Archives for August 2009

I’m not so curmudgeonly that I don’t understand that gaming trends will change as demographics do so I understand why turn-based strategy games aren’t as hot as they once were. Believe it or not, there was a time when playing a game with alternating turns against the computer was quite popular. Not only did we have strategy and tactical games that did this, but a majority of the computer role-playing games were done this way as well. In many ways the modern Japanese RPG is a throwback to this bygone era.

I’m sure my fellow contributors are waxing nostalgic as they read this.

Oddly, while adventure games were pushed out of the market by technological advances and hardcore sims pushed themselves out by their cost, turn-based games are likely a victim of their own inability to adapt. The last three turn-based games I played all shared the same problems and flaws of every game I’ve played in the genre. Turn-based games will never have the same fan-base as say, first person shooters, but they still have a niche if someone could properly exploit it. Just consider changing the following.

Mission Time
Let’s not beat around the bush, getting a single mission done simply takes too long anymore. A standard mission can easily last for an hour and as the game introduces grander set pieces I have spent four hours trying to get through one mission. When I say “trying to get through”, I don’t mean attempting, getting beaten, and then trying again. I mean the cumulative time I’ve spent between the saving and loading of the same mission because I simply did not have the time to do it in one sitting.

Even worse if you have to replay a mission. If I spend four hours to fail a mission and the game doesn’t allow mid-mission saves, I’m going to walk away. I simply don’t have that kind of time to spend.

The problem with the length of time per mission is that there is no feeling of progress. A minor scuffle with a random encounter or a minor force should not take more than half an hour. Oddly, tactical games are often worse than strategic games. These games lack pacing, which makes even a well designed game a complete slog. Remember, this is a GAME, something to be done as a recreational activity. As much as I love turn-based games, when it becomes work I’m going to move on to something else!

Difficulty
Like the old arcade shooters, turn-based games or all stripes have continually focused on their more hardcore players. This is a grand mistake that will only shrink your customer base. This is not a difficult concept.

“Easy” should be easy. This should be a difficulty that casual players have a reasonable chance of beating the game at without going through some of the intense strategic exercises and elaborate resource management that a game might offer. Easy does not mean the game is without a challenge, it simply means that someone who has not read Sun Tzu’s Art of War still has a reasonable chance of victory.

Also, in all cases you should include difficulty levels. A huge mistake is trying to make a single difficulty for all players. What usually ends up happening is the difficulty curve fluctuates between “casual stroll through a warzone” to “apocalypse now!” and frustrates everyone. I know it takes more work, but “Easy” for casual players, “Normal” for experienced veterans, and “Hard” for obsessive compulsive fans.

AI
I’m going to pick on tactical games here specifically, but this still applies to their more strategic oriented cousins. Any attempt at “realism” goes out the door when I am assaulting a force twice my size or greater. If these games were attempting true guerilla style warfare, where I could perform more “hit and fade” attacks I wouldn’t mind. Since the victory condition is often to wipe out every enemy though, the idea that my group of six soldiers is going to defeat thirty enemies who are often better equipped and completely fresh for the fight is ludicrous.

Also, if hits are based on a skill percentage against a random number generator, then that means at optimal range my trooper with a 75% marksman ship should hit 3 out of 4 times, not 1 out of 5. On the flip side, if the enemy is supposed to represent an untrained militiaman they should not hit 4 out of 5 times. If I’m the skilled force of soldiers able to take on five times my number then their performance should indicate some competency at combat. Either that or the level of incompetence should be spread equally between my troops and the enemy.

Furthermore, and this ties into the pacing problems, my victory condition should be met without having to find the one enemy guy hiding in a closet or hiding in the bushes.

Modern Graphics
For the most part the recent games I have played actually had serviceable graphics and that is all I am asking. However, I continue to see attempts to do things on the cheap. If you think “This is a Strategy game so graphics aren’t important” then you need to go play Dawn of War. That game makes it feel like there really is a battle taking place in front of your eyes rather than having a bunch of pixels who simply move to your commands. Real-time strategy games have figured out that what happens on screen can affect the level of immersion.

I want to be drawn into these battles, I want to care about the units, I want to see what is happening on screen. The technology has been available to go beyond wooden animations and obtuse sprites. The graphics don’t have to be spectacular, just “good enough”.

Recognizable IP
How many more people would play a game if it was G.I.Joe vs. Cobra instead of an obscure historical campaign or a bunch of mercenaries we’ve never heard of before? Without doing a specific movie tie-in, there are plenty of recognizable IP’s to be licensed that are a perfect fit for this genre. Even without taking something like Star Wars, Transformers, or G.I.Joe, the genre still needs a new franchise. The Panzer General series had many spin-offs and sequels, Jagged Alliance was a name so strong that we still see derivatives trying hard to associate with it. (“Jagged Edge”, “Jagged Union”, etc.)

Fix the above problems and find an audience. Quit focusing on a handful of grognards who still worship a time before fully realized 3D graphics were even possible. Make the genre modern, make a quality game, and then focus on building your audience rather than pandering to a tiny niche. It’s probably too late to do a new Jagged Alliance or Steel Panthers. Above all, quit trying to copy the old games because all we’re cranking out are pale imitations that make the same old mistakes but can’t claim the same level of quality.

So I’m on my way home from my last (hopefully) two-week business trip to New England (this time I’m in Maine) and I’m looking forward to a nice long weekend of gaming (and taking my wife out for our anniversary, of course).

I picked up Pure a few weeks ago, which is the greatest racing game you didn’t play in 2008, so I’ll be putting some more time doing my best to not fall off my four-wheeler while racing at insanely high rates of speed. I also started back up with Fallout 3 before I left for Maine, so I hope to get back to the Capital Wasteland this weekend. Other than that, I’ll be playing some New Super Mario Bros. and NY Time Crossword on the DS as I travel home. Oh, and some Punch-Out!! on the Wii.

What gaming does your weekend have in store for you?

Overview: The game Battlefield: Modern Combat was supposed to be.

Pricing: All over the map. I’ll just say anywhere between $9 to $20 used and new depending on retailer. The Windows version tends to be about $20.

Rip-Off Warning: Unfortunately, this is one of those titles that doesn’t realize it’s now in budget status and can easily be had for $40.

Platform: XBox 360 (Reviewed), Windows

Is it worth it?: Open battlefield shooters are a fascinating genre because they rely on actual combined arms and military style objectives. Unfortunately, the single player portion of these games is usually done with brain-dead AI and objectives identical to multi player. While I enjoy being able to decide which objectives I am going to fight for, the concept of providing the player with no real direction is not suited for a dedicated single player experience. Thus, open battlefield games continue to try and bring the experience without multi player while giving players some guidance.

Despite the success of the Star Wars: Battlefront series, developers insist on providing some story and restricting player choices. I’m actually amenable to that so long as you provide me with a good game. Unfortunately, by trying to give that additional guidance to the player in the form of more ordered objectives you end up diluting the experience. What I’m trying to get at is that the approach that Battlefield: Modern Combat, Battlefield Bad Company, and Frontlines: Fuel of War all try to do is extremely difficult to pull off. Surprisingly, Frontlines actually does it pretty well.

The missions are not strictly linear, but you are given an objective and a “set of tools” to get it done. Tools may consist of a different starting loadout, vehicles, drones, and/or support options. In general, the maps are all well done and the objectives are surprisingly logical. The story is somewhat throwaway, although towards the end the battles feel truly epic. I will give it credit that while the intermission story didn’t grab me, the actual action sequences were engaging. An impressive feat when you’re basically playing “Generic Soldier #3981”.

The concept of battlefield drones makes me groan a little since it seems like it defeats the purpose of a shooter, but they are actually handled fairly well. Although it’s not entirely realistic, you do have to maintain some proximity to a drone you are controlling. I suspect this is for balance purposes, especially in multi-player, so that players don’t exploit the ability to do combat through remote controlled robots.

For me, the real joy in any shooter is the toys they give you to play with. Despite the obvious multi player focus, the weapons actually perform quite well. The trend in these games is often to make all the weapons watered down and have the accuracy of a rusted BB gun. All of the hardware works as expected and is actually useful. Even more interesting is that it all seems plausible in a “near future” kind of way on both sides of the conflict.

Typical for this kind of game, your starting equipment is tied to your loadout. Nothing special here, but it all works.

I’d love to give similar props to the vehicles, but they’re really not as well done. Oddly, the drones control better than their vehicle counterparts, which is a little maddening. There is one section that is a dedicated tank battle and it is one of the few controller throwing temptations in the game.

The bad news is that while multi player is an obvious focus for this game there is no bot support. So either you’re playing the story missions or you’re picking out a handful of available games. See, the problem with making a multi player game on ANY platform is that people tend to gravitate towards a handful of dominant titles. Actually finding a game will be an issue. There is nothing really wrong with the on-line portion, in fact it’s very well done. Unfortunately, the game plays very much like something you’d see all the way back to the granddaddy Battlefield 1942. There are no rewards or incentives to play other than the game itself. Some would argue that would be enough, but when all of the more popular games (Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Battlefield 2) incorporate some kind of reward system it does seem like Frontlines is lacking. In fact, I was more interested in Battlefield Bad Company’s multi player simply because there was some incentive to keep playing.

Despite the lack of any additional incentives to play on-line, it is worth noting that Frontlines is developed by former developers of Trauma studios, the wonderful people who brought us the Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942 and were instrumental in getting Battlefield 2 off the ground. This is a team who understands their craft and if you enjoy playing this sort of game on-line and can actually find a decent match then it’s probably one of the better games out there. The closest game that plays similar, Battlefield Bad Company, doesn’t seem to achieve the same sense of combined arms, balance, and controlled chaos.

Final Judgement: This is a solid purchase, and honestly I’m a little disappointed in the price drop. This game is easily worth more than what it is selling for. The single player is solid and the multi player makes it one of the best open battlefield games on the console. Unfortunately, on the Windows platform it suffers from much stiffer competition. Let me add this one caveat to an already verbose review. If you’re more of an XBox 360 player, you should get this game on the cheap because it’s worth every penny. If you’re more of a dedicated PC enthusiast there are plenty of older games that are actually better for a similar price. I’d still recommend it if you’re looking for something new and have already gone through the Battlefield series on the PC.

I’ll admit that nothing draws me to a game more than the ability to tell my own story. As much as I love watching movies my real fantasy is to be in the movie as the hero. Open-world games are often the portal that allows me to craft a unique story. I’ve felt this way long before we started coining terms like “emergent gameplay” or “sandbox worlds”. My interest in Alpha Protocol is largely to do with what appears the developers understanding this concept. While it appears to stick pretty solidly to its own story, the protagonist, Michael Thorton, can be custom tailored to the player’s style. From what I’ve seen so far, they’re not messing around. Michael’s appearance, equipment, skills, and weapons are all customizable. I watched a preview that showed how weapon customization was done and it was everything I’ve been wanting in shooters for years. Yet this isn’t a shooter but a “modern day spy RPG”, which is probably one of the few one line descriptions that could get the reply “Day One purchase!” out of me.

Alpha Protocol Safehouse “Walkthrough”

The only thing could derail me is another bug ridden mess like Fallout 3. While Fallout 3 remains my best game of 2008, it unfortunately lowered my tolerance for game crippling bugs. You can only tolerate so many games in a short span of time with the same flaw before it simply becomes untenable. Until then, I’m maintaining high hopes.

Overview: What would happen if someone did a mash-up of Final Fantasy with a space combat simulator?

Pricing: This one is all over the map, but a good average is probably just under $20 used or new.

Rip-Off Warning: Actually, I can’t remember the last time I saw anyone still trying to sell if for more than $30.

Platform: X-Box 360

Is it worth it?: Space combat simulators are a sub-genre that has been slowly dying off over the past decade and getting anything at this point is not unlike finding a puddle of water while you’re dying of thirst in the desert. As much as I am tempted to take a “beggars can’t be choosers” stance on the game, it is not really a hard “sim” and is more of a 3D shooter much like other games we’ve seen released on consoles.

Combat is an impersonal affair, with most of your time spent acquiring lock-ons at extreme distance and firing volleys of missiles. This looks really cool, but it will soon become your standard tactic for all 16 missions. Even the final mission, which is essentially an anime retelling of the Death Star sequence from Return of the Jedi, can be beaten this way. You can attempt to dogfight, but the game is pretty clear that your fighter is not designed for agile maneuvers, but is instead more suited to hit-and-run attacks where you charge in at high speed, deliver a quick volley, and then fly away. This is perhaps inspired by the tactics of American P-38 pilots in WWII against Japanese Zeroes. Unfortunately, that makes for less than thrilling combat at times.

Perhaps the combat was done this way to fit the control scheme. I played the game entirely with the basic controls because the standard control was literally “push the stick lightly to turn and hard to roll”. In a dogfight, players in a hurry to shake someone on their tail are not going to be “pushing gently” to execute a turn. There are three different control schemes and none of them are very well done.

All that said, the battles are often impressive affairs, with huge fleets or warships and dozens of fighters all battling it out simultaneously. The larger ships are actually a real threat to each other, which is a bit of a change from many space combat sims where they expect the player to single-handedly take on enemy battleships despite having a support fleet at their back. This is good and bad though, as allied ships can be destroyed quite readily and the player will often have to keep an eye on the health bar of friendly ships. I did appreciate this aspect of combat as it made it seem like an actual battle was happening around me rather than the usual game of “Hey, let’s everybody gang up on the player’s fighter”.

With Project Sylpheed being made by Square Enix there are tons of cutscenes and most of them are pretty watchable. However, if you’ve ever played any Final Fantasy game since VII you should be pretty familiar with the archetypes and plot. No surprises here. Really, the story is generic anime and if you don’t see the moral ambiguity, atrocities, and inevitable alliances coming from a mile away then you’ve obviously never watched any science fiction based anime EVER. On the other hand the fanboys should love this games portrayal of women in the military and their outlandishly inappropriate military attire standing side-by-side with their male counterparts who actually understand what “uniform” means outside of ridiculous haircuts and facial tattoos. I’m not kidding on the last one. Your original squadron commander is apparently none other than Mike Tyson.

Final Judgement: Despite my many criticisms of the game, this has actually been a solid purchase. If I had paid the full $60 at release I would be filled with buyer’s remorse, but my copy was a mere $10 and for an entertaining, if somewhat generic and derivative, story and incredibly epic space battles it was worth every penny.