This one's been a while in coming, I know. The game's already out on its Greatest Hits version, so maybe this review won't be that helpful. Or maybe it will. What if, like me, you waited and were going to pick up this game for cheap? Well, then I would say to you, "Good call." My review agrees.
Presentation: 7
In the graphics department there's not too much to complain about. The biggest problem is the woodenness of the movements you control. For example, when watching an NPC walk across the room it looks fine. The mo-cap really works. Try the same thing with your currently controlled character, and you look like a puppet with termites. Same goes for the facial expressions. Don't get me wrong; the faces themselves look pretty great. But if you watch someone talk in a scene, it looks much better than if your character speaks as you stumble about with blankly staring eyes and a lack of expression.
There are also numerous clipping issues in any scene involving a crowd. You can have people walk right through you.
The persistent damage to the characters is nice though. If someone gets beat up in a fight, it changes the character model to reflect how badly, and it stays that way. Very nice touch.
As for the sound, the biggest problem is from the early game's Ethan character. And when he yells for his kids he just sounds ridiculous. He gets better as he goes on, but at the start he sounds very hollow. Madison also gets this occasionally. Other than that, no real problems.
Story: 7
The game's greatest strength, but it's not without its own faults. I'll say very little of the actual story because it was good enough that I can recommend playing the game for it and wouldn't want to spoil anything.
The structure of the story is very malleable. It changes depending on your choices and successes with (or rather against) the controls in many scenes. You'll get one of 18 combinations of endings based on that. Most of the time it flows pretty seamlessly. It's like watching a good movie. However, there are instances where it seems that the story counted on this or that to have happened when you didn't actually do it. Someone pulling a name out of the air when they never encountered them or even heard of them, for example. And in one case, a full on retcon of an event to be something other than what the player witnessed. Not just seeing it from a different view, but actually changing it. Very immersion breaking.
Also taking away from the story--and again it's like a modern movie here--are the all too standard issue nudity (male and female) and an obligatory sex scene. These instances have no place in the story other than to be what they are; that is, ways to cater to the lowest common denominator or add "shock value". The problem, of course, is that to be there simply for the sake of shock value makes them pointless in terms of shock value. By contrast, the fact that your characters have numerous places in which they can be permanently killed adds real shock value if it happens. Having fakes alongside it really belittles the genuine article.
There are also several missed opportunities and things left unexplained. I want to say more, but won't spoil it here. Might post in the Heavy Rain thread later for those who have finished the game and want to know what I'm talking about though.
For all that, when you reach the ending stretch, and all (well most) of the pieces fall into place it all really comes together.
Characters: 8
Aside from the aforementioned hollowness, these characters are pretty good. When he's spending time with his family or trying to save them, Ethan's affection and desperation really come through (except for with that silly yelling).
Madison fills the role of dedicated journalist very well, but has the unfortunate drawback of being the sex object of the game. Still, when she's not making the day of the 14-year-old boys who managed to get this game due to lack of parental interest, she shows that she's intelligent and brave.
Scott is perhaps the best character. This retired cop turned PI is dogged in his search for the evidence that could catch the Origami Killer and put an end to the murders. Smart and tough as nails despite his age, his story segments provide some of the more entertaining parts of the game.
Jayden is very convincing with his flaws, and even manages to break out of his stereotype of 'criminal profiler'. He deals with his problems and does his best not to let them get in his way.
Even the side characters manage to have some solid personality to them.
Gameplay: 3
Ouch. You read that right. "3".
Most actions in the game are handled by virtue of a QTE. The first problem is that there are far too many pointless actions. In the tutorial/prologue it's understandable since you need to learn all the controls and what they do. But even as the game progresses you're still expected to do each and every little thing. QTE to open the cabinet. QTE to walk up the hill. QTE to do everything. It's boring and unneeded. The QTEs in the various action/fight scenes are better because there at least it feels like you're accomplishing something.
Unfortunately, actually succeeding at them is also spotty sometimes due to the inclusion of motion controls. These just do not seem to work sometimes.
During the times when you get to walk around you're fighting the camera and controls. Instead of simply letting you walk around with the stick, you're forced to use R2 to walk at all and the direction you're going changes with the camera. So you can be walking one direction, have the camera change (or change it yourself) and suddenly be going the opposite direction than you were. This can be infuriating during time sensitive events.
Moreover, your characters all subscribe to the Fatal Frame school of movement. That means no matter the circumstances, while under the control of the player they are never, ever supposed to move faster than a brisk walk. Not to save their lives or anyone else's.
An entertaining, but ultimately damaging feature is Jayden's use of the ARI, or augmented reality interface. It's a combination of glove and sunglasses that basically function like Batman's detective vision from the Arkham games. They let you see clues in a very limited area and analyze them instantly, or replace your surroundings to something more entertaining. Handy, yes, but it doesn't make any sense for this setting. Particularly when you return to a chapter he's in to find him sitting at his desk...on Mars or above a huge waterfall. It's pretty, no mistake, but pointlessly kills the suspension of disbelief which is vital for a game or even the movie this one's trying to be.
Replay value: Fair at best
Despite there being so many ways the game can play out, you can't unsolve the mystery. Once you know, you know forever so there's no way to bring the same tension and fun to the table again.
Overall: 5
This is a great game...as long as you don't have to play it. I would gladly have watched this in a theater, or even still played it as a game if the controls were better. But as it is, I can only advise buying it on the cheap.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
What can I say about this game that hasn't been said already? A mountain of amazing games released this year and, for many gamers, Skyrim stands firmly at the peak. Does it truly deserve to stand there with giants like Uncharted 3, Dark Souls, and others also scaling that mountain? Well, that'd be a matter of opinion. And since you came here for mine, I'll gladly give it.
Presentation: 9
Greatly improving on its predecessor Oblivion's already nice graphics in many areas, the look of Skyrim is pretty darned good. You'll still find the occasional jagged-edged shadow, and a close look at the plants will let you see them as flat. But the character and creature models, the flowing water (complete with currents that push you along this time), spell effects, and every single item you can pick up being lovingly rendered in your inventory goes a long way to make up for it. The only true flaw in the character models is that they have some difficulty showing expression. The best example is probably the guy in the opening scenes who's voice shows he is clearly freaking out, but his expression remains quite wooden.
The musical score from the trailer captures this game's sound perfectly, going from heart pumping to breathtaking and back again. Which is what the game does too, incidentally. The wind howling at your back as you look out from the edge of a tall cliff, or the heavy breathing of your character as they stagger on, one wound away from death. Every bit of the sound in this game is flawless. There is a single annoying line that quickly skyrocketed to meme status. And it's only really annoying because of the way people won't stop talking about their knee arrows everywhere on the internet.
Story: 9
In another improvement on Oblivion, the main campaign's story is very nice. The Thieves Guild's story is good enough to rival it too. Every questline has its moments, to be sure, but those two stand out as the best. In a way it's the opposite of Oblivion's weak main story and much stronger side stories. Most side stories here could use some improvement. None are bad by any stretch, but they do suffer somewhat from having their pacing just a bit off. Or from a somewhat silly thing in the story like being made Archmage of Winterhold Mage's College by virtue of smacking someone around with a sword as opposed to, you know, using magic really well. Then again, that's almost an Elder Scrolls staple nowadays. Still, there are a thousand little stories waiting to be discovered aside from any of the major questlines. From an aged Orc wandering the wilderness in search of an honorable death in battle, to an ambushed merchant's wagon telling you of a nearby dungeon, to a friendly ghost who pops up to applaud your diving skill should you leap off a certain high place. There's always something to find.
Characters: 9
Aside from the aforementioned woodenness in their models, the characters are mostly well done. You will find some odd mismatches of text from time to time. Such as children who claim not to have 'seen such a thing in all their years' when you fell a dragon. I'm pretty sure this was purposefully done for a giggle as it is voice acted for the children and not simply them getting an adult's lines. There are a number of likable characters and an equal number of detestable ones. And all are great to see.
Gameplay: 8
The classic Elder Scrolls combat style of 'backpedal furiously while attacking' makes its return. But it's now complimented by an improved stealth system as well as more effective use of blocking and the ability to dual wield any one-handed weapons or spells, and combine two casts of the same spell for increased effect. Not to mention the inclusion of various Shouts, abilities with a cooldown in between uses that can let you do things like push enemies away to gain a moment's respite in combat, breathing dragon's fire on your foes, or sensing the lifeforce of enemies through walls, and many, many others.
That's a lot of improvement on your options over past games. But it's not without its downsides.
There's a smaller number of spells to be used per school than in past games, and the ability to make spells yourself has been removed completely. This kinda sucks because it would be really helpful to be able to make weaker versions of stronger spells. For example, when the Destruction school's basic Flames or Firebolt spells aren't strong enough, but you don't have enough magika to cast Fireball effectively. Things like that make playing a pure Mage character a lot tougher than it should be compared with the other character archetypes of Warrior and Thief.
Also suffering from a limiting factor is the Enchanting skill. Not only are you now limited as to what item can be enchanted with which effect, there are also fewer pieces of armor and equipment available to enchant. You can only wear one ring, and the torso and grieves armor are no longer separate. While this is pointless from a gamer's perspective, it does make sense in order to maintain balance. Without this limitation you would have no reason not to cover your equipment in enchantments that increase your primary attack skill (One-handed weapons, Destruction magic, etc) to crazy heights and just dominate everything you come across.
Not that you can't do that anyway, mind you. People were quick to find a way to exploit the system, as always, to make weapons and armor that can completely remove a school of magic's mana cost allowing for infinite free spells, or to craft weapons that can do over a thousand damage per strike while their original form could do only 50. Of course, doing so takes any and all challenge out of the game.
The leveling system too has it's improvements and problems. Unlike in previous games, your level no longer requires you to use only specific skills to level up your character, which greatly removes some of the tedium and so is quite a welcome change. In addition, the new perk system lets you feel like you've really been rewarded when you level since any given perk's effects are a lot more tangible than the previous games' minor increases to stats. Oblivion had perks too, true, but they suffered from the same problem of being too subtle most often. It's definitely an improvement...but it's not perfect. Why?
Level scaling, while more in line with Fallout's version, still causes gamers grief. One of the bigger problems is that improving social or crafting skills still contributes to increasing your level. This is a problem because enemies' stats are still based solely on your level. It's best summed up in this comic. You can quickly find yourself outclassed by even the basic enemies if you focus too much on increasing skills like Smithing or Speech. After all, no matter how charismatic you are, you generally can't talk well enough to convince a bear not to eat your face. (Though you can Shout at him and send him flying.)
I can't help but think that the whole thing would go over better if your combat and social skills were split into different levels. Or if they would just stop insisting on using this badly flawed level scaling system.
One of the game's premier features is fighting dragons. Which turns out to be kind of a mixed bag. In the game's initial state dragons were afflicted with a bit of ADD. They might be poised to kill you, only to suddenly notice a mudcrab 50 yards away and be overcome with the urge to attack it instead. The patch released not long after the game mostly fixed that, but afflicted them instead with a random decision to just sort of fly away backwards on rare occasion.
The difficulty of fighting dragons sort of takes on a bell curve as the game progresses (*on the standard difficulty setting). Early on you won't be well equipped, but can still take them down with a little careful dodging for cover and timely healing. They're no bigger threat than any other boss enemy. Towards the middle of the game as your level has gone up you'll start encountering Elder or Ancient dragons. These guys are the heavy hitters. One breath attack you aren't prepared for can be the end of you. But by the time your character starts to reach their end game build (roughly level 50-60, though you can twink it up to 81) you'll be able to take even these two at a time.
Even with that though, there's still a good bit of enjoyment to be had from dropping one out of the sky through spell or arrow and having it plow up the ground as it crashes. Despite what's seen in the trailer, the dragons aren't usually dumb enough to fly within melee range. Which makes sense. Why would they when they can just strafe you with fire and ice?
Lastly, I must mention that there's currently a bug due to the patch that was released. While it fixed many issues, letting the game play more smoothly, it also broke one of the key combat mechanics: your character's Elemental Resistance stats. As it stands now, they don't work. No matter your armor or resistance enchantments, any mage or dragon can put a serious damper on your day. This won't really effect the assassin or thief type characters who tend to focus on not being seen in the first place, but it can give others serious trouble. There's supposed to be another patch to fix it on the way soon though.
Patching lately in games is kind of a hydra. Slay one head and two more arise in its place. Let's hope Bethesda can put this particular beast down for good.
Replay Value: High
There's just so much to do that it's highly unlikely that you'll find even half of the content in a single playthrough. In fact, you're best served by at least making a character for the Warrior and Thief archetypes and playing out the questlines built for their kind of character in their own playthroughs.
Overall: 9
There's something for everyone here. It's got its flaws, but overall its positives far outweigh the negatives. This is a must buy for sure.
If you're still looking for my opinion as to which game stands atop that mountain, I can say this: "I don't wanna choose, 'n you can't make me! Neener neener!"
I haven't played all the games I'd like to, but I can say of Dark Souls and Skyrim that I'm glad I played them back to back. It feels like each has what the other lacks. Go get them both.
Presentation: 9
Greatly improving on its predecessor Oblivion's already nice graphics in many areas, the look of Skyrim is pretty darned good. You'll still find the occasional jagged-edged shadow, and a close look at the plants will let you see them as flat. But the character and creature models, the flowing water (complete with currents that push you along this time), spell effects, and every single item you can pick up being lovingly rendered in your inventory goes a long way to make up for it. The only true flaw in the character models is that they have some difficulty showing expression. The best example is probably the guy in the opening scenes who's voice shows he is clearly freaking out, but his expression remains quite wooden.
The musical score from the trailer captures this game's sound perfectly, going from heart pumping to breathtaking and back again. Which is what the game does too, incidentally. The wind howling at your back as you look out from the edge of a tall cliff, or the heavy breathing of your character as they stagger on, one wound away from death. Every bit of the sound in this game is flawless. There is a single annoying line that quickly skyrocketed to meme status. And it's only really annoying because of the way people won't stop talking about their knee arrows everywhere on the internet.
Story: 9
In another improvement on Oblivion, the main campaign's story is very nice. The Thieves Guild's story is good enough to rival it too. Every questline has its moments, to be sure, but those two stand out as the best. In a way it's the opposite of Oblivion's weak main story and much stronger side stories. Most side stories here could use some improvement. None are bad by any stretch, but they do suffer somewhat from having their pacing just a bit off. Or from a somewhat silly thing in the story like being made Archmage of Winterhold Mage's College by virtue of smacking someone around with a sword as opposed to, you know, using magic really well. Then again, that's almost an Elder Scrolls staple nowadays. Still, there are a thousand little stories waiting to be discovered aside from any of the major questlines. From an aged Orc wandering the wilderness in search of an honorable death in battle, to an ambushed merchant's wagon telling you of a nearby dungeon, to a friendly ghost who pops up to applaud your diving skill should you leap off a certain high place. There's always something to find.
Characters: 9
Aside from the aforementioned woodenness in their models, the characters are mostly well done. You will find some odd mismatches of text from time to time. Such as children who claim not to have 'seen such a thing in all their years' when you fell a dragon. I'm pretty sure this was purposefully done for a giggle as it is voice acted for the children and not simply them getting an adult's lines. There are a number of likable characters and an equal number of detestable ones. And all are great to see.
Gameplay: 8
The classic Elder Scrolls combat style of 'backpedal furiously while attacking' makes its return. But it's now complimented by an improved stealth system as well as more effective use of blocking and the ability to dual wield any one-handed weapons or spells, and combine two casts of the same spell for increased effect. Not to mention the inclusion of various Shouts, abilities with a cooldown in between uses that can let you do things like push enemies away to gain a moment's respite in combat, breathing dragon's fire on your foes, or sensing the lifeforce of enemies through walls, and many, many others.
That's a lot of improvement on your options over past games. But it's not without its downsides.
There's a smaller number of spells to be used per school than in past games, and the ability to make spells yourself has been removed completely. This kinda sucks because it would be really helpful to be able to make weaker versions of stronger spells. For example, when the Destruction school's basic Flames or Firebolt spells aren't strong enough, but you don't have enough magika to cast Fireball effectively. Things like that make playing a pure Mage character a lot tougher than it should be compared with the other character archetypes of Warrior and Thief.
Also suffering from a limiting factor is the Enchanting skill. Not only are you now limited as to what item can be enchanted with which effect, there are also fewer pieces of armor and equipment available to enchant. You can only wear one ring, and the torso and grieves armor are no longer separate. While this is pointless from a gamer's perspective, it does make sense in order to maintain balance. Without this limitation you would have no reason not to cover your equipment in enchantments that increase your primary attack skill (One-handed weapons, Destruction magic, etc) to crazy heights and just dominate everything you come across.
Not that you can't do that anyway, mind you. People were quick to find a way to exploit the system, as always, to make weapons and armor that can completely remove a school of magic's mana cost allowing for infinite free spells, or to craft weapons that can do over a thousand damage per strike while their original form could do only 50. Of course, doing so takes any and all challenge out of the game.
The leveling system too has it's improvements and problems. Unlike in previous games, your level no longer requires you to use only specific skills to level up your character, which greatly removes some of the tedium and so is quite a welcome change. In addition, the new perk system lets you feel like you've really been rewarded when you level since any given perk's effects are a lot more tangible than the previous games' minor increases to stats. Oblivion had perks too, true, but they suffered from the same problem of being too subtle most often. It's definitely an improvement...but it's not perfect. Why?
Level scaling, while more in line with Fallout's version, still causes gamers grief. One of the bigger problems is that improving social or crafting skills still contributes to increasing your level. This is a problem because enemies' stats are still based solely on your level. It's best summed up in this comic. You can quickly find yourself outclassed by even the basic enemies if you focus too much on increasing skills like Smithing or Speech. After all, no matter how charismatic you are, you generally can't talk well enough to convince a bear not to eat your face. (Though you can Shout at him and send him flying.)
I can't help but think that the whole thing would go over better if your combat and social skills were split into different levels. Or if they would just stop insisting on using this badly flawed level scaling system.
One of the game's premier features is fighting dragons. Which turns out to be kind of a mixed bag. In the game's initial state dragons were afflicted with a bit of ADD. They might be poised to kill you, only to suddenly notice a mudcrab 50 yards away and be overcome with the urge to attack it instead. The patch released not long after the game mostly fixed that, but afflicted them instead with a random decision to just sort of fly away backwards on rare occasion.
The difficulty of fighting dragons sort of takes on a bell curve as the game progresses (*on the standard difficulty setting). Early on you won't be well equipped, but can still take them down with a little careful dodging for cover and timely healing. They're no bigger threat than any other boss enemy. Towards the middle of the game as your level has gone up you'll start encountering Elder or Ancient dragons. These guys are the heavy hitters. One breath attack you aren't prepared for can be the end of you. But by the time your character starts to reach their end game build (roughly level 50-60, though you can twink it up to 81) you'll be able to take even these two at a time.
Even with that though, there's still a good bit of enjoyment to be had from dropping one out of the sky through spell or arrow and having it plow up the ground as it crashes. Despite what's seen in the trailer, the dragons aren't usually dumb enough to fly within melee range. Which makes sense. Why would they when they can just strafe you with fire and ice?
Lastly, I must mention that there's currently a bug due to the patch that was released. While it fixed many issues, letting the game play more smoothly, it also broke one of the key combat mechanics: your character's Elemental Resistance stats. As it stands now, they don't work. No matter your armor or resistance enchantments, any mage or dragon can put a serious damper on your day. This won't really effect the assassin or thief type characters who tend to focus on not being seen in the first place, but it can give others serious trouble. There's supposed to be another patch to fix it on the way soon though.
Patching lately in games is kind of a hydra. Slay one head and two more arise in its place. Let's hope Bethesda can put this particular beast down for good.
Replay Value: High
There's just so much to do that it's highly unlikely that you'll find even half of the content in a single playthrough. In fact, you're best served by at least making a character for the Warrior and Thief archetypes and playing out the questlines built for their kind of character in their own playthroughs.
Overall: 9
There's something for everyone here. It's got its flaws, but overall its positives far outweigh the negatives. This is a must buy for sure.
If you're still looking for my opinion as to which game stands atop that mountain, I can say this: "I don't wanna choose, 'n you can't make me! Neener neener!"
I haven't played all the games I'd like to, but I can say of Dark Souls and Skyrim that I'm glad I played them back to back. It feels like each has what the other lacks. Go get them both.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Bad Business Models and What You Can Do About Them
In the last several years gaming has grown. More people play games now than at any time in history. It's gone from being a children's diversion to the most sophisticated technology in the entertainment industry. There can be no argument that gaming is bigger than it has ever been.
But that's not altogether a good thing. As gaming has become more profitable, it's suffered from the same problems as many other industries. It is a business, yes. But now there are more that see it only as a business. The industry has become dominated by those who are only in it to make money. And that comes at our expense in more ways than one. Let's look at a few of the bad business practices that are infesting gaming today.
Shovelware
Particularly prevalent on the Nintendo Wii, shovelware is what you get when companies throw out as many games as they can that provide as little as possible to cut expense and maximize profit. Usually low quality ports of other consoles' games, or quick attempts to cash in on momentarily popular movies, shows, or anything else, as long as it's cheap to make and get out the door.
Rapid Release Titles
Perhaps the biggest offender here is Activision's Call of Duty franchise, with a new title released yearly. Activision tends to keep two developers working on the franchise and alternating releasing titles. This way they can keep coming out with titles yearly, and spending the bare minimum of two years on development. The results are badly broken gameplay experiences that can last for months from release, if they ever do get fixed at all.
Gutting Games for Profit
It was bad enough when this was confined to simply holding out parts of the games to be released as DLC for an additional cost. Now it has spread and gotten worse as publishers are taking things from the game to be given only to people who preorder at specific retailers. LA Noire is a prime example. Numerous different missions and associated content were withheld, meaning if you wanted it all on launch, then you would have to preorder the game from several different places. It was eventually put up for sale as DLC months later.
But even that's not as bad as EA's recent attempt to give preordering players permanently exclusive weapons and accessories in the upcoming Battlefield 3's online multiplayer. Only a massive outcry from the gaming community stopped them.
On a similar note, we have the PSN Pass or Project $10, which won't let you play online without an additional investment unless you buy the game new. My initial reaction to this was very negative. However, having given it some thought I'm now torn because the arguments for and against it both have merit.
On the one hand, I understand that it takes money to keep servers running. They're providing a service, and do deserve some compensation. I also understand that the used game business is starting to really cut into profits for them.
But on the other hand, games are still quite profitable. In fact, they've never needed additional compensation before when they were making less. The profit from selling the game and from any DLCs has always been more than enough to cover the time the servers are up. Games have gotten more expensive to make, but they've also raised the prices accordingly.
If the used games business is cutting into their profits, then it's the publisher's own fault. By releasing shorter, easier games with less content and heavily targeting the growing casual market, they've assured that more games are going to be traded in. Since used games are cheaper, and the discs themselves will have seen very little use, it makes more sense for the consumer to buy a new quality product for less. The only way to make people buy new is to partake in these other shady practices.
Though they are still providing the service of running the servers, it feels more like publishers trying to dig their way out of the mess they made. And the only exit is through our wallets.
Pay to Win
EA's aforementioned abomination was the first real hint of this that we've seen on consoles. However, another big blowup recently occurred in the EVE Online PC game. CCP, the game's developer, recently had some internal documents leak that strongly suggested plans to unveil what came to be called "Gold Ammo". That is, the ability to use real money to buy your way out of a bad situation, or into a position of superiority, in ways you simply could not manage in the course of the game. Things like this throw all sense of balance and fair play out the window, giving victory to those with the deepest pockets.
The outrage from the EVE community was enormous. Protests ranged from actual in game rioting to about $1M worth of cancelled subscriptions. It was enough to get CCP's attention, and they ended up having the game's Council of Stellar Management (a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP) flown to the head office in Iceland in an effort "to help us define and address the real underlying concerns, and to assist us in defining and iterating on our virtual goods strategy." said Arnar Hrafn Gylfason, Senior Producer of EVE Online. The result was a claim that the leaked info was taken out of context, and that there never were plans for Pay to Win. Many remain skeptical.
Overpriced DLC
And we return now to Activision's CoD series and take a look at Black Ops. To date, three map packs have been released, each one containing four multiplayer maps and one zombies map. A fourth map pack, all Zombies maps (4 remakes of WaW's zombie maps and 1 new one) has also been announced. At $15 USD per pack, the total price comes to $60 USD. The initial cost of the game is $60 USD, and that included the single player game, 14 multiplayer maps, and two zombies maps. That raises the question, if you got all that for $60, then is 12 maps and 8 zombies maps really worth double the initial purchase price? Especially considering it's entirely digitally distributed, meaning there are no packaging, shipping, or even physical production costs. For those keeping track, that's $120 USD you'll be paying to get all the Black Ops content out there.
It's also worth noting that another popular franchise, Halo, includes in their games a "Forge Mode" which allows the players to create their own maps all for free.
Sadly, this isn't a full list of all the business practices we could certainly live without. But the important thing is that all the things we want to get rid of share the same solutions. You have few weapons in this fight, so make the most of each one.
Education
Many people just don't know why these business models are bad, especially the booming causal market which is largely responsible for their creation and propagation by buying into them. Talk to them. Help these newcomers and you help us all. Spread the word not to support these business models wherever they crop up. Tell them why it's bad, and take the time to explain that as long as we keep supporting the publishers that do these things, the worse they are going to get.
Abstain from Buying
This is our most potent weapon, but it hurts us almost as much as it does them. It's a part of our culture, and a well ingrained desire, to buy the newest game. To rush out and pick up our favorite series' latest installment. These publishers are taking advantage of that and trying to milk it for profit. As much as it hurts, as much as you don't want to miss out on that special preorder bonus or "free" DLC, do not buy games that are doing these things. At the very least, do not preorder or buy from retailers that assist in the gutting of our games. Angry rants and sincere complaints all go for nothing if you're still handing over your money.
Donate
You might ask, "Why should the developers suffer for their publisher's decisions?" And I would say, "They shouldn't." Time to put your money where your mouth is. Donate to the developers you want to support, preferably with a message as to why you're doing it. You think Battlefield's great? Wonderful! Send money to DICE. Leave EA out of it. You love IG? Help show them that they don't have to be under Sony's yoke. Donating sends two messages. To the Devs it says, "We care about you." To the publishers it says, "Look at all the money you're not getting."
The industry has changed for the worse, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed again for the better. And change is coming. The only question is whether it will be the change we want, or one that takes us further down the wrong path? Your only hope for the former is to use each of the weapons you have to their fullest effect wherever possible. Do this, and change for the better will happen.
It won't happen overnight.
It won't happen without sacrifice.
But it will happen.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Portal 2
The original Portal game, released as part of Valve's The Orange Box, was a mind bending puzzle game filled with dark humor. Portal 2 is more of everything that made the first one great.
Presentation: 10
It's almost a foregone conclusion nowadays that anything on the PS3 is going to have fantastic visuals. Portal 2 is no exception. The in game graphics are great, and the few cut scenes in this title really do impress. It's no Square title, but it's darned nice nonetheless.
The sound is flawless. Every moment is perfectly scored, every line delivered spot on. The voice actors practically steal the show. Absolutely no complaints in the sound department.
Story: 10
It may be short, but but every moment is a treasure. Every line of dialog is a delight to hear, and you'll likely look forward to each tidbit even more than the gameplay. I won't spoil anything here. I'll only say that it is not an entirely self contained story and that you do need to have played Portal to get the full effect. Luckily Portal all kinds of awesome, so this is almost more of a bonus than anything.
Gameplay: 10
As in every other aspect, this game takes the classic Portal gameplay and builds on it creating an excellent experience. In addition to the tools to which the player would already be accustomed, this latest trip through Aperture Labs adds Ariel Faith Plates which launch you through the air, goo that can affect your movement speed, other goo which can be used to make surfaces and objects bounce, and yet more goo that can make surfaces portalable. With all these tools at your disposal you'll definitely have hours of fun.
The game doesn't really qualify for a full 10 in this area because the puzzles could have been harder. I may feel this way because for the first third or so keeps you limited to the Portal Gun with a few Ariel Faith Plates thrown in. It might also be that having played the first game repeatedly, I was already in the habit of "thinking with portals" as the game calls it. This may have made the game easier for me. Fortunately, the Cooperative Testing Initiative part of the game pushes it over the top and bumps it up to a perfect rating.
Playing though the increasingly challenging puzzles in this mode with a friend was a pure joy. I was used to thinking with two portals, but four...that upped the challenge. Two heads are better than one, as they say, and I was glad to have the assistance in this run. It still wasn't as brain melting as learning how portals worked in the first game, but it definitely was fun.
Characters: 10
From their perfect personalities, to their perfectly delivered dialog, each of the characters in this game is wonderful. There's even some character development along the way. Our silent protagonist, Chell, doesn't do a whole lot of this, but the other cast members more than make up for it.
Replay Value: Some.
As fun as these puzzles are, they only really have the one solution. Once you figure it out, there's not much more to do. You can go back though again and pick up missed trophies, or hunt for the myriad Easter eggs, as well as help others online through co-op mode, but that's about it.
Overall Score: 10 out of 10
I couldn't ask for a better game of its type than this. But I'm getting it anyway since Valve's not done with the title yet. A few planned DLCs are coming out, one of which is free.
Presentation: 10
It's almost a foregone conclusion nowadays that anything on the PS3 is going to have fantastic visuals. Portal 2 is no exception. The in game graphics are great, and the few cut scenes in this title really do impress. It's no Square title, but it's darned nice nonetheless.
The sound is flawless. Every moment is perfectly scored, every line delivered spot on. The voice actors practically steal the show. Absolutely no complaints in the sound department.
Story: 10
It may be short, but but every moment is a treasure. Every line of dialog is a delight to hear, and you'll likely look forward to each tidbit even more than the gameplay. I won't spoil anything here. I'll only say that it is not an entirely self contained story and that you do need to have played Portal to get the full effect. Luckily Portal all kinds of awesome, so this is almost more of a bonus than anything.
Gameplay: 10
As in every other aspect, this game takes the classic Portal gameplay and builds on it creating an excellent experience. In addition to the tools to which the player would already be accustomed, this latest trip through Aperture Labs adds Ariel Faith Plates which launch you through the air, goo that can affect your movement speed, other goo which can be used to make surfaces and objects bounce, and yet more goo that can make surfaces portalable. With all these tools at your disposal you'll definitely have hours of fun.
The game doesn't really qualify for a full 10 in this area because the puzzles could have been harder. I may feel this way because for the first third or so keeps you limited to the Portal Gun with a few Ariel Faith Plates thrown in. It might also be that having played the first game repeatedly, I was already in the habit of "thinking with portals" as the game calls it. This may have made the game easier for me. Fortunately, the Cooperative Testing Initiative part of the game pushes it over the top and bumps it up to a perfect rating.
Playing though the increasingly challenging puzzles in this mode with a friend was a pure joy. I was used to thinking with two portals, but four...that upped the challenge. Two heads are better than one, as they say, and I was glad to have the assistance in this run. It still wasn't as brain melting as learning how portals worked in the first game, but it definitely was fun.
Characters: 10
From their perfect personalities, to their perfectly delivered dialog, each of the characters in this game is wonderful. There's even some character development along the way. Our silent protagonist, Chell, doesn't do a whole lot of this, but the other cast members more than make up for it.
Replay Value: Some.
As fun as these puzzles are, they only really have the one solution. Once you figure it out, there's not much more to do. You can go back though again and pick up missed trophies, or hunt for the myriad Easter eggs, as well as help others online through co-op mode, but that's about it.
Overall Score: 10 out of 10
I couldn't ask for a better game of its type than this. But I'm getting it anyway since Valve's not done with the title yet. A few planned DLCs are coming out, one of which is free.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
What is Skill? (Baby, Don't Pwn Me)
I was playing some Black Ops today and things were going well for a change. AUG in hand, I demolished Radiation until my ammo ran dry, then picked up a fallen foe's Galil and continued the slaughter. After blinding my enemies and gazing through the all seeing Eye in the Sky, I soared in as if the very Hand of God, casting down merciless judgment and smiting my enemies.
*Picture of slaughter not to scale.
First of all, that sounds much more awesome than saying, "I used my Counter-Spy Plane, SR-71, and Chopper Gunner," doesn't it? We need more flowery language to brighten up our otherwise dull existence, people! Even making a snack is better when you say that you feasted on the flesh of beasts and the fruit of the land, with some Doritos. (What? You can't improve on Doritos.)
Anyway, the next game on WMD went much the same and I was quite the happy monkey. Then I was placed in a new lobby and all semblance of ability fled. I couldn't land a shot, could live for ten steps after spawning.
I put it down to lag and tried another lobby. Same result.
It's no secret that the game is broken sometimes. The lag can be murder, and respawning is all too often suicide in itself. But to fall so far in an instant? Going from Hand of God to Canon Fodder is quite the demotion. How much of my success could I really attribute to skill? To answer that I had to ask, "What is skill?"
Any time you enter a competitive environment you'll hear complaints about this or that weapon or ability being "nooby" or "no skill." Sometimes the complaints are fully justified by broken or unbalanced design. But how many of these complaints come from people who've been on the wrong end of said weapons or abilities and haven't bothered trying to change their tactics to combat them? It's easier to accuse than to improve, after all.
Let's look at Killsteaks. I've seen comments about how those are only for noobs and that really skilled gamers don't use them. In some cases I might agree. Sometimes they just seem badly unbalanced. The Blackbird gives the entire enemy team your team's exact location at all times and can't be destroyed. What's the defense for that? How can my skill get around it?
Or the Rolling Thunder. Unless you just happen to be on a distant corner of the map, you're dead when that gets called in. Even running inside for cover, your only real defense, wouldn't save you in many cases.
But what about the Spy Plane, or the Turret? Could you really say these are overpowered? The Spy Plane, which is easily dispatched, only tells you where someone is generally and a few seconds ago at that. The turret can dissuade you from entering an area, but isn't likely to get that many kills. After all, if you walk in front of it once, that sucks. If you walk in front of it again, isn't that your fault then?
So assuming your temporary advantages, be they Killstreaks, Berserks, or whatever, are balanced, then can you still say they are some "no skill" addition? If you lose to them repeatedly is it because they were unfair, or was it just because you wouldn't change to combat them? Isn't that a part of being skilled?
Is the player who plays a Barebones type mode, one which does away with Killstreaks, Kill Cams, and Perks, inherently more skilled than one who plays a normal match? If you say yes, then why? Because they can win without all those things, right? What happens when we throw them into a normal match then? If they truly are more skilled, then they should make short work of these "noobs" that rely on everything else, shouldn't they? Especially since it's not like they're not equipped with the same Perks, etc now too. But often enough they don't do as well. The reverse is true too, of course. Take a normal match player and drop him into a Barebones game. He'll probably flounder a bit too.
For every complaint by a "Hardcore" gamer that a normal mode person can't win without their precious Kill Cam, couldn't you say that the Hardcore guy couldn't win if they had to deal with it? This makes me think that either player's skill would be decided largely based on how well he adapts to his new conditions.
So, here's the answer I've come up with.
Skill is not just gunplay, though that has its place.
It isn't just tactical thinking, though that's part of it too.
Skill is your ability to succeed with and against all the tools the game provides in the mode you're playing. Your ability to create a solid plan of action in response to your conditions, and execute it while taking new developments into account.
There's no denying that broken game mechanics like MW2's OMA/Noob Tubing, Black Ops' often terrible spawns, or unintended glitches like Wraith Hopping in Resistance 2, will have a negative impact on anyone, no matter how skilled if the game simply doesn't provide you with a way to deal with it. And of course, the old saying is true, "Lag conquers all."
Is that why my games went from gold to garbage earlier? Maybe in part. Or maybe I just lost focus and couldn't bring that same level of skill.
And they did bleed.
*Picture of slaughter not to scale.First of all, that sounds much more awesome than saying, "I used my Counter-Spy Plane, SR-71, and Chopper Gunner," doesn't it? We need more flowery language to brighten up our otherwise dull existence, people! Even making a snack is better when you say that you feasted on the flesh of beasts and the fruit of the land, with some Doritos. (What? You can't improve on Doritos.)
Anyway, the next game on WMD went much the same and I was quite the happy monkey. Then I was placed in a new lobby and all semblance of ability fled. I couldn't land a shot, could live for ten steps after spawning.
I put it down to lag and tried another lobby. Same result.
It's no secret that the game is broken sometimes. The lag can be murder, and respawning is all too often suicide in itself. But to fall so far in an instant? Going from Hand of God to Canon Fodder is quite the demotion. How much of my success could I really attribute to skill? To answer that I had to ask, "What is skill?"
Any time you enter a competitive environment you'll hear complaints about this or that weapon or ability being "nooby" or "no skill." Sometimes the complaints are fully justified by broken or unbalanced design. But how many of these complaints come from people who've been on the wrong end of said weapons or abilities and haven't bothered trying to change their tactics to combat them? It's easier to accuse than to improve, after all.
Let's look at Killsteaks. I've seen comments about how those are only for noobs and that really skilled gamers don't use them. In some cases I might agree. Sometimes they just seem badly unbalanced. The Blackbird gives the entire enemy team your team's exact location at all times and can't be destroyed. What's the defense for that? How can my skill get around it?
Or the Rolling Thunder. Unless you just happen to be on a distant corner of the map, you're dead when that gets called in. Even running inside for cover, your only real defense, wouldn't save you in many cases.
But what about the Spy Plane, or the Turret? Could you really say these are overpowered? The Spy Plane, which is easily dispatched, only tells you where someone is generally and a few seconds ago at that. The turret can dissuade you from entering an area, but isn't likely to get that many kills. After all, if you walk in front of it once, that sucks. If you walk in front of it again, isn't that your fault then?
So assuming your temporary advantages, be they Killstreaks, Berserks, or whatever, are balanced, then can you still say they are some "no skill" addition? If you lose to them repeatedly is it because they were unfair, or was it just because you wouldn't change to combat them? Isn't that a part of being skilled?
Is the player who plays a Barebones type mode, one which does away with Killstreaks, Kill Cams, and Perks, inherently more skilled than one who plays a normal match? If you say yes, then why? Because they can win without all those things, right? What happens when we throw them into a normal match then? If they truly are more skilled, then they should make short work of these "noobs" that rely on everything else, shouldn't they? Especially since it's not like they're not equipped with the same Perks, etc now too. But often enough they don't do as well. The reverse is true too, of course. Take a normal match player and drop him into a Barebones game. He'll probably flounder a bit too.
For every complaint by a "Hardcore" gamer that a normal mode person can't win without their precious Kill Cam, couldn't you say that the Hardcore guy couldn't win if they had to deal with it? This makes me think that either player's skill would be decided largely based on how well he adapts to his new conditions.
So, here's the answer I've come up with.
Skill is not just gunplay, though that has its place.
It isn't just tactical thinking, though that's part of it too.
Skill is your ability to succeed with and against all the tools the game provides in the mode you're playing. Your ability to create a solid plan of action in response to your conditions, and execute it while taking new developments into account.
There's no denying that broken game mechanics like MW2's OMA/Noob Tubing, Black Ops' often terrible spawns, or unintended glitches like Wraith Hopping in Resistance 2, will have a negative impact on anyone, no matter how skilled if the game simply doesn't provide you with a way to deal with it. And of course, the old saying is true, "Lag conquers all."
Is that why my games went from gold to garbage earlier? Maybe in part. Or maybe I just lost focus and couldn't bring that same level of skill.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Down About Downtime?
So, I guess there's only really one thing to talk about these days. PSN, our gaming lifeblood, is down. Worse... Looks like it's going to stay that way for a whole month. Shock and Horror!
From left to right: Shock, Horror, and Listening-to-Beiber-on-Friday.
Alright, calm down now. Before we all rush off and commit Sepuku, just hold your chocobos and take a moment and consider other, less permanent options. Will complaining online get the network back up faster? No. It'll be back when it's ready, and not before.
Sacrifice a goat to a pagan god? No. Where are you even going to find a goat at this hour?
Hmm, what to do then? Oh, I have an idea!
Now, I'm going to need you all to think back... Back to a time several years ago... A time before PS3... What's there?
Why, it's a massive library of games that have no online capability! What's more, they're good!
That's right, much to the surprise of the modern gamer, there do exist games that can be played entirely offline!
PS2, PS1, GameCube, N64, SNES, and all the way back to the humble Arcade cabinet. Games have certainly come a long way, but that's not to say that only what's new is good. Sometimes the old is even superior.
Case in point.
From left to right: Shock, Horror, and Listening-to-Beiber-on-Friday.Alright, calm down now. Before we all rush off and commit Sepuku, just hold your chocobos and take a moment and consider other, less permanent options. Will complaining online get the network back up faster? No. It'll be back when it's ready, and not before.
Sacrifice a goat to a pagan god? No. Where are you even going to find a goat at this hour?
Hmm, what to do then? Oh, I have an idea!
Now, I'm going to need you all to think back... Back to a time several years ago... A time before PS3... What's there?
Why, it's a massive library of games that have no online capability! What's more, they're good!
That's right, much to the surprise of the modern gamer, there do exist games that can be played entirely offline!
PS2, PS1, GameCube, N64, SNES, and all the way back to the humble Arcade cabinet. Games have certainly come a long way, but that's not to say that only what's new is good. Sometimes the old is even superior.
Case in point.Bust out those classics, my friends and fellow gamers! Step into the role of the heroes of the early Final Fantasy titles. Take up the blade once more in Onimusha (the world's only four part trilogy). Go head to head against the mighty Metal Gears with your trusty cardboard box. Run and Gun to your heart's content with Jak, Daxter, Ratchet, and Clank. Let the Prince of Persia scale the walls of Castlevania (Actually, I would pay quite well to see this game).
But wait, there's more!
Has anyone found any silver linings on this otherwise terrible event? In my case, I realized that I'd been spending way too much time on CoD simply because it was easier than working at other games. I found myself thinking things like, "I could put in the time to level up in Oblivion, maybe tackle the next mindscape in Psychonauts, OR I could just turn on the PS3 and do several rounds of Black Ops." I'd get a similar rush and feeling of accomplishment from doing well there that I would from completing a difficult puzzle or filling out some well planned leveling scheme. Why go the hard route when the easy one is so much simpler?
I'm not trying to ego trip about my 'leet CoD skillz" here or anything. At my best, I'm only slightly above average, if at all. What I'm saying is that the dozens of little victories I got each day were apparently greater to me than games that took more thought and effort. And that's not something I particularly enjoyed finding out. It's a habit I intend to break. Does that mean I'll be giving up on Black Ops? No. But I think that when the month is done, I might not be spending so much time on it. And not just because I expect the servers to go right back down from the massive influx of people scratching a month long itch.
Don't mistake me, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Black Ops (well, at least nothing inherently wrong with competitive multiplayer gaming anyway). I've just never thought of myself as a 'take the easy road' kind of person, and that's what this title turned out to be for me.
Of course, what I'd really like is some sweet Portal 2 goodness. Seems like just the thing to get the old brain working again. And when funds allow, I'll most definitely get it and drop a review here. But for now I'll be entering the Uncharted territory of New Vegas, looking for the inFamous Arkham Asylum, and deciding whether or not the Devil May Cry.
But wait, there's more!
Has anyone found any silver linings on this otherwise terrible event? In my case, I realized that I'd been spending way too much time on CoD simply because it was easier than working at other games. I found myself thinking things like, "I could put in the time to level up in Oblivion, maybe tackle the next mindscape in Psychonauts, OR I could just turn on the PS3 and do several rounds of Black Ops." I'd get a similar rush and feeling of accomplishment from doing well there that I would from completing a difficult puzzle or filling out some well planned leveling scheme. Why go the hard route when the easy one is so much simpler?
I'm not trying to ego trip about my 'leet CoD skillz" here or anything. At my best, I'm only slightly above average, if at all. What I'm saying is that the dozens of little victories I got each day were apparently greater to me than games that took more thought and effort. And that's not something I particularly enjoyed finding out. It's a habit I intend to break. Does that mean I'll be giving up on Black Ops? No. But I think that when the month is done, I might not be spending so much time on it. And not just because I expect the servers to go right back down from the massive influx of people scratching a month long itch.
Don't mistake me, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Black Ops (well, at least nothing inherently wrong with competitive multiplayer gaming anyway). I've just never thought of myself as a 'take the easy road' kind of person, and that's what this title turned out to be for me.
Of course, what I'd really like is some sweet Portal 2 goodness. Seems like just the thing to get the old brain working again. And when funds allow, I'll most definitely get it and drop a review here. But for now I'll be entering the Uncharted territory of New Vegas, looking for the inFamous Arkham Asylum, and deciding whether or not the Devil May Cry.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Skill Drops: An Alternative to Random Drops
Hello again, folks. Cobalt Monkey here to share today's view from the treetops. Well, actually let's descend for a bit and get the view from under the canopy. When I venture down to the Underlands for a nice walk on occasion, I'll come upon a banana that has fallen from the trees above. And that's a nice surprise. But you know what wouldn't be nice? If that was the only way to get bananas. Imagine, if you can, a horrible, terrible world in which monkeys like myself could only get bananas once in a blue moon!
I'll give you a moment to collect yourself after witnessing such a sad sight.
...
Let us move on.
The good news is that bananas can easily be obtained either by a monkey skillful enough to climb up and get them, or by going to the store and buying them.
The bad news is that this abominable concept has long ago infiltrated even the best of our games in the form of Random Loot Drops. Most common in RPG games, and the very backbone of MMOs like World of Warcraft, but not unknown outside of other game types as well.
For the unfamiliar, the Random Loot Drop mechanic means that no matter how many times or how quickly and easily you defeat an enemy, there will only be a certain (and usually very small) percentage chance that it will drop a given item. Why is this so? Many people have been over the idea of the Skinner Box in numerous articles, so I won't be going in depth on it here. Random Drops are a way to condition people to keep playing long after it stops being fun.
Let's look at an example you non-jungle dwellers can probably relate to a bit more.
Let's say you go to work all week. You work hard and do your job diligently. Friday rolls around and your paycheck is nearly there.
Only it turns out that the boss rolled some dice to see which days you'd get paid for and how much. Instead of getting paid for five long days of hard work, you'll be getting paid for two days. Now, its not always like that. Sometimes you get nothing at all. Sometimes you get all you earned. And if you're really lucky, then once every couple of years, you'll get a little bonus too. But by and large you'll see little to no pay for your efforts.
Would you stay in this kind of job? No. So why are we killing the same enemies over and over for hours on end, hoping that the next one hits the 1% and the item you've been searching for drops, and calling it "Fun"? Skinner Box.
That's not to say that the idea of Random Drops has no place in gaming. It just needs to be an "Icing on the cake" type of thing, not a goal in itself. Here's a game that implements Random Drops well.
For those of you too busy staring at Karin to actually read, the title of the game is Shadow Hearts: Covenant. This may not have been the first game to do something like this, but it is the first one I've seen.
In this game, the randomly dropped items were never things you couldn't get elsewhere. They were always simple healing items, or extra accessories on rare occasion. But what sets it apart more is that you can earn items by playing skillfully. There were numerous conditions you could satisfy during a battle to get additional items.
Take no damage.
Perfectly execute your attacks.
Perform an impressive combo.
Not letting the enemy get a turn.
Etc.
Each of those done during a fight added to the money, items, and such that you would get after a fight. None of them were required, nor were the items you could obtain usually unique. In fact, doing well most often just got you to the next tier of equipment a bit sooner. Icing on the cake.
What got me thinking about this was a bit of conversation about Dark Souls, the upcoming spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, that I read on a message board. A simple statement that I agree with wholeheartedly. "It doesn't take skill to farm for hours." Demon's Souls was an excellent game by itself, but if I had to pick one flaw in it, it would be that a several of its trophies were earned for forging weapons with randomly dropped items to create better weapons. Do you really deserve a trophy for being lucky? This especially stands out in a title like this, one that's built almost entirely around player skill. If you have enough skill, then even the most difficult boss in the game can be taken out with the weakest weapons and armor. Despite having completed the game a couple times, it took me forever to get the platinum simply because the items I needed to forge would not drop. I eventually had to resort to trading online to get them. Not something I should have to do in a single player game, and if even one had been placed in a hard to access area of the map somewhere instead of relying on a random drop, then I wouldn't have had to.
That's when my thoughts drifted back to Shadow Hearts. What if such a system as that could be used in other types of games? Random Drops would be replaced with Skill Drops. That is, killing certain enemies in certain ways gets you particular rewards. This way a game would actually reward you for being good at a particularly skillful challenge.
Examples:
Kill an enemy with a backstab
Kill an enemy after parrying
Kill an enemy with a certain weapon or spell combination
Or maybe not just kills.
Maybe something like Kill an enemy after landing a three hit combo that finishes with a fireball, etc.
Each enemy could have several different possible drops, and you get the ones for which you've satisfied the conditions. So, using the above examples, let's say after you land your three hit fireball combo, you backstab them as they're getting up. You'd get both rewards.
This would still extend game time (which is the one and only goal of Random Drops), but through encouragement of expanding both the player's and character's skills.
Like this idea? Hate it? Got a better one? Let us know in the comments.
I'll give you a moment to collect yourself after witnessing such a sad sight.
...
Let us move on.
The good news is that bananas can easily be obtained either by a monkey skillful enough to climb up and get them, or by going to the store and buying them.
The bad news is that this abominable concept has long ago infiltrated even the best of our games in the form of Random Loot Drops. Most common in RPG games, and the very backbone of MMOs like World of Warcraft, but not unknown outside of other game types as well.
For the unfamiliar, the Random Loot Drop mechanic means that no matter how many times or how quickly and easily you defeat an enemy, there will only be a certain (and usually very small) percentage chance that it will drop a given item. Why is this so? Many people have been over the idea of the Skinner Box in numerous articles, so I won't be going in depth on it here. Random Drops are a way to condition people to keep playing long after it stops being fun.
Let's look at an example you non-jungle dwellers can probably relate to a bit more.
Let's say you go to work all week. You work hard and do your job diligently. Friday rolls around and your paycheck is nearly there.
Only it turns out that the boss rolled some dice to see which days you'd get paid for and how much. Instead of getting paid for five long days of hard work, you'll be getting paid for two days. Now, its not always like that. Sometimes you get nothing at all. Sometimes you get all you earned. And if you're really lucky, then once every couple of years, you'll get a little bonus too. But by and large you'll see little to no pay for your efforts.
Would you stay in this kind of job? No. So why are we killing the same enemies over and over for hours on end, hoping that the next one hits the 1% and the item you've been searching for drops, and calling it "Fun"? Skinner Box.
That's not to say that the idea of Random Drops has no place in gaming. It just needs to be an "Icing on the cake" type of thing, not a goal in itself. Here's a game that implements Random Drops well.
For those of you too busy staring at Karin to actually read, the title of the game is Shadow Hearts: Covenant. This may not have been the first game to do something like this, but it is the first one I've seen.
In this game, the randomly dropped items were never things you couldn't get elsewhere. They were always simple healing items, or extra accessories on rare occasion. But what sets it apart more is that you can earn items by playing skillfully. There were numerous conditions you could satisfy during a battle to get additional items.
Take no damage.
Perfectly execute your attacks.
Perform an impressive combo.
Not letting the enemy get a turn.
Etc.
Each of those done during a fight added to the money, items, and such that you would get after a fight. None of them were required, nor were the items you could obtain usually unique. In fact, doing well most often just got you to the next tier of equipment a bit sooner. Icing on the cake.
What got me thinking about this was a bit of conversation about Dark Souls, the upcoming spiritual successor to Demon's Souls, that I read on a message board. A simple statement that I agree with wholeheartedly. "It doesn't take skill to farm for hours." Demon's Souls was an excellent game by itself, but if I had to pick one flaw in it, it would be that a several of its trophies were earned for forging weapons with randomly dropped items to create better weapons. Do you really deserve a trophy for being lucky? This especially stands out in a title like this, one that's built almost entirely around player skill. If you have enough skill, then even the most difficult boss in the game can be taken out with the weakest weapons and armor. Despite having completed the game a couple times, it took me forever to get the platinum simply because the items I needed to forge would not drop. I eventually had to resort to trading online to get them. Not something I should have to do in a single player game, and if even one had been placed in a hard to access area of the map somewhere instead of relying on a random drop, then I wouldn't have had to.
That's when my thoughts drifted back to Shadow Hearts. What if such a system as that could be used in other types of games? Random Drops would be replaced with Skill Drops. That is, killing certain enemies in certain ways gets you particular rewards. This way a game would actually reward you for being good at a particularly skillful challenge.
Examples:
Kill an enemy with a backstab
Kill an enemy after parrying
Kill an enemy with a certain weapon or spell combination
Or maybe not just kills.
Maybe something like Kill an enemy after landing a three hit combo that finishes with a fireball, etc.
Each enemy could have several different possible drops, and you get the ones for which you've satisfied the conditions. So, using the above examples, let's say after you land your three hit fireball combo, you backstab them as they're getting up. You'd get both rewards.
This would still extend game time (which is the one and only goal of Random Drops), but through encouragement of expanding both the player's and character's skills.
Like this idea? Hate it? Got a better one? Let us know in the comments.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Truth About Peach
So, a thought occurred to me today. (It had to happen eventually, I know. Ha ha, very funny. Don't quit your day job.) I've seen several articles in the past about Princess Peach Toadstool. Some claim she is just a figurehead. Others say she's an enchantress using her feminine wiles, which are apparently incredibly rare in the Mushroom Kingdom, to control all the little toad men of the country into doing her bidding.
Some even claim she is a usurper of the throne and that Bowser truly is the rightful king. They cite that the scaly sovereign is far more similar to anything else in the mushroom kingdom than the normal human Peach, whose right to the throne isn't ever explained. And it's true, we never do see her parents or even get mention of them. Any of the little toad people who claim to be relatives are clearly lying.
But let's think for a moment. What happens when Peach is kidnapped by Bowser? Does the kingdom suddenly stop running? No. Unless a given area of the kingdom is directly under attack, things proceed in a perfectly normal manner. Same old, same old with no interruptions. Even in Mario 64, it was only the castle that was affected by the invasion, while the rest of the country went on about its business.
Look too at Super Mario RPG. Aside from a few boss monsters here and there, the kingdom is relatively fine. And once those few are defeated, it's back to business as usual. Peach is even rescued halfway through the game and immediately leaves again to go with you, ignoring whatever important royal works needed to be done. But as we journey with her, we see she's actually quite a capable fighter, and valued party member. In fact, it quickly becomes apparent that she could escape Bowser's clutches at any time, and even avoid getting kidnapped in the first place.
This is when I started understanding Peach. She's not a princess. She's not an enchantress. She's not just a figurehead. She's all that and more. She is, in fact, the first line of defense for the Mushroom Kingdom.
Preemptive
Emergency
Avoidance of
Catastrophe's
Harbingers
She's the lightning rod that draws danger to her before it can ever reach her subjects. Under her reign, not one single casualty has ever befallen her people, while Mario has laid waste to thousands upon thousands of enemy troops. The worst the average citizen has had to endure is a temporary inconvenience. Peach and Mario work together to be the focus of all enemy efforts. But even they can't handle everything. Bowser can replace his fallen minions at a moment's notice. His ranks are truly staggering. So, how does Mario manage to survive? It's because while all enemy eyes are on him, the Mushroom Army is out there covertly taking out enemies by the score and leaving our hero helpful items to ensure he lives to remain the focus. Meanwhile, Bowser is so focused on keeping Peach captive that he never notices.
And what happens when an enemy that can't be dealt with this way attacks? The lacy white gloves come off, that's what. As the fiends of Mario RPG found out, she's more than capable of being out there on the front line along side Mario and delivering a heaping helping of princess pwnage.
So, when you inevitably see the next headline in the Mushroom Kingdom Times proclaiming that Peach has been kidnapped yet again, don't just roll your eyes. That means she's doing her job, descending into darkness alone so that her citizens can rest easy. Show a little respect. She's earned it.
Some even claim she is a usurper of the throne and that Bowser truly is the rightful king. They cite that the scaly sovereign is far more similar to anything else in the mushroom kingdom than the normal human Peach, whose right to the throne isn't ever explained. And it's true, we never do see her parents or even get mention of them. Any of the little toad people who claim to be relatives are clearly lying.
But let's think for a moment. What happens when Peach is kidnapped by Bowser? Does the kingdom suddenly stop running? No. Unless a given area of the kingdom is directly under attack, things proceed in a perfectly normal manner. Same old, same old with no interruptions. Even in Mario 64, it was only the castle that was affected by the invasion, while the rest of the country went on about its business.
Look too at Super Mario RPG. Aside from a few boss monsters here and there, the kingdom is relatively fine. And once those few are defeated, it's back to business as usual. Peach is even rescued halfway through the game and immediately leaves again to go with you, ignoring whatever important royal works needed to be done. But as we journey with her, we see she's actually quite a capable fighter, and valued party member. In fact, it quickly becomes apparent that she could escape Bowser's clutches at any time, and even avoid getting kidnapped in the first place.
This is when I started understanding Peach. She's not a princess. She's not an enchantress. She's not just a figurehead. She's all that and more. She is, in fact, the first line of defense for the Mushroom Kingdom.
Preemptive
Emergency
Avoidance of
Catastrophe's
Harbingers
She's the lightning rod that draws danger to her before it can ever reach her subjects. Under her reign, not one single casualty has ever befallen her people, while Mario has laid waste to thousands upon thousands of enemy troops. The worst the average citizen has had to endure is a temporary inconvenience. Peach and Mario work together to be the focus of all enemy efforts. But even they can't handle everything. Bowser can replace his fallen minions at a moment's notice. His ranks are truly staggering. So, how does Mario manage to survive? It's because while all enemy eyes are on him, the Mushroom Army is out there covertly taking out enemies by the score and leaving our hero helpful items to ensure he lives to remain the focus. Meanwhile, Bowser is so focused on keeping Peach captive that he never notices.
And what happens when an enemy that can't be dealt with this way attacks? The lacy white gloves come off, that's what. As the fiends of Mario RPG found out, she's more than capable of being out there on the front line along side Mario and delivering a heaping helping of princess pwnage.
So, when you inevitably see the next headline in the Mushroom Kingdom Times proclaiming that Peach has been kidnapped yet again, don't just roll your eyes. That means she's doing her job, descending into darkness alone so that her citizens can rest easy. Show a little respect. She's earned it.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Morality: A Red and Blue Issue?
Would you like to read this blog, or look for another?
Please select a response:
Read.
Don't Read.
Okay, those aren't actual links to choices, but they are your options when choosing to read this. If you've played any games with a Morality Meter in the past decade, then I'll bet you can guess which one is the "good" option. Morality is a very complex issue, but most games reduce it to a black and white (or red and blue) decision. As Yahtzee said once in his Zero Punctuation Bioshock review, "You're either Mother Theresa, or a baby-eater. There's no middle ground." And he's quite right most of the time. You can't just be a nun with the nibbles. The games sometimes even only reward you for achieving maximum good and evil values, while leaving those with neutral views with nothing.
Some games do things a bit differently, which is to be applauded. Let's look at Jade Empire. Instead of having a Light Side and a Dark Side, Bioware used two opposing philosophies that have basically the same goal in mind, but with vastly different reasoning and execution. The "blue" path is the Way of the Open Palm. It believes that those with power have a responsibility to those without and should help them in any way they can. The "red" path is the Way of the Closed Fist. It states that by helping others you only inspire them to stay weak. After all, if their needs are met by others, then how could they improve themselves?
Here are two opposing views with the same goal, and both have merit to their ways of thinking. Neither one is strictly good or evil.
There's also the newer Mass Effect method in which your blue and orange meters are independent of one another. It's not a sliding scale like we've seen before where doing a bit of evil takes the meter closer to red and further from blue. In this system you can be a jerk sometimes, but still be an overall nice guy without having to sacrifice any of your blue meter. However there's also a quirk in the system. You can't pick certain options associated with your meters unless they're full enough. Meaning, basically, that you can't steal candy from a baby when the chance arises unless you'd also kicked a dog earlier. So, this system is a little more versatile than the sliding scale, but doesn't really allow you to play a middle ground character either.
The problem in these games is that we're still given a meter to see how much in one direction or the other we've gone. Our actions are judged by an outside third party. In the real world, no one can give you your morality. You make it yourself through the way you handle the choices presented to you. You can take inspiration from others, certainly, but that too is your decision. Now, those around you may well judge you for your decisions, but no matter which you pick it's as likely a given person will agree with you as disagree. But with the meter thrown in it's as if every time you make a choice, God pops down to say Yay or Nay. Last I checked, that didn't happen in real life.
Hmm... Perhaps I should check that one more time.
*steals puppies from a baby*
Okay, but that's not a typical occurrence.
*Returns puppies*
When the idea of making a moral decision is put into games, it becomes more about asking which stats you want your character to have as opposed to actually answering the question before you.
I can't help but think that this is another effect of streamlining for the sake of more casual gamers. It's certainly easier to make a decision when you can see all the consequences lined out before you. But doesn't that take away from the gravity of your decisions? You choose to be good or evil for what it gets you, not for how you feel about the consequences.
Let's look back at a game called Deus Ex now.
Here is a game full of moral choices, but with no meter to classify them. You're just as capable of giving a homeless person some change as you are of killing him and taking his stuff. You're also presented with the option of using lethal or non-lethal force in all your encounters. If you've been playing the game like a pure shooter, then you're in for a bit of a surprise when you find out that for a third of the game, you may have been mercilessly slaughtering your new allies.
Even so there is no drawback to using fully lethal force, and you're still allowed to join up with them because they need someone like you desperately. The only punishment is a few 'disappointed in you' comments from some characters. However, this personally bothered me enough that I restricted myself to non-lethal for a large portion of the game on future playthroughs. Fittingly enough, this got me a few 'disappointed in you' comments from other characters.
Later in that same game, I was exploring a new area that contained a closed office building. I promptly broke into it and started looking around for things I could use. As I passed by a phone sitting on a desk, it rang. Expecting to have a bit of a giggle, I answered it. It was an enemy of mine on the other end that was capable of tracking my actions and location. It pointed out that despite the fact that I claimed to be fighting injustice, here I was ignoring whatever laws I found inconvenient.
This made me stop and think a moment. I am an elite cyborg/ninja thing with all sorts of nanomodification. If I were caught doing this, then I could easily overpower or evade the local police and continue on my quest to defeat Evil. As I am on said quest, I have to be as prepared as possible. So, does that mean I get a free pass on doing all sorts of underhanded deeds ranging from theft to murder so long as the people who are supposedly worse than me are stopped?
Now, that is a moral question. We've moved out of a black and white scenario and are operating well within the shades of gray (or purple).
Contrast that with the cut and dry choices in the game inFamous, where your only real concern over who or who not to kill was what kind of powers it worked toward and trophies it unlocked.
The game that made no claim to morality did a better job of expressing it than did the game that touted it as a feature. That's not to say that inFamous isn't a fun and entertaining experience. It's just mindless fun that's trying to stick on a morality bar for extra replay value. I'm looking forward to the sequel anyway and will surely pick it up when I can. I do hope they've done a bit more with it though.
Well, those are my thoughts on the Morality issue. What are yours? Let us know in the comments.
Please select a response:
Read.
Don't Read.
Okay, those aren't actual links to choices, but they are your options when choosing to read this. If you've played any games with a Morality Meter in the past decade, then I'll bet you can guess which one is the "good" option. Morality is a very complex issue, but most games reduce it to a black and white (or red and blue) decision. As Yahtzee said once in his Zero Punctuation Bioshock review, "You're either Mother Theresa, or a baby-eater. There's no middle ground." And he's quite right most of the time. You can't just be a nun with the nibbles. The games sometimes even only reward you for achieving maximum good and evil values, while leaving those with neutral views with nothing.
Some games do things a bit differently, which is to be applauded. Let's look at Jade Empire. Instead of having a Light Side and a Dark Side, Bioware used two opposing philosophies that have basically the same goal in mind, but with vastly different reasoning and execution. The "blue" path is the Way of the Open Palm. It believes that those with power have a responsibility to those without and should help them in any way they can. The "red" path is the Way of the Closed Fist. It states that by helping others you only inspire them to stay weak. After all, if their needs are met by others, then how could they improve themselves?
Here are two opposing views with the same goal, and both have merit to their ways of thinking. Neither one is strictly good or evil.
There's also the newer Mass Effect method in which your blue and orange meters are independent of one another. It's not a sliding scale like we've seen before where doing a bit of evil takes the meter closer to red and further from blue. In this system you can be a jerk sometimes, but still be an overall nice guy without having to sacrifice any of your blue meter. However there's also a quirk in the system. You can't pick certain options associated with your meters unless they're full enough. Meaning, basically, that you can't steal candy from a baby when the chance arises unless you'd also kicked a dog earlier. So, this system is a little more versatile than the sliding scale, but doesn't really allow you to play a middle ground character either.
The problem in these games is that we're still given a meter to see how much in one direction or the other we've gone. Our actions are judged by an outside third party. In the real world, no one can give you your morality. You make it yourself through the way you handle the choices presented to you. You can take inspiration from others, certainly, but that too is your decision. Now, those around you may well judge you for your decisions, but no matter which you pick it's as likely a given person will agree with you as disagree. But with the meter thrown in it's as if every time you make a choice, God pops down to say Yay or Nay. Last I checked, that didn't happen in real life.
Hmm... Perhaps I should check that one more time.
*steals puppies from a baby*
*Returns puppies*
When the idea of making a moral decision is put into games, it becomes more about asking which stats you want your character to have as opposed to actually answering the question before you.
I can't help but think that this is another effect of streamlining for the sake of more casual gamers. It's certainly easier to make a decision when you can see all the consequences lined out before you. But doesn't that take away from the gravity of your decisions? You choose to be good or evil for what it gets you, not for how you feel about the consequences.
Let's look back at a game called Deus Ex now.
Here is a game full of moral choices, but with no meter to classify them. You're just as capable of giving a homeless person some change as you are of killing him and taking his stuff. You're also presented with the option of using lethal or non-lethal force in all your encounters. If you've been playing the game like a pure shooter, then you're in for a bit of a surprise when you find out that for a third of the game, you may have been mercilessly slaughtering your new allies.
Even so there is no drawback to using fully lethal force, and you're still allowed to join up with them because they need someone like you desperately. The only punishment is a few 'disappointed in you' comments from some characters. However, this personally bothered me enough that I restricted myself to non-lethal for a large portion of the game on future playthroughs. Fittingly enough, this got me a few 'disappointed in you' comments from other characters.
Later in that same game, I was exploring a new area that contained a closed office building. I promptly broke into it and started looking around for things I could use. As I passed by a phone sitting on a desk, it rang. Expecting to have a bit of a giggle, I answered it. It was an enemy of mine on the other end that was capable of tracking my actions and location. It pointed out that despite the fact that I claimed to be fighting injustice, here I was ignoring whatever laws I found inconvenient.
This made me stop and think a moment. I am an elite cyborg/ninja thing with all sorts of nanomodification. If I were caught doing this, then I could easily overpower or evade the local police and continue on my quest to defeat Evil. As I am on said quest, I have to be as prepared as possible. So, does that mean I get a free pass on doing all sorts of underhanded deeds ranging from theft to murder so long as the people who are supposedly worse than me are stopped?
Now, that is a moral question. We've moved out of a black and white scenario and are operating well within the shades of gray (or purple).
Contrast that with the cut and dry choices in the game inFamous, where your only real concern over who or who not to kill was what kind of powers it worked toward and trophies it unlocked.
The game that made no claim to morality did a better job of expressing it than did the game that touted it as a feature. That's not to say that inFamous isn't a fun and entertaining experience. It's just mindless fun that's trying to stick on a morality bar for extra replay value. I'm looking forward to the sequel anyway and will surely pick it up when I can. I do hope they've done a bit more with it though.
Well, those are my thoughts on the Morality issue. What are yours? Let us know in the comments.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Gamers Getting Ripped Off
Today I logged into Reddit.com and was greeted by this post here. A single post from a forum that got me instantly ticked off. For those of you terrified of the Link Monster, (it's more afraid of you than you are of it, I swear) I'll spell it out here. It shows a link to a hacked save file from the PC version of Dead Space 2 that "not only has all that stuff (some previously bugged 'elite suits'), but all the console-only DLC items as well. About to test this myself, and will confirm once I reach the store. EDIT: Confirmed. Enjoy."
This means that everything they're asking you to pay to unlock on consoles is already on the disc you bought. If you gave them a single penny for a new suit or weapon, then you've been ripped off. You shelled out money to downloaded an unlock code for something you'd already paid for. This is completely unacceptable. It's related a bit to my post a couple weeks ago about the recent emergence of a dependency on patches to fix known problems post release instead of fixing them before shipping. Only here you're not getting a broken product (that I'm aware of; any DS2 owners feel free to chime in in the comments), you're getting charged multiple times for a finished one.
I understand the need to make money. The lousy state of the economy has raised the sale of used games, which means that fewer new copies are being sold, and that translates to less money for the game's devs and producers. That's a problem for them and I get that. But this isn't the way to fix it. I loved the first Dead Space, and am still interested in playing the sequel because from all I've heard it's a quality title. Before hearing this I would gladly have dropped the money on a new copy of this game. Not now though. They've assured I get my copy used. I have no problem paying full price for everything that's on the disc, so I'll make certain to get it for a low enough price to compensate for all those additional charges.
Now, I think DLC is a great idea. The premise is that the developers spent extra time and money creating something in addition to the normal game. For a truly excellent example of DLC done right, look no further that the game Borderlands put out by the company Gearbox. They listened to feedback from fans and decided that there was something more to be done with the game. They put in time and effort to make a quality piece of work that made me want to pay them more just to get more time with their game. And look how much more money they made because of this. Initial game cost $50 USD. DLCs were $9.99 each for the four of them. All told, Gearbox and its publishers made nearly $90 from me alone off that one game and its DLC, not to mention that coinciding with the release of the last DLC they also put out a Game of the Year edition that contained all $90 worth of game and DLC for $50. Compare that with the amounts that the Dead Space 2 guys (I can't say for certain if it was the devs or EA who was responsible for this debacle) will be getting trying to nickel and dime their customers. Borderlands kept putting out quality work and asking their customers to pay them for it. Dead Space 2 put out quality work, then asked their customers to keep paying for it. Tell me, which do you think is going to make more in the long run?
These locked away suits and guns in Dead Space 2 are also an example of so-called Day One DLC, which may or may not be a ripoff depending on how its done. Day One DLC is downloadable content that's available from the time the game hits shelves. Whether or not it's a ripoff depends on two things.
1. Is the content included on the disc the consumer bought, (as is the case here)?
2. Is the content actually additional content and not content that was held back intentionally so that consumers could be charged more for it?
If it meets either of those requirements, then the consumers are most definitely being taken advantage of by someone.
It's especially sad when good games do this. It's hard to be angry at them and yell "No one buy this!" because the game itself is good and you want others to enjoy it too. All I can say again is to vote with your wallet. Support the game, but don't support this type of business model! Give the game rave reviews (if it deserves them) and great praise. But don't spend a cent on their DLC, and maybe this this type of thinking will eventually disappear. Might be a slim hope, but it's the only one we've got.
This means that everything they're asking you to pay to unlock on consoles is already on the disc you bought. If you gave them a single penny for a new suit or weapon, then you've been ripped off. You shelled out money to downloaded an unlock code for something you'd already paid for. This is completely unacceptable. It's related a bit to my post a couple weeks ago about the recent emergence of a dependency on patches to fix known problems post release instead of fixing them before shipping. Only here you're not getting a broken product (that I'm aware of; any DS2 owners feel free to chime in in the comments), you're getting charged multiple times for a finished one.
I understand the need to make money. The lousy state of the economy has raised the sale of used games, which means that fewer new copies are being sold, and that translates to less money for the game's devs and producers. That's a problem for them and I get that. But this isn't the way to fix it. I loved the first Dead Space, and am still interested in playing the sequel because from all I've heard it's a quality title. Before hearing this I would gladly have dropped the money on a new copy of this game. Not now though. They've assured I get my copy used. I have no problem paying full price for everything that's on the disc, so I'll make certain to get it for a low enough price to compensate for all those additional charges.
Now, I think DLC is a great idea. The premise is that the developers spent extra time and money creating something in addition to the normal game. For a truly excellent example of DLC done right, look no further that the game Borderlands put out by the company Gearbox. They listened to feedback from fans and decided that there was something more to be done with the game. They put in time and effort to make a quality piece of work that made me want to pay them more just to get more time with their game. And look how much more money they made because of this. Initial game cost $50 USD. DLCs were $9.99 each for the four of them. All told, Gearbox and its publishers made nearly $90 from me alone off that one game and its DLC, not to mention that coinciding with the release of the last DLC they also put out a Game of the Year edition that contained all $90 worth of game and DLC for $50. Compare that with the amounts that the Dead Space 2 guys (I can't say for certain if it was the devs or EA who was responsible for this debacle) will be getting trying to nickel and dime their customers. Borderlands kept putting out quality work and asking their customers to pay them for it. Dead Space 2 put out quality work, then asked their customers to keep paying for it. Tell me, which do you think is going to make more in the long run?
These locked away suits and guns in Dead Space 2 are also an example of so-called Day One DLC, which may or may not be a ripoff depending on how its done. Day One DLC is downloadable content that's available from the time the game hits shelves. Whether or not it's a ripoff depends on two things.
1. Is the content included on the disc the consumer bought, (as is the case here)?
2. Is the content actually additional content and not content that was held back intentionally so that consumers could be charged more for it?
If it meets either of those requirements, then the consumers are most definitely being taken advantage of by someone.
It's especially sad when good games do this. It's hard to be angry at them and yell "No one buy this!" because the game itself is good and you want others to enjoy it too. All I can say again is to vote with your wallet. Support the game, but don't support this type of business model! Give the game rave reviews (if it deserves them) and great praise. But don't spend a cent on their DLC, and maybe this this type of thinking will eventually disappear. Might be a slim hope, but it's the only one we've got.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Mass Effect 2 PS3 Review
I finished this game recently, and I think it's safe to say that I'm ready for more. And I mean that both ways. What was here was great, but despite sinking just over 40 hours into it, I can't help but feel like there should be more. Let's get to the breakdown.
Presentation: 8
Bioware tells us that this PS3 version of the game is running with the same engine created for its upcoming successor. The effect is somewhat lost on me because I don't have an HD TV. So for me everything looks fine. Not great, but fine. Only real complaint is that the subtitles blend in with the backgrounds far too often and I can end up missing conversation, or not being able to read my dialog choices.
The sound is really very nice. Everything is crisp and clear, and the voices are mostly very well done. Only a few lines are delivered in a cheesy fashion. The rest all come out quite nicely, the female version of our main character (often referred to as "FemShep") in particular. The music in the game is adequate, but nothing really stands out for me.
Story: 8
As a PS3 player, you're coming into the game missing a very large part of the story, and you can definitely tell. There are many points where certain events happened that I could see were significant, but I couldn't tell how. However, by the end of the game you're mostly up to speed, though I was personally left a little confused with too many unanswered questions. I get the feeling that some of these same questions were also unanswered in the last game. Building tension is fine, but don't drag it out too long or you risk loss of interest. Hopefully there will be some answers forthcoming in the next game.
The central story of the game is actually pretty short. Most of the game's story comes from the side missions which have you recruiting new party members, and subsequently doing another mission of about the same length to secure their loyalty, thus unlocking their best abilities and upping their chances for survival. Each of these smaller stories is a welcome bit of character development. But after the first few the formula becomes a bit stale. This is something I hope they can improve on in ME3. Just a matter of preference, I guess, but I'd rather be picking up party members as I pursue the main mission rather than have my mission be to get party members.
Gameplay: 7
I went into this game expecting something like the Star Wars: KotOR games, but ended up with something closer to the Uncharted series. This left me with mixed feelings. You see, in Uncharted you do a lot of cover based combat (that is, most of the time your objective is to get behind a wall or small obstruction, only peeking out for a moment to shoot when the enemy pauses), but it doesn't feel like it. There is tons of cover around, but it just seems like part of the scenery that happens to serve as cover. In this game you can always tell when you're about to enter combat because of the sudden appearance of waist high walls, whether or not there is any reason for them to be there. It really stands out and makes the game predictable. The only thing that really changes up the gunplay at all is the different types of bars you'll be depleting. Enemies can have Barriers, Shields, and Armor in addition to their health that must be depleted before you can begin damaging them. You and your party can have special powers to help with that, but most of the time it's faster just to burn through them. Ammo usually abounds, and when you need it enemies drop it.
Outside of combat things are a little better. You never know when you'll stumble on a sidequest. Conversations are handled nicely too. It's great that your character is not a silent protagonist with few lines of written text. Instead you select a short general idea from a wheel of options and then Shepard has the actual conversation aloud while elaborating on the selected idea. This way Shepard actually has character instead of being a boring blank slate.
ME2 also has an interesting new take on the morality meter mechanic. Instead of being either Good or Evil, you can be as much of both as you want. Selecting certain dialog options or doing mini-QTEs (pressing L2 or R2 when prompted during cutscenes) allows you to fill your Paragon and Renegade gauges separately. This lets you make choices later that tend more to extremes of those views. These choices can effect things later in the game, as well as in the sequel. How? Well, we don't know yet. But it should be interesting to see.
The low point of the entire game is the tedious mining mini-game. It's just boring, and, as I found out after completing the story, largely pointless. I ended up using perhaps a fifth of what all I mined. Sadly, by that time I had already mined every planet in the game dry. When ME3 rolls around, I should have enough raw materials to have built my own space armada. Let's see how the enemy handles 5,000 Normandys!
Seriously though, if I don't get something out of that I'll never play again (until later).
The PS3 version comes with a few extras. If you buy the game new, you'll get a code to download a DLC pack priced at $15 USD for free. So, if you're interested in this title, then get it new while you can. You'll want the Operation Firewalker, Operation Overlord, Zaneed, Kasumi, and Shadow Broker DLCs. They add a much needed bit of diversity to the gameplay.
Perhaps more importantly, you'll get an interactive comic that allows you to read along with the story of the first game and make the same major choices.
Characters: 9
I could go on about these guys and girls (and indeterminates) for a long while, but I'm going to keep it brief to avoid spoilers. I will say that these characters are very well developed and interesting. Fun to talk to and learn about. By the end of the game you'll be wanting to do your best to save them all.
That's right, any and all of the main characters in this game can permanently die...including Shepard. How will they handle this in the sequel? No idea.
Replay value: Fairly high.
This one's tricky. See, what you do here will have a big effect on things in the next title. (Massive, one might even say.) No matter what you do here, you don't know how it will carry over. That means you'll likely want to replay the game. Just not until you see how it all plays out in the sequel.
Overall Score: 8 out of 10
There's more to like here than not, but the parts that do need work really need it. Fortunately those are few. If they spice up the gunplay and make the environments more sensible, then I'm sure ME3 with have no trouble claiming a perfect 10 score.
Presentation: 8
Bioware tells us that this PS3 version of the game is running with the same engine created for its upcoming successor. The effect is somewhat lost on me because I don't have an HD TV. So for me everything looks fine. Not great, but fine. Only real complaint is that the subtitles blend in with the backgrounds far too often and I can end up missing conversation, or not being able to read my dialog choices.
The sound is really very nice. Everything is crisp and clear, and the voices are mostly very well done. Only a few lines are delivered in a cheesy fashion. The rest all come out quite nicely, the female version of our main character (often referred to as "FemShep") in particular. The music in the game is adequate, but nothing really stands out for me.
Story: 8
As a PS3 player, you're coming into the game missing a very large part of the story, and you can definitely tell. There are many points where certain events happened that I could see were significant, but I couldn't tell how. However, by the end of the game you're mostly up to speed, though I was personally left a little confused with too many unanswered questions. I get the feeling that some of these same questions were also unanswered in the last game. Building tension is fine, but don't drag it out too long or you risk loss of interest. Hopefully there will be some answers forthcoming in the next game.
The central story of the game is actually pretty short. Most of the game's story comes from the side missions which have you recruiting new party members, and subsequently doing another mission of about the same length to secure their loyalty, thus unlocking their best abilities and upping their chances for survival. Each of these smaller stories is a welcome bit of character development. But after the first few the formula becomes a bit stale. This is something I hope they can improve on in ME3. Just a matter of preference, I guess, but I'd rather be picking up party members as I pursue the main mission rather than have my mission be to get party members.
Gameplay: 7
I went into this game expecting something like the Star Wars: KotOR games, but ended up with something closer to the Uncharted series. This left me with mixed feelings. You see, in Uncharted you do a lot of cover based combat (that is, most of the time your objective is to get behind a wall or small obstruction, only peeking out for a moment to shoot when the enemy pauses), but it doesn't feel like it. There is tons of cover around, but it just seems like part of the scenery that happens to serve as cover. In this game you can always tell when you're about to enter combat because of the sudden appearance of waist high walls, whether or not there is any reason for them to be there. It really stands out and makes the game predictable. The only thing that really changes up the gunplay at all is the different types of bars you'll be depleting. Enemies can have Barriers, Shields, and Armor in addition to their health that must be depleted before you can begin damaging them. You and your party can have special powers to help with that, but most of the time it's faster just to burn through them. Ammo usually abounds, and when you need it enemies drop it.
Outside of combat things are a little better. You never know when you'll stumble on a sidequest. Conversations are handled nicely too. It's great that your character is not a silent protagonist with few lines of written text. Instead you select a short general idea from a wheel of options and then Shepard has the actual conversation aloud while elaborating on the selected idea. This way Shepard actually has character instead of being a boring blank slate.
ME2 also has an interesting new take on the morality meter mechanic. Instead of being either Good or Evil, you can be as much of both as you want. Selecting certain dialog options or doing mini-QTEs (pressing L2 or R2 when prompted during cutscenes) allows you to fill your Paragon and Renegade gauges separately. This lets you make choices later that tend more to extremes of those views. These choices can effect things later in the game, as well as in the sequel. How? Well, we don't know yet. But it should be interesting to see.
The low point of the entire game is the tedious mining mini-game. It's just boring, and, as I found out after completing the story, largely pointless. I ended up using perhaps a fifth of what all I mined. Sadly, by that time I had already mined every planet in the game dry. When ME3 rolls around, I should have enough raw materials to have built my own space armada. Let's see how the enemy handles 5,000 Normandys!
Seriously though, if I don't get something out of that I'll never play again (until later).
The PS3 version comes with a few extras. If you buy the game new, you'll get a code to download a DLC pack priced at $15 USD for free. So, if you're interested in this title, then get it new while you can. You'll want the Operation Firewalker, Operation Overlord, Zaneed, Kasumi, and Shadow Broker DLCs. They add a much needed bit of diversity to the gameplay.
Perhaps more importantly, you'll get an interactive comic that allows you to read along with the story of the first game and make the same major choices.
Characters: 9
I could go on about these guys and girls (and indeterminates) for a long while, but I'm going to keep it brief to avoid spoilers. I will say that these characters are very well developed and interesting. Fun to talk to and learn about. By the end of the game you'll be wanting to do your best to save them all.
That's right, any and all of the main characters in this game can permanently die...including Shepard. How will they handle this in the sequel? No idea.
Replay value: Fairly high.
This one's tricky. See, what you do here will have a big effect on things in the next title. (Massive, one might even say.) No matter what you do here, you don't know how it will carry over. That means you'll likely want to replay the game. Just not until you see how it all plays out in the sequel.
Overall Score: 8 out of 10
There's more to like here than not, but the parts that do need work really need it. Fortunately those are few. If they spice up the gunplay and make the environments more sensible, then I'm sure ME3 with have no trouble claiming a perfect 10 score.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Quality: Not a Patch on the Old Days?
How many of you out there have played a game with a glitch? Show of hands.
...
Okay. Those of you who raised your hands, please leave the internet. Why would you even do that? You have to know I can't see them. I think it's just better that we cull you from the herd while we still can.
To everyone else, I'm going to guess that-- Hey, what are you doing? No, not the sad face!
Tch. Fine. You can stay.
Where was I? Ah, yes.
I'm going to guess that it hasn't been all that long since you encountered your last glitch. Were you wandering the desert of New Vegas when you suddenly fell through the world? Perhaps you had been cruising the galaxy in Mass Effect 2 for about 30 hours when your save file got corrupted. Maybe an NPC refused to acknowledge that you were dangling the Bloodgrass she wanted in front of her, and so had to roam Cyrodil (minus 1 NPC) as a vampire, permanently unable to interact with most "normal" people. Or you may just be a member of the CoD Glitch of the Month Club. This month it's free kills from attacking corpses. Yay!
Glitches know no boundary. They can hit any game in countless ways. Some can be dealt with by clever means on the part of the player. Others will put an end to your adventures, leaving you with nothing but the dull glow of the cursor sitting on the New Game option.
But what's this? Riding in on the wave of the future, Online Gaming, it's *dramatic pause*
Patch Man!
With this new hero in town all the old frustrating glitches are a thing of the past! In the event a nefarious bug infiltrates your machine, wrecking your saves and putting your digital damsels in distress, you can rest easy knowing that Patch Man will soon be there! Just raise up a cry to the afflicted game's developers and they will chant a mystical code that rolls out their champion to rewrite all wrongs. Yes, life sure is great now that no one's seen a glitch in years...
Oh, wait a second. All those examples up there near the top are from pretty recent titles. What terrible fate has befallen our hero? Is Ash from the Evil Dead movies the one they have chanting the code?
Okay, so maybe I didn't pronounce every single syllable...
No, I'm afraid the reality is much worse. Turns out that instead of using the option to patch a game after release as a way to correct oversights, many companies are using it as an excuse to release unfinished or untested work. Not all of them, of course, but too many.
Let's look back to the old days for a moment. Many games back then had glitches, but how many were the kind that could really take the fun out of a game? You could be pretty certain that if a glitch made it's way into the final product it would be either very minor like the odd clipping issue, or even entertaining like the ungodly amount of things you can do in Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
The point is that if a game came out back then you could be certain it's company's Quality Assurance team had put it through the wringer with beta testing, feedback groups, and hours upon hours of play testing. That's not how it is anymore.
So, who's to blame? Well, everyone really. The developers for making the game wrong to begin with. The publishers for not giving devs the time they needed to make things right, and instead rushing title after title out the door. And lastly, all of us for supporting this type of business model by constantly buying these titles one after another. After all, why would Activision waste time beta testing Black Ops when they can just move on to Modern Warfare 3 in a year's time and collect another $650 million a week after launch?
Corporate greed and our own willingness to jump on the next big thing are the heart of our problems, my friends. If we can conquer our own tendency to head toward the cliff like lemmings whenever a launch day is set, then we can send a message to the publishers that just want the games out as fast as possible. They won't listen to angry rants or sensible criticism. Only the siren's song of Ben Franklin gets their attention.
You know you want me.
Do keep in mind that not every company is like this though. For example, Media Molecule delayed the release of LittleBigPlanet 2 to make sure it was done, even though they said they could have just patched it. Way to go, guys. Quality and customer satisfaction before quick profit. The ball is in our court now. Let's do our best to give support to the companies who care.
...
Okay. Those of you who raised your hands, please leave the internet. Why would you even do that? You have to know I can't see them. I think it's just better that we cull you from the herd while we still can.
To everyone else, I'm going to guess that-- Hey, what are you doing? No, not the sad face!
Where was I? Ah, yes.
I'm going to guess that it hasn't been all that long since you encountered your last glitch. Were you wandering the desert of New Vegas when you suddenly fell through the world? Perhaps you had been cruising the galaxy in Mass Effect 2 for about 30 hours when your save file got corrupted. Maybe an NPC refused to acknowledge that you were dangling the Bloodgrass she wanted in front of her, and so had to roam Cyrodil (minus 1 NPC) as a vampire, permanently unable to interact with most "normal" people. Or you may just be a member of the CoD Glitch of the Month Club. This month it's free kills from attacking corpses. Yay!
Glitches know no boundary. They can hit any game in countless ways. Some can be dealt with by clever means on the part of the player. Others will put an end to your adventures, leaving you with nothing but the dull glow of the cursor sitting on the New Game option.
But what's this? Riding in on the wave of the future, Online Gaming, it's *dramatic pause*
With this new hero in town all the old frustrating glitches are a thing of the past! In the event a nefarious bug infiltrates your machine, wrecking your saves and putting your digital damsels in distress, you can rest easy knowing that Patch Man will soon be there! Just raise up a cry to the afflicted game's developers and they will chant a mystical code that rolls out their champion to rewrite all wrongs. Yes, life sure is great now that no one's seen a glitch in years...
Oh, wait a second. All those examples up there near the top are from pretty recent titles. What terrible fate has befallen our hero? Is Ash from the Evil Dead movies the one they have chanting the code?
No, I'm afraid the reality is much worse. Turns out that instead of using the option to patch a game after release as a way to correct oversights, many companies are using it as an excuse to release unfinished or untested work. Not all of them, of course, but too many.
Let's look back to the old days for a moment. Many games back then had glitches, but how many were the kind that could really take the fun out of a game? You could be pretty certain that if a glitch made it's way into the final product it would be either very minor like the odd clipping issue, or even entertaining like the ungodly amount of things you can do in Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
The point is that if a game came out back then you could be certain it's company's Quality Assurance team had put it through the wringer with beta testing, feedback groups, and hours upon hours of play testing. That's not how it is anymore.
So, who's to blame? Well, everyone really. The developers for making the game wrong to begin with. The publishers for not giving devs the time they needed to make things right, and instead rushing title after title out the door. And lastly, all of us for supporting this type of business model by constantly buying these titles one after another. After all, why would Activision waste time beta testing Black Ops when they can just move on to Modern Warfare 3 in a year's time and collect another $650 million a week after launch?
Corporate greed and our own willingness to jump on the next big thing are the heart of our problems, my friends. If we can conquer our own tendency to head toward the cliff like lemmings whenever a launch day is set, then we can send a message to the publishers that just want the games out as fast as possible. They won't listen to angry rants or sensible criticism. Only the siren's song of Ben Franklin gets their attention.
Do keep in mind that not every company is like this though. For example, Media Molecule delayed the release of LittleBigPlanet 2 to make sure it was done, even though they said they could have just patched it. Way to go, guys. Quality and customer satisfaction before quick profit. The ball is in our court now. Let's do our best to give support to the companies who care.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Black Ops: Thoughts on the Prestige System
Well, it's the future now. 2011. Still no flying car. Sure, swinging from vine to vine is okay for local travel. But what about when you want to visit places outside the jungle? What's a monkey to do? Oh, well. At least there are some new things. You're looking at one of them.
Hello and welcome to the first ever blog post from the Sixth Nation of Gamers. What's the purpose of this blog, you ask? Well, it's mainly to give you some opinions on various aspects of games and gaming. Because if we all know one thing, it's that the internet is sorely lacking in opinions. Other than that, I'll be posting various reviews for games I play, as well as anything informative or amusing I happen across in my online wanderings. I've already got a bit of a backlog on reviews for games which you can find here.
I decided to open with a few thoughts about a popular game these days, Call of Duty: Black Ops. Now, I know what you're thinking. "This is just going to be either another list of complaints and whining, or someone telling everyone to stop complaining. If I wanted that, I'd visit the official forums." Well, you're wrong. Mostly.
Let me start by saying, I've played a good bit so far and enjoyed it for the most part. I could babble on complaining about the host migrations, the hit detection issues, trouble with the party system, and other technical problems that can get in the way of the fun, but ultimately I'd just have to admit there's a reason I've put more than 80 hours into it so far.
It's fun.
Yes, I hope these issues get resolved, but that's not what I'm talking about today. No, today's discussion is about the Prestige feature.
God no, not that terrible electro-clone movie. *shudders*
I mean the option to reset to level 1 once you complete level 50. I've done it myself and intend to do it several more times. I probably would have shelved the game by now without this feature. It's a great way to keep the game fresh. It makes me use guns I would otherwise ignore. Grant you, I still usually make my way back to my trusty AK47 because it fits so well with my play style. Still, I wouldn't have even touched LMGs or sniper rifles if I hadn't had my assault rifle security blanket taken away. I would have missed out on trying to learn new ways to play.
So, is there something I take issue with? Well, here's a chart straight from the CoD Wiki:
Prestige Level Unlock
Prestige 1 Prestige Leaderboard, Prestige Team Deathmatch, Custom Class 6, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 2 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 3 Custom Class 7, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 4 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 5 Custom Class 8, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 6 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 7 Custom Class 9, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 8 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 9 Custom Class 10, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 10 New Emblem, New Background, Prestige Hardcore
Prestige 11 Face Paints, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 12 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 13 Clan Tag Colors, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 14 Golden Camouflage, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 15 Prestige Pure, New Emblem, New Background
You get new emblems and backgrounds each time, other than that you have to prestige 10 times to get anything other than an additional custom class out of it. Now, I'm not exactly the most competitive player, so maybe there's some reason to keep 9 additional classes on hand that I'm unaware of. I only keep two set up myself. One for Run & Gun and one for full on Anti-Air. Now, I can fully understand wanting to keep an extra class for large and small maps specifically, or to just be able to change up what your enemy has to deal with. Even then, how many do you really need? Five or six? So, why do we get ten? They may not be much, but I'd really rather have some of the other stuff earlier, like clan tag colors, or face paint. And really, how many people are going to get to 15 and play Prestige Pure? How hard would it be to actually find a game on there? I'd expect anyone who reaches that level to spend quite a long time searching. And when they did get a game, what are the odds that they'll get it with an acceptable amount of lag?
It occurred to me that the devs already have a solution to this problem. It just isn't applied to this aspect. Like with weapons and perks, why not let the player choose what they unlock? Leave the Emblems and backgrounds be, but let us decide whether or not we want another class or an additional camo option? In my humble opinion, I think giving each person a choice in this matter would make the most players happy. You see, the hardcore players will still fight their way up to prestige 15 no matter what's there, and they still get their emblem to show off. The casuals might only prestige once or twice, but can snag the stuff that makes them happy. You leave an overall positive impression on everyone.
Well, that's it for this fist look at the View from the Treetops. Thanks for reading, and let us know what you think in the comments.
Hello and welcome to the first ever blog post from the Sixth Nation of Gamers. What's the purpose of this blog, you ask? Well, it's mainly to give you some opinions on various aspects of games and gaming. Because if we all know one thing, it's that the internet is sorely lacking in opinions. Other than that, I'll be posting various reviews for games I play, as well as anything informative or amusing I happen across in my online wanderings. I've already got a bit of a backlog on reviews for games which you can find here.
I decided to open with a few thoughts about a popular game these days, Call of Duty: Black Ops. Now, I know what you're thinking. "This is just going to be either another list of complaints and whining, or someone telling everyone to stop complaining. If I wanted that, I'd visit the official forums." Well, you're wrong. Mostly.
Let me start by saying, I've played a good bit so far and enjoyed it for the most part. I could babble on complaining about the host migrations, the hit detection issues, trouble with the party system, and other technical problems that can get in the way of the fun, but ultimately I'd just have to admit there's a reason I've put more than 80 hours into it so far.
It's fun.
Yes, I hope these issues get resolved, but that's not what I'm talking about today. No, today's discussion is about the Prestige feature.
God no, not that terrible electro-clone movie. *shudders*I mean the option to reset to level 1 once you complete level 50. I've done it myself and intend to do it several more times. I probably would have shelved the game by now without this feature. It's a great way to keep the game fresh. It makes me use guns I would otherwise ignore. Grant you, I still usually make my way back to my trusty AK47 because it fits so well with my play style. Still, I wouldn't have even touched LMGs or sniper rifles if I hadn't had my assault rifle security blanket taken away. I would have missed out on trying to learn new ways to play.
So, is there something I take issue with? Well, here's a chart straight from the CoD Wiki:
Prestige Level Unlock
Prestige 1 Prestige Leaderboard, Prestige Team Deathmatch, Custom Class 6, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 2 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 3 Custom Class 7, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 4 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 5 Custom Class 8, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 6 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 7 Custom Class 9, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 8 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 9 Custom Class 10, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 10 New Emblem, New Background, Prestige Hardcore
Prestige 11 Face Paints, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 12 New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 13 Clan Tag Colors, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 14 Golden Camouflage, New Emblem, New Background
Prestige 15 Prestige Pure, New Emblem, New Background
You get new emblems and backgrounds each time, other than that you have to prestige 10 times to get anything other than an additional custom class out of it. Now, I'm not exactly the most competitive player, so maybe there's some reason to keep 9 additional classes on hand that I'm unaware of. I only keep two set up myself. One for Run & Gun and one for full on Anti-Air. Now, I can fully understand wanting to keep an extra class for large and small maps specifically, or to just be able to change up what your enemy has to deal with. Even then, how many do you really need? Five or six? So, why do we get ten? They may not be much, but I'd really rather have some of the other stuff earlier, like clan tag colors, or face paint. And really, how many people are going to get to 15 and play Prestige Pure? How hard would it be to actually find a game on there? I'd expect anyone who reaches that level to spend quite a long time searching. And when they did get a game, what are the odds that they'll get it with an acceptable amount of lag?
It occurred to me that the devs already have a solution to this problem. It just isn't applied to this aspect. Like with weapons and perks, why not let the player choose what they unlock? Leave the Emblems and backgrounds be, but let us decide whether or not we want another class or an additional camo option? In my humble opinion, I think giving each person a choice in this matter would make the most players happy. You see, the hardcore players will still fight their way up to prestige 15 no matter what's there, and they still get their emblem to show off. The casuals might only prestige once or twice, but can snag the stuff that makes them happy. You leave an overall positive impression on everyone.
Well, that's it for this fist look at the View from the Treetops. Thanks for reading, and let us know what you think in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)