the second the final build is released to manufacturers (although there are some exceptions), but as American gamers are well aware, that is simply not the case with Western titles. For better or for worse, Western games are almost always followed up by a number of patches and title updates that fix bugs, add content, or mess with balance. Personally, I love the idea of a game constantly evolving past its initial launch, and to be fair, Capcom has released a recent patch that addressed some glitches and significantly altered some characters (namely Sentinel’s vitality being cut, which is a very controversial topic). It’s good to see Capcom paying attention to the game even after launch, but it also failed to publish patch notes (a commonality in Western-developed titles) and we have no idea what the developer is currently working on.

A familiar screen for anyone who has played MvC 3 online.

The closest thing to a general forum for the game is Shoryuken.com’s community, and considering said community is primarily located in the United States, it’s unlikely that the Japan-based Capcom is paying attention to the numerous complaints and demands that fans are asking for. Sure, we got two new DLC characters (which were already on the disc to begin with) and there are plans for at least two more, but what about the more pressing matters at hand? When is a fix coming for the abysmal matchmaking system (a recurring problem with Capcom fighters)? Is a spectator mode even being worked on? Nobody knows the answers to any of these questions save the developer itself, and we are left to muse whether or not these problems will be addressed in the current version of Marvel vs. Capcom, or if we’ll be seeing a new entry within a year with all these additions firmly in place. On the other hand, NetherRealm Studios knows that they really have to nail every single aspect of MK9 to get their esteemed reputation back, especially after a few recent franchise failures (MK vs. DC Universe was a complete joke). This includes providing tons of fan service, a healthy amount of modes, and reassuring early adopters that the game won’t be abandoned after April 19th rolls around. You can bet that people will make their voices heard if things are wonky at launch, and if a patch is required, we’ll be informed when it’ll be ready and what it will entail, as opposed to updates randomly popping up with mysterious changes that take days or weeks to discover.

Of course, in the end the only thing that truly matters are the gameplay mechanics and how they all fit together, and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 has gameplay down pat. It’s a fast, satisfying, and thrilling fighter that has a combo system with a lot of flexibility and tricks to be learned, but the auxiliary features are lackluster in nearly every imaginable way. While I haven’t had a chance to play Mortal Kombat 9, I’m eager to see if the glimmering polish and meaty modes are not simply matched, but collectively surpassed by outstanding gameplay mechanics that deliver a truly unique fighting experience. Should that happen, Capcom better wake up and pay attention, because a new challenger has appeared.

Is graphics technology headed in the wrong direction?

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:12:00 +0000

After watching the recently released “Samaritan” GDC tech demo from Epic Games, I couldn’t help but feel as if we have the wrong idea about where graphics technology’s next logical step might be. The ongoing quest to achieve photorealism or artistic perfection is an admirable one to be sure, but as we all know, graphics are not the be-all, end-all feature that defines the quality of a game. While I’m not saying that graphics aren’t important, I do think that it’s worth noting that new technology such as the L.A. Noire facial animation stuff we’ve been seeing lately is far more innovative than Epic’s latest Unreal Engine 3 enhancements. I appreciate the steps developers like Epic are taking towards creating a more immersive experience via the amount of pretty things happening on screen, but I want graphics that serve a predominant gameplay purpose first and foremost.

In case you know nothing of the game, L.A. Noire’s facial animation technology isn’t just for show, it serves a core gameplay function. As Detective Cole Phelps, your job is to solve mysteries and hunt down criminals in the rich setting of 1950’s Los Angeles. Sounds interesting enough, right? Sure, but the real magic occurs when you begin to investigate cases and interview potential suspects and witnesses for information. During these interactive interview segments, your objective is to use previously gathered evidence to catch people in a lie or accuse them of knowing more than they lead on. The facial animations allow you to see the emotions in these people’s faces, captured by a dozen or so little HD cameras in a remarkably creepy room somewhere in Rockstar’s development studio. In the vast majority of today’s games, emotions are conveyed through (occasionally) powerful voice acting alongside limited body language and animations, but L.A. Noire gives each interaction and conversation a much more human element than anything we’ve seen yet. You can truly see a virtual character exhibiting tangible emotions such as barely contained rage or smug defensiveness, which only makes each interrogation or interview process that much more engaging and immersive.

Haven’t seen the impressive tech demo yet? Give it a look-see!

Although the Samaritan demo is absolutely gorgeous and, to be fair, could potentially allow developers to explore new artistic avenues, it’s just more eye candy. It doesn’t do anything particularly unique or special, aside from showcase some fancy technical terms that are probably making Nvidia and ATI drool in anticipation of the amount of cash they’re going to make when the next generation of consoles decides to show up. What do things like ambient occlusion lighting and subsurface scattering mean to the average gamer, or even the hardcore gamer like you or I?

Not much, in all honesty. We get more pretty stuff to look at, but at what cost? Well, for starters, the average budget of a game has skyrocketed dramatically since this generation of consoles began, and if this kind of graphics technology becomes standard, what will happen to the less wealthy studios? We’re already lacking some much-needed innovation in a few genres, but with the major players currently unwilling to take risks (see: Activision and annual Call of Duty releases for the foreseeable future) we could very well see developers begin to let gameplay innovations take a backseat to making explosions blow up real nice. Epic is reducing licensing fees in an attempt to counterbalance this, but ultimately, with triple A titles costing upwards of $20 million to produce these days, it’s hard to anticipate the gesture having much discernible effect. While I’m sure that the technology used in L.A. Noire isn’t cheap or even readily accessible, it’s arguably more practical and effective than showcasing some fancy lighting effects and depth of field variations.

Great summary of my points, plus some fascinating info!

Am I saying that we should be totally happy with the graphics we have now and focus solely on gameplay? Not at all, I’m as big of a sucker for HDR lighting and fluid water physics as the next guy, but ask me which technology impresses me more, and I’ll immediately point to L.A. Noire. I felt the same way when DirectX 11 was being demoed, and they showcased how in-game objects could be rendered with true geometric depth, rather than rely on bump-mapping to create the illusion of actual spatial depth. That’s cool, but why the hell does that matter? The majority of graphically-intensive games are using numerous smoke-and-mirror tricks to make sure the game runs efficiently without sacrificing visual integrity, and for the most part, that works perfectly fine. By making it so that developers are capable of rendering each individual brick in a wall on a three dimensional plane, you’ve effectively launched production values even higher intro orbit, and made it even more difficult for smaller developers to deliver experiences that rival those of the heavy-hitters. In the end, only the hardcore graphics fanatics are satisfied while their triple-SLI, water-cooled PCs purr gently as hundreds of thousands of polygons are being pushed on-screen.

This brings up another interesting point: what about art style? This generation has produced some games that, while not technically brilliant, featured incredible art styles that were much more impressive than anything developers, such as Crytek, have demonstrated this year. That’s not a knock on graphics engines or anything like that (although it definitely sounds like one), but it’s more a testament to the fact that games are an artistic entertainment medium, and require creativity to be apparent in everything from their playstyle to their visual appearance. How many people do you think went to see Tron: Legacy because of the striking visuals, then left the theater wanting their $10 (or $20 if you went to IMAX 3D) back? Probably a whole lot more than you think. The same can be said for games. The original Crysis was an average shooter with some fun, but flawed gameplay mechanics disguised under a gorgeous graphical exterior that absolutely demanded a trip to Fry’s Electronics or Newegg.com for some upgrades to the ol’ rig.

For some, shooting trees in half and ogling the impressive water effects was more than worth the price of admission, but for a number of others it was a temporary distraction from what really wasn’t an altogether extraordinary experience. Flash forward to a game like Street Fighter IV, which didn’t use an insane amount of polygons or demonstrate beautiful texture work, but it ran at 60 frames per second and featured a beautiful, Japanese-calligraphy inspired visual flair that resembled the similarly stylish Playstation 2 title, Okami. Street Fighter IV caught my eye much more than Crysis ever did. Other gamers might point to Kirby’s Epic Yarn or maybe even Super Mario Galaxy as additional examples of technically-mediocre, yet artistically beautiful games that defied conventions of photorealism and technical limitations to deliver truly unique experiences. While the art styles didn’t necessarily serve any particular gameplay purpose, they didn’t exactly need to when they stood out from the mold as much as they did.

Pretty, but lacking substance.

If the next-generation of technology is primarily concerned with perfecting parallax lighting and self-shadowing, I can assure you a part of me will be disappointed. I want to see more technology used in games that enhances the gameplay, and helps immerse us in ways that previous generations were incapable of. I want to see the next-generation of consoles use hardware that allows me to experience games in an entirely new way, and engage me on levels that I never even anticipated. But most importantly, I want technology that helps establish video games as interactive experiences that are truly capable of blurring the lines between virtual worlds and real ones. It all starts with one successful venture into this particular realm, and then the floodgates open up. Mark my words, if L.A. Noire sells well (which it should, considering it’s a Rockstar title) we will see games attempt to tell more mature stories and deliver more adult experiences with similar technology, and then (hopefully) progress continues from there.

Check out this tech demo from a game you’ve probably never heard of.

While I love me some pretty boom-booms, or a stunning vista as I crest over a grassy hill, I want the next-generation of gaming to be all that and more. I want graphics technology that makes my virtual interactions feel like a conversation I might have in real life, or a critical decision to have much more gravitas (Bioware, call up Rockstar for Mass Effect 3!). Because that’s what video games accomplish much more effectively than any other entertainment medium; a sense of personal investment and temporary suspension of disbelief that comes as a result of allowing yourself to become completely immersed in an imaginary world. If the next-generation of gaming can do that, then I’m fully onboard and can’t wait to shell out god-knows-how-much money for the next Xbox or Playstation.

Liked the article? Think I missed something? Leave a comment below!

Since when is accessibility a bad thing?

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:33:00 +0000

You know, sometimes I really hate gamers. We bitch and moan about some of the most trivial things, and often times we do so with little to no understanding of the subject. One of the most contentious issues in the game industry is the subject of accessibility. You might refer to the term as “noob-friendly”, or perhaps “casual,” or maybe even “shallow.” The truth of the matter is, most games don’t sacrifice depth in order to appeal to a wider audience, and yet, gamers tend to take even the slightest revision or optimization of a control scheme or game mechanic as a “dumbing down” of the source material. Most recently, Marvel vs. Capcom 3 suffered from this misplaced categorization, taking flak from gamers in response to the game’s inclusion of a “simple mode,” which streamlined the game’s control scheme so that complete, absolute beginners could pick up a controller and start throwing fireballs and performing hyper combos. Even the normal control scheme was criticized when it was announced that the classic light and heavy kicks/punches layout would be changed to a streamlined light, medium, and heavy attack scheme. Why do gamers so adamantly oppose design concepts that are created with the sole purpose of removing a barrier to entry?

Anyone can make flashy stuff happen with Simple mode!

Why do terms like “casual” and “noob” carry such negative connotations when in reality, every single one of us was a noob at one point and time?

The common response is that developers who make their games more accessible tend to sacrifice depth in the process. This simply isn’t true, as is evidenced by the recent revival of the fighting genre. Everyone cried about how much slower and less technical Street Fighter IV was going to be before it launched, but when people actually got their hands on it, they discovered all new layers of depth and unforeseen complexities that rivaled or surpassed those of previous entries in the series. Parries were replaced by focus-cancels, option selects were still very much a part of the game, and everyone shut the hell up. The game sold pretty well despite the initial outcries, and both the hardcore and newcomers alike were satisfied.

PC gamers in particular take up arms about any kind of “dumbing down” or (I love this one) “consolization” of their favorite games. While I do think that PC games need to be developed with some special considerations in mind (i.e. server browser, customizable controls, etc.) PC gamers will almost always lament the loss of a particular feature, whether it hindered the game’s inherent flow or not. Crysis 2 is the latest victim of this gamer scorn, and it’s pretty amazing that some people are posting in the forums about how they canceled their preorder due to the streamlining of the nanosuit abilities. Are you fucking kidding me? You really liked switching to Maximum Speed so much in the original Crysis that you’re going to condemn the sequel because it activates that ability automatically when you begin to sprint? Why should it matter if the game decides to put a few processes on autopilot and make your experience less manually-demanding? Do gamers honestly enjoy controls that are needlessly complicated and/or repetitive just for the sake of being more “hardcore”? Give me a break.

No unnecessary abilities wheel?! NO SALE!

Similarly, Microsoft’s Kinect and the Nintendo Wii are frowned upon by the hardcore community, simply because they provide experiences that are immediately understandable and require very little time to acclimate to. I understand the satisfaction that stems from learning new experiences, and sometimes that entire process can be a meta-game in and of itself, but when a game needlessly prolongs the time needed to fully comprehend the mechanics at work, most people get turned off and give up. If someone could make multiple variable calculus or organic chemistry easier to understand, would that make the material any less relevant or potentially impactful? Not at all, it just opens up the floodgates and allows more people access to knowledge that could produce solutions to unresolved problems. The same concept can be applied to video games. Just look at World of Warcraft! MMORPGs are notorious for their clunky menu systems and incredibly steep learning curve (Final Fantasy XIV, I’m looking directly at you) and Blizzard proved that with a little legwork and careful optimization, you can deliver incredibly deep experiences to people that have never even touched an MMORPG and suck them in within an hour or so.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely examples of games that have forgone depth in order to appeal to a mass market, but the truth of the matter is that they rest firmly in the minority. There’s no need to abhor developers for wanting to appeal to a broader market, and we certainly shouldn’t be complaining about streamlined experiences. Although many gamers would have you think otherwise, it is very much possible to innovate and accommodate simultaneously. If we want our industry to thrive and to be as successful as the film industry (or more so) then we need to drop the hardcore attitude and start being a little more open-minded to letting more people enjoy our favorite games. So what if your grandma can play Battlefield? Be happy that you can talk to someone else about a franchise you love.

If she can kick your ass, though, that might be a problem.

Halo: Reach–War Machine Remake in Forge

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:28:00 +0000

Check out this video walkthrough of my latest Forge creation, War Machine! You might recognize this map from the original Gears of War, but this is more of a Halo: Reach adaptation instead of an exact recreation. I found that by making the map play like Gears of War in a Halo environment, there were a few considerations that needed to be taken into account. For instance, Halo moves faster than Gears of War, and slowing down the movement speed in a custom gametype feels like an unnecessary and boring tweak to the Halo formula. Instead, making small adjustments to your map easily preserves the speed and intensity that makes both Gears and Halo so much fun. For more insightful Forge comments (and a tour of how the map looks) check the video out above! Let me know what you think, guys.

Dual Commentary with TheFingersHurt!

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:10:00 +0000

Check out this dual commentary I did with the rising Belgian star of YouTube, FingersHurt! We discuss a few frustrations we share with Call of Duty: Black Ops, as well as our own personal Game of the Year titles. There’s a lot of good gameplay (played by yours truly) to satisfy your greedy, greedy eyes; so be sure to give it a look! Enjoy, and you’ll be seeing more of this kind of stuff in the near future. Let me know what you think in the comments!

The iPad NEEDS OS X 10.7

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:47:00 +0000

Before you read this, go ahead and read this. Go on, I’ll wait.

All done? Good. Let’s talk business.

When Apple released their tablet computer early this year, people were more than willing to write it off as nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch or iPhone, and from a purely technical and physical perspective, they wouldn’t be too far off. The iPad doesn’t offer much more in terms of functionality than its more mobile counterparts, and the form factor doesn’t always synchronize with what you would expect the device to be able to do. Is it a netbook-killer? A touch-screen MacBook? It’s not really either of these, but rather somewhere in between. You could say that the iPad has a pretty interesting case of identity crisis, and although the sales are not abysmal, they could definitely be better. So what did Apple do wrong? They released a device that looked like it was capable of so much more than it could actually perform. With the recent keynote regarding Mac OS X Lion, it’s looking like the synergy Apple has so effectively established is going to become even more cohesive.

I think I see a trend here.

The mobile-like features that are being brought to Macs and MacBooks points to the idea of creating a more capable iPad in the near future. Surprisingly, we haven’t heard anything new on the tablet device, which is uncharacteristic of Apple, who usually announces some sort of new product every year or so. However, this recent keynote dropped a few hints for the future of Apple’s “magical” device that can’t seem to find a solid niche to appeal to.

I’ve always thought the iPad’s design was gorgeous, and it does indeed feel great in your hands and natural to operate, but the software sabotages the hardware. With OS X 10.7 on the iPad, suddenly you’re not fumbling around an enlarged iOS platform, but rather a more desktop-like operating system that lets you do things without requiring an app for additional functionality. Although the iPad is definitely eating into the netbook market share a tad, should this become a reality, we will definitely see a huge shift in power, especially if pricing is within $200 of the average $400 or so most consumers pay for a fairly effective netbook. Throw in a beautiful new Retina display, a faster processor and more RAM, and maybe even a lighter frame, and you’ve got a true mobile solution for those who are looking for something a little more intuitive or portable than a MacBook (although the new MacBook Airs are pretty impressive).

Now that’s more like it!

While usually I’m quick to criticize Apple’s yearly product updates, the iPad was more of a test product than anything. They took a risk and put out something that featured the same great touch capabilities that the iPhone and iPod Touch lineups had seen quite a bit of success with, and tried to sell it as more of an in-between laptop/iPhone product. Turns out, not many people want that, and the crazed frenzy that Apple anticipated never really showed up like it did for the iPhone. With OS X 10.7 on the iPad though, the objective of the device suddenly becomes much more apparent and consumers will notice that Apple has released another beautiful, functional product that can accomplish many of the tasks they expect from a personal computer on a mobile platform that combines the best of both worlds without (hopefully) breaking the bank. Here’s to hoping that Apple sees this insane potential and outdoes themselves once again. Hell, I might even buy one.

-Adriaan Noordzij

Gears of War 3 and Epic’s Return to Form

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:32:00 +0000

With the recent news that Epic Games would be pushing back Gears of War 3 to Fall 2011, there was quite a bit of outcry against the move, especially considering how polished the game already looked. Surprisingly, however, immediately following that somber announcement was some pretty impressive news, which put smiles on many gamers’ faces, including myself. To compensate for the delay, Epic announced that it was going to be releasing a public multiplayer beta in early 2011, with the full support of dedicated servers.

The gravity of this news may be lost on some, so allow me to inform the uninformed. Both Gears of War 1 and 2 suffered from a number of online multiplayer issues, most notably, but not limited to: lag, terrible matchmaking, “host advantage,” and an abundance of game-breaking glitches. Personally, I think the success of Gears 1’s multiplayer was purely by accident due to the severity of these issues, as is evidenced by the drastic changes implemented in Gears of War 2’s multiplayer component. Things like wall-bouncing and shotgun rushing became so prominent in the online sphere that it was hard to get into the game if you were a casual player or just not able to dedicate hours of your life to the multiplayer experience. Gears of War 2 came along, promising to fix these issues, but by removing the control of hosting from players and placing all the responsibility on a flawed matchmaking system, Epic only exacerbated the problem, while the slower move speed and glitches put the nail in the coffin of the game pretty early on for a large percentage of players (myself included).

In fact, I was so desperate to let Epic know of the problems with its game, that I wrote an article addressing the problems and offered suggestions to fix them. Interestingly enough, many of my suggestions were included in the recent news regarding Gears 3. While I’m not going to pretend to take credit for these changes, it’s important to note that Epic did listen to its fanbase and is actively making strides to make the final installment in the Gears of War trilogy nothing short of phenomenal. In all honesty, dedicated servers, a beta, and a faster move speed would’ve made me perfectly happy, but the way that Epic is expanding on XP and awarding players with custom animations for proficient performance with the many disgustingly awesome weapons available is such a great way of introducing a sense of progression and unlocks to the Gears universe that’s it’s getting hard to think of ways to improve upon it, even this early on. This kind of dedication to the fanbase is something you don’t see too often (although many of the big players in the next-gen world are becoming increasingly community-oriented) and it’s incredibly reassuring to see Epic step up to the plate and do something a little out of the box for them. Gears of War 3 looks to be more about what the fans what out of the game than what the developers imagined it would be. This is, ultimately, a good thing. For Epic to be able to put aside their own opinions of what the game should be and understand what people actually like about it is paramount to the success of what could be the final Gears of War game.

Remember when I said that your hardcore fans were still waiting, Epic? That sound you hear is the collective sigh of relief from all of them. Welcome back, guys.

Halo: Reach – Pointe du Hoc Map Walkthrough

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:00 +0000

For anyone that doesn’t know me, I’m a huge fan of customizable user-created content in games. I taught myself a little bit of Hammer back when I played Counter-Strike: Source, and I loved Far Cry’s console map maker. I never really got into Halo 3, so I didn’t get too much of a chance to utilize the Forge tools offered in the last part of the Halo trilogy. I love Reach though, and as such have spent quite a bit of time in the new and improved Forge mode. Check out my first creation, Pointe du Hoc.

If you’re interested in giving this map a shot, be sure to download it here, as well as the custom gametype designed specifically for the map. Let me know what you think on Xbox LIVE, here, or wherever you normally find me! Enjoy guys. I look forward to making more content in the future.

Why people really don’t care about Move or Kinect

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:45:00 +0000

It’s no secret that motion-tracked gaming is a mainstream sensation right now, with Nintendo’s Wii STILL pushing impressive numbers month after month, even still several years after launch. Now, enter 2010, and the other two members of the gaming trio are gearing up for the launches of their own lines of motion-controlled technologies, and, unsurprisingly, consumer reception has been less than favorable. The truth of the matter is, very few people are even keeping tabs on Move or Kinect, simply because the “revolution” of motion-gaming is long gone, and Microsoft and Sony are both tripping over their own feet trying to market their respective upcoming tech. Here are the two main reasons nobody really cares about the “other” motion-tracking technologies hitting retailers this fall.

Poor Marketing

While Microsoft was initially doing slightly better than Sony in this regard, both companies are fumbling around miserably with their marketing campaigns for Kinect and Move. Microsoft tried to get the hardcore interested a few E3’s ago by hyping the hell out of Kinect, relying on press buzz and word of mouth to get people talking about Microsoft’s answer to the Wii sensation. This ultimately ended up backfiring when the technology was eventually shown at this year’s E3, with demos that looked like they were directed at kids and families, i.e., the exact market the Wii targets and has already saturated more than a hipster’s Facebook profile picture. As a result, the hardcore has already dismissed Kinect as a “kiddie” peripheral for their Halo and Call of Duty machine, and unless a big budget first party title integrates some awesome way to use Kinect in a popular title (think Halo with motion controls), then nothing is going to change their minds. The only thing close to tapping into the hardcore market on Kinect’s launch title list is Dance Central, which could potentially be a fun party game similar to Rock Band, but it’s unlikely that anyone would be willing to drop $150 for Kinect plus the price of the game to try that out (more on this later).

Dance Central could be Microsoft’s hardcore hit, but will price point scare them off?

Sony is suffering a similar fate with Move, but as of late, the company is, at the very least, aware that trying to migrate Wii players over is a futile effort that will ultimately go to waste. The problem with focusing primarily on the hardcore then, is that…well, simply put, they just don’t care. Most hardcore gamers are perfectly content with the responsiveness of their button-based controllers (yes, I know Move has them too, but it’s not the crutch of the tech) and don’t want to adjust to the new, unexplored realm of proprietary motion technology that doesn’t exactly factor into their current gaming interests. What’s more is that Move is hindered by the same lack of first-party big-name title support that Kinect suffers from (at least at launch anyway). Until Killzone 3 or LittleBigPlanet 2 proves that Move is an all-new, exciting, fun way to play old favorites, no one will really care.

Price

And so we come to the biggest problem with both Kinect and Move: price point. For $150, you can pick up a big camera that tracks your movements, or for $50 less you can grab a stick with a ball at the top that sends infrared light to a camera. Or wait, here’s a concept, how about you just buy a Wii for that kind of money? They’re only $200 now, and they have roughly five years’ worth of games already available. MotionPlus for the Wii remote provides great responsiveness and a little more potential for complicated gestures (or so I’ve been told), and hey, you get a whole new console to boot! Kinect needs to be $99, and Move needs to come with two controllers to make it a local multiplayer-centric experience, as it is designed (and advertised) to be. Plus, 90% of the launch titles for both Move and Kinect basically rip off Wii Sports, which comes bundled with every Wii console you buy. And honestly, $50 for these games? Are you serious? The experiences developers are delivering in Move/Kinect-only titles are looking shallow at best, as if it isn’t already hard enough to justify the $60 price tag on some full retail titles.

No…just…no.

In the end, I just don’t see the appeal behind these two technologies based on the platforms they’re launching on. The marketing is completely misdirected, the launch titles don’t bring anything new or exciting to the table, and the amount of money consumers will have to pony up to get in on something the Wii has been doing for years is just too much in this unstable economy. Is it possible for Sony and Microsoft to deliver a killer product that manages to do something the Wii has missed out on during its seemingly indomitable reign in the casual realm? Definitely not before launch, but if some first-party exclusives for either side of the fence manage to integrate the technology successfully and efficiently, maybe we’ll see a brief shift of power before the next generation of consoles launches. Just don’t hold your breath.

What do you think? Leave a comment!

Videogames as an Art Form

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:27:00 +0000

Videogames have had an unfortunate history of misclassification. Initially believed to be monumental wastes of time targeting outcast youths and the ever misrepresented computer geek, videogames rapidly evolved into more mature experiences, with more mature storytelling and content. As a result, mainstream media has become more aware of games, but rather than using them to signify the coming of a new digital art form, they have been primarily used as ratings boosters. Reports with clearly biased and poorly researched information prey on the equally misinformed parents' concerns about their younger loved ones' interest in the medium. This has taken videogames into a negatively represented gray area where an ongoing struggle between those closely involved with the medium and longtime critics, such as Roger Ebert, debate endlessly on the merits, or lack thereof, that classify games as art.

There are basically two very distinct sides to this unsettled argument. You either feel that videogames can't be considered art because they will never stand amongst the likes of Picasso or Monet (on a purely aesthetic level anyways), or you believe that videogames are a new, unique form of storytelling that rivals that of cinematic film and modern novels. While the former argument does bear a legitimate point, it ultimately misses the fact that most people arguing for videogames as art aren't trying to put the medium alongside the likes of legendary painters and artists. Art, by definition, "is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." Art is also socially-defined, and isn't so rigidly believed to be a meticulously-composed piece or a metaphorical painting designed to stimulate profound thought and human curiosity. Art ranges from paintings, to songs, to actions, to movies, and, I'd argue, videogames. While they certainly haven't quite reached the level of Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel or Van Gogh's The Starry Night, videogames have earned the right to be considered art, especially considering the games this particular generation has brought forward.

While I disagree with Michael Thomsen's stance in his recent article that games have "always been art," he brings up an interesting point about games and how they fit within the general concepts of artistic stimuli. Different works of art mean different things to different people, much like certain videogames appeal to some and not to others. Michael Thomsen refers to Metroid as channeling Kane's (of Citizen Kane) general feeling of loneliness via its "ethereal isolation," and while I would never consciously make that connection, many people wouldn't either unless asked to explain what is so inherently appealing about a particular work of art. Take, for example, my experiences with one of the most critically-acclaimed games of this generation, Mass Effect 2. It's an exemplary work of technical and storytelling achievement, but since Ebert and many other critics of videogames appear to have never picked up a controller in their life, much less grasp that a videogame is capable of weaving an intricate, multi-dimensional tale, it's best to point out the undeniable fact that this game made me feel emotions while playing it. Before I continue, let me quickly reiterate what the definition of art is, according to Wikipedia: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." Even on a very basic level, this experience could be considered a product of artistic expression, but art is nothing without debate and explanation, so please, allow me.

While playing Mass Effect 2, I began to notice that I was developing tangible feelings towards a character in the game. Miranda Lawson, a military officer in the company that my character worked for, caught my eye with her tactical prowess and...erm, other assets. Her character felt real, with all the same personality quirks of a human being. She had a history with her father, a wealthy information broker who insatiably craved a perfect daughter. Through several different conversations at different points throughout the game, I learned through careful, cautious questioning that Miranda was genetically engineered to be "perfect," all the way down to her physical appearance. Her sudden vulnerability caught me off-guard, as her character was predominantly militaristic and stern. Understanding the rarity of the situation, I comforted her and made it clear that I had feelings for her. She denied any sexual advances at first, scared that it was foolish to get attached to someone before a dangerous mission, but nevertheless she let me know that was still "very interested" in the idea.

Miranda Lawson from Mass Effect 2

During this entire sequence, I was selecting from a wheel of dialogue options that allowed me to play out what my character would say in reaction to Miranda's story, but the experience felt real in every way that a face-to-face conversation with a new flame feels. My heart rate quickened and the sexual tension was palpable, awkward even, despite the fact that, when boiled down its raw components, I was staring at a bunch of moving pictures on a computer monitor. Imagine my dismay when I met another romantic interest on a recruiting mission that turned my opinion of Miranda on its head. I remember thinking about which girl I was going to pursue before falling asleep one night, and then hesitating the next day as I told Miranda I had found someone else. Like a woman trying to behave as professionally as possible would in real life, Miranda respectfully understood and, with a hint of sadness in her voice, figured it was better to focus on the mission at hand. After calling it quits with Miranda, I headed down into the engineering area of the ship to speak with Tali'Zorah vas Normandy, and expressed my interests in her. Seeing her utterly elated reaction brought a very real smile to my face.

Tali moves and behaves like a real person, helping the player grow attached to her

If art is about affecting human emotions, videogames have most certainly crossed that threshold recently, and while there are some early exceptions, the truth of the matter is that as technology has advanced, so has the capacity of storytelling in gaming. We've come a long way since Pong, and I feel that anyone who has ever played even a handful of videogames in their life has been emotionally affected in one way or another by the increasingly transparent barrier between the screen and the characters present within. While there are most certainly games that almost succeed in undoing all the hard work that visionary developers such as BioWare have accomplished, the truth is, every genre of art suffers from a few rotten apples. Due to mainstream society's long-running acceptance of those particular genres, however, they go largely unnoticed and the painter and composer's reputation goes untarnished. Let one self-righteous FOX News journalist get her hands on a scoop regarding a nudity mod for Grand Theft Auto though, and suddenly game developers are the right hand of Satan himself.

One recurring problem that stems from the nonbelievers' camp is that the majority of people disproving videogames as an art form have never actually played any of the games that get mentioned as prime examples for our argument. You show us a picture of the Mona Lisa and we get the idea. A picture of a painting only makes the painting mobile. With videogames, however, as Michael Thomsen said, "A videogame is not a videogame on YouTube." A game is meant to be played, experienced, and interacted with. If watching a trailer was the equivalent of playing a game yourself, the gaming industry would've died out a long time ago. The truth is, my experience with Mass Effect 2 may be, and has been, lost on many people, but also shared by a number of others. Games far less morally-refined as Mass Effect 2 have emotionally affected people as well, and this wide range of appeal is something that verifies videogames as an art form. Videogames have transcended the "entertainment media" label they've been slapped with for so long, and are now truly a legitimate storytelling medium, with an additional dimension of interactivity that creates a sense of believability that no movie and no novel could ever hope to recreate with any kind of success. So to those who consistently belie the consensus that videogames are art, I ask that you at least give these games a try before coming to such a bold and ignorant conclusion. There is art in these games, and if you let yourself get sucked into the atmosphere that the developers have spent hours tirelessly constructing with carefully planned scripting and elaborately designed environments, you may just find yourself swallowing your words.

- Adriaan Noordzij

Have a similar opinion? Couldn't disagree more? Leave a comment!

How Turn 10 sabotaged Forza 3 by running its mouth

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:25:00 +0000

Turn 10 Studios, developer of the highly anticipated Forza Motorsport 3, has begun to foster quite an interesting reputation for themselves as time and time again the developer calls out rival racing studios with ludicrously absurd comments at demo showings and interviews. While it’s certainly somewhat admirable that the studio is confident in the quality of its upcoming racer, the remarks being spewed from game director Dan Greenawalt’s mouth are nothing short of pure and utter hyperbolic garbage. A recent interview with Xbox360Achievements.org highlights this fact all too well, and the consistency with which the studio lashes out indirectly (and sometimes very directly) against other racing developers is just laughable. Here’s a sampling of the truly ridiculous (and hilariously ignorant) quotes from the aforementioned interview to get us started.

I play a lot of racing games, including PC racing games and I have not seen anything that is even within years of what we’re delivering here.

Really? That’s so weird, because I could’ve sworn I’ve heard of this Gran Turismo game somewhere. And what about that GTR2 racer? Supposedly it’s pretty advanced too. Must be just a rumor.

We have lift, bump stops that can create a hell of an unbalance in the car, we even simulate the chassis stiffness that I’ve never seen in another game... where, like a Fox Body Mustang just twists under its own torque and it means that the tires can’t stay evenly attached to the road. We even simulate that.

Wow, that’s really deep. Strange then, that you can’t manage to simulate something as simple as a car hitting a concrete slab? It seems like that would be a more immediate concern than the way a Mustang reacts according to its own power.

I could go on and on with this material, and that’s from just a single interview. While I definitely respect that Turn 10 is trying to reignite the Forza flame so to speak, the fact that it’s effectively ignoring competitors like Gran Turismo 5 and even DiRT 2 is unbelievably bad practice. It’s not like Bungie presents a demo at E3 while ranting and raving about how there’s no other shooter on the market that handles the way Halo does. As a developer, you need to have a certain kind of reverence and respect for your competitors, even if they consistently outsell and outperform you. If anything, this should serve as inspiration to make your next project a labor of love that people can put up with the other guys side-to-side and say something along the lines of: “Wow, they really outdid themselves this time.”

With Forza 3, that is not the case. The hype over the much-improved graphics engine has led to a general feeling of disappointment as gamers finally got their hands on the recently released demo. The lighting model looks strangely “off”, illuminating the cars in a slightly cartoonish fashion that makes colors pop far too much and jaggies far too evident. Leading up to the release of the demo, trailers and gameplay videos never really made this fact apparent, but once I managed to get behind the poorly-rendered cockpit of the demo’s Mini Cooper (I’ve actually driven a Mini a few times in my life, and let me tell you, Forza does NOT represent the interior well) my hopes for a graphical competitor to Gran Turismo were dashed. Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, which released a little over a year ago, still manages to outpace Forza 3, all the while Forza is being heralded by the big wigs at Microsoft and many outspoken members of Turn 10 as the best-looking racer on the market. If the “market” doesn’t consist of DiRT 2 or any of the PS3-exclusive Gran Turismos, then yea, this statement would be 100% correct, but for those of us living in the real world, it’s complete and utter bullshit.

Gran Turismo 5’s graphics easily rival real-life at times.

But wait, you say. Forza is all about the under-the-hood performance calculations and rarely seen physics flourishes! While normally I’d be inclined to agree with you, these have little to no effect on roughly 90% of the driving experience. When you’re racing on the road, your car will handle pretty much like every other racing game out there with asphalt tracks (albeit less exciting because of the poor sense of speed, a recurring problem with the Forza franchise). The only time all these supposed “advanced calculations” come into play is in very, very rare situations, and even then, you likely won’t think to yourself: “OMG! That’s totally what the car would have done in real life!” What’s most disappointing about these physics, however, is the fact that crashing your car in Forza is painfully underwhelming. Even in a game like Need for Speed: Shift, which has comparable damage modeling (meaning it’s terribly lacking) makes crashes interesting by blurring the screen and violently shaking the camera while your car smashing the center divide creates a nasty crunch of bending metal and shattering glass. In Forza, there is nothing exciting or remotely thrilling about smashing your very expensive car into a wall. In fact, there’s nothing to marvel at in any way when your Audi R8 side swipes a reckless driver as he speeds past you, because the damage modeling is almost IDENTICAL to Forza 2’s. A scrape here, some paint removed there. The whole ordeal is so unspectacular it makes one wonder what the hell the team at Turn 10 has been doing for the last couple years. Granted, Gran Turismo 5’s damage modeling isn’t anything to write home about either, but at least bits and pieces fall off after impacts and doors swing off their hinges so that it’s apparent from even the cockpit view that your car has been affected by that 50 MPH head-on collision.

I could go on and on about Forza 3’s shortcomings, namely the absolutely dreadful cockpit view and pitiful sense of speed, but really I’m just going to let Turn 10 embarrass itself further and laugh my ass off when Gran Turismo 5 eventually comes out and Forza is left in the dust. It’s not often that I want a game to fail, and even more uncommon for me to want a developer to get humiliated, but the fact that Polyphony is speaking with gorgeous trailers and screenshots, while Turn 10 retorts with childish remarks and not so subtle insults makes me wonder just how hard the developer is trying to sabotage its upcoming release. Turn 10, you should be ashamed. Well played, Polyphony. Actions really are louder than words.

- Adriaan Noordzij

Love the article? Hate my guts? Check your fanboy rage at the door and leave a comment!

Modern Warfare 2 trailer analysis (with video!)

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:44:00 +0000

With the release of the newest Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer trailer, it looks like Infinity Ward has shown off a few, previously unconfirmed features that play on the developer’s past comments on making players “more famous,” as well as revealed some interesting new content that hasn’t been mentioned before. A few of the changes are immediately apparent, while others are not so obvious. Let’s take a look at the more visible changes first, shall we? If you don’t feel like reading, scroll down to the bottom to watch the video, then come back for details!

New Weapons/Equipment

This one is both expected and ridiculously obvious. Right off the bat, the trailer showcases the new SCAR-H assault rifle, complete with default iron sights and stock sand-brown paint job. In front of the player is a teammate with a riot shield leading the way, albeit without a weapon to defend himself with. The fact that the riot shield strips the player of most offensive capabilities will be an interesting thing to watch play out for sure (you can still kill people with riot shield apparently), but from past experiences (Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six) this looks to be a smart design and balance choice for Infinity Ward. By forcing the riot shield user to stick close to teammates, perhaps Modern Warfare 2 will encourage more teamwork amongst players than previously seen in other Call of Duty games. As the trailer progresses, more weapons are unveiled (some were previously announced but never seen in action), such as, in order of appearance, the MP5-K, AUG HBAR, LAW Missile Launcher, TAR-21, AA-12, UMP-45, and of course, Throwing Knives. While the throwing knives are, in my opinion, pretty dumb and out of character with the franchise, their implementation isn’t too bad, and whether or not their usage will be balanced remains to be seen. It does appear that players will only get one for each spawn, so that’s good news. Something else worth noting is the descriptions that appear next to weapons on the ground, but I’ll get to that in a bit. Near the end of the trailer there also appears to be either a new perk, or perhaps new device that disrupts nearby enemies’ radar display. Whether or not this is something you have to activate or merely equip is unknown, but it does not have to be held in-hand as fourzerotwo’s in-game avatar is sniping while the effect continues. While all those things are fairly obvious, let’s look at the less apparent (and more exciting) new additions to Modern Warfare 2, as seen in the trailer.

Customized “Namecards”

The first time the player gets a kill in the trailer, a small “namecard” appears at the bottom of the screen, detailing the enemy’s name, rank, and what looks to be some customizable tags and “gamer pictures” that make the card unique to that player. Think Street Fighter IV’s icon and status customization, and you’ve got a good idea of what to expect from Modern Warfare 2’s namecard system. It looks like ranking up as well as completing challenges will unlock new tags to use for players, and hopefully there is a wide variety of these that will allow individuality to flourish. This is probably what Infinity Ward were referring to when they discussed the prospect of making their players “more famous” in an interview some time ago. While it remains to be seen how far this system goes and how deep players can get into it, it’s still a nice way to identify yourself amongst hordes of players. Next up is something that should make a lot of people happy (including myself), and that would be…

More Attachments/Multiple Attachments

Oh yes. This is something that Call of Duty 4 was sorely lacking, and it looks like Infinity Ward answered the siren’s call for deeper customization of individual weaponry. Near the end of the trailer, the gun the player is holding has both a silencer and a red dot sight affixed to it, and although this could be a perk, it would be awesome to see players experimenting with different combinations of attachments while still maintaining their favorite three perk setup. Also seen in the trailer are new weapon attachments, such as an extended magazine, and “bling” which probably means golden or (let’s hope it isn’t) diamond-encrusted weapons. This last bit is pretty stupid. I know 50 Cent is doing some voicework in the game, but can we keep the flashy jewelry out of the game? This is Modern Warfare 2, not Blood on the Sand. Golden weapons are fine, rhinestones and diamonds are ridiculous. Although “bling” might be a little lame, the last thing gleaned from the trailer is pretty cool.

Different Killstreaks/New Killstreaks

We all know that customized killstreaks are in Modern Warfare 2, but what we didn’t know up until today was that there would be an Airdrop streak, or a Predator Missile streak. What’s even more interesting is that the Airdrop streak is rewarded for a 4-kill streak, rather than one of the previous 3, 5, or 7 killstreaks. From the looks of it, Infinity Ward is probably going to be letting players customize more than just the odd numbered killstreaks, and if I may be so bold to say so, perhaps even double kills or triple kills will yield additional rewards for players to exploit. What additional killstreaks will be available is yet to be revealed, but rest assured most of them should be pretty useful.

While there were some other things that the trailer revealed such as true host migration and a new HUD layout, these are most of the things that Infinity Ward has only hinted at in the past, and it’s pretty interesting to see how they’ve implemented them in this trailer. While some of the features are a little bit out of character, such as the throwing knives and “bling” weapons, most of the concepts look to improve the overall feeling of investment that players gain after being rewarded with tangible items for their in-game accomplishments. Modern Warfare 2 looks set to light the online multiplayer community ablaze this November, but only time will tell whether or not the new features are woven into the fabric of the gameplay seamlessly or not. Until we get our hands on it, it’s pure speculation from here on out. Check out the video below for proof of all the info mentioned in the post!

Enjoy!

Like what you read or saw? Leave a comment!

Xbox 360 price cuts not enough to best PS3 this holiday

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:41:00 +0000

With the recent rumors of Microsoft cutting the Xbox 360’s price confirmed today, it would appear that Microsoft has preemptively stolen the spotlight from the new PS3 Slim’s introductory price matching the reduced tag on the “fat” Playstation models. In all honesty, Microsoft is only setting itself up for failure this holiday season by not pricing it lower than the PS3, which sports an arguably better feature set. In addition, the news that Microsoft is cutting HD cables out of the retail box for the Elite is stirring up a storm on the internet, and raising questions of whether or not $300 for the slightly outdated system is a decent price when pressed against a $300 Blu-ray player.

Of course, Microsoft expects to prey on the unwitting customers who see the inevitable new marketing campaign for the 360’s price cut to rush out and buy the new console without much thought or research on the current gaming marketplace. When looking at a spec sheet, the PS3 bests the 360 in nearly every checkbox. Blu-ray? Check. Free online services? Check. Wi-Fi? Check. The list goes on, and while LIVE may or may not be worth paying $50 a year for (depending on your perspective and how much you use the service), to the raw, uninitiated consumer this looks like a bargain compared to the inevitably more expensive 360. What’s more is that the new PS3 Slim has the same allure as the PS2’s slim offering, in the fact that it’s essentially a rebirth of the original system. Sleeker, sexier, and definitely smaller, the PS3 slim is going to stand out in the crowd of consoles this holiday season, even if it isn’t to gamers looking for their Uncharted 2 fix, but rather entertainment enthusiasts eager to see what the latest Blu-ray Bond movie looks like in 1080p.

The Arcade model for the 360 isn’t helping matters much either, considering that to get a piece of hardware that rivals both the Elite and the PS3 costs, in the end, more than just buying one or the other right off the bat. Microsoft’s insanely inflated prices on their first-party accessories are so insulting to anyone who knows anything about technology that most people end up going with third-party devices that either work just as well (in the case of wireless adapters), or a whole lot worse (in terms of Mad Catz controllers vs. official Microsoft ones). With the price cut of the Elite, the only way that the 360 could have a remote advantage in a direct price-point comparison is to lower the cost of all accessories to match their “real-world” value (I’m looking at you Wireless Adapter). The official HDMI adapters for the 360 offer one advantage over standard HDMI cables, and that’s the optical audio port, but the retail price for these is so horrifically high that most people won’t even bother, opting instead to just use cheap cables (that, for the record, work just as well) that they can easily find online for under $5.

The only effective way for Microsoft to beat out the PS3 this holiday season is to really market, and I mean REALLY market, the new social networking features such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as the Instant-On 1080p video technology rolling out later this year. Instant-On could very well be the 360’s saving grace in the HD movie department, granted it works as advertised (you can check out an impressive demo of the tech here). Unfortunately, most of the big name exclusives happen early on in the holiday season, and the rest of the heavy hitters (Modern Warfare 2, this means you) are multiplatform. And if I may do a little speculation, why not ditch the practically worthless Arcade model altogether and replace it with the Pro, not the other way around? Hard drives are cheap, and you can’t possibly tell me that the chrome disc tray is costing upwards of $50. Microsoft’s multiple SKU strategy is wearing thin every year, and it would at least be nice if the most accessible, cheapest model was also a fully capable one, not a gimped machine missing core components.

In the end, I love my 360 as much as the next guy (maybe even more!) but Microsoft is doing a horrible job of keeping up with the Jones. The PS3’s got a better feature set on paper, the Wii is still a mainstream sensation, which puts the 360 where exactly? An overpriced console with few truly advantageous abilities over the other guys? It’s time to wake up Microsoft. I miss the company that launched a year early to prove to its fanbase that it was more than capable of delivering the premium console of choice for gamers with all the fixings. While it still has a ton of redeeming qualities and features some of the best exclusives, I can’t help but feel that Microsoft is playing its cards a little too close to its chest when it really needs to lay down the chips in preparation for the big game this holiday season. Lower the price of accessories, make the Pro model the entry-level system, and market the hell out of the new dashboard features and the aging system will stand a chance against the much newer-looking PS3.

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments!

Rage is what Fallout 3 Should’ve Been

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:11:00 +0000

Rage is id Software’s latest foray into the video game world, and after watching the recently released trailer from QuakeCon 2009, it’s looking like it might be a game that id’s never done before. Sure, there are shooter elements (which id is obviously no stranger to), but the entire trailer seemed to reflect aspects of open-world RPGs and an overall Bioshock-like approach to combat. What struck me most about the trailer however, was just how gorgeous and vast the environments were, and how the game’s story seemed to reflect that of Fallout 3’s post-apocalyptic theme. However, the difference in Rage is in how the world is realized: the game isn’t just brown and grey, there’s a genuinely unique art style bringing the world to life amidst what appears to be some widespread explosive destruction, and most of all, the shooter elements look incredibly solid from the brief glance seen in the trailer.

Fallout 3, for all its shortcomings, was not a bad game. Yet, the praise it received is something that I’ve always felt was misdirected and unfounded. The combat was dull, the environments were even more so, and the characters you interacted with, although interesting, had such archaic animations that the overall experience felt stiff and uninspired. Rage proves that these flaws are not a prerequisite for the open-world RPG hybrid genre, simply based off the trailer alone. What stood out to me the most was the sheer scale of the game and yet how utterly captivating the visuals were. Fallout 3 never managed to wow me despite its large and moody Wasteland, and I chock this up to the fact that the game was running on very old tech. Although Rage is sporting id’s latest engine, id Tech 5, it only goes to show how much the game proves that there is no reason why an open-world game cannot be both big and beautiful, especially in this console generation.

While its graphics are important to an extent, it’s the art style of Rage that really makes Fallout 3’s environments look sloppy and rushed. From the QuakeCon trailer alone, it looks as if id has created a world that appears both destroyed and beautifully-conceived in the studio’s realization of what a bombed-out nation would look like. The color palettes are much more tangible and appealing, which only enhances the creativity seen in the unique architecture and shanty towns teased briefly throughout the trailer. Where Rage really beats out Fallout however, is in the “wasteland” design. Bethesda felt satisfied in creating a relatively flat environment, punctuated every so often with small, makeshift towns or wandering enemies, and as a result the world felt sparsely populated and in all honesty, pretty boring to roam about in. Rage looks to put an end to that type of design with its wasteland looking much more geographically diverse. Canyons and hills dot a sprawling landscape, and the towns that you do run across are incredibly detailed, fairly populated, and as far as we know, varied. One look at the bar scene in the QuakeCon trailer (embedded after the break) versus Moriarty’s bar in Fallout 3’s Megaton city says a lot about the quality of the atmosphere in Rage compared to Fallout’s.

Take a look at the QuakeCon trailer for Rage.

I could really go on forever about the things Rage offers that Fallout 3 doesn’t: fast-paced combat, excellent character animations, a world that looks and (hopefully) feels alive, but instead I’ll leave you with these screenshots and ask you a very simple question. Which looks more like the kind of game you would want to explore?

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments!

Genre Bending: RPG elements in shooters

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:35:00 +0000

To kick off the reimagining of Safety’s Off, we’ll start with a new section called Genre Bending, where we discuss the game design practice of incorporating multiple different elements of genres that often aren’t integrated with one another. Without a doubt, the genre bending trend of including RPG elements in shooters is growing increasingly popular, with games such as Call of Duty 4 and Gears of War 2 featuring aspects of “XP” gains based on in-game accomplishments such as killing enemies or completing objectives. Typically, experience is awarded in RPGs for winning battles or defeating bosses, and it is this aspect of the typically slower-paced genre that is arguably the most addicting. Certain developers are taking notice of this kind of gameplay and infusing the concept with games that are of a completely different genre. How can developers further stretch the boundaries of typical RPG elements finding their way into shooters?

The answer isn’t as straightforward as some might think, considering that both RPGs and shooters often attract two very different types of gamers. It would be all too easy to copy and paste the best each genre has to offer into the other, yet the results would likely be nothing short of disastrous. Developers need to ignore the obvious gameplay elements of each genre and instead focus on the presentation and gimmicks that RPGs thrive off of, such as the XP system. Call of Duty 4 is, so far, the only game to truly capture the addictive essence of leveling up in a shooter, and the sales don’t lie; people love it. It would seem all too obvious that every game should feature some sort of incentive to play aside from basic, fundamental enjoyment, but there is much more to be considered for this particular aspect of genre bending.

A good start.

One of the things that shooter developers still haven’t crossed over from RPGs is the general sense of improvement in a game which a player has spent many, many hours in. While the subject of balance and fairness comes up almost instantly when this subject is presented, there are ways to make this work. The general idea that rewarding players with better weapons and armor gives them a leg up on the competition is true, but why shouldn’t a player’s dedicated time investment yield some sort of advantage over newcomers or at the very least, a deep-rooted connection and satisfaction with the time spent? Balance is important, but it shouldn’t take a whole lot of brainstorming to come up with a solution to create a level playing field for everyone while maintaining a persistent upgrade system. For example, let’s pretend that Call of Duty 4 allows players to upgrade their weaponry like in Resident Evil 4 and 5. The XP earned goes to both their individual skill level as well as an XP “bank” for spending on weapon upgrades. The skill level remains, but the XP in the bank depletes with each upgrade bought. Now, supplement this with a matchmaking system that matches players up with other similarly skilled gamers and suddenly you have a game with unique user upgrades and a level playing field, because every player has earned close to the same amount of XP to use on their weapons. The balance therefore must be dictated by the developer in making each upgrade available at any particular level worthwhile and useful, so that players don’t feel screwed for not choosing things like increased power over a faster reload speed for example.

While flaws may certainly arise from a system such as the one mentioned previously (slow matchmaking times from lack of players at a certain level, etc.) the foundation is there to be fleshed out, and with a little more brainstorming, these issues could be ironed out to create a smooth, balanced system where everyone feels as if they are in control of their play style’s particular needs as well as providing an addicting experience reminiscent of an RPG’s “just one more battle” mentality. The possibilities are there, all it takes is a little out-of-the-box thinking to make them work.

- Adriaan Noordzij

Agree? Think there are other issues not presented? Sound off in the comments!

Zune HD officially announced, coming this fall

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:11:00 +0000

Ever since the Zune HD was rumored, people have been speculating on what Microsoft was trying to create. A response to the iPhone? Something to rival the iPod Touch? It appears now that there is maybe a little more to just sheer competition, but even something that Microsoft has been discussing for years with its Xbox Live Anywhere concept: synergy. Microsoft has had the benefit of a wide range of products that all could interact with each other in consumers’ homes, and now it appears that the company is ready to capitalize on that promise, albeit several years late. Below is the first high-res shot of the upcoming Zune HD, ready to hit retailers this fall for an unannounced price. Expect more info at E3 ‘09, including showcasing of the new Xbox Live integration features. Check it out for yourself.

You should probably click that.

(Thanks SuperDunner and CPaladino)

MW2: Rinse, recycle, repeat?

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:53:00 +0000

Call me jaded, call me crazy, call me whatever you’d like, but something about the new Modern Warfare 2 trailer gives me a very familiar, slightly bitter taste in my mouth. The trailer, finally unveiled last Sunday, gave the world the full glimpse at what the heavily anticipated sequel to last year’s most popular game was bringing to the table in November 2009. Now, one would imagine the teasers would have benefited the full trailer’s official unveiling with a steady hype train following Infinity Ward’s every move, but instead I felt as if the full trailer was a bit of a letdown. Truly, it appears that the teasers took away from the shock value of the final reveal, but let’s examine it a bit closer.

At first glance, Modern Warfare 2 is about on par with COD4 graphically, which really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone, although it is a tad disappointing to see that a noticeable graphical leap wasn’t really evident. Textures look nearly exactly the same, and I noticed that the animations appeared to be recycled wholesale. While it would be unrealistic to expect a complete overhaul of the graphical appearance of MW2, it remains a moot point on whether or not this is a reflection of the level of effort going into the final product that will hit store shelves later this year. It’s nice to know that the game still hasn’t sacrificed its now standard 60FPS frame rate, and to expect anything less would be a little bit ridiculous, but in all honesty, when it’s this evident that things are being reused, one becomes a little concerned about the innovations that might come along with the not-so-shiny-anymore graphical appearances.

Not quite what I was expecting.

What I mean by that is, well, is Infinity Ward going to put all of its eggs into the singleplayer basket? The recent Game Informer article that uncovered some key information about the game shocked me in more ways than one. The announcement that player customization and experience would be completely omitted from the campaign mode was a huge missed opportunity to correct the Call of Duty franchise’s lack of replayability on the singleplayer front. COD4 had an extremely fun singleplayer story mode, but it was over way too quickly and the lack of co-op hurt. Guess what? That’s exactly how it’s going to be for MW2. Expect a 6-8 hour campaign (less if you’re good) and a story that feels like it’s plucked straight out of a Tom Clancy novel. While that isn’t bad, it seems as if Infinity Ward is playing it safe and giving more of the same rather than innovating in several key ways that it did with COD4. The FPS landscape has changed since 2007, and seeing as co-op is the new hotness (Left 4 Dead is based wholly off this concept), it’s really a shame to hear that IW deems it an unnecessary factor that kills immersion. If I were playing Bioshock and I heard a friend whispering in my ear about something completely irrelevant while I tried to put together the pieces of an epic story that played out like an A-list movie, yea, I’d be a little bit disgruntled, but we’re not talking about Bioshock. This is Modern Warfare 2, and in this day and age, you make co-op work in the framework of your story. You put the extra narrative effort in to create a secondary, important character that makes the campaign immersive, and exponentially more fun as you blast Russians (again) with a friend. I can understand leaving out character customization in the singleplayer realm, but eliminating the meta-game experience of an XP system/leveling up is a foolish mistake. Maybe the briefly mentioned Special Forces mode will touch upon this, but even then, it’s not in the same context as blasting through a thrilling (although likely somewhat generic) singleplayer mode with a friend.

Guess who you fight this time? MORE RUSSIANS!

Speaking of story, it’s pretty much a guarantee that MW2 will be an enjoyable romp through several different countries in pursuit of some sort of Russian ultranationalist leader, which, while serviceable, isn’t exactly original. Although it’s unclear whether or not players will be taking on the role of different perspectives throughout the campaign mode, it would sure as hell be a nice change if gamers had some sort of attachment to the characters they’re playing as. In previous Call of Duty games, just when you were starting to like the guy you were playing, something either: 1.) Totally fucked up happens to him (i.e. Dies in a crashed helicopter after a nuke goes off) or 2.) Kills a shitload of bad guys and calls it a day. Where the hell is the immersion in that? Honestly, if MW2 is told from multiple perspectives, I’m going to pretty damn skeptical of Infinity Ward’s intent when designing the singleplayer story. While I’m not expecting Oscar-level quality here, it would be nice to see a little more sophisticated than: “This guy bad. Go kill bad guy. Oh bad guy not here. Go to other place where bad guy is and kill him dead.” At its most basic level, Call of Duty games’ stories are but hollow shells for the action that follows. Give the player drive and motivation, and to do that make him/her give a damn about the player he is controlling and those around him. Camaraderie that doesn’t center entirely on witty British jokes is a beautiful thing, and if you can have a likeable cast of characters with a solid story and a playable being that doesn’t feel like a camera with a gun attached to it, Modern Warfare 2 might actually surpass my expectations.

At this point, it’s too early to tell what’s going to happen to the multiplayer, which is where the real action is. I’m very worried that we may just get the same thing from COD4 with a new lobby interface and a few new maps/perks/guns and that’s it. With the foundation Infinity Ward has here, it’s almost impossible not to see the possibilities available. As I mentioned in my other post, customizable weapons/characters would add a hell of a lot more personality to the online sphere of Modern Warfare 2, and it’s really the next logical step in the sense that it’s what everybody seems to want. Infinity Ward introduced awesome customization options with COD4, and now people want more. People want more depth, more guns, more attachments, more everything. However, that doesn’t mean weigh down the game with needless excessive realism and such, but there should be some fine-tuned additions to the game that make it feel like more than just COD4 v2.0. If the company is going to make claims that Modern Warfare 2 has become something entirely different on its own, we better see some evidence to back it up.

It’s likely that Infinity Ward will dispel these fears with time, but on the same token, I can’t help but suppress that sinking feeling that what I am expecting to be included is something that Infinity Ward might just consider wishful thinking. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s worth pointing out these early flaws so that maybe, just maybe, someone at IW reads this and (hopefully) agrees in such a compelling manner that he/she finds himself implementing such ideas into the final product. Hey, it’s an idea.

ZOMG: New Modern Warfare 2 footage!

noreply@blogger.com (Adriaan Noordzij) — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:32:00 +0000

Even though it’s only about ten seconds long (sad panda) the latest teaser trailer for Modern Warfare 2 looks to confirm several of the previous assumptions about the initial teaser released at GDC ‘09. It looks like we’ll be seeing that scuba level that was hinted at back for the trailer. Other than that, there’s not really a whole lot to glean from this early look, but the graphics look smooth, the action appears to take place on a larger scale, and overall, c’mon it’s Modern Warfare 2. It’s going to be badass. Duh.