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.