Ico -- PS2, rereleased for PS3 in HD
Ico is the first of two games along the same theme by a small japanese studio. Similar to many of the games I like and play, most aspects of the game are relatively minimalistic. The story is never really made clear, however here is what I've gathered from the internet. You are Ico, a boy thought to be cursed because he was born with horns. The beginning of the game shows you being brought into the castle and locked up in what is essentially a sarcophagus. Then a tremor shakes the castle and your sarcophagus falls and breaks open, allowing you free. The game gives no direction, but you relatively quickly happen across an ephemeral girl, clad all in white, in a cage. Once freed, you and she attempt to escape the castle. But you find out that she is the princess, and her mother, the queen, doesnt want her to leave.
The majority of the game seems to be driven by the relationship between Ico and Yorba. To start, it is never really made clear what their relationship is. Though they certainly act like a couple--Ico refuses to leave without Yorba--they never really show affection, nor do they even speak the same language. What is interesting however is that the queen and indeed all the creatures of the castle are essentially indifferent to Ico. What motivates both the puzzles and the challenges in this game is Yorba. With all of the puzzles the challenge is not to move Ico forwards--he can essentially scale the walls--but to create a path for the less nimble Yorba. All of the fights are about fighting back black spirits which attempt to take Yorba. The most attention the spirits pay you is to knock you over when you try to save the princess. As such it feels to an extent like you are playing a sidekick, an aide to the real main character. And to be sure, you do need her as well, only she can open doors throughout the castle, but most of what you do is help her without reason.
I also found the win condition interesting [Spoilers ahead]. Simply escaping the castle with Yorba is impossible. The game does not allow Yorba to leave the castle, even once you both get out to the front gate and open it. In order to "win" you must kill the queen and destroy the castle itself. Furthermore, in doing so your horns, the defining characteristic by which you were cursed at the start of the game, are cut off. The construction of the game almost suggests to me an internal struggle, Yorba being good, and the queen being bad. In losing your horns you are removing that negative side and freeing the good.
Lastly a note about the graphics. The game was actually rereleased in high definition. That said, all that really means is that they smoothed out the lines, the animations weren't updated at all. I did play in 3D however. It was the first game I played in 3D, and I must say, I liked it. Part of why I liked it however was that I didnt often notice it. Because it was a port to 3D, and not the intended play the 3D really did just serve the role of making it slightly more real. There were no flashy effects, it didnt feel like lens flare the way 3D normally does. I thought that was nice.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
Assassin's Creed--Ps3
The latest installment in the Assassin's Creed series didn't introduce anything new. That said it is a playstyle I generally like, so I was happy to play it anyways. This time through I didn't play the multiplayer, which was a feature that I really liked in the last one, but I have other games that need my time. Generally I felt the story improved in this one, and the missions were a bit more dynamic, less repetitive. It more often asked you to remain hidden, which actually required a bit of thought.
The one part I felt was still clunky was the recruiting assassins. The interface felt difficult and completing it brought no real benefit. Still, another good Assassin's Creed. I look forward to playing the next one.
The latest installment in the Assassin's Creed series didn't introduce anything new. That said it is a playstyle I generally like, so I was happy to play it anyways. This time through I didn't play the multiplayer, which was a feature that I really liked in the last one, but I have other games that need my time. Generally I felt the story improved in this one, and the missions were a bit more dynamic, less repetitive. It more often asked you to remain hidden, which actually required a bit of thought.
The one part I felt was still clunky was the recruiting assassins. The interface felt difficult and completing it brought no real benefit. Still, another good Assassin's Creed. I look forward to playing the next one.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Diablo III Beta
Diablo III Beta (invitation only, battle.net tied, PCs and Macs, no consoles)-
So I was lucky enough to recieve a beta invitation to Diablo III. I had never played 1 or 2, but I had heard good things so I decided to take a day off of Skyrim to try it. My reaction? Mixed. I felt like it was fun, but barely a taste. It took me I think 3 hours, but after completing it I could use 3 skills. I only even needed two. Now if this was presented as the intro that would be one thing, but it looked like what was implemented was about a third of the game. I am actually not against the shortening of games as a trend, but I did feel this game lacked complexity or nuance. For something touted as a role-playing game, there was surprisingly little roleplaying--no dialogue choices or character development. The fighting was fun, though generally not difficult. That too seems to be a trend, people like feeling able to destroy 15 people at a time.
I guess the general trend is that I would like to see the game developed more. More story, more character, more complexity. Hopefully they do that as they move out of beta, rather than just fixing bugs and adding six more hours.
So I was lucky enough to recieve a beta invitation to Diablo III. I had never played 1 or 2, but I had heard good things so I decided to take a day off of Skyrim to try it. My reaction? Mixed. I felt like it was fun, but barely a taste. It took me I think 3 hours, but after completing it I could use 3 skills. I only even needed two. Now if this was presented as the intro that would be one thing, but it looked like what was implemented was about a third of the game. I am actually not against the shortening of games as a trend, but I did feel this game lacked complexity or nuance. For something touted as a role-playing game, there was surprisingly little roleplaying--no dialogue choices or character development. The fighting was fun, though generally not difficult. That too seems to be a trend, people like feeling able to destroy 15 people at a time.
I guess the general trend is that I would like to see the game developed more. More story, more character, more complexity. Hopefully they do that as they move out of beta, rather than just fixing bugs and adding six more hours.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Portal II
Portal II- (on steam, I played on PS3)
Portal one stands for me as my #1 game of all time. As such, the second iteration had a lot to live up to. As a standalone game it was certainly excellent, but in comparison with the first I found it lacking. What I really liked about the first one was the depth and complexity to which it took one, single mechanic. With II, they introduced three different types of "gel," portally, bouncy and speedy, and also two types of "light bridge." Personally, I found this to be overcomplicated. I agree that something new would have been needed, but I felt that one gel and one light would have been more than enough. The mechanics added however were basically aimed at allowing greater manipulation of your environment, bridges adding land up high, and gels changing where you can get to. While thats an endeavor I would support, having multiple mechanics ended up meaning that giving the player too much freedom with them would make every puzzle way to easy, and restrictions were required on what could be reached when. Those restrictions forced the puzzles into a much more linear nature than the first game, where all the rooms were portalable almost everywhere. Being linear, I found the difficulty of the puzzles was generally decreased as well (and it wasn't that high in the first game). Though it still felt unique, Portal II played a lot more like an "average" game than did the first one.
In the same vein, I really didn't like the characters in Portal II. As you probably have found out, Portal simply contains you (Chell) and Glados. You never really see yourself, let alone develop Chell as a character, and so all you are really interacting with is this vaguely robotic feminine voice which is constantly lieing and berating you. Despite that, Glados was a character I really found myself liking. In the second iteration, Glados is almost immediately replaced by Wheatley, presented as a sort of bumbling idiot. Glados becomes something of an accomplice as you seek to usurp Wheatley, not due to his being evil, but simply because he is incompetant and unable to run Aperture Science Buildings without blowing them up. Not only did I find his idiocy annoying, but I found Glados going soft and playing nice to be wholly disappointing. Outside of that they added more of an actual plot and character development to them, which, though well intended, I found to be a bit corny and cheesy and overall not very fun for the game.
That all said, there was one thing which I really liked about the game--the multiplayer. I actually played through all of the multiplayer on my own with two controllers, so I'm not sure I experienced the collaborative nature, but from what I did with my brother, they dealt well with giving us ways of directing each other and clearly communicating what we wanted done. The puzzles however were a real step up from the single player game. Having four portals instead of two meant that the complexity was naturally increased, and having two bodies to keep track of necessarily removed a lot of the linearity of the one-player game. On top of that, they left off a lot of the extra whistles and bells, and when the gels and lights were present, I thought they really did add things and make fun mechanics.
All this said, I did rather enjoy the game, and I do think its an excellent game, it only has these flaws in comparison with the first iteration. Definitely still worth the playtime.
(I suppose at some point I should go back and review the original Portal, but that is a project for another time)
Portal one stands for me as my #1 game of all time. As such, the second iteration had a lot to live up to. As a standalone game it was certainly excellent, but in comparison with the first I found it lacking. What I really liked about the first one was the depth and complexity to which it took one, single mechanic. With II, they introduced three different types of "gel," portally, bouncy and speedy, and also two types of "light bridge." Personally, I found this to be overcomplicated. I agree that something new would have been needed, but I felt that one gel and one light would have been more than enough. The mechanics added however were basically aimed at allowing greater manipulation of your environment, bridges adding land up high, and gels changing where you can get to. While thats an endeavor I would support, having multiple mechanics ended up meaning that giving the player too much freedom with them would make every puzzle way to easy, and restrictions were required on what could be reached when. Those restrictions forced the puzzles into a much more linear nature than the first game, where all the rooms were portalable almost everywhere. Being linear, I found the difficulty of the puzzles was generally decreased as well (and it wasn't that high in the first game). Though it still felt unique, Portal II played a lot more like an "average" game than did the first one.
In the same vein, I really didn't like the characters in Portal II. As you probably have found out, Portal simply contains you (Chell) and Glados. You never really see yourself, let alone develop Chell as a character, and so all you are really interacting with is this vaguely robotic feminine voice which is constantly lieing and berating you. Despite that, Glados was a character I really found myself liking. In the second iteration, Glados is almost immediately replaced by Wheatley, presented as a sort of bumbling idiot. Glados becomes something of an accomplice as you seek to usurp Wheatley, not due to his being evil, but simply because he is incompetant and unable to run Aperture Science Buildings without blowing them up. Not only did I find his idiocy annoying, but I found Glados going soft and playing nice to be wholly disappointing. Outside of that they added more of an actual plot and character development to them, which, though well intended, I found to be a bit corny and cheesy and overall not very fun for the game.
That all said, there was one thing which I really liked about the game--the multiplayer. I actually played through all of the multiplayer on my own with two controllers, so I'm not sure I experienced the collaborative nature, but from what I did with my brother, they dealt well with giving us ways of directing each other and clearly communicating what we wanted done. The puzzles however were a real step up from the single player game. Having four portals instead of two meant that the complexity was naturally increased, and having two bodies to keep track of necessarily removed a lot of the linearity of the one-player game. On top of that, they left off a lot of the extra whistles and bells, and when the gels and lights were present, I thought they really did add things and make fun mechanics.
All this said, I did rather enjoy the game, and I do think its an excellent game, it only has these flaws in comparison with the first iteration. Definitely still worth the playtime.
(I suppose at some point I should go back and review the original Portal, but that is a project for another time)
Braid
Braid- (on steam, exists for Mac)
This one is another indie game, and another very basic premise. It is decidedly a puzzle/platformer. The only real mechanic in this game is that you can control time. That's it. That's all you get. There are platforms and things that are immune to time manipulation, there are rooms where you control time simply by moving forwards and backwards, there are rooms where its buttons, but generally this is a simple game, with some rather difficult puzzles. The story is basically that you are chasing after a long lost love. There is a major twist at the end, which I wont ruin here should you choose to play through this, but I actually did not find the story that compelling. What I found to be the most salient interesting feature to this game was the unorthodox death mechanic. The game put no limits on your time control, and as such death really comes to feel nonexistent. After you realize that there is no penalty imposed it really ceases to be a stigma, and the gameplay really becomes simply continuous. It was very strange to play a game where you can fail time and time again, and feel no penalty, not even have to reload or restart the level. I find a fairly major flaw in this game for not teaching the user the mechanics. Though there is just the time control, whenever new methods of control (the movement levels for instance) or new submechanics (time-immune mobs for instance) appear they give no explanation, and so much of the challenge for me was simply figuring out how to work the game, which was frustrating and not all that fun.
This one is another indie game, and another very basic premise. It is decidedly a puzzle/platformer. The only real mechanic in this game is that you can control time. That's it. That's all you get. There are platforms and things that are immune to time manipulation, there are rooms where you control time simply by moving forwards and backwards, there are rooms where its buttons, but generally this is a simple game, with some rather difficult puzzles. The story is basically that you are chasing after a long lost love. There is a major twist at the end, which I wont ruin here should you choose to play through this, but I actually did not find the story that compelling. What I found to be the most salient interesting feature to this game was the unorthodox death mechanic. The game put no limits on your time control, and as such death really comes to feel nonexistent. After you realize that there is no penalty imposed it really ceases to be a stigma, and the gameplay really becomes simply continuous. It was very strange to play a game where you can fail time and time again, and feel no penalty, not even have to reload or restart the level. I find a fairly major flaw in this game for not teaching the user the mechanics. Though there is just the time control, whenever new methods of control (the movement levels for instance) or new submechanics (time-immune mobs for instance) appear they give no explanation, and so much of the challenge for me was simply figuring out how to work the game, which was frustrating and not all that fun.
Limbo
Limbo- (on steam, I recommend it highly if you have a PC/bootcamp. Also on PS3) [It is now also available for the mac]
This is an indie game. That said, its an incredibly beautiful indie game, and perhaps my favorite so far (though I did like Heavy Rain). It is exceedingly minimalistic, both artistically, and mechanically. I believe there are 3 controls--one to move, one to jump, and one action button. It is two dimensional, and I suppose it would technically be a platformer, though it could also be called a puzzler. This is one game that I find to be visually stunning despite its minimal nature. It is all Black/white/shades of gray, but really, just google image Limbo, it's beautiful. The story is fairly minimal as well, you don't really have any idea why you are there, or what your goal is, but if I remember correctly, you do feel a sense of purpose, it's just purpose unknown.
This game I also found to be rather deep. There isn't really a plot, but the challenges do have a sort of progression. You start out facing a spider, then some people throw spears at you, you never really know why, and then you come across electrified, if abandoned, signs, and the electric current is your main enemy. Then you move on to avoiding chain guns (machine guns), and finally work your way through what seems like a factory, where you can manipulate large objects as well as gravity. What stunned me was around when I hit the machine guns I realized that the game very easily stands as a metaphor for human progress. The way I've described it, that seems rather clear, but the game really does set it up subtly and beautifully. My dad also claimed he saw it as progression through an individual human life. It ends coming back to about the same scene it starts with, in this beautiful circular way. If you only play one game from my reviews so far, make it this one.
This is an indie game. That said, its an incredibly beautiful indie game, and perhaps my favorite so far (though I did like Heavy Rain). It is exceedingly minimalistic, both artistically, and mechanically. I believe there are 3 controls--one to move, one to jump, and one action button. It is two dimensional, and I suppose it would technically be a platformer, though it could also be called a puzzler. This is one game that I find to be visually stunning despite its minimal nature. It is all Black/white/shades of gray, but really, just google image Limbo, it's beautiful. The story is fairly minimal as well, you don't really have any idea why you are there, or what your goal is, but if I remember correctly, you do feel a sense of purpose, it's just purpose unknown.
This game I also found to be rather deep. There isn't really a plot, but the challenges do have a sort of progression. You start out facing a spider, then some people throw spears at you, you never really know why, and then you come across electrified, if abandoned, signs, and the electric current is your main enemy. Then you move on to avoiding chain guns (machine guns), and finally work your way through what seems like a factory, where you can manipulate large objects as well as gravity. What stunned me was around when I hit the machine guns I realized that the game very easily stands as a metaphor for human progress. The way I've described it, that seems rather clear, but the game really does set it up subtly and beautifully. My dad also claimed he saw it as progression through an individual human life. It ends coming back to about the same scene it starts with, in this beautiful circular way. If you only play one game from my reviews so far, make it this one.
Heavy Rain
Heavy Rain- (PS3)
My normal description of this is not as a game, but as an interactive thriller. Akin to those books that say "turn to page 73 if you want to open the door, otherwise, page 27." The difference, however, is that as a game this is artfully constructed, and it does a very good job of making you feel like a part of the action. It is a whodunit, and the basic premise is that a father loses his son to a car accident (not his fault), and when his other son get's kidnapped, he is put through a series of trials by the "origami killer" to try to save his son. Meanwhile, he is dealing with serious depression and feelings of inadequacy as a father. Again, it's notable for the connection you make with the characters. I remember vividly [Spoiler] one of the trials which involves cutting your pinky off. The mechanic used is one where you have to hold down a bunch of buttons simultaneously, and with each new button you add he gets closer to cutting off his finger. When he (I) did it, I definitely screamed. My dad came down to see what was wrong. Aside from the father you also play as a detective, and as a policeman. As such, you are gathering knowledge in several different ways simultaneously. It really is a thrilling game to play, and a well told story.
[Warning-this next part spoils the ending, read at your own risk]
My only complaint is that most of the game is spent setting up the father as the killer, with next to no indications as to who it actually is. I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a twist, but there are some gaping plotholes created by the father being set up totally as the killer. At least make it somewhat plausible.
My normal description of this is not as a game, but as an interactive thriller. Akin to those books that say "turn to page 73 if you want to open the door, otherwise, page 27." The difference, however, is that as a game this is artfully constructed, and it does a very good job of making you feel like a part of the action. It is a whodunit, and the basic premise is that a father loses his son to a car accident (not his fault), and when his other son get's kidnapped, he is put through a series of trials by the "origami killer" to try to save his son. Meanwhile, he is dealing with serious depression and feelings of inadequacy as a father. Again, it's notable for the connection you make with the characters. I remember vividly [Spoiler] one of the trials which involves cutting your pinky off. The mechanic used is one where you have to hold down a bunch of buttons simultaneously, and with each new button you add he gets closer to cutting off his finger. When he (I) did it, I definitely screamed. My dad came down to see what was wrong. Aside from the father you also play as a detective, and as a policeman. As such, you are gathering knowledge in several different ways simultaneously. It really is a thrilling game to play, and a well told story.
[Warning-this next part spoils the ending, read at your own risk]
My only complaint is that most of the game is spent setting up the father as the killer, with next to no indications as to who it actually is. I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a twist, but there are some gaping plotholes created by the father being set up totally as the killer. At least make it somewhat plausible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)