Curmudgeon Gamer
30 December 2008
The Other Side
Eurogamer's crew put Tomb Raider: Underworld at #19 on its list of 2008's top games. I rated it a stinker. Comments like these I simply cannot understand:
Also, I am pretty frustrated with IGN's review of Super Stardust Portable. I think the game is brilliant, because it achieves much of the same challenge on the PSP that you can find on the PS3, with suitable modifications. Having gone back to the PS3 version for a bit before leaving for the holidays, I realized that Portable is in fact a far different game. Still exciting and brilliant, but different.
So I was annoyed to read:
The folks that I see as the traditional gaming critics and I have somehow parted ways in the past year. I'm not sure what changed. I don't think it's that I'm more casual or hardcore -- my goals and sense of enjoyment have changed, and my taste in games accordingly.
Kristan Reed: [...] By building on the more exploratory approach of Anniversary and giving the series the best game engine by a mile, Crystal Dynamics delivered what amounts to the first 'proper' new Tomb Raider since 1999's Last Revelation. Apart from that ridiculous swimming bit near the beginning, it's got everything you want in a Lara game - great controls, taxing puzzles and oodles of atmosphere.Yes. EVERYTHING you want in a Lara game.
Simon Parkin: Some critics have misconstrued Underworld's precision and polish for soullessness and yes, there are times when the design's meticulous order robs its world of credibility. But really this is a game of supreme competence, executed by a developer that understands its heroine and the laws of her universe in full.I never understood Lara, I suppose, since I missed the whole brooding, harpy Lara who misses her dear lost Mommy from the original games.
John Walker: The entire world has gone bats*** insane. Look at the reviews for this, and the reviews for the dreadful Prince of Persia, and then bang your head against a wall until you're dead. This is the best Tomb Raider has ever been, and I'm losing my mind over people's false memories of the original games, and the lack of recognition for the astonishing architecture and puzzle design here. It's epic. The story is complete toss, which is a colossal shame after Legend set things up so nicely. But this is a game about solving puzzles the size of hillsides while fluidly and beautifully leaping about. That POP could get higher review scores while being so loathsomely stupid as to be a series of tediously connected boss fights, and Tomb Raider could have the balls to include not one single boss encounter but instead replace them with elaborate and ingenious challenges and not get championed, makes me want to set fire to all of gaming.I think this is where I diverge from the traditional gaming culture. Punishing games with cheap design simply don't entertain me like games with stories and character and mechanics that allow me to enjoy the flow instead of repeat it ad nauseum.
Also, I am pretty frustrated with IGN's review of Super Stardust Portable. I think the game is brilliant, because it achieves much of the same challenge on the PSP that you can find on the PS3, with suitable modifications. Having gone back to the PS3 version for a bit before leaving for the holidays, I realized that Portable is in fact a far different game. Still exciting and brilliant, but different.
So I was annoyed to read:
If you're a hardcore Super Stardust HD player, Super Stardust Portable will feel totally alien to you. If you're trying this out for the first time, things won't be as tough but the game is still very clearly designed around different hardware -- it just wasn't made for the PSP. If you can get by these restrictions, you'll enjoy the download, but veterans beware.This simply was not true for me. The fact that I was (in my own eyes) a veteran SSHD player meant that I was more disposed to understand and work with the adaptations, not fight against them. I knew it couldn't be the same as the PS3 game, embraced the differences, and found a gem of a game.
The folks that I see as the traditional gaming critics and I have somehow parted ways in the past year. I'm not sure what changed. I don't think it's that I'm more casual or hardcore -- my goals and sense of enjoyment have changed, and my taste in games accordingly.
Labels: other opinions, reviews
--jvm at 11:00
Comment
[ 3 ]
23 December 2008
Review: Super Stardust Portable (PSP)
Super Stardust HD is one of the finest PlayStation 3 games ever made. Yes, it looks like pure eyecandy, but the gripping, seat-of-your-pants gameplay stands the test of time. I recently commented that Space Invaders Extreme is to the original what Tempest 2000 was to Tempest, and I'm tempted to compare SSHD to Asteroids. Honestly, that's the wrong comparison. It is a new Robotron: 2084 for the HD generation.
When I heard the Super Stardust HD developer, Housemarque, was making a PSP version I laughed out loud. How do you condense a two-joystick game with countless objects on the screen at any given moment onto a handheld with only one analog nub (not even a stick!) and far reduced RAM and CPU capabilities? "Madness!" I thought, "It will look and play terribly."
I was wrong. (Regular readers no doubt are used to that by now.) In fact, it is now one of the finest PSP games I've ever played.
The second joystick -- used for shooting -- is handled with the four right buttons, used as a directional pad, but that's just the obvious bit. The brilliant part is that tapping a direction will generate a wide spread of random shots. The gold melter, which is one of the key weapons to master, will fire out a pleasing sinusoidal wave using this tapping approach, mimicking just the way I use it in the PS3 version. And holding down all four buttons (not difficult, in my experience) will fire the melter in a swift circular pattern -- again, just as I've used it many times in the other version.
