Well, this trailer sure put this game on my radar.
Resident Evil 4 & 5 were pretty damn awesome. Okay, 5 wasn't that much of a horror game as it was cheesy action but it's still slick as fuck...
Well then, some sick days gave me an opportunity to catch up.
I never was into Call of Duty games before Modern Warfare but MW1 & 2 were quite impressive. They managed to take the tired genre and give it a new spin. Unfortunately, that energy is gone in MW3. It's the hyped up overdone sequel which are all too common in video games. That doesn't mean it's bad but there's just not that much new. The multiplayer is still a very nice time-killer but it also doesn't bring much new to the table.
Man, don't kids these days get tired after buying the same game 5 times?
These days it's all about action games. Uncharted, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed and other such titles mix all genres into each other and only work because they are done so well. Unexpectedly, Batman: Arkham Asylum also managed to join that list of AAA games by being the first good comic book game since... well, ever. Arkham City is the sequel with more of an open world taste - while the first time you were skulking around in the prison compound, Arkham City gives you a whole part of a city to explore. It's pretty much what you would expect from a Batman game and more - loads of characters, great graphics, good story, fantastic combat, dark cinematic music. But you could compare it to the diamond wrapped in shit, except you can't wash it off. You see, it uses Games for Windows Live, which is a universally hated online system. It needs upgrades and restarts and is really the most annoying and unnecessary software you can glue to the game. After playing a bit, something happened and my savegames dissappeared. I searched around in the forums a bit and found out it's pretty common. It would be easy to blame GfWL, maybe it's Steam's fault but whatever, I didn't start the game again.
I have bit of a weak spot for Tower Defence games and Orcs Must Die! is a wonderful indie tower defence game, which you play from the third person angle. This means that you have weapons, spells and traps at your disposal. It all comes together well and creates one addictive orc slaying experience. I personally would prefer more traps and less spells/melee but I guess it makes the game more hectic and interesting. At first, the game's visual style didn't seem too likable, bringing World of Warcraftish cartoony style with pop culture references but it all works out great. You might find it pretty cheap on Steam, I suggest checking it out. Also, take a look at their interactive trailer.
Gaming these days has a lot to offer and the advancements over the years are amazing. Sadly though, with it come bigger budgets which result in less risktaking. Because of that, a lot of the big releases play like the same game. Still, there are very good mainstream games around and one might think that small-budget indie games don't have much to offer.
Actually, I think mostly they don't. Capsized is a good example of a game that didn't really have anything original to it. But there are also notable examples like Limbo, Braid or Bastion.
I tried Bastion out recently and I was amazed. I never thought I would like this kinda asian-looking action game so much but it's a really special game. You don't really get to say that often for a game but story is the best part. Waking up on a small island in the sky, a gravelly voice of a narrator comments the actions of the main character and the world around him. You learn that the world was destroyed by an event called Calamity and the main character ("the kid") and the narrator are almost the only survivors. They build a small establisment called "the bastion" and the kid starts to recover artifacts to improve it.
Somewhat unexpectedly, the world is overflowing with details and backstory, also the characters themselves (a couple more appear later on) have a rich background and complex motivations. I would actually compare the story to Stephen King's "Gunslinger" books. But the best part of it is the way it gets presented - by a narrator. How has the gaming world overlooked that vehicle of storytelling? Lame cutscenes, overly long dialogue sequences and ingame books should burn in the hell of gaming as they do nothing but lock you out of the interactive medium that gaming should be. The deep reassuring voice of the narrator keeps you entertained and makes the character's actions and emotions (or lack of them) matter. It's kind of brilliant actually.
It doesn't hurt that the music is also very good, the artstyle vivid and gameplay varied. There are a bunch of different weapons to choose from, each bring something unique to the table and they are upgradeable in different ways (each weapon also has their own challenge levels). Pretty much the only thing you could pick on is the gameplay itself, which might be a little more smooth and sharp. But it might be that this impression is the result of your first weapon being a big and heavy hammer. Once you get a machete, things get slicker.
Suprise of the year for me, strongly recommended.
Oh, the legendary id Software, how much have you done for all of us...
The creators of Doom, Quake and um... Quake 2. While the studio's past has made a huge impact on today's gaming, they haven't been up to much lately. Mainly they're outsourcing their intellectual property to other - almost competent - studios to make games like Quake 4 or Wolfenstein. The people working there nowadays probably didn't have much to do with Doom (except for that annoying geek John Carmack) and to justify their existence they have been working for years on some game that would maybe have been a little bit original when it first came out.
It's called Rage - a post apocalyptical shooter/racer game that's trying to be a blend between Borderlands, Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto and does really nothing better than these games. It's a fairly linear game where you run around completing quests by shooting mutants and winning races with cars that shoot rockets. So you can add Mario Kart to the mix. No wait, Borderlands already did that. GTA too actually. Anyways...
Despite it's complete lack of originality (the bad authority guys are called Authority, the resistance movement is called Resistance. Seriously.), Rage does some things pretty well. First, it looks pretty good, especially landscapes. Apparently the game uses some sort of new technology that wraps the whole level into one huge texture to get better results while using less resources. Unfortunately this pays back with smaller items which look bloody awful at times. Secondly, the characters are well designed and animated, with unique looking NPCs gesturing wildly while giving out quests and mutants are jumping, crawling, climbing around the locations and stumbling onto walls when being shot. However, neither the shooting mechanics or driving offer anything above the average.
This all said, it's not a bad game. You can shoot mutants and drive buggys that shoot, graphics and sound are good enough, so what's there to complain about? Yeah, it's too easy and casual but after a hard day it can be nice and relaxing, just dumb fun. If only it wouldn't have been terribly overhyped for the past years but then again, would I even have touched it then?
Blizzard, the gaming company behind the very successful Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo series, are once again hosting their annual Blizzcon festival. There's something new going on with each of their "intellectual properties", so here's a link to the new Diablo 3 cinematic (watch in highest possible quality, this is some nice shit):
Nice stuff, though a little basic story-wise. Still, we get to know that Azmodan is going to be an important character. To clarify, in Diablo 3's universe (called Sanctuary), there are 7 evils - 3 prime evils (Mephisto - Lord of Hatred; Baal - Lord of Destruction and Diablo - Lord of Terror) and 4 lesser evils (Duriel - Lord of Pain, Andariel - Maiden of Anguish; Azmodan - Lord of Sin and Belial - Lord of Lies). Diablo was first defeated in the first game but resurrected through the first game's main character. So he was destroyed once again in the second game, along with Andariel, Duriel, Mephisto and Baal. So now we know that Diablo and Azmodan will going to have a strong presence, also Belial will be involved. Goodbye social life...
Then there's Starcraft 2 keeping their fans waiting for their first, zerg-orientated expansion:
And lastly, the World of Warcraft MMORPG, making it's announcement for the fourth expansion, Mists of Pandaria:
Lol srsly? While the Chinese-themed world looks somewhat appealing, the childish kung fu panda stuff (yes, I'm not the first one to make this connection) has received a lot of negative vibes. The pet battle system is often compared to Pokemon and the pandaren monk stuff to well... kung fu panda. Have to admit though, that pandas have been existing in Warcraft's lore since Warcraft 3, so probably way before Kung Fu Panda was a thing. Admittedly, they existed more as "eastern egg" jokes than real lore characters. Not sure I will try this expansion out but if Diablo 3 is out by then, why should I?
There's something behind this... Maybe a shift in target demographics? If that means that WoW is left for children and Diablo 3 is something for older gamers looking for a darker experience then by all means, throw Mickey Mouse, Twilight and Guitar Hero into WoW and make my Diablo 3 experience as dark and visceral as possible. Fuck yeah...
Earlier this year, Dead Island – a zombie sandbox first person game – released a cinematic trailer which you can see above. It went viral and exploded over the internet, lots of people calling it the best trailer ever made. I must admit it’s very good, check it out.
A couple of weeks ago I made a post about cinematic trailers and how little they really say about the game. My argument just got a little stronger as Dead Island – released in September - is a pretty shitty game. It takes place in a tropical island resort after an outbreak of “oh my god, it’s the zombies again”. Not that there’s anything wrong with zombies, I’m a bit of an enthusiast myself. In essence, the concept of a tropical paradise resort turning to hell might work pretty well. However, the gameplay is weak and seems half-finished. For example, most of the game is built around melee fighting and melee drains your character’s stamina. Which means is that a lot of time is just spent waiting for stamina to return while furious zombies bash your eyes out. It’s possible to simply jump in to other player’s game, if their progress is similar to yours. Again, good idea, poor execution. And the graphics are just awful.
However, Dead Island has potential. Nice soundwork manages to pull you in at times and I get the feeling that there is a good game director behind this, who has sincere love for the project. Sadly, the means for making that vision a reality have been very limited. I hear that Dead Island has sold very well, so maybe with their next project they have the funds to do it properly. Meanwhile, I guess I have to play more Left4Dead…
Given the popularity of free-to-play games, somebody eventually came to the idea of taking beloved games and making free versions of them. Behold Age of Empires Online, a beloved historical real-time strategy turned into an online game, which you can download and play for free.
Well, it's not bad. The good old Age of Empire play mechanics are all there and to make the whole "online" thing work, they turned it into some sort of blend of massively multiplayer role-playing games and real-time strategy. How it works is like this - every player has a persistent capital, which levels up and maintains your skills and equipment. There you receive quests and "sail off" to actually play the missions. The system works, but it gets dull and repetitive pretty quickly. The quests are short yet numerous and they always begin in pretty much the same way. Also, having your upgrade system in capital means that you use the same set of technologies and troops in every mission unless you repick them between quests.
There are more problems. While you could say that Age of Empires franchise started off as educational, AoE Online is simply a game with a historical setting. All the enjoyment of building up a civilization from the stone age and making it flourish is replaced by a family-friendly looking MMO, where you simply rush through piss-easy maps to level up. In the process you gather magic items which you equip or sell. Seriously...
And what's with the cartoonish visuals these days? Are they so much cheaper to make that every game has to use them? It worked in Team Fortress 2 because they were ironic but otherwise it just makes a game childish. I can't stand to play Settlers VII because of the similar style (also, the game keeps calling me a princess), although the gameplay itself is pretty interesting.
There are two more major faults with AoE Online. First, it uses Games for Windows Live, which should be a crime. For example, if you lose your internet connection for a second, the client throws you out of the game and you lose all your mission progress. Secondly, the game has an awful payment scheme. Usually, free-to-play games have some premium content which has cosmetic effect or helps you progress more quickly. In AoE Online, payments give you great advantages over non-paying players in competitive play, making it pretty much impossible to win matches if you don't cough up a buck. Also, the prices are outrageous - 100 $ for six months? Are you fucking kidding me?
So yeah, overall a decent game but brought down by some huge problems.
It's not so common fashion these days to release a game demo before the actual game. Luckily, the new Heroes of Might and Magic game did just that. Releasing in October, the demo is already available. Not sure why they messed up the title though... they don't like the word "of"? Apparently, it will continue with the storyline of "Heroes of Might and Magic 5". Well, sort of, as it's a prequel.
As most PC gamers older than 20, I used to like HoMM 3 a lot. 4th game wasn't all that popular, so HoMM 5 tried to be just like the 3rd. I tried hard to like it but for me, it wasn't anything special, although the "town screens" were really cool. HoMM... sorry, MaMH 6 looks to be just more of the same, eventhough the developers are now hungarians (Black Hole Entertainment) instead of Russia-based Nival. The good old core game is there but the whole process is way more streamlined and full of little unchallenging annoying battles on every corner (same problem as in "King's Bounty"). I played Black Hole's first game "Armies of Exigo" way back in 2004 and while the graphics were really nice, the game itself was a lame "Warcraft 3" clone. Their next game, "Warhammer: Mark of Chaos" also didn't get that a very warm welcome, but both of these games had amazing opening cinematics.
Now let me reveal one of the greatest secrets of gaming industry - usually the cinematic trailers are not made by the same people who make the games. So if a trailer is really good, it doesn't say anything about the game itself. What's more - buying a good CGI trailer means less money for the game development, so the alarming trend is to dedicate funds to trailers (as it makes for good marketing) and develop crappy games. There are exceptions, of course, such as Blizzard.
As for Might and Magic Heroes 6, I think I'll try the final version but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
"From Dust" is a so-called god game from Ubisoft, in which player takes control of the prime elements to help a tribe survive and reach it's goals. Depending on where you direct your followers, player gains various abilities to manipulate the nature even further and can even call tsunamis and build mountains. It happens to be a very charming and technically impressive game. Yet the gameplay feels kind of shallow, as if there should be more to do in this game. You start a level, direct your tribe where they need to go, use some new abilities, build a few hills, next level, rinse, repeat... There isn't much challenge (except the last level which I haven't beaten yet, arrrgh!) and the whole experience feels a bit empty. Then again, the game only costs 15 euros at release and it's a download-only title, so it shouldn't be viewed as a full game.
Now to the really bad part...
The PC port for "From Dust" is just awful! A player controlled world-manipulating game with water physics and majestic world sounds exactly like something that PC-gamers want to test their new graphics cards on but alas, we can't. Not only that, there are no graphics options other than resolution, which is crazy. The game looks jagged and textures are muddy, there has been reports of locked FPS and screen tearing. And to top it all off, the game requires a constant internet connection despite Ubisoft officially claiming otherwise before launch. I'm pretty sure the reason behind all this was incompetence and not cruel intentions but this was enough for Steam (as online distributor) to offer refunds to people who bought the game.
I don't know what's wrong with Ubisoft. Their neglect to PC gamers and insisting always-online DRMs are getting constantly worse, as are their games. Think it through guys, consoles aren't getting any younger and the next next generation is far from sight! At the same time, new PC parts are getting better and cheaper. The PC crowd will rise again, and ignoring them is not a bright idea. I mean, have you seen what GTA 4 (also originally a very crappy port) looks like these days?
Rant over, I rest my case.
Danish 2D platformer "Limbo" was released last year for XBox Live Arcade and was very well received. It depicts a small boy waking up in limbo (a mythological place between heaven and hell) and tries to survive in this surreal and hostile environment. Now the 1-year exclusivity has been lifted and us PC gamers (also PS3 gamers) got a taste.
Damn...
There was some discussion awhile back (spawned from ignorant rantings of film critic Roger Ebert) whether computer games can be art or not. Well, the artistic value of "Limbo" can not be ignored. At first you may think it's just an artsy-fartsy black-n-white Super Mario remake or whatever but it's not the case at all. "Limbo" has a soul and a very unique eerie atmosphere, yet it makes absolutely no compromises when it comes to it's execution: perfect sound design, masterful use of light and shadows, intriguing puzzles, good animations... The main problems are the game's short length and a very abrupt ending.
The talent and dedication behind this game should not be ignored and I'm very much looking forward to Playdead Studio's next projects.
It was recently confirmed that Diablo 3 - the upcoming action RPG by Blizzard - is going to include auction houses, where you can change in-game items for real money. As you might guess, there has been some riff-raff about it on the internet. People are worried that this will encourage "gold farming", reward real-life wealth instead of game skill and push players to crime among other things. Meh, I say. The real-money items market is going on for Diablo 2 anyways, why not make it legal and safe. Sure, some kids will have deluded ideas that playing the game will make them tons of money and use it as an excuse to abandon their social, education and/or work life. Sure, some Chinese guy is going to sell his kidneys and eyes for a new Monk staff. Crazy world, I know... But playing the game and achieving it's goals takes time and time costs money, so some people are willing to make the monetary sacrifice. It's quite natural.
I'm more worried by the lousy cutscenes and art that as been released recently by Blizzard (like the Demon Hunter trailer you can see above). Diablo 2 is one of my favorite games of all times (if not THE favorite) and I still play it every now and then. I know I will be playing Diablo 3 a lot when it comes out. It might be even this year, though it doesn't seem very likely. I'm a bit more worried about the game's constant need for internet connection. It's not an MMO youknow. Syncing online and offline play is quite possible these days as far as I know.
We will be talking more about this game...
I used to play a lot of role playing games when I was younger - Baldur's Gate 1&2, Icewind Dale, Plancescape: Torment etc. But there came a point after which I didn't like the new ones so much - Neverwinter Nights, KoToR, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Dragon Age... they're not bad but I just kinda don't get them anymore. For me they feel fake and formulaic and they don't give me the joy of exploration and character development that the old ones did.
Witcher 1 was a game that evoked those good old feelings in me. It's strange, as you have only one character and the character trees don't make that much of a difference so you might even say that it's not a RPG. Somehow though, it's more of an RPG experience than the games where you can choose the color of the wristband of your high elf mage. The Polish developers really managed to nail the good old feeling of an authentic middle-aged fantasy world in need of a hero.
So this year, we got a sequel and what a sequel it was. A wonderful mixture of stellar production values and original story made for a wonderfully realized gameworld full of monsters, action, intrigues, lore and characters. The game is far from flawless (stony facial animations, mixed level of voice acting, balance issues, flimsy story structure, bugs) but over a long time it was a game I did not want to end. The world was so wonderfully designed and alive, story and characters so detailed, combat believable and tactically interesting that I really felt the need to get the most out of it. The ending was kind of a disappointment too, so you can say that it's more about the journey and not the destination I guess. Oh and it's PC exclusive (so far) so if you have a powerful new PC, then it's a must to try to run Witcher 2 on it - just beautiful!
My game of the year so far.
The first game I'm going to talk about is Frozen Synapse. It's a tactical turn-based indie game and a pretty good one at that. The interesting thing about it is that there are no dice-rolls or hitpoints. You send your soldiers against enemy soldiers in randomly generated maps and depending on their placements and cover they will either succeed or die.
How it works is this - during your turn you set waypoints to your troops (machinegunners, grenade launcers, etc.) and when you are satisfied with the plan, you prime it and see how it works out against your enemy's plan. Until then you can "simulate" the outcome but what your opponent decides (you can play against AI or other player) always remains a mystery. Usually the enemy's plans are not what you predicted and you might find yourself winning or losing very unexpectedly. No type of soldier is "better" than the other so the aim is to find the situation in which they are able to outgun the enemy, such as shotguns at close range and rockets against clusters of enemies in a chokepoint.
The game is unforgiving and I find it quite addicting. However, the whole neo-dystopian spiritual-electronical setting gets old pretty fast. I mean, we have a great tactical gunplay game here - why not try to fit it into some other kind of military kind of universe. Okay, we're all sick to death of Call of Duties and Battlefields and nobody wants to make a game that everybody sees as a top down Modern Warfare clone but bluish cyber mumbo-jumbo is still a pretty odd design choice. Also, the music (reminiscent of Mirror's Edge) doesn't really fit and while playing the game my flatmate actually came to ask if I was watching porn...
Should you be interested, you can find the game on Steam pretty cheap...
Hiya and welcome to Saiko's Food N' Guns.
This is the first post of a new blog, which focuses mainly on film (both old and new, also some TV series) and video games (mainly on PC). I share my own experiences of what I like and don't like and you can all nod in agreement while stroking your imaginary beards. Since I'm a struggling film guy myself, I sometimes share some stuff about projects which I'm myself involved in (mainly as a video editor).
So... empty your bank account, stock up on food and guns and let the games begin!
