I've been playing Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag recently, and I've been having a blast with it. In the game you play as Edward Kenway, a pirate. As pirates go, Kenway is pretty fierce. He's got his own ship, his own crew, and on top of all of that, he's also an Assassin. But he can't do a thing with any of it. It took me roughly two hours of playing the game from when I started anew to get me a ship. It took even longer to discover that I could sail freely with it. Even then, when I finally got out on the open waters, it turns out they weren't all that open. I kept on getting hit with "this area is not available yet". AC IV is not the first game to do this, but it has been one of the more frustrating parts of the game.
First off, AC IV is about pirates; puckish rogues who don't play by the rules and do as they please. The fact that the player has to jump through hoops and follow the rules goes against the very nature of what the game is trying to represent. I had the money and the resources to upgrade my ship so that I could better defend myself on the seas, but couldn't because the game kept telling me that I had to progress further in the story to unlock something. I'm about 14 hours into the game now, and I'm still going through tutorials on how things work.
Granted, since I've discovered that I can go out to sea, I've been taking my time getting around to the main story. When the game takes its sweet time getting around to teaching the player the rules, it feels like an obligation to go through that rigamarole. I want to be a pirate, and I want to do what I want. The game keeps stuff locked away, and forcing players to go through the game. Besides, I'm smart enough to figure things out myself.
For example, there are forts scattered about the over world. These forts control the different areas of the map, and when defeated unlock things in the area (that kind of unlocking is fine. That kind of unlocking is EARNED). I figure that with the armaments on my boat that I'd fire back. Lo and behold, my brilliant plan to blow the ever loving snot out of the forts defenses worked. I docked my ship, ran into the fort, followed the objective markers and completed the fort. I figured it out on my own. Here I am over ten hours into the game and I find a mission that details how forts work. That is bad game design, and poor planning. The game also takes it's time with getting around to the story as well.
The game is content with introducing new characters and bits of intrigue, but still in a very slow fashion. The game is Assassin's Creed, I should be assassinating Temlars and the like. It took seven hours to find out about the Assassin's guild. Now, I like the story of Assassin's Creed. An alternative take on historical events with an interwoven conspiracist theory plot. It's all very exciting, but AC IV doesn't seem to care much about getting the ball rolling. That's about the only aspect of the game that is pirate-like.
I'll admit, though, for all of the maddening tutorials that you have to go through before the game gets going, the game is a lot of fun. All though most of the fun is had with the non essential events. My favorite part of the game is just to sail about and hear my crew sing sea shanties. That honestly contributes to a majority of the time that I spend in the game. To get shanties, the player has to collect song sheets. Played find song sheets on islands and the like, and can find them by wandering around or by synchronizing with viewpoints and then locating them on the map. When you find a song sheet, the thing will fly away like a Will o'the wisp until either caught or it just up and leaves. Song sheets are a sort of tutorial of the free running aspect of the game. I didn't play Assassin's Creed III, I didn't know of all of the different ways to tree parkour, yes that's a thing. By chasing after sea shanty sheets I learned how. That's a good way to teach a player, and it rewards them with a cool prize.
Anyhow, sailing and raiding ships are the best parts of Assassin's Creed IV. There is nothing more swashbuckling than fighting a frigate, disabling its defenses and swinging aboard when your crew has pulled it in close enough. The cool part about raiding ships, is that some will have different objectives, though most are just "kill X amount of enemy crew". That's fun. That's satisfying. Going through long and drawn out tutorials is not.
If we go back a long ways, to a time when there was only 8 bits available, we'll find The Legend of Zelda. The original Zelda game was completely formless. Indeed, there were numbered dungeons, telling the player where they stood. However, The player could go in any order. Even if it was by accident, the player could stumble upon the last dungeon. This, is pure adventure. No tutorial missions, no direction. Just adventure. There are few games that have matched this. Skyrim comes close, but still requires the player to go through a few things before getting to the good stuff. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag suffers from this in spades.