Graphically, the game gives the appearance of handling enough objects that it really doesn't matter if falls short of the PS3's billions. Everything looks beautiful, and I'd say it's one of the better demonstrations of the PSP's abilities. One important difference here is that the spherical play surface in the original has been replaced with a spherical-looking background image and a toroidal playfield. (The use of a torus to give the illusion of a sphere is a trick I last saw in Tetrisphere on the Nintendo 64.)
The only quibble, and it's not difficult once you learn to cope, is that weapon selection is on the D-pad. That's awkward, and I'd make a couple of suggestions to improve it. First, there should be a way to map the D-pad directions to a particular weapon; for example, I should be able to make up select the rock crusher, right the gold melter, and down the ice splitter. This would eliminate some of the frustration. The final direction could be used as a cycler, or (better) a means of selecting the most upgraded weapon currently available.
The pacing has been tweaked a bit to make accomodate the adjustments in the controls. The result is a game which has kept me in awe for a solid week, and shows no intention of slowing down. I've sunk over 6 hours into this version already, and that was during a busy week when I've also been playing BioShock and doing holiday chores. (For comparison, I have well over 12 hours in the PS3 game.)
I've realized, in the meantime, that Robotron: 2084 was ultimately the correct comparison. After all, one of my favorite versions of that classic arcade game is on a handheld. The Atari Lynx version of Robotron: 2084 uses just a D-pad and two firing buttons, but still has a very clever solution to the independent firing problem that impresses me to this day: the two buttons are used to rotate a constant stream of shots while the D-pad handles movement.
When I heard the Super Stardust HD developer, Housemarque, was making a PSP version I laughed out loud. How do you condense a two-joystick game with countless objects on the screen at any given moment onto a handheld with only one analog nub (not even a stick!) and far reduced RAM and CPU capabilities? "Madness!" I thought, "It will look and play terribly."
I was wrong. (Regular readers no doubt are used to that by now.) In fact, it is now one of the finest PSP games I've ever played.
The second joystick -- used for shooting -- is handled with the four right buttons, used as a directional pad, but that's just the obvious bit. The brilliant part is that tapping a direction will generate a wide spread of random shots. The gold melter, which is one of the key weapons to master, will fire out a pleasing sinusoidal wave using this tapping approach, mimicking just the way I use it in the PS3 version. And holding down all four buttons (not difficult, in my experience) will fire the melter in a swift circular pattern -- again, just as I've used it many times in the other version.
Graphically, the game gives the appearance of handling enough objects that it really doesn't matter if falls short of the PS3's billions. Everything looks beautiful, and I'd say it's one of the better demonstrations of the PSP's abilities. One important difference here is that the spherical play surface in the original has been replaced with a spherical-looking background image and a toroidal playfield. (The use of a torus to give the illusion of a sphere is a trick I last saw in Tetrisphere on the Nintendo 64.)
The only quibble, and it's not difficult once you learn to cope, is that weapon selection is on the D-pad. That's awkward, and I'd make a couple of suggestions to improve it. First, there should be a way to map the D-pad directions to a particular weapon; for example, I should be able to make up select the rock crusher, right the gold melter, and down the ice splitter. This would eliminate some of the frustration. The final direction could be used as a cycler, or (better) a means of selecting the most upgraded weapon currently available.
The pacing has been tweaked a bit to make accomodate the adjustments in the controls. The result is a game which has kept me in awe for a solid week, and shows no intention of slowing down. I've sunk over 6 hours into this version already, and that was during a busy week when I've also been playing BioShock and doing holiday chores. (For comparison, I have well over 12 hours in the PS3 game.)
I've realized, in the meantime, that Robotron: 2084 was ultimately the correct comparison. After all, one of my favorite versions of that classic arcade game is on a handheld. The Atari Lynx version of Robotron: 2084 uses just a D-pad and two firing buttons, but still has a very clever solution to the independent firing problem that impresses me to this day: the two buttons are used to rotate a constant stream of shots while the D-pad handles movement.
--jvm at 23:07
Comment
[ 0 ]
21 December 2008
Winners 2008
With the stinkers out of the way, time for the good stuff.
Enjoyable games of 2008, in no particular order:
Best experience of the year is definitely Prince of Persia.
Best play is definitely Burnout Paradise.
Best handheld game ... this is the hard one ... I'll go with Professor Layton. Still, you can't really go wrong with Super Stardust Portable, Space Invaders Extreme, or God of War.
What a great year. Here's hoping 2009 can keep up the pace, and so can I.
(Addendum: I'm currently playing BioShock. It still has time to make the list, I suppose.)
Enjoyable games of 2008, in no particular order:
- Prince of Persia (PS3) - Beautiful story, entertaining action. (review)
- Burnout Paradise (PS3) - Adrenaline distilled (and downloadable).
- PixelJunk Monsters (PS3/PSN) - Cute twist on Tower Defense.
- Super Stardust Portable (PSP/PSN) - Brilliant port of the PS3 classic.
