Today I'll explore the diverse mechanisms I've seen commercial games use to make them replayable or longer than it takes to end the main story itself. The main idea is that players are social animals, so they talk about what they play with friends, work colleagues or their families. The longer they play your game, the longer they'll talk about it and the more likely it is their acquantices, be them physical or virtual, will buy your game too. Of course, they'd better have good things to say about the time sink you've built: bad press does not beat no press at all in this kind of close relatipships.
Trick 1: Irrelevant secrets
Hide things not that relevant to the main story around, like ammo, modified weapons or photos of the development team. Players will spend a long time checking for secret walls or trying weird stuff. If their wild ideas succeed from time to time, they will keep at it. Otherwise, they'll stop trying and focus on the main game.
Pros: Easy to add.
Cons: They must be placed around evenly. Too many secrets or too few in one region of the world can create false expectations.
Examples: Any game with hidden power-ups or easter eggs.
Trick 2: Added background
Hide stuff which gives some insight into the world, the enemies or allies, which is not essential to ending the game. Jokes and logs fit well here.
Pros: Easy to add, since most of it should already be in the game reference documents. Role players love stuff like this.
Cons: Do not break the continuity. These extra dots in the drawing must be perfectly alligned with the ideas presented in the main game.
Examples: System Shock, FEAR, Baldur's Gate, Riven.
Trick 3: Super-objects
Hide game breaking equipment or abilities. Make most of them really hard to discover and even harder to obtain. If they are painfully boring to get, much better.
Pros: Bragging about the übersword feels so good.
Cons: Requires creating new items and/or puzzles. Most players are not willing to spend hours trying to achieve a secondary element.
Examples: Final Fantasy (VII, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XII...), Deus Ex.
Trick 4: Super-enemies
Add and extra challenge by including side missions with hellish fiends.
Pros: Once again, bragging rights. This comboes with Trick 3.
Cons: Make sure players understand they are not required to kill them and keep them away from the average player's path, or they will be very upset. Designing god-like monsters which can be killed requires a great understanding of your world's rules.
Examples: Final Fantasy, Castlevania.
Trick 5: Challenges
Add challenge rooms independent from the game whose only purpose is testing the player's ability. Time attacks or score rankings can hook players for a long time.
Pros: These are relatively easy to implement. Discarded levels, as well as parts of game sections can be reused.
Cons: It relies completely on your game being absolutely fun to play.
Examples: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Braid, Lara Croft and the Temple of Light.
Trick 6: Completion marks
Fill the world with riddles or puzzles which are there just to be solved. Nothing is earned from solving them, save reaching the desirable 100% completion.
Pros: They can be easily added to almost any kind of game.
Cons: If they don't integrate well with the world, the suspension of disbelief is at risk.
Examples: Batman: Arkcham Asylum, Castlevania (map completion).
Trick 7: On-line
Story be damned. Let's shoot at other players in the same maps until the end of times.
Pros: It works, often.
Cons: Competence is legion. Creating this along a single player experience is like building two different games with shared assets.
Examples: Call of Duty, Metal Gear Solid 4.
That's for no replayability at all. Now, how about starting the game again...
2011-09-03
2011-07-10
Virtual economies
When facing a rough problem it is common to study similar environments, looking for potential solutions. Virtual worlds, being all the rage, should have been the first place academics turned to, looking for advice, but they didn't, so I have the honour to publish my findings first. What can we learn from videogame worlds that would help us get out of this supposed crisis? After carefull study I've found that, apart from "beating the bad guys with the biggest sword you can find", there's nothing for us in here.
Really, videogame worlds have it much worse than us. Capitalism's main flaw is in its reliance and dependence on inflation to prosper, but worlds like Hyrule, Hillys or Final Fantasy Land are burdened with the much, much worse phantom of hyperinflation, and each tries to decrease its effect the best they can.
Origins of the inflation
One common issue in RPG worlds is the recurrent monster invasion, which brings chaos and suffering. It happened in each of the Phantasy Star games, in Hyrule, the Mana world... everywhere. But its direct effects are not that bad. I can't remember many towns destroyed by the monsters in any of those games, but what I remember is that all monsters, from cacti to dragons, drop legal tender, be it Gil, Rupees or Meseta, in generous quantities.
The direct impact of this simple fact is staggering: in whole worlds, when travelling from empire to empire, or even between planets of the Algo System, you'll use the same currency everywhere. Monsters provide the common ground for a planetary economic system that the UN can only dream of, with almost free manufacturing costs and little rewards for forgers.
The catch is that there is always new currency being coined, at an uncontroleed rate. If you want to eat roast vegetables, you just need to go out, kill a Giant Onion or Carrot, pick the loot and use it to buy the roasted version of whatever you killed. And the same happens every morning, in every house, in every town. And the amount of coins in circulation increases constantly, maybe not too fast, but in a year you might find that it takes killing two Giant Onions to buy one roast onion. And in a hundred years, when the next monster invasion starts, the value of the currency will drop so fast that it won't be even funny.
So how do you control inflation in a chaotic system like this?
Really, videogame worlds have it much worse than us. Capitalism's main flaw is in its reliance and dependence on inflation to prosper, but worlds like Hyrule, Hillys or Final Fantasy Land are burdened with the much, much worse phantom of hyperinflation, and each tries to decrease its effect the best they can.
Origins of the inflation
One common issue in RPG worlds is the recurrent monster invasion, which brings chaos and suffering. It happened in each of the Phantasy Star games, in Hyrule, the Mana world... everywhere. But its direct effects are not that bad. I can't remember many towns destroyed by the monsters in any of those games, but what I remember is that all monsters, from cacti to dragons, drop legal tender, be it Gil, Rupees or Meseta, in generous quantities.
The direct impact of this simple fact is staggering: in whole worlds, when travelling from empire to empire, or even between planets of the Algo System, you'll use the same currency everywhere. Monsters provide the common ground for a planetary economic system that the UN can only dream of, with almost free manufacturing costs and little rewards for forgers.
The catch is that there is always new currency being coined, at an uncontroleed rate. If you want to eat roast vegetables, you just need to go out, kill a Giant Onion or Carrot, pick the loot and use it to buy the roasted version of whatever you killed. And the same happens every morning, in every house, in every town. And the amount of coins in circulation increases constantly, maybe not too fast, but in a year you might find that it takes killing two Giant Onions to buy one roast onion. And in a hundred years, when the next monster invasion starts, the value of the currency will drop so fast that it won't be even funny.
So how do you control inflation in a chaotic system like this?
2011-06-21
Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes (HD) (Capybara, 2011)
Platform: PSN, XBLA, (DS)
The high definition craze is hitting with force this year and Ubisoft is making sure it is at the front line of this new fashion. In its zeal to outnumber anyone's HD rehashes it is now releasing re-skinned versions of one year old DS games. Well, at least they've had the decency to spearhead this new idea with a decent game, which did not get the attention it deserved. Unfortunately, the port didn't get the love it deserved, either, and it is just a port, with small fixes and brand new outstanding problems.
I will not go in depth into Clash of Heroes' mechanics and merits. To cut a long story short, it is an interesting and entertaining mix of your average tactics RPG with Magical Drop and Magic: the Gathering. Or something like that. It is quite unique. For more info, internet is full of reviewes of the DS original, and the modifications made to the new version do not invalidate them.
Regarding the common ground between both versions, I'll say that my favourite part remains intact: the puzzles, in which you are given one turn to prepare a number of attacks. They serve as tutorials for advanced configurations and how to best take advantadge of the rules. The bad is mostly the same, too: the last chapter is too simple and uninspired, consisting of, basically, going forward to advance, backwards to grind, fight the two final battles and that's it. Balance could also be improved, with random battles sometimes featuring too strong enemies for the current level of the player, or the level of bounties being inconsistent. Also unfixed is the possibility of losing bounty hunts without being warned, if the player decides to try a different one.
About the HD remake, I will say that the new art is, in most cases, great and very well designed. The only problem here is that some generic portraits are direct high resolution exports of the DS's vector graphics, looking like crude drafts in comparison with the rest. Also updated were several powers, units and objects, which were greatly needed. Things seem a bit more balanced now in multiplayer, which was absolutely vital for it to have a change to succeed. Also, the story mode difficulty has been reduced, but you'll still want to throw the controller a couple of times, specially during the last chapter.
The high definition craze is hitting with force this year and Ubisoft is making sure it is at the front line of this new fashion. In its zeal to outnumber anyone's HD rehashes it is now releasing re-skinned versions of one year old DS games. Well, at least they've had the decency to spearhead this new idea with a decent game, which did not get the attention it deserved. Unfortunately, the port didn't get the love it deserved, either, and it is just a port, with small fixes and brand new outstanding problems.
I will not go in depth into Clash of Heroes' mechanics and merits. To cut a long story short, it is an interesting and entertaining mix of your average tactics RPG with Magical Drop and Magic: the Gathering. Or something like that. It is quite unique. For more info, internet is full of reviewes of the DS original, and the modifications made to the new version do not invalidate them.
Regarding the common ground between both versions, I'll say that my favourite part remains intact: the puzzles, in which you are given one turn to prepare a number of attacks. They serve as tutorials for advanced configurations and how to best take advantadge of the rules. The bad is mostly the same, too: the last chapter is too simple and uninspired, consisting of, basically, going forward to advance, backwards to grind, fight the two final battles and that's it. Balance could also be improved, with random battles sometimes featuring too strong enemies for the current level of the player, or the level of bounties being inconsistent. Also unfixed is the possibility of losing bounty hunts without being warned, if the player decides to try a different one.
About the HD remake, I will say that the new art is, in most cases, great and very well designed. The only problem here is that some generic portraits are direct high resolution exports of the DS's vector graphics, looking like crude drafts in comparison with the rest. Also updated were several powers, units and objects, which were greatly needed. Things seem a bit more balanced now in multiplayer, which was absolutely vital for it to have a change to succeed. Also, the story mode difficulty has been reduced, but you'll still want to throw the controller a couple of times, specially during the last chapter.
 |
| Multiplayer is almost the only ocassion when the game's heroes actually clash |
2011-05-07
Review: Mass Effect 2 (BioWare, 2010)
Platform: PC, X360, PS3
Mass Effect, the first game in BioWare's intergalactic saga, turned out to be one of the best RPG blenders of the past decade. Despite some flaws, it might even be one of the best in video game history. It is up there with System Shock and Deus Ex, becoming part of a trinity of very different games with very similar concerns, each of them a testimony of how far available technology could go to create believable environments, characters and plot, and how to take advantadge of constraints.
System Shock, Deus Ex and Mass Effect have something else in common: their sequels departed considerably from the original. In System Shock and Deus Ex it was, mostly, a matter of technology and standard shifts. System Shock was released when the FPS genre was still crystalizing and its, admittedly overcomplicated, control and inventory schemes failed to become the rule. Deus Ex 2, on the other hand, changed the reference platform from PC to the booming console market. In both cases, the result was a considerably simplified version of the first game. However, Looking Glass used the opportunity to create a completely new kind of game, while Deus Ex: Invisible War remained a dumbed down version of its predecessor.
System Shock 2 is nowadays a classic, while Invisible War is just not.
Between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 no such technology or standard shift happened. All the modifications to the formula were the result of fans feedback, internal development and, I guess, some pressure from EA. And those changes left a mark even bigger and scarier than anything done in Deus Ex: Invisible War.
What happened?
Sequels of the world be aware of the tale of Mass Effect. Quite a start for a saga, raised from illusion, care and depth, by many loved, despite its flaws, into change it was compelled by EA's suits and internet boards.
Not too good a shooter nor much of an RPG, that was its cross, but the way of the bender was never meant to be easyly walked. Still it sold in the millions and, once DRM was gone, I bought it and rejoiced.
Things looked bright for BioWare and its new step-father, dollars in the pocket and still two sequels short, there was much to win, while little could be lost. Yet, greed took its toll, Mass Effect 2 was rushed to market, changed for the sake of change, dumbed down to please the masses of FPS, TPS players who about Mass Effect complained.
"The Mako is plainly a bore, with little to do in outer worlds, the arsenal too ample, the stats a ton, too much to watch and learn, overheating weapons are plain odd, and why is not Tali in my bed?"
"Just let us run and gun, the next gun better than the rest, picking weapons' not that great. I play to have some fun. Oh, and could you add some mini-games?"
Someone compiled all these requests, wrote them in a chart and forced them into the game. They might not fit well, or needed more thought to blend, but the release date must be met. "Just work less on the PC port. Like anyone will care."
And Mass Effect 2, my friends, is what we have left. By the way, this is the farthest I could take all this prosaic verse.
2011-03-29
Review: Shadow Complex (Chair Entertainmente w/ Epic Games, 2009)
Platform: XBLA
Shadow Complex is the first serious and successful attempt at recreating the feeling of oldschool 2D exploration shooters inside a 3D canvas. It's plain to see they focused on recovering everything good from Metroidvanias, while removing the design flaws and problems arisen by hardware limitations. A new aiming system, leveling bonuses or an attempt at story-telling are some of the additions they made to the Metroid formula.
A bit of history
Since the introduction of the third dimension in videogames many attempts have been made to recreate the classics in the new environments. Most of the time, however, the results have been underwhelming. The fast action available in simple 2D worlds proved constantly too much for the more complex settings required for believable 3D scenarios, unless action was limited to only two axes (Robotron X, Einhander).
Until Zelda 64's lock on was introduced, few had managed to get things slightly right. And even after that, failure has been pretty common. Proof of this is the respected Castlevania series, which, after four 3D iterations, found commercial success only when Mercury Steam decided to break with the old game style completely.
The Metroid series did better, with the Prime saga achieving almost unanimous praise, thanks to its merge of FPS mechanics with a lock on system, plus subtle story-telling. It did, however, rely on completely different gameplay and narrative styles than its precursors.
There is, as can be seen, a common thread going on, which is not even considering a return to the 2D. That approach has been left for handheld consoles, with the Metroid and Castlevania series for Nintendo systems, or remakes of old classics and shoot'm ups, like Ghosts'n Goblins for the PSP.
Of course, there have been constant homages, with 3D games re-creating 2D gameplay in small sections. The one I remember most vividly is Nier, which achieved levels of meta-gaming off the charts. Castlevania: Lament of Innocence and Metroid: Other M also played with pseudo 2D, although not too succesfully.
Chair Entertainment played it safe, making Shadow Complex a 2D game inside a 3D world. Movement is limited to the x/y plane, while enemies are free to move all around. As a result, Jason, the main character, is allowed to shoot in any direction too. The game automatically chooses how deep you are aiming, and it seldom does wrong.
Metroidvania at heart
Shadow Complex is probably the highest profile metroidvania ever done: edge technology, a big studio devoted completely to it, an expensive marketing campaign and the push from Microsoft. The studio dedicated apparently several months redrawing levels in paper form, calculating possible advance routes, secrets placement and planning all kinds of distractions to get the player off the track.
Also, the Metroid games were studied to he deepest detail, until their inner workings were grokked by the team at large.
2011-03-28
Review: Mass Effect (BioWare, 2007), Part 2
In my previous post I got into the shooter genes in Mass Effect, explaining what it did well, what did not and what compromises were made to please a bigger market. This time, I'll review the RPG in it, plus the setting and story.
Looking through the RPG lenses
Role-playing games are built on three main aspects: story, character stats and world interaction. The tighter they all feel, the better the final experience should be. Or, in other words, no matter how good your game is implemented and thought out, if those three pillars do not support steadily the game as a whole, the RPG player will notice.
BioWare were greatly experienced in managing all three elements, and it really shows in Mass Effect. The story starts well and ends better, with enough stops along the way; the world is complex and astonishingly detailed; the main character can be differentiated beyond genre, clothing and faces; and there are plenty of NPCs, secrets and things to pick up.
Let's talk about each of them with a little more detail.
Universe and story in Mass Effect
There are a lot of things to learn in this new Universe humanity has recently (35 years ago) discovered. Lots of worlds, life forms, political bodies, rebels... Almost anything. Many of them are presented as the plot or secondary quests advance and other times it is just in the form of codex entries. It is true that, pretty often, Shepard's ignorance of the most basic information of important issues is startling, making the exposition a little too evident.
But, most of the time, the player is simply provided some new info, readable on the menu, which add a lot of flesh to the limited bits of info the story forces on you. And, believe me, there is a lot of info in those codex. Every extraterrestrial race, coalition, political group or history event is explained in there. Quite a lot of the many hours I spent on my first play-through were spent reading every little bit.
And if that is detailed, wait for the moment you reach another planets. Each planet, no matter how irrelevant or small, has a description of formation, nature or civilization. And, what's even better, many of them are homages to sci-fi classics. Trantor and Dune are among the most recognizable, but there is space for many other plays on the genre. Quite a delightful time waster.
And the story does not lag around. I'll avoid the details, but the events progress smoothly, even when the player is allowed to play the middle section in whichever order she decides. There is a lot of conversation involved, but most are so well integrated with the events at hand that they come naturally.
The beginning is epic, and leaves many doubts about what is really happening, and as it all plays out, you start filling holes, discovering new, bigger ones and spending all the time intrigued about the possibilities. And when the final revelations come, they do with a vengeance. Lots of loose threads are tied, and even stuff you thought was only there for the looks is revealed to play major roles.
The last great conversation, right before the final assault, is delivered in such a high note that I was simply unable to pay attention to all the action coming after it for a while. It is one of the best moments I've experienced in a sci-fi work.
2011-03-15
Review: Mass Effect (Bioware, 2007), Part 1
Platform: PC, Xbox 360
It's hard to talk about Mass Effect without getting myself into a full-blown article on BioWare. A long loved company focused in a long lived genre, maintaining it while it slowly loses ground to the new guys in the party. In my mind I used to paint them as fairy tales knights, with shiny armour, declaring eternal love and care for the target of their affections.
And still, I cannot be considered a great fan on this company. Simply put, I haven't played that many of their games. I loved Baldur's Gate, but never played its expansion nor its sequel. Years later I tried Neverwinter Nights but found it too dissapointing, so I left it after 2 hours or so. Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire went by and I haven't played them yet, although I really want to.
And then, Mass Effect and Dragon Age came, which would be the last independently developed games before EA acquired the studio.
Yet, until very recently, I still respected the BioWare logo. It is possible that the cause was mainly my associating them with Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios), plus many friends of mine love their games and are constantly relating how they abused Baldur's Gate 2's magic and critical systems to destroy dragons in less than a D&D combat turn.
It's funny: most good memories I have of BioWare are actually not mine.
Mass Effect is, in few words, the evolution of BioWare from the complexities of its original Baldur's Gate and the D&D ruleset into a simpler experience, intertwined with shooter elements. It is, as well, a branching point in character complexity and plot scripting, providing a lot more depth, at the cost of some diversity.
There is so much I want to say of Mass Effect, and so little time to put it into words, that I'll post two separate articles. The first one, this, will focus on the shooter aspects, while the second one will look into the RPG segments and story.
Mass Effect
So, Mass Effect. A shooter developed by a renouned RPG developer constantly trying to make its games more immediate and accessible. Neverwinter Nights felt like a complex Diablo, while Jade Empire was a beat'm up with lots of abilities, few stats and no classes, but still many points to assign. Knights of the Old Republic, however, remained more faithful to their origins, for what I know, in spite of being an action game.
Mass Effect plays a similar trick, becoming a shooter while keeping a lot of its RPG origins: multiple missions, lots of dialog and weapons and a big stats/abilities system. It even goes further than BioWare's previous efforts in world and character design, producing a unique, rich universe with personality. It also gives the player more options than usual in how to play the main story or interact with partners.
It's hard to talk about Mass Effect without getting myself into a full-blown article on BioWare. A long loved company focused in a long lived genre, maintaining it while it slowly loses ground to the new guys in the party. In my mind I used to paint them as fairy tales knights, with shiny armour, declaring eternal love and care for the target of their affections.
And still, I cannot be considered a great fan on this company. Simply put, I haven't played that many of their games. I loved Baldur's Gate, but never played its expansion nor its sequel. Years later I tried Neverwinter Nights but found it too dissapointing, so I left it after 2 hours or so. Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire went by and I haven't played them yet, although I really want to.
And then, Mass Effect and Dragon Age came, which would be the last independently developed games before EA acquired the studio.
Yet, until very recently, I still respected the BioWare logo. It is possible that the cause was mainly my associating them with Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios), plus many friends of mine love their games and are constantly relating how they abused Baldur's Gate 2's magic and critical systems to destroy dragons in less than a D&D combat turn.
It's funny: most good memories I have of BioWare are actually not mine.
Mass Effect is, in few words, the evolution of BioWare from the complexities of its original Baldur's Gate and the D&D ruleset into a simpler experience, intertwined with shooter elements. It is, as well, a branching point in character complexity and plot scripting, providing a lot more depth, at the cost of some diversity.
There is so much I want to say of Mass Effect, and so little time to put it into words, that I'll post two separate articles. The first one, this, will focus on the shooter aspects, while the second one will look into the RPG segments and story.
Mass Effect
So, Mass Effect. A shooter developed by a renouned RPG developer constantly trying to make its games more immediate and accessible. Neverwinter Nights felt like a complex Diablo, while Jade Empire was a beat'm up with lots of abilities, few stats and no classes, but still many points to assign. Knights of the Old Republic, however, remained more faithful to their origins, for what I know, in spite of being an action game.
Mass Effect plays a similar trick, becoming a shooter while keeping a lot of its RPG origins: multiple missions, lots of dialog and weapons and a big stats/abilities system. It even goes further than BioWare's previous efforts in world and character design, producing a unique, rich universe with personality. It also gives the player more options than usual in how to play the main story or interact with partners.
 |
| If it has so many stats, it has to be an RPG |
2011-03-05
Review: Beyond Good & Evil (Ubisoft, 2003)
Platform: PC, GameCube, PS2, Xbox, X360 (XBLA), PS3 (PSN, pending release)
Website: Wikipedia
With the re-release of Beyond Good & Evil on current gen consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3), reviewes of this modern classic have appeared everywhere. Apparently the new version features increased resolution (1080p), improved textures, the dreaded achievements/trophies and, most notably, a revamped soundtrack with some new tracks and better audio quality. The original music was great, but word is the updated version kicks even more ass.
Otherwise, the game remains the same. Same mechanics, art direction, level design and sense of humour. And that's good, because I don't care much about graphics and can review the original while saving the money.
There is no point in repeating what every other site out there has already posted, so I'll focus on what sites have not mentioned so much and, in a form of meta-review, about the reviewes themselves.
About reviewes
Before jumping into the game, I'll make a reference to the reviewes I've read lately about this game. All praise Beyond Good & Evil, of course, being one of the points usually featured its originality: in an industry dominated by copy-cats and sequels, it was an inspiring change, innovating old formulas and exploring new areas, unconstrained by the weight of an intellectual property (partly).
Everyone agrees that re-releasing this game was a no brainier. A great experience, beloved by all the critic, which sold poorly, but can easily pay for itself now. Also, any chance it gets to gather attention is welcome.
However, the very same people that admire its uniqueness always end asking everyone to buy the remake, so a sequel is finally released. What? What about that anti-sequels, pro-originality speech? Forgotten in two paragraphs?
Well, I don't want a sequel to Jade's adventures and I didn't like the cliffhanger ending. I'd love to see Ancel direct new games, not rehashes of old ones, because he's shown he can do great things. Rayman was really good, but by the second installment I was already sick of it. I don't want Jade to suffer at the hands of her very own Raving Rabbids.
Website: Wikipedia
With the re-release of Beyond Good & Evil on current gen consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3), reviewes of this modern classic have appeared everywhere. Apparently the new version features increased resolution (1080p), improved textures, the dreaded achievements/trophies and, most notably, a revamped soundtrack with some new tracks and better audio quality. The original music was great, but word is the updated version kicks even more ass.
Otherwise, the game remains the same. Same mechanics, art direction, level design and sense of humour. And that's good, because I don't care much about graphics and can review the original while saving the money.
There is no point in repeating what every other site out there has already posted, so I'll focus on what sites have not mentioned so much and, in a form of meta-review, about the reviewes themselves.
About reviewes
Before jumping into the game, I'll make a reference to the reviewes I've read lately about this game. All praise Beyond Good & Evil, of course, being one of the points usually featured its originality: in an industry dominated by copy-cats and sequels, it was an inspiring change, innovating old formulas and exploring new areas, unconstrained by the weight of an intellectual property (partly).
Everyone agrees that re-releasing this game was a no brainier. A great experience, beloved by all the critic, which sold poorly, but can easily pay for itself now. Also, any chance it gets to gather attention is welcome.
However, the very same people that admire its uniqueness always end asking everyone to buy the remake, so a sequel is finally released. What? What about that anti-sequels, pro-originality speech? Forgotten in two paragraphs?
Well, I don't want a sequel to Jade's adventures and I didn't like the cliffhanger ending. I'd love to see Ancel direct new games, not rehashes of old ones, because he's shown he can do great things. Rayman was really good, but by the second installment I was already sick of it. I don't want Jade to suffer at the hands of her very own Raving Rabbids.
2011-02-18
Review: Samorost 2 (Amanita Design, 2005)
Platform: Linux, Windows, Mac (digital distribution), Flash (web browser)
Not long ago, and guided by general consensus among friends and critics, I decided to acquire Machinarium, the then recent work by Amanita Design. To my surprise, when buying the game I was given their previous one, Samorost 2 (its first part is free), and both game's soundtracks. Shortly after I refused to keep playing Machinarium (another story) and mostly forgot about Amanita.
Fast forward to a boring evening, when I discovered Samorost 2's installer in my PC. "Let's try this," I told myself (metaphorically; I don't usually talk to myself), "a free game can't be worst than most you pay for."
Amanita Design is a studio specialized, judging by their main games, in Flash development and extremely detailed graphics. Gray, complex landscapes play an important part in their games, as do their beautiful musical scores. These two elements have earned the studio repetead and completely deserved awards.
Amanita's designs are, in essence, point and click graphic adventures with a very simple inventory system, if any, minimal stories, pretty backgrounds and limited interaction.
Amanita's designs are, in essence, point and click graphic adventures with a very simple inventory system, if any, minimal stories, pretty backgrounds and limited interaction.
In Samorost 2, the main character -let's call him/her Pyjama- wakes up to find a couple of space thieves stealing fruits from the garden's tree, and taking the guardian dog as a bonus. As a result, Pyjama embarks on an mission to rescue Dog and return to the home asteroid safe. And the player, not to be confused with the star, goes along for the ride.
Pyjama's adventure is a nice one, full of funny moments, detailed drawings, charming characters and some curious puzzles. So there are good things regarding this game. From time to time my efforts were rewarded with something more than "you managed to cross the door", which felt good, but not good enough. I always had this sour taste of frustration reminding me that I wasn't that much enjoyed.
But critics and players loved this game, so I am outnumbered. Am I wrong or do I have the right to call my Graphic Adventure Demise Culprit #3 to scene?
Pyjama's adventure is a nice one, full of funny moments, detailed drawings, charming characters and some curious puzzles. So there are good things regarding this game. From time to time my efforts were rewarded with something more than "you managed to cross the door", which felt good, but not good enough. I always had this sour taste of frustration reminding me that I wasn't that much enjoyed.
But critics and players loved this game, so I am outnumbered. Am I wrong or do I have the right to call my Graphic Adventure Demise Culprit #3 to scene?
2011-02-14
On OnLive
By now, every person even slightly interestedn in video-games should know about OnLive. Those who don't, would do well to read a bit on it and its competitors. Those in Nort America might even try it out, if their internet connection allows it.
In brief: OnLive is a remote gaming system. A player can start a game from the service in a not too powerful machine, and play, ideally, as if the computer was a modern monster. The game itself is executed on OnLive's computer cluster, in one of their machines. The player receives a video stream of the screen, and the input is sent back to OnLive to process inside the game. If the internet connection holds up, the experience should remain a close match to playing on your own PC.
The limitations this system imposes are in resolution (the stream is limited to 1280x720), the artifacts caused by the video compression and the time passed since the player sees an image (or hears a sound) and the game receives the player's response.
Then, what is so important about OnLive? It is, obvlously, an industry changing concept. The PC and console markets have been led by power hungry machines, paid for by the players. Now, costs can be sustained by an external party, theoretically reducing the cost of playing the latest and biggest games.
It is also relevant as an innovative distribution method: there is just no distribution. A client pays for the right to play a game. No installation files, disc, activation any more. And no more patching on the player's side. And you can play anywhere, on any PC.
Unfortunately, the games are associated to a single account, so you can no longer share a game with your brother, friend, partner... without sharing the whole account. Unless multi-person accounts are offered, obviously.
For developers, on the other hand, OnLive could imply a console like environment for PC games. OnLives machines can be tested, avoiding the hell of multi-configuration set-ups. And, at the same time, can always aim for the best possible graphics, without taking into account the number of high-end computers in the market. Of course, these points are irrelevant as of now, given the low penetration of OnLive in comparison to world wide PC games sales.
But what are the potential effects of such an environment on the whole industry? In the coming years, as internet connections improve, hardware gets more robust and OnLive and similar companies finetune their core systems, things will start changing. It might not be OnLive, but it is undeniable that someone, some day, will triumph with a similar scheme*.
Trying to predict future market movements is considered by many a great exercise, even if you get everything wrong. So, what are my predictions for gaming, in the light of this technology?
In brief: OnLive is a remote gaming system. A player can start a game from the service in a not too powerful machine, and play, ideally, as if the computer was a modern monster. The game itself is executed on OnLive's computer cluster, in one of their machines. The player receives a video stream of the screen, and the input is sent back to OnLive to process inside the game. If the internet connection holds up, the experience should remain a close match to playing on your own PC.
The limitations this system imposes are in resolution (the stream is limited to 1280x720), the artifacts caused by the video compression and the time passed since the player sees an image (or hears a sound) and the game receives the player's response.
Then, what is so important about OnLive? It is, obvlously, an industry changing concept. The PC and console markets have been led by power hungry machines, paid for by the players. Now, costs can be sustained by an external party, theoretically reducing the cost of playing the latest and biggest games.
It is also relevant as an innovative distribution method: there is just no distribution. A client pays for the right to play a game. No installation files, disc, activation any more. And no more patching on the player's side. And you can play anywhere, on any PC.
Unfortunately, the games are associated to a single account, so you can no longer share a game with your brother, friend, partner... without sharing the whole account. Unless multi-person accounts are offered, obviously.
For developers, on the other hand, OnLive could imply a console like environment for PC games. OnLives machines can be tested, avoiding the hell of multi-configuration set-ups. And, at the same time, can always aim for the best possible graphics, without taking into account the number of high-end computers in the market. Of course, these points are irrelevant as of now, given the low penetration of OnLive in comparison to world wide PC games sales.
But what are the potential effects of such an environment on the whole industry? In the coming years, as internet connections improve, hardware gets more robust and OnLive and similar companies finetune their core systems, things will start changing. It might not be OnLive, but it is undeniable that someone, some day, will triumph with a similar scheme*.
Trying to predict future market movements is considered by many a great exercise, even if you get everything wrong. So, what are my predictions for gaming, in the light of this technology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)