I feel as though the main draw of the game is the pirating, open seas portion of the game. However, due to the way in which the game is structured, players can't experience this until much later on. I understand that there is a lot of new things that are introduced with each new Assassin's Creed game, however the layout is all wrong. If the game allowed players to tread into the dangerous waters, with enemy craft that is immensely superior to their own, that would be fun. The player would surely die, and have to reload, sure, but! They have learned from that experience. The player would then set out to strengthen their ship, so that they can put up a fight and maybe even beat out those bigger boats. If you want the player to go through with your story, reward them more. The missions in Assassin's Creed IV, hardly reward the player for completing them. With a little bit of cash and nary an unlock, there isn't much of a draw to completing them. Instead, players should be given a huge sum of cash, so that they may upgrade their ship, and take to the seas again. If the player needs to make a quick buck, they can take on the story, and maybe even get hooked on the plot.
Sorry for the super lengthiness of this post. I feel as though it's been a while since I just spilled out over a video game. What do you folks think? How should open world video games be designed? Should their be any structure at all? Did I talk for too long?
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
The Power is Yours
Games that are often considered linear, often have a negative connotation that go along with that title. However, there's nothing wrong with a linear game when it gives the players options. Deus Ex, Dishonored, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are games that are linear, but they give players options to complete their objectives in whatever way they see fit. Choice is part of what makes video games special.
Lately, I've been playing Dishonored and it is quite proud of the fact that it gives players multiple paths and choices in how they do things. Having options for your players is all well and good, but to tout them about in the manner that Dishonored does is just bragging. This is how games used to be designed. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Thief were all games that truly let the player play. Dishonored is a game that is comparable to those, yet boasts about something that all video games should have in the first place. Not all games have that element of choice, but those games aren't very good.
Contrast Dishonored with another game that I have been playing lately, Remember Me. Remember Me is a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing game. However, the amount of choice and play that the player has is slim to none. This is a bad example of linear gameplay. Remember Me forces players to take the exact path that the game wants them to. The environments are confining hallways, and the acrobatic climbing sequences are marked with arrows directing players in the direction that the player needs to go. In order to break up the follow the leader pattern, the game has hidden small pick ups that minimally improve the character. Remember Me also offers the ability to customize fight combos, yet does not allow for variations on which buttons to press. All of the combos are set in their ways with the specific buttons. The level of customization comes down to the effect that the combo has, as players can assign damage, health regen, or special ability cool down effects to the combos. I'm no fighting game aficionado, but there is something genuinely thrilling and satisfying about hitting different buttons in a specific pattern that gives me a thrill. Because fighting is the main focus of fighting games, the combat is more refined, and can also allow for players to fight the way that they want to. Remember Me has none of this refinement. Combos are set in their ways, and cannot be altered or interwoven with other combos during combat, leaving players to do exactly as the game says, or there is no payoff.
While Dishonored differs from Remember Me in most regards, there is still a structure to how the story plays out. Players must go through a select sequence to get to the end of the game. Having order to a video game with where the developers take the player is okay to do. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a great example of how to properly pace a game. While it seems that, on the whole, Uncharted 2 is a nonstop thrill ride, the game does take time to slow down for moments of tension or serenity. The game also offers choice to the player with its combat and traversal. Level design is key when it comes to this element of a video game. Giving players large areas to figure out the best approach can give them many opportunities and routes to fight or sneak. Uncharted 2 has superb environmental layouts and enemy placement so that the player can make their choice of stealth or action. Even though a majority of the levels goes from one room to the next with confining hallways, the game does make an effort to make getting there interesting. Whereas Remember Me directly told players which ledge or pipe to grab onto next, Uncharted 2 lays out the ledges and pipes before the player but doesn't tell them where to go. There is a set path for the player to take in Uncharted 2 when it comes to climbing on things, yet the player has to find the next ledge themselves to figure out where to go next. Remember Me’s arrows leading to the next step, are unnecessary and makes the player frustrated because they definitely could have figured it out on their own.
Players are much smarter than modern game developers seem to give them credit for. By confining the player to a linear path with no options for experimentation and exploration, you end up making a bad game. Games should let players tool around, even if it's silly and doesn't go along with the narrative or the setting. Let the players play.
Lately, I've been playing Dishonored and it is quite proud of the fact that it gives players multiple paths and choices in how they do things. Having options for your players is all well and good, but to tout them about in the manner that Dishonored does is just bragging. This is how games used to be designed. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Thief were all games that truly let the player play. Dishonored is a game that is comparable to those, yet boasts about something that all video games should have in the first place. Not all games have that element of choice, but those games aren't very good.
Contrast Dishonored with another game that I have been playing lately, Remember Me. Remember Me is a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing game. However, the amount of choice and play that the player has is slim to none. This is a bad example of linear gameplay. Remember Me forces players to take the exact path that the game wants them to. The environments are confining hallways, and the acrobatic climbing sequences are marked with arrows directing players in the direction that the player needs to go. In order to break up the follow the leader pattern, the game has hidden small pick ups that minimally improve the character. Remember Me also offers the ability to customize fight combos, yet does not allow for variations on which buttons to press. All of the combos are set in their ways with the specific buttons. The level of customization comes down to the effect that the combo has, as players can assign damage, health regen, or special ability cool down effects to the combos. I'm no fighting game aficionado, but there is something genuinely thrilling and satisfying about hitting different buttons in a specific pattern that gives me a thrill. Because fighting is the main focus of fighting games, the combat is more refined, and can also allow for players to fight the way that they want to. Remember Me has none of this refinement. Combos are set in their ways, and cannot be altered or interwoven with other combos during combat, leaving players to do exactly as the game says, or there is no payoff.
While Dishonored differs from Remember Me in most regards, there is still a structure to how the story plays out. Players must go through a select sequence to get to the end of the game. Having order to a video game with where the developers take the player is okay to do. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a great example of how to properly pace a game. While it seems that, on the whole, Uncharted 2 is a nonstop thrill ride, the game does take time to slow down for moments of tension or serenity. The game also offers choice to the player with its combat and traversal. Level design is key when it comes to this element of a video game. Giving players large areas to figure out the best approach can give them many opportunities and routes to fight or sneak. Uncharted 2 has superb environmental layouts and enemy placement so that the player can make their choice of stealth or action. Even though a majority of the levels goes from one room to the next with confining hallways, the game does make an effort to make getting there interesting. Whereas Remember Me directly told players which ledge or pipe to grab onto next, Uncharted 2 lays out the ledges and pipes before the player but doesn't tell them where to go. There is a set path for the player to take in Uncharted 2 when it comes to climbing on things, yet the player has to find the next ledge themselves to figure out where to go next. Remember Me’s arrows leading to the next step, are unnecessary and makes the player frustrated because they definitely could have figured it out on their own.
Players are much smarter than modern game developers seem to give them credit for. By confining the player to a linear path with no options for experimentation and exploration, you end up making a bad game. Games should let players tool around, even if it's silly and doesn't go along with the narrative or the setting. Let the players play.
Walking Through
Recently I played Metroid: Fusion, because I was feeling a bit nostalgic. I remember playing this game to death when I was a kid and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, it took only minutes for me to hit my first wall. I’ve beaten Metroid: Fusion before, and I don’t remember being stuck this early on. I had spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what to do next, but nothing seemed to work. I had no choice but to look up a walkthrough.
I ended up beating Metroid: Fusion for the second time and feeling pretty good about it. I made it through all of the trials and tribulations that the game threw at me. The walkthrough merely told me where to go next. Besides, I used to buy strategy guides for games back in the day. Having the strategy guide by me didn’t hurt the experience of completing the game. There was plenty extra to the game that I could have gone back and played, and the strategy guide would have told me where to look. I played the games my way, and I felt good about it. Playing the game with a strategy guide is like having a friend who’s beaten the game before and will help you when you ask.
Strategy guides were cool, and were full of art and factoids about the game. The guides were arranged to have very specific and clear instructions alongside screenshots of the game that showed the player important landmarks to take note of. Nowadays, strategy guides are filled with statistics of the weapons in multiplayer, as a result of developers’ focus shifting towards online multiplayer as opposed to the single player experience.
Games these days don’t often require a strategy guide because they are so straightforward and streamlined that little is left up to the player for interpretation or imagination. Modern game design holds players hands and doesn’t let them explore, or experiment with different methods. Strategy guides and walkthroughs are just extra weight. Players should be getting lost in video games. Players should be adventuring and exploring and trying new things and going outside of their comfort zone in a certain sense.
What makes video games special is that element of gameplay giving players direct control of the action of the character. It’s okay to get lost, it’s okay to fumble, it’s okay to fall, and it’s all right to fail. Video games can teach us these things, and if we have to look at a strategy guide or a walkthrough to get over that one part, then so be it. There’s no shame in reaching out for help.
I ended up beating Metroid: Fusion for the second time and feeling pretty good about it. I made it through all of the trials and tribulations that the game threw at me. The walkthrough merely told me where to go next. Besides, I used to buy strategy guides for games back in the day. Having the strategy guide by me didn’t hurt the experience of completing the game. There was plenty extra to the game that I could have gone back and played, and the strategy guide would have told me where to look. I played the games my way, and I felt good about it. Playing the game with a strategy guide is like having a friend who’s beaten the game before and will help you when you ask.
Strategy guides were cool, and were full of art and factoids about the game. The guides were arranged to have very specific and clear instructions alongside screenshots of the game that showed the player important landmarks to take note of. Nowadays, strategy guides are filled with statistics of the weapons in multiplayer, as a result of developers’ focus shifting towards online multiplayer as opposed to the single player experience.
Games these days don’t often require a strategy guide because they are so straightforward and streamlined that little is left up to the player for interpretation or imagination. Modern game design holds players hands and doesn’t let them explore, or experiment with different methods. Strategy guides and walkthroughs are just extra weight. Players should be getting lost in video games. Players should be adventuring and exploring and trying new things and going outside of their comfort zone in a certain sense.
What makes video games special is that element of gameplay giving players direct control of the action of the character. It’s okay to get lost, it’s okay to fumble, it’s okay to fall, and it’s all right to fail. Video games can teach us these things, and if we have to look at a strategy guide or a walkthrough to get over that one part, then so be it. There’s no shame in reaching out for help.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Raze It Up
I love fire. I love blowing stuff up. I love fireworks. Which is why I love the 4th of July. Somehow, blowing stuff up is a good way to celebrate my nationality. I don't get it, but I ain't complaining, let's blow stuff up!
Video games are full of explosions. If cool guys don't look at explosions, then I'm a huge dork, because I love them. Some of my favorite moments in video games are when I got to blow something up in a spectacular explosion. Let's take a look at some games with lots of explodey bits.
Mercenaries 2
Mercenaries was a game that was all about blowing stuff up. Blow up that base. Blow up that tank. Blow up that building. Drop a nuclear bunker buster on that space over there and have to run backwards a little bit so that you can see the entire thing. Blow up everything! The cool thing about Mercenaries is that absolutely everything, except for the ground you stood on, was destructible. Buildings, cars, cities, base camps. If you saw it, or if it looked at you funny, you could blow it up. Because, why not?
Halo 3
(I know it's Halo: Reach, I couldn't find a decent Halo 3 video. Close enough.)
Halo 3 had fantastic explosions. Bright flares of fire would fill the screen to the point where it was just white. Because Halo 3 was the first Halo game on the next generation of Xbox, Bungie went a bit overboard with the explosives. I'm not complaining. Because it's Halo, there is also alien weaponry and vehicular destruction, which involve blues, greens, and even pinks, making every battlefield look like some kind of rave party of death.
Speaking of battlefields....
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 3 was the first of the Battlefield games that used the Frostbite Engine. The Frostbite Engine was developed in house by DICE to ensure that everything that you blew up, blew up in the most realistic and crumbly way possible. I'd say they succeeded.
Of course there is also Just Cause 2, which has lots to explode. Not quite as much as some of its counterparts, but let's not discredit because it doesn't have total destructibility. This game is all about causing lots and lots of chaos. The story isn't its strong suite, however. One might ask why you would cause all of this destruction. Well... Just 'Cause!
Call of Duty
Call of Duty, before Modern Warfare 2, was all about explosive moments. The series had a good balance between intense fire fights, and explosive crescendos. Like, in the first Call of Duty, when you charge Stalingrad, and everything is exploding around you. Machine gun fire fills your ears, and your view is shaken by the explosions that surround you and your comrades as you charge the hill. Eventually you make it to the top of the hill to blow up the gun emplacements, and fire showers over you like a wave crashing against a rock in the sea. What about the mission in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare when you take control of an AC-130 gunner providing cover for soldiers down below. You safely patrol the skies, raining slugs of hot lead on those who would dare bring harm to your fellow squad. You had a big gun that blew up the enemies pathetic attempts at heavy armor, with their trucks and machine guns. I liked Call of Duty when it was good. Mostly I just liked the explosions.
Explosions are fun. Play some video games on this American Holiday, and blow the crap out of something!
Video games are full of explosions. If cool guys don't look at explosions, then I'm a huge dork, because I love them. Some of my favorite moments in video games are when I got to blow something up in a spectacular explosion. Let's take a look at some games with lots of explodey bits.
Mercenaries 2
Mercenaries was a game that was all about blowing stuff up. Blow up that base. Blow up that tank. Blow up that building. Drop a nuclear bunker buster on that space over there and have to run backwards a little bit so that you can see the entire thing. Blow up everything! The cool thing about Mercenaries is that absolutely everything, except for the ground you stood on, was destructible. Buildings, cars, cities, base camps. If you saw it, or if it looked at you funny, you could blow it up. Because, why not?
Halo 3
(I know it's Halo: Reach, I couldn't find a decent Halo 3 video. Close enough.)
Halo 3 had fantastic explosions. Bright flares of fire would fill the screen to the point where it was just white. Because Halo 3 was the first Halo game on the next generation of Xbox, Bungie went a bit overboard with the explosives. I'm not complaining. Because it's Halo, there is also alien weaponry and vehicular destruction, which involve blues, greens, and even pinks, making every battlefield look like some kind of rave party of death.
Speaking of battlefields....
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 3 was the first of the Battlefield games that used the Frostbite Engine. The Frostbite Engine was developed in house by DICE to ensure that everything that you blew up, blew up in the most realistic and crumbly way possible. I'd say they succeeded.
Just Cause 2
Of course there is also Just Cause 2, which has lots to explode. Not quite as much as some of its counterparts, but let's not discredit because it doesn't have total destructibility. This game is all about causing lots and lots of chaos. The story isn't its strong suite, however. One might ask why you would cause all of this destruction. Well... Just 'Cause!
Call of Duty
Call of Duty, before Modern Warfare 2, was all about explosive moments. The series had a good balance between intense fire fights, and explosive crescendos. Like, in the first Call of Duty, when you charge Stalingrad, and everything is exploding around you. Machine gun fire fills your ears, and your view is shaken by the explosions that surround you and your comrades as you charge the hill. Eventually you make it to the top of the hill to blow up the gun emplacements, and fire showers over you like a wave crashing against a rock in the sea. What about the mission in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare when you take control of an AC-130 gunner providing cover for soldiers down below. You safely patrol the skies, raining slugs of hot lead on those who would dare bring harm to your fellow squad. You had a big gun that blew up the enemies pathetic attempts at heavy armor, with their trucks and machine guns. I liked Call of Duty when it was good. Mostly I just liked the explosions.
Explosions are fun. Play some video games on this American Holiday, and blow the crap out of something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)