- Stuntman: Ignition (PS3) - Everything the original should have been, with sweet graphics. (comments)
- Dead Space (PS3) - An excellent first try at survival action. (discussion)
- God of War: Chains of Olympus (PSP) - Tiny K looks and plays incredibly well on the PSP screen. (review)
- Professor Layton and the Curious Village (NDS) - Adorable story and another master lesson in how to use a touch screen effectively. (review)
- Hot Shots Golf: Open Tee 2 (PSP) -Second entry is just as addictive as the first.
- Hot Shots Golf: Out of Bounds (PS3) - Everything addictive about the PSP series, and a slick new take on shot timing.
- The Last Guy (PS3/PSN) - Play "Snake" on real satellite photos and save the world one person at a time. Morbid and funny.
- Space Invaders Extreme (PSP) - This is to Space Invaders what Tempest 2000 was to Tempest ... but moreso.
- Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection (PSP/PS2) - Preserving the beauty (and addictiveness) of pinball for a whole new generation. (Wii version review by JohnH)
- Impossible Mission (NDS) - Basic port of the original, but still fun. (review)
- Metal Gear Solid 4 (PS3) - Fans like me get the story and the action. Most people would just get the action. Regardless, a fun final chapter. (Note: MGS3 is still the best in the series.)
Best experience of the year is definitely Prince of Persia.
Best play is definitely Burnout Paradise.
Best handheld game ... this is the hard one ... I'll go with Professor Layton. Still, you can't really go wrong with Super Stardust Portable, Space Invaders Extreme, or God of War.
What a great year. Here's hoping 2009 can keep up the pace, and so can I.
(Addendum: I'm currently playing BioShock. It still has time to make the list, I suppose.)
Labels: reviews, winners, year in review
--jvm at 15:29
Comment
[ 2 ]
20 December 2008
Stinkers 2008
I played some great games this year. I'll talk about those later. (Now posted: Winners 2008.)
Here is my list of Stinkers 2008, games I'd rather have skipped and saved my money and time. Not all are 2008 releases, obviously.
In no particular order:
Here is my list of Stinkers 2008, games I'd rather have skipped and saved my money and time. Not all are 2008 releases, obviously.
In no particular order:
- Devil May Cry 4 (PS3) - I gave up after I vanquished the giant frog boss with glowing lesbian nymphs antennae. Pretty game, but crap otherwise.
- Assassin's Creed (PS3) - Replacing Metroid Prime as my go-to insomnia cure. Boring and washed out.
- Mercenaries 2 (PS3) - The original was GTA in a warzone -- and fun. This was just stupid.
- Mirror's Edge (PS3) - Clever mechanic but needlessly unpleasant. Focus on the fun, next time. (review)
- LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy (PSP) - People really enjoyed this? And people griped that Prince of Persia was repetitive. Sheesh.
- NovaStrike (PS3) - As pedestrian as a top-down shooter can get. But it has trophies!
- PixelJunk Eden (PS3) - Fertilizing abstract flowers is more work than fun.
- Twisted Metal: Head On Extra Twisted Edition (PS2) - High production values, but ultimately no fun. Watch the lost cut-scenes on YouTube and save your dough.
- Hotel Dusk: Room 215 (NDS) - Yawn.
- The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (NDS) - My annual "try to like Zelda games" fling. After a brief honeymoon I realized how long of a slog it would be to finish, how repetitive the dungeons seemed, and how much I wanted to spend my time elsewhere.
- Tomb Raider: Underworld (PS3) - I debated about whether to put this one on the list, but I think it was a grand disappointment. Shows promise, but that's not enough. (review)
Labels: reviews, stinkers, year in review
--jvm at 16:42
Comment
[ 2 ]
19 December 2008
A Simple Rule for PS3 Installs
If my DualShock 3 turns itself off automatically while waiting for your game to install, you have a problem. Fix it. I'm looking at you, BioShock.
While I'm on it, another rule: if the patch for your game is 4GB or larger, the game should be sold on the PSN storefront, like Burnout Paradise, just for convenience. I'm looking at you, Hot Shots Golf: Out of Bounds.
While I'm on it, another rule: if the patch for your game is 4GB or larger, the game should be sold on the PSN storefront, like Burnout Paradise, just for convenience. I'm looking at you, Hot Shots Golf: Out of Bounds.
--jvm at 21:31
Comment
[ 2 ]
16 December 2008
Hear it in Liberty City, buy it in your own.
From Reuters:
That's slick. It's all about the APIs, baby.
One [Amazon mp3 store integration] allowed gamers playing 'Grand Theft Auto IV' to tag songs in the soundtrack for later purchase on Amazon.
That's slick. It's all about the APIs, baby.
Labels: gta, online distribution
--ruffin at 19:03
Comment
[ 0 ]
Review: Prince of Persia (PS3)
The new Prince of Persia tells the story a young woman and a young man who fall in love with each other, battle an evil force that threatens their world, and ultimately pay dearly for the choices they make.
When I walked the final steps to the conclusion of the game, I realized that more than any game in recent memory I was the character on the screen. The hours of conversation between the handsome, plucky Prince (a commoner with a fancy nickname) and his legitimately royal foil, the lively Princess Elika, had had their intended effect.
I was the Prince, and he was I. I knew what I had to do. I knew why I had to do it. I knew there would be dire consequences, and I felt a moment of uncertainty.
In that moment, I considered turning off the console, removing the disc, putting it away. Yet I could not -- I could no more avoid my fate any more than the Prince could avoid his. So the Prince and I did what had to be done. The final images of the game I shall not soon forget.
Surrounding the tale is an action game for casual players. The Prince and Elika move through a beautiful, intricate fantasy world via rhythmic acrobatic challenges, what I think of as Parappa parkour. Except for one moment near the climax, honed reflexes are not really required for the jumping and running. Combat is simple pattern recognition and interruption combined with improvisation using an elaborate -- but friendly -- combo system.
As I said, it's for casual players: you can't die, it uses a type of magic cursor to guide you when you're lost, and the autosave system is always keeping track of your progress. All the frustrations have been removed so you can enjoy the game's story and its satisfying movement challenges.
Don't go into this game expecting it to be Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. It is not -- and never was intended as -- a modern version of that classic. This is a brand new experience with new challenges and a story that grownups can appreciate.
When I walked the final steps to the conclusion of the game, I realized that more than any game in recent memory I was the character on the screen. The hours of conversation between the handsome, plucky Prince (a commoner with a fancy nickname) and his legitimately royal foil, the lively Princess Elika, had had their intended effect.
I was the Prince, and he was I. I knew what I had to do. I knew why I had to do it. I knew there would be dire consequences, and I felt a moment of uncertainty.
In that moment, I considered turning off the console, removing the disc, putting it away. Yet I could not -- I could no more avoid my fate any more than the Prince could avoid his. So the Prince and I did what had to be done. The final images of the game I shall not soon forget.
Surrounding the tale is an action game for casual players. The Prince and Elika move through a beautiful, intricate fantasy world via rhythmic acrobatic challenges, what I think of as Parappa parkour. Except for one moment near the climax, honed reflexes are not really required for the jumping and running. Combat is simple pattern recognition and interruption combined with improvisation using an elaborate -- but friendly -- combo system.
As I said, it's for casual players: you can't die, it uses a type of magic cursor to guide you when you're lost, and the autosave system is always keeping track of your progress. All the frustrations have been removed so you can enjoy the game's story and its satisfying movement challenges.
Don't go into this game expecting it to be Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. It is not -- and never was intended as -- a modern version of that classic. This is a brand new experience with new challenges and a story that grownups can appreciate.
--jvm at 18:23
Comment
[ 6 ]
11 December 2008
Home - Sony's investment in failure
Today Sony allows the general PlayStation 3-owning public to get into PlayStation Home, its virtual world.
I see two possibilities here:
I wish Sony had used its money to seed unique, exclusive games for its online service. That would have been a lot more interesting, and would have improved its image both among consumers, developers, and publishers.
I see two possibilities here:
- Apathy - Most people don't know about -- or care about -- PlayStation Home. This is the best case scenario for Sony.
- Hatred - Sony forces some popular games to incorporate Home in an essential way, and people hate it. Reviewers will comment on how the Xbox 360 version of a game doesn't include such stupid features. Players will complain about having to use it. This is the bad scenario.
I wish Sony had used its money to seed unique, exclusive games for its online service. That would have been a lot more interesting, and would have improved its image both among consumers, developers, and publishers.
Labels: online, online distribution, playstation home, ps3, psn, sony
--jvm at 11:22
Comment
[ 7 ]
04 December 2008
REVIEW: Civilization Revolution DS
The novelty of being able to play Civilization on a pocket-sized device got to me, and I bought Civilization Revolution for my DS. The result is rather good, excellent even, but it also suffers from a number of irritating little lacks, lacks that result from the developers not taking the DS version seriously.
Let's do the DS stuff first, and talk about Civilization Revolution itself, as a game divorced from platform, later. It's a major point in the DS version's favor that, although it lacks the Civilopedia, that massive database of information on everything in the game, and scoreboard support, it is an essentially-complete version of the game. As far as the core gameplay is concerned, it has been crippled in no way by being for the DS. The DS version of Civilization Revolution is, basically, the same game as that for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. It uses the same game rules (a simplified mix from across all four Civilization games), it has the same four victory conditions, and the same punishing A.I. drives the computer players.
And why shouldn't it be the same game? The DS is not an underpowered piece of hardware, compared to many systems. It's much more muscular than the Gameboy Advance, and that handled Advance Wars 2 with style. It turns out that, in Japan, the Super Famicom got a release of the original Civilization, and that's on a processor clocked at less than 2 mHz. These are turn-based strategy games, which are not known for tiring out a processor unless it's high-level chess or something similarly insane. If the core logic of a Civilization game is demanding enough that it requires a Cell processor to make it run then frankly I don't think I'd want to play it. Let's keep the difficulty level within the realm of human ability, hm?
In one respect the DS version is better than the 360 and PS3 versions. Because it's a portable system, no one expects it to have great graphics, so visually the game has been graphically regressed to Civ 1 style. And to that let me add: it's about time!
Isometric tiles and 3D interfaces may look great, but they're really fancier than a Civilization game has to be, a feature to sucker people into buying it who have no real idea what Civilization is about, and probably have no business playing it anyway. This is a game series that, even from the first version, was pushing it concerning control complexity. Adding in visual clutter was ill-advised. "Normal" players might be drawn to the game by the visuals, but the players who are really serious about Civilization will want to keep the display as simple as possible. And the DS version of the game does this pretty well. Screenshots of the 360 and PS3 versions reveal that the graphics in those versions has been given a thick coat of fluorescent paint. Oh well, at least it's not gray and brown.
The primary advantages of the DS version are simplified display and holy cow porta-Civ. These are huge benefits, enough that, if done perfectly this could have been the version of Civilization Revolution to own. It seems it was hard for the developers to believe because there is ample evidence they viewed the DS version as a throwaway project. There are a few notable lacks that, while I'm not sure they're not similarly lacking in the other versions, I doubt it.
One of the most surprising has to do with an outright error in the inexcusably-poor manual. It claims that on the easiest difficulty the requirements for winning are relaxed, but this is completely false: I've played several Chieftain-level games, and none of them has ended early.
Second, although they tried to make the interface DS-ish by using the second screen a bit (and having a a battle display obviously inspired by Advance Wars), I'd much rather have that screen used to provide an overview map of the known world. There is no way to get a view zoomed out any more than the normal view. It's infuriating, especially since the game is obviously capable of displaying a zoomed-out map: it uses just such a map to show the game history movie at the end! (That movie, by the way, is itself buggy and inaccurate with nation borders. Did this game get put through QA or not?)
As mentioned before, leaderboards are not supported in the DS version of the game. But why? The end-of-game score list ranks the player on what looks very much like a vanity board, but it doesn't persist; the next time you play, your game will be ranked against the same list of default names. Considering that the first time the game is turned on it spends several minutes erasing an epic amount of EEPROM storage, it seems laughable that they couldn't spare a few hundred of those bytes to implement a real score list.
One particularly galling lack amounts to the only gameplay difference between the versions that I can see, but strangely it has nothing to do with system power. I've not played the other versions in order to verify, but cross-platform reviews remark that the DS version is lacking the ability to sell units for gold. Why this might be missing, of all features, I have no idea. It's as if they simply forgot to add that button to the game. I suspect that whatever reason they might give would be an incredibly poor one.
There's a UI flaw that I find consistently annoying. After a unit's last move is used, the game will instantly scroll the map over to the next unit to be moved, even if there was something more you could have done with the previous unit. This is really obnoxious when you want to have a settler build a city before an enemy unit captures it. Also, when a unit with automatic moves lined up gets its turn, it moves immediately; those moves aren't queued for the end of the turn. This gives the player a reduced chance to stop it if he wishes the movement to be aborted.
Another bugs that crops up from time to time involves the Oxford University Wonder of the World. When built, it's supposed to grant the player a random advanced technology. The computer players go for it fairly reliably on higher difficulties, but when the human player goes for it, something like half the time, upon completion, it vanishes, replaced by a nearly-useless SDI Defense building. When this happens the Wonder completion message fails to appear , and apparently the player doesn't get credit for it, although it does disappear from the Wonders-to-be-built selection. Whether this is intentional or not isn't explained by the (again, woefully inadequate) manual, and I have no idea if it happens in other versions, but even if it is somehow planned behavior, the very least the lack of feedback to the player that it has happened is infuriating.
All this may sound like I'm griping. And I am, dammit, none of these limitations are excusable. But the game itself is still marvelously addictive. In the couple of months I've had it I've played dozens of games, and it's yet to get old. In all, Civilzation Revolution is one of the best versions of Civilization. It might lack some of the epic sweep of other versions, but as a pick-up-and-play game that can be completed in an afternoon it's excellent. And the DS version, played on a portable, is well-suited towards just that scale of experience. It's a shame that the developers didn't have that vision for the game, because with a better UI this could well have been an Advance Wars killer. Even the game's bugs and maddening limitations can't quite diminish the brilliance here. It is just really nice to play.
Let's do the DS stuff first, and talk about Civilization Revolution itself, as a game divorced from platform, later. It's a major point in the DS version's favor that, although it lacks the Civilopedia, that massive database of information on everything in the game, and scoreboard support, it is an essentially-complete version of the game. As far as the core gameplay is concerned, it has been crippled in no way by being for the DS. The DS version of Civilization Revolution is, basically, the same game as that for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. It uses the same game rules (a simplified mix from across all four Civilization games), it has the same four victory conditions, and the same punishing A.I. drives the computer players.
And why shouldn't it be the same game? The DS is not an underpowered piece of hardware, compared to many systems. It's much more muscular than the Gameboy Advance, and that handled Advance Wars 2 with style. It turns out that, in Japan, the Super Famicom got a release of the original Civilization, and that's on a processor clocked at less than 2 mHz. These are turn-based strategy games, which are not known for tiring out a processor unless it's high-level chess or something similarly insane. If the core logic of a Civilization game is demanding enough that it requires a Cell processor to make it run then frankly I don't think I'd want to play it. Let's keep the difficulty level within the realm of human ability, hm?
In one respect the DS version is better than the 360 and PS3 versions. Because it's a portable system, no one expects it to have great graphics, so visually the game has been graphically regressed to Civ 1 style. And to that let me add: it's about time!
Isometric tiles and 3D interfaces may look great, but they're really fancier than a Civilization game has to be, a feature to sucker people into buying it who have no real idea what Civilization is about, and probably have no business playing it anyway. This is a game series that, even from the first version, was pushing it concerning control complexity. Adding in visual clutter was ill-advised. "Normal" players might be drawn to the game by the visuals, but the players who are really serious about Civilization will want to keep the display as simple as possible. And the DS version of the game does this pretty well. Screenshots of the 360 and PS3 versions reveal that the graphics in those versions has been given a thick coat of fluorescent paint. Oh well, at least it's not gray and brown.
The primary advantages of the DS version are simplified display and holy cow porta-Civ. These are huge benefits, enough that, if done perfectly this could have been the version of Civilization Revolution to own. It seems it was hard for the developers to believe because there is ample evidence they viewed the DS version as a throwaway project. There are a few notable lacks that, while I'm not sure they're not similarly lacking in the other versions, I doubt it.
One of the most surprising has to do with an outright error in the inexcusably-poor manual. It claims that on the easiest difficulty the requirements for winning are relaxed, but this is completely false: I've played several Chieftain-level games, and none of them has ended early.
Second, although they tried to make the interface DS-ish by using the second screen a bit (and having a a battle display obviously inspired by Advance Wars), I'd much rather have that screen used to provide an overview map of the known world. There is no way to get a view zoomed out any more than the normal view. It's infuriating, especially since the game is obviously capable of displaying a zoomed-out map: it uses just such a map to show the game history movie at the end! (That movie, by the way, is itself buggy and inaccurate with nation borders. Did this game get put through QA or not?)
As mentioned before, leaderboards are not supported in the DS version of the game. But why? The end-of-game score list ranks the player on what looks very much like a vanity board, but it doesn't persist; the next time you play, your game will be ranked against the same list of default names. Considering that the first time the game is turned on it spends several minutes erasing an epic amount of EEPROM storage, it seems laughable that they couldn't spare a few hundred of those bytes to implement a real score list.
One particularly galling lack amounts to the only gameplay difference between the versions that I can see, but strangely it has nothing to do with system power. I've not played the other versions in order to verify, but cross-platform reviews remark that the DS version is lacking the ability to sell units for gold. Why this might be missing, of all features, I have no idea. It's as if they simply forgot to add that button to the game. I suspect that whatever reason they might give would be an incredibly poor one.
There's a UI flaw that I find consistently annoying. After a unit's last move is used, the game will instantly scroll the map over to the next unit to be moved, even if there was something more you could have done with the previous unit. This is really obnoxious when you want to have a settler build a city before an enemy unit captures it. Also, when a unit with automatic moves lined up gets its turn, it moves immediately; those moves aren't queued for the end of the turn. This gives the player a reduced chance to stop it if he wishes the movement to be aborted.
Another bugs that crops up from time to time involves the Oxford University Wonder of the World. When built, it's supposed to grant the player a random advanced technology. The computer players go for it fairly reliably on higher difficulties, but when the human player goes for it, something like half the time, upon completion, it vanishes, replaced by a nearly-useless SDI Defense building. When this happens the Wonder completion message fails to appear , and apparently the player doesn't get credit for it, although it does disappear from the Wonders-to-be-built selection. Whether this is intentional or not isn't explained by the (again, woefully inadequate) manual, and I have no idea if it happens in other versions, but even if it is somehow planned behavior, the very least the lack of feedback to the player that it has happened is infuriating.
All this may sound like I'm griping. And I am, dammit, none of these limitations are excusable. But the game itself is still marvelously addictive. In the couple of months I've had it I've played dozens of games, and it's yet to get old. In all, Civilzation Revolution is one of the best versions of Civilization. It might lack some of the epic sweep of other versions, but as a pick-up-and-play game that can be completed in an afternoon it's excellent. And the DS version, played on a portable, is well-suited towards just that scale of experience. It's a shame that the developers didn't have that vision for the game, because with a better UI this could well have been an Advance Wars killer. Even the game's bugs and maddening limitations can't quite diminish the brilliance here. It is just really nice to play.
--JohnH at 21:55
Comment
[ 3 ]
03 December 2008
Review: Tomb Raider: Underworld (PS3)
Strictly as an exploration game, Tomb Raider: Underworld falls short of the standard set by the original Tomb Raider. However, it does provide a better run/jump/climb experience than either of its immediate predecessors, Tomb Raider: Legend and Tomb Raider Anniversary. Regrettably, that's about all it does competently.
Each of the last three games has a key strength: Legend provided a strong characterization of Lara, Anniversary was exceptional for its story and level design (which leans heavily on the original), and Underworld gives us the skilled Lara we've been waiting for ever since Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time opened the door to the new generation of acrobatic platforming. If Lara has another adventure -- and I'm not convinced she should -- the designers would be well-advised to keep the Lara of Underworld. She really is a joy to watch, and not just for her curves and slinky attire.
When I played Anniversary I felt that the designers had not taken enough liberties with the original material. When I see the opportunity offered by Underworld go wasted, I wonder if the designers simply aren't up to the task of creating compelling worlds.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: the original Tomb Raider was built out of large, dense levels, dominated by a giant structure which Lara needed to approach in several different ways. Underworld goes for gigantic levels with lots of wasted space.
The Sphinx level from Tomb Raider is the easiest example, although the Obelisk of Khamoon, St. Francis' Folly, and The Colosseum would serve just as well. Within minutes of emerging on top of the Sphinx, Lara sees ledges and doors which cry out to be explored. Looking up, you wonder if she can find a way on top of the beast's head. Eventually, each of these is visited, figured out, and bested. Despite the grand scale each level had a special intimacy, a sense of discovering and mastering a whole sequence of devious riddles which fit together like a tightly-packed mechanical watch.
By contrast the levels in Underworld are needlessly gigantic and boring, as if size alone would make them better. Instead of seeing obvious signposts around you, leading you onward to deeper and darker secrets, Lara's Underworld consists of desolate, uninteresting expanses with tiny oases of adventure connected by long hallways or jungle roads. The motorcycle that Lara straddles for half the game -- yes, half the game! -- is proof that the levels are anything but tight, fun experiences. Truly, the best moments of the game, when you first see and later scale a giant mechanical tower of stone, recall precisely the design of the original. They feel out of place compared to everything else in Underworld.
In the final level of the game the designers commit an unpardonable sin: they go from a set number of enemy creatures per level to respawning enemies. The difficulty goes way up, but not in a way consonant with the game's other challenges: running, jumping, and climbing. Perhaps I should have shelved the game, given the frustration this section caused me, but I felt the need to finish even in the face of cowardly tricks.
I'm willing to excuse modestly clumsy design if the story is top notch, but Underworld has no such saving grace. Amusingly, the designers have replaced Lara the cipher of the original game (often derided for being zero- or one-dimensional) with Lara the smoldering, resentful harpy who misses her dear, lost Mommy. She yells and threatens and glowers, hoping the noise will distract you from the stupidity of it all. Sure, you can claim there's more detail to this Lara, but you just can't bring yourself to care.
On top of that, the writers have attempted an embarrassingly amateur Grand Unified Theory of World Mythology. You'll laugh out loud more than once at the blithering stupidity Lara mutters for her little recording device.
Reportedly the original Tomb Raider developers, Core Design, wanted to make a grand trilogy starting with the ill-fated Angel of Darkness. Crystal Dynamics has pulled off a trilogy in four years, which is quite an accomplishment. I am impressed that Crystal Dynamics pulled the thread of the original game's story and wove it together with the seemingly separate thread from Legend, all leading to a tidy resolution in Underworld. It's quite a trick, but ultimately nothing more.
Note: I experienced two hard lockups while playing this game. Each required me to power cycle my PS3.
Each of the last three games has a key strength: Legend provided a strong characterization of Lara, Anniversary was exceptional for its story and level design (which leans heavily on the original), and Underworld gives us the skilled Lara we've been waiting for ever since Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time opened the door to the new generation of acrobatic platforming. If Lara has another adventure -- and I'm not convinced she should -- the designers would be well-advised to keep the Lara of Underworld. She really is a joy to watch, and not just for her curves and slinky attire.
When I played Anniversary I felt that the designers had not taken enough liberties with the original material. When I see the opportunity offered by Underworld go wasted, I wonder if the designers simply aren't up to the task of creating compelling worlds.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: the original Tomb Raider was built out of large, dense levels, dominated by a giant structure which Lara needed to approach in several different ways. Underworld goes for gigantic levels with lots of wasted space.
The Sphinx level from Tomb Raider is the easiest example, although the Obelisk of Khamoon, St. Francis' Folly, and The Colosseum would serve just as well. Within minutes of emerging on top of the Sphinx, Lara sees ledges and doors which cry out to be explored. Looking up, you wonder if she can find a way on top of the beast's head. Eventually, each of these is visited, figured out, and bested. Despite the grand scale each level had a special intimacy, a sense of discovering and mastering a whole sequence of devious riddles which fit together like a tightly-packed mechanical watch.
By contrast the levels in Underworld are needlessly gigantic and boring, as if size alone would make them better. Instead of seeing obvious signposts around you, leading you onward to deeper and darker secrets, Lara's Underworld consists of desolate, uninteresting expanses with tiny oases of adventure connected by long hallways or jungle roads. The motorcycle that Lara straddles for half the game -- yes, half the game! -- is proof that the levels are anything but tight, fun experiences. Truly, the best moments of the game, when you first see and later scale a giant mechanical tower of stone, recall precisely the design of the original. They feel out of place compared to everything else in Underworld.
In the final level of the game the designers commit an unpardonable sin: they go from a set number of enemy creatures per level to respawning enemies. The difficulty goes way up, but not in a way consonant with the game's other challenges: running, jumping, and climbing. Perhaps I should have shelved the game, given the frustration this section caused me, but I felt the need to finish even in the face of cowardly tricks.
I'm willing to excuse modestly clumsy design if the story is top notch, but Underworld has no such saving grace. Amusingly, the designers have replaced Lara the cipher of the original game (often derided for being zero- or one-dimensional) with Lara the smoldering, resentful harpy who misses her dear, lost Mommy. She yells and threatens and glowers, hoping the noise will distract you from the stupidity of it all. Sure, you can claim there's more detail to this Lara, but you just can't bring yourself to care.
On top of that, the writers have attempted an embarrassingly amateur Grand Unified Theory of World Mythology. You'll laugh out loud more than once at the blithering stupidity Lara mutters for her little recording device.
Reportedly the original Tomb Raider developers, Core Design, wanted to make a grand trilogy starting with the ill-fated Angel of Darkness. Crystal Dynamics has pulled off a trilogy in four years, which is quite an accomplishment. I am impressed that Crystal Dynamics pulled the thread of the original game's story and wove it together with the seemingly separate thread from Legend, all leading to a tidy resolution in Underworld. It's quite a trick, but ultimately nothing more.
Note: I experienced two hard lockups while playing this game. Each required me to power cycle my PS3.
Labels: ps3, reviews, tomb raider
--jvm at 19:57
Comment
[ 4 ]
More Words You Are Not Allowed To Use In Your Game
Continued from previously. Again, include all cognates. Again, exceptions as listed.
Infect (if you're referring to bacteria then you get a pass, otherwise....)
Assimilate (in all Borg-ish contexts, so Grand Theft Auto IV is allowed to use this, but you are not)
World (the only exception here is World of Goo)
Light (especially when prefixed by the word "of")
Demonic (Unless you've read all, and I mean every freaking word, of the Divine Comedy. If you're gonna throw this around, you'd better know what it means.)
Angelic (We are equal opportunity snarkers.)
Chosen (Especially if it's unclear who's supposed to be doing the choosing. Pervasive, subtle personification of God/destiny/fate is a disease, and I'm the cure.)
Ninja (Exceptions granted if your ninjas are obviously from the Japanese culture. Of Earth, not Generic Fantasyland.)
Portal (Unless your game is named it.)
Infect (if you're referring to bacteria then you get a pass, otherwise....)
Assimilate (in all Borg-ish contexts, so Grand Theft Auto IV is allowed to use this, but you are not)
World (the only exception here is World of Goo)
Light (especially when prefixed by the word "of")
Demonic (Unless you've read all, and I mean every freaking word, of the Divine Comedy. If you're gonna throw this around, you'd better know what it means.)
Angelic (We are equal opportunity snarkers.)
Chosen (Especially if it's unclear who's supposed to be doing the choosing. Pervasive, subtle personification of God/destiny/fate is a disease, and I'm the cure.)
Ninja (Exceptions granted if your ninjas are obviously from the Japanese culture. Of Earth, not Generic Fantasyland.)
Portal (Unless your game is named it.)
Labels: cliche, curmudgeoning, pretension, snark, writing
--JohnH at 01:34
Comment
[ 0 ]
01 December 2008
Dead Short
There's a strange quality to the Dead Space “Dismemberment” demo. Weighing it at a meagre sub-400 megs on XBL, it basically consists of you playing as distinctive protagonist Isaac Clarke, running into a room with loads of monsters and blasting enough rounds in them to qualify you as a cover model for Guns & Ammo. Then, when you try and leave the room, a bigger monster comes and rips you to shreds.
The whole experience takes about, ooh, five minutes?
It’s an interesting spin, I think. Obviously the game has been out a while now, but the demo does everything in its power to ruin absolutely nothing about the game they’re trying to convince you to buy. It doesn’t give away any particular scare tactics, much of the story or just what the heck is even going on. It’s more of an entrée than a starter, showcasing nothing but the graphics and basic controls.
Which is interesting. Now that bandwidth is mostly meaningless and all that, it’s not unusual to see a demo clock in at about 1.5 gigabytes and just plonk you in the second or third level. With Dead Space, EA have taken a conscious effort to try and hide the game from you whilst, at the same time, trying to convince you to actually buy it.
It certainly left an impression with me, leaving me wanting more. I haven’t picked up Dead Space yet, but I imagine I will do it quicker now. Which is the mark of a good appetizer, is it not? It’s certainly different to the demo for Tomb Raider Underworld, which convinced me that I can wait until that one reaches bargain bin prices.
The whole experience takes about, ooh, five minutes?
It’s an interesting spin, I think. Obviously the game has been out a while now, but the demo does everything in its power to ruin absolutely nothing about the game they’re trying to convince you to buy. It doesn’t give away any particular scare tactics, much of the story or just what the heck is even going on. It’s more of an entrée than a starter, showcasing nothing but the graphics and basic controls.
Which is interesting. Now that bandