E3 First Impression: Rayman Origins

GAME:
Rayman Origins

DEVELOPER:
Ubisoft Montpellier

PUBLISHER:
Ubisoft

PLATFORM:
PS3 / Xbox 360 / Wii / 3DS / PSVita

RELEASE DATE:
15 November 2011

GENRE:
Single- and multiplayer platformer

DESCRIPTION:
Basically New Super Mario Bros Wii, but Rayman.

THOUGHTS:
The artwork in this game is super awesome. The announcement article in Game Informer made a big deal out of how they hired artists who were specialized in traditional painting methods (as opposed to so-called "digital artists"), and how most of the art in the game is actually scanned oil paintings and what-not. Definitely makes for a cool, distinctive look.

Gameplay-wise, it offers that type of same-screen, drop-in/drop-out, interactive-co-op platforming found in Little Big Planet or New Super Mario Bros Wii. Hence I take it that this game is targeted at the "casual" crowd looking to have "fun" by convincing multiple people to play a video game on the same screen in the same room.

On the one hand, that's great. It's getting back to the arcade roots of gaming, when gaming was a living, social experience. Remember Golden Axe and The Simpsons? Of course, those were brawlers. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever enjoying a platformer in an arcade setting. But whatever.

On the other hand... how often does this sort of group game play actually occur in the real world? Like those ads for Kinect showing a bunch of people all gathered together in the living room and playing Kinect Sports: who really does that? Is that a realistic expectation? Haven't shooters already figured out that sharing a screen isn't as fun as putting on a headset and playing over LAN or online? Of course, shared-screen is totally different from split-screen, but whatever.

Furthermore... there's no getting around the fact that it's a platformer. Even the best platformer of all time would still beg the question of whether or not the world needs another platformer. Another CONSOLE platformer, that is -- because we all know there are about a zillion indie, browser-based, and mobile platformers that still need to be made.

Anyways, I want to like it, at least for the zany art style.

E3 First Impression: Dead Island

GAME:
Dead Island

DEVELOPER:
Techland

PUBLISHER:
Deep Silver

PLATFORM:
PC / PS3 / Xbox 360

RELEASE DATE:
6 September 2011

GENRE:
Open-world 1st-person shooter

DESCRIPTION:
Like Left 4 Dead, but more Walking Dead-ish zombies and mood, with greater emphasis on melee combat, and open-world instead of on rails. Single-player or online co-op.

THOUGHTS:
Seems like this game has been getting a lot of buzz ever since the super-awesome reveal trailer came out. That buzz may as well continue -- the E3 demo did not disappoint.

Visually, Techland's in-house engine looks great. Structure-wise, it's your standard open-world post-outbreak tropical island resort, with a main plotline and optional side missions. Gameplay-wise, it's killin' zombies with whatever you can find lying around (axes, pipes, canoe oars, etc.) Instead of giving the player a gun and making her hunt for ammo, the melee weapons take damage, so the player must constantly keep an eye out for new potential zombie-bashers to replace the old ones.

The writing and voice-acting are top-notch -- almost a mismatch for the rather wooden (by LA Noire standards, at least) character animations. Presentation-wise, I think it's a mistake to force short-attention-span E3 demoers to sit through the lengthy opening cutscene, even if it is backed by the hilarious "Who Do You Voodoo?" rap single.

Overall, I'd have to say this looks like an awesome game, and I am definitely going to buy it and play it.

E3 First Impression: Lord Of The Rings: War In The North

GAME:
Lord Of The Rings: War In The North

DEVELOPER:
Snowblind Studios

PUBLISHER:
WBIE

PLATFORM:
PC / PS3 / Xbox 360

RELEASE DATE:
24 August 2011

GENRE:
RPG

DESCRIPTION:
Licensed-franchise fantasy RPG with optional co-op

THOUGHTS:
The game captures LOTR's epic mood, and the story elements feel compelling. I don't believe there's much room for character customization, but there's plenty of otherwise standard console RPG fare, in terms of leveling, grinding through hordes of orc creeps, item collecting, and so forth.

The focus seems to be on the co-op, which reminds me of partnering up for quests in WoW. I think this co-op focus also means that characters play similarly to one another, e.g. everybody has ranged AND melee attacks, can equip the same items, etc... all of which is fine by me.

There's a super-awesome "eagle power" that summons a gigantic (I mean, HUGIANT) friendly eagle who swoops in, snatches up your enemies in its talons, and then flies away. I couldn't get enough of that -- wish it had a shorter cooldown.

E3 First Impression: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon:Future Soldier

GAME:
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier

DEVELOPER:
Ubisoft Paris
Ubisoft Red Storm
Next Level Games (Wii)
Virtuos (PSP)

PUBLISHER:
Ubisoft

PLATFORM:
PC / PS3 / Xbox 360 / Wii / DS / PSP

RELEASE DATE:
March 2012

GENRE:
3rd-person tactical action shooter; single player, multiplayer, co-op

DESCRIPTION:
Another modern military shooter game [sigh] -- but a really well-done one!

THOUGHTS:
The reaction on Giant Bombcast to this title was blasé at best. They cite their "gun fatigue," i.e. being sick of games where you running around shooting a gun. While certainly a valid point, it's not fair to poo-poo a good game (or any piece of media, for that matter) on premise alone. I mean, plenty of great stuff has a lame premise.

GR:FS provides an excellent case in point for why publishers are so desperate to control the flow of information coming re: their games. Like most big titles, this one has been through a series of delays. Per Wikipedia:

The release of Future Soldier was initially targeted for the 2009–2010 fiscal year, however Ubisoft later announced that the release date would be pushed back until the 2010–2011 fiscal year to "strengthen" its video game line-up. In May 2010, Ubisoft announced that the release of Future Soldier would be delayed until the "March quarter of 2011". On November 15, 2010, Ubisoft announced that Future Soldier would be delayed once again for an April 2011 – March 2012 release.

The PR side of marketing can make or break a game just as the advertising side can, and you can't expect journalists to get excited about old news. Furthermore, March 2012 is still a long ways off. I remember getting stoked for GR:FS at last year's E3 (and being disappointed there was no playable demo). That was all before Black Ops had come out. How much more "gun fatigue" will we have after the upcoming "third" installments of MW and Battlefield?

Notwithstanding, this might be my favorite game of the handful I played at E3 this year.

The weapons handle well and sound awesome. All the AR HUD stuff is really cool and looks splendidly future-tastic. The camera is both intuitive and cinematic. The destructible cover is spiffy and I'm a fan of the cover-to-cover mechanics.

They've certainly made good on their promise of a hyper-realistic military "vision," which feels appropriately fleshed-out, not just in terms of the much-hyped, super-cool, "real-future" weapons tech, but even as far as the sound design and dialogue go -- and it's definitely to a game's credit if it can manage to sound good on the noisy expo floor.

What I played of GR:FS feels very polished and well-paced. The seemless single-player in-engine cutscenes enhance the game's flow rather than interrupting it. There's a nice variety of gadgets, features, and mini-scenarios that add variety to the otherwise standard-fare military shooter gameplay. The team- and intel-oriented multiplayer feels both familiar and refreshing.

Overall, GR:FS delivers explosive action without going preposterously over-the-top. I can't find much not to like about this game, aside from the obvious point that, thematically, it's still more of the same military shooter stuff.

Last year's Medal of Honor was rushed to shelves. The single-player campaign especially suffered -- it needed a better story and a lot more time in the QA oven. IMO, that was a mistake, the game was generally received as a disappointment, and sales (and EA's reputation, if any) suffered for it. Even if Ghost Recon: Future Soldier will be arriving a few years late to the party, I'm looking forward to playing it.

E3 First Impression: Wakfu

GAME:
Wakfu

DEVELOPER:
Ankama Studio

PUBLISHER:
Square Enix

PLATFORM:
PC / Mac

RELEASE DATE:
2011

GENRE:
Turn-based tactical MMORPG

DESCRIPTION:
A cute, anime-looking RPG game.

THOUGHTS:
It looks great on the giant iMac screens. I like that the characters are so adorable. Apparently there's an extensive amount of back-story here.

Good tutorial for introducing MMO mechanics to people who may never have played one. Spells level up individually, so you don't have to choose a particular build right out of the gate... that seems to be fashionable nowadays.

I like that you can attack and kill pretty much anything, although, honestly, who wants to kill harmless, innocent forest creatures? [That's a joke. See my recent Flash project.]

No real surprises here -- you probably can tell from the screenshots whether this is your type of game or not.

Call Of Halo: Modern Reach

While I am by no means a Halo expert*, I do consider myself a Halo fan.  I had been looking forward to Reach since it was announced and it was the only game I’ve bought on launch day all year.

I’m also quite partial to the Call Of Duty games.  As shooters go, Call Of Duty is perhaps the Beatles to Halo’s Rolling Stones.  Or maybe it’s the other way around... fodder for another blog post.  While I certainly respect and enjoy both games, no one can love them both equally, and if I had to choose between the two, I’d pick Halo.

Aesthetically, Reach is one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of visual media I’ve ever consumed.  The rich detail of the environments and the artful, mature cutscenes are Avatar-ishly mind-blowing.  Likewise, the sound design on Reach is jaw-dropping, from the beauty of its musical score to the marvelously-crafted foley cues.  Overall, Reach is a splendidly integrated piece of entertainment, consistent, immersive, emotionally engaging, impeccably detailed, well balanced and paced (although not without a few Halo-esque difficulty spikes / missing checkpoints), and generally a whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Hats off, Bungie.  There need never be another Halo.

All that being said... the Modern Warfare influence is undeniable.  On paper, we all knew this was coming: the loadouts (Sprinting!?  In Halo!?), the multiplayer leveling and upgrades system, the emphasis on teamwork over Rambo-style lone wolf Master Chief tanking, etc.

At least we still get to keep our overshields, plasma grenades and gravity hammers, right? **  Perhaps it’s just fanboy resistance to progress, but I like my Halos to be Halos and my Modern Warfares to be Modern Warfares.  I understand the insecurity that pressures publishers and developers into catering to popular taste, especially on a project with the scope and box office potential of Reach’s magnitude, but... well, a guy can dream.

Personally, the most disappointing should’ve-seen-that-coming Modern Warfare-ism in Halo: Reach is the shift in the game’s overall tone.  Even at its most earnest, previous Halos never forgot who they were: escapist jaunts into a hyper-realistic (physics-wise) sci-fi world that felt limitlessly fantastic.  The tongue never completely left the cheek.  I’ve always seen Halo as the video game equivalent of Starship Troopers.  The spirit of the Halo franchise was one of derivative subject matter, delivered in a self-aware way, drawing upon familiar modern-day conventions for maximum storytelling economy.

While the storylines in Modern Warfare are arguably just as fantastic, the mood is different.  More like the most recent James Bond films.  Modern Warfare is badass in a serious way; Halo was always badass in an over-the-top way.   Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but anyone who has played through the Reach campaign must surely agree that the sense of humor is gone.  Your fellow soldiers are now courageous and respectable where they were once pathetic cowards.  The aliens are a legitimate threat to your home and way of life (see Modern Warfare) and no longer scream “Run away!!” in ridiculous cartoonish voices. Gone is Cortana’s endless string of witty remarks.  Gone are the absurd rhyming couplets of the Gravemind.  In fact, [SPOILER ALERT!] gone are the wacky, loveable zombies altogether.  (Remember when "Halo" meant "half-aliens, half-zombies game"?)

What remains, for better or worse, is a straightforward story of nobility, courage and sacrifice in the face of certain defeat.  Reach might even make you cry.  It’s a repeat of the Star Wars prequel formula -- and the lack of public outcry might just indicate that mainstream audiences are marginally more open to tragic space operas than they were a few years ago when Lucas unveiled his misunderstood prequel triptych masterpiece.

Anyways... only 2.5 more weeks to Black Ops!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

* Although I am one of the best in the world at getting pWn’d by 12-year-olds in any given Halo multiplayer.

** Nerd-out: I love that they brought back the Combat Evolved pistol, and the new Needle Rifle is a splendid all-around with delightful long-range accuracy; but, while assassinations are cool and all, the melee is too weak for my tastes, and IMHO, the DMR is such a woefully over-nerfed Battle Rifle that it just depresses me to use it.

[Together] Review

My review of the Flash game [Together] was published last week on Greg Costikyan's website, PlayThisThing.com:

http://playthisthing.com/together

Enjoy!

Warriors: Legends Of Troy (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Warriors: Legends Of Troy (Tecmo Koei)

Platform:
PS3 / 360 (I played on 360)

Genre:
Action / Hack-N-Slash

Time Played:
10 minutes

Main Constructs:
Grinding, Button Mashing

One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The high concept. I had the pleasure of talking with the game's lead designer for a bit prior to playing. His concept, as pitched to me, was not only to adapt the Warriors franchise for a Western gamer audience, but also to stay as faithful as possible to Greek mythology (esp. Homer's Iliad) and history (including details like accurate late bronze-age weaponry and armor). In his words, he wanted to create a game that high school teachers might assign to their students. As a stickler for accuracy, I applaud his mentality.

One thing I LIKED about it and why:
Badass combat animations. I suppose I like this for the same reason I like a good battle scene in a film (see Braveheart and Last Of The Mohicans). I enjoy the toy-play aspect of directing sword fight choreography.

One thing I HATED about it and why:
The level design. The demo level was dull and repetitive. Run a little bit, press X a little bit, run some more, press X some more, run some more, etc.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
Not being able to invert the Y-axis controls. Although I did my best to work around it, not implementing this basic feature for the demo made me feel like a discriminated-against minority.

What behaviours the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Kill enemy soldiers. Keep an eye out for special fatalities.

What the main rewards are:
Sense of powerfulness and progress. Badass fatality animations. Immersion.

What I would change about the game:
The demo focused entirely on the game's basic constructs and fighting mechanics. While reasonably cool, these are nothing particularly ground-breaking. I believe that by directing more attention to the world, the story, the main characters, and other narrative elements, Legends of Troy might have appealed to players' imaginations and done a better job of standing out from the crowd.

The most plausible explanation for this problem is that most of the narrative-type stuff, usually understood to mean "cutscenes," isn't finished yet. Nevertheless, I believe there must be a creative solution.

What I learned from playing the game:
Don't bother showing a game at E3 unless it's ready.

Scooby Doo! And The Spooky Swamp (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Scooby-Doo! And The Spooky Swamp (Warner Bros)

Platform:
Wii

Genre:
Platformer / Adventure

Time Played:
10 minutes

Main Constructs:
Platforming, Adventuring/Exploring, Puzzle-Solving, Mystery-Solving, Collecting

One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The handling. Perhaps in part because of a more static camera, the controls felt very responsive and fluid. In other Wii games, I often find myself annoyed when using the nunchuck thumbstick, and controls feel laggy or imprecise. Here, moving the character around felt comfortable rather than frustrating.

One thing I LIKED about it and why:
Interactions with objects in the world. Scooby and Shaggy's animations while interacting with such objects are entertaining. I enjoyed playing around with throwing chickens and watermelons at things.

One thing I HATED about it and why:
Couldn't find anything to hate.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
I wish I had known you can swap out characters, as demonstrated in the trailer. Not sure if this feature is implemented in the demo.

What behaviours the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Standard platformer compulsion loops: collect items, solve puzzles, progress through levels, evade or defeat enemies.

What the main rewards are:
Progress through the game. "Clues" which are pieced together to solve the overall mystery. Food for Scooby and Shaggy. Lots of fun character animation flourish rewards.

What I would change about the game:
Design-wise, the game is what it is: low-stress, cheeky, cute and clever, with a wide cross-demographic appeal. WB should make more of an effort to promote this game and its predecessor, in terms of overall promotional volume, the intended target audience, and the way the game is presented to that audience. At present, it seems relegated to the "kids' games" commodity pool. I think many people my age and older would not hesitate to buy it if they knew it existed and was worthwhile. It appeals to the same sensibility as the Lego series, which (as far as I know) is well regarded among my peer group.

What I learned from playing the game:
The games at E3 with the longest lines aren't necessarily the best ones; also, it is possible to program a Wii game that makes good use of the thumbstick.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (Ubisoft)

Platform:
PS3 / 360 (I played on a PS3)

Genre:
Not sure anymore (see "HATED" section)

Time Played:
20 minutes (2 matches)

Main Constructs:
Hide & Seek, Tag, Obstacle Course, Load-Outs

One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The theme and world. Technically, it's the same as AC2, although the city of Rome is a new map layout (using familiar assets), and there are new character models to control.

One thing I LIKED about it and why:
The new gate feature. When you run through certain "gates" while being pursued, they slam shut behind you, impeding your pursuer's progress. That's cool, I guess.

One thing I HATED about it and why:
Strait-jacket-like gameplay constraints. They've taken away what was the most unique and fun part of Assassin's Creed: the sandbox. The game actively discourages exploration and role-playing according to the player's unique approach to the game and preferred play style. The only real choice happens during the load-out selection screen; after that, the player must kill the target and evade the pursuer. That's it.

There's only ever one and exactly one person in the game the player is allowed to kill: the target. If you should be fortunate enough to encounter another human player who is neither your target nor your pursuer, you may not interact. There is no fighting, only assassinations. There is no option to stand and fight the person trying to kill you.

The designers have transformed an exciting, complex world of emergent gameplay into a dull, monotonous session of one-on-one tag. I suspect the developers did not actually play either of the first two games, because they have obviously missed the point entirely.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
The lock-on feature. It has been nerfed to the point of uselessness. In fact, it's worse than useless -- it does more harm than good. The original system of identifying targets and locking onto them wasn't broken. Now it is.

What behaviors the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Do exactly what you are told and you will be rewarded every two or three minutes with a few hundred points.

What the main rewards are:
Points, tallied at end of match. Fatality animations when you kill your target. Relief after successfully evading a pursuer.

What I would change about the game:
If the publisher insists on incorporating multiplayer into the Assassin's Creed franchise (not advisable, in my opinion), but doesn't want to fund a full-fledged MMO, there are several possible ways of going about it:

- Players race to assassinate a shared target or set of targets. Players can thwart each other in various ways, such as fighting one another, setting traps, stealing from each other, hiring guards / prostitutes / thieves to serve as distractions, killing NPC team-members, etc.
- Capture The Flag
- Juggernaut
- Classic Deathmatch
- Motocross-Style Obstacle Course / Collection Racing
- Demolition
- King Of The Hill
- Any of the many other multiplayer constructs designers have used over the years.

Whoever decided that this particular framework for the multiplayer version of Assassin's Creed was the best possible option should definitely be sacked.

What I learned from playing the game:
Never get your hopes up for an E3 demo. Don't stand in an hour-plus line for a game unless you have a reliable tip-off that it's awesome.

Dragon Age: Origins: Too Many Choices

I sometimes still have trouble passing myself off as a "real" gamer. I mean, I love video games, and I've been playing my whole life... but no matter how much time I spend, I never seem to get any better.  Am I doing something wrong?  Am I just too old and slow-witted to ever hope to have mad skillz?

Perhaps video games favor youth in the same way athletics do. Both make use of the same cognitive abilities -- reaction time, sensitivity, adaptive muscle memory, spatial reasoning, etc.  So maybe I suck at video games for the same reason I've always sucked at sports in general. Well, I may always get picked last, but at least I play.

Questions of physical dexterity and hand-eye coordination aside, I also wonder if it's just a matter of evolution, and the next generation of kids (and games) is simply more intelligent than I am.

I'm currently playing Dragon Age: Origins. It's mostly fun, but also tends to drive me insane. I find I spend more time browsing through radial menus than I do actually playing the game. There are just too many choices!

Take armor, for example. In World of Warcraft, it's pretty easy to tell if a piece of armor you just picked up, or are considering buying off a merchant or the auction house, is better than what you already have. You know your character pretty well, and you know what direction you want to take him or her, and can easily estimate how much the item might be worth to you.

In Dragon Age: Origins, on the other hand, you have to manage armor sets for a whole mess of characters (I have eight right now, but the list keeps growing). You have to remember which characters can wear which types of armor. You have to know which characters would benefit the most from which increases in stats. You get a bonus for matching sets of armor, but it might not be worth it depending on the relative difference between the pieces according to the game's 7-tiered, color-coded materials system.

Furthermore, all your characters can't share items out of the inventory at the same time. You can only ever have your primary character plus three others in your party, which ends up requiring multiple party swap-outs between when you buy and sell items from a vendor and when you actually equip them. And good luck finding a vendor when you need one, and good luck getting anything from vendors that's really worth a hoot (unless you pay through the nose for it), since all the good stuff gets dropped anyways.

The whole thing is completely maddening, for me at least. There are plenty of ways the game's designers could have made this process easier: to provide some kind of best-option auto-equip feature; to have an easier gauge for comparing items against one another (or, dare I say it, fewer / less-complicated stats); to allow for some way for all characters to share the inventory simultaneously, or for easier swapping of equipment; to give players a "bank" at camp where they could store excess inventory; to organize gear according to class, and filter inventory items accordingly; to further limit the range of equippable gear with some kind of minimum, etc.

What I really want is fewer options. That statement right there probably proves I'm not a "real" RPG gamer. But maybe it's not about what I want... maybe it's too late for me. Maybe my only hope is that my children might grow up to be better at assessing all of this information; either that, or that they can figure out a way not to obsess over it, set the difficulty on "Easy", and just enjoy playing the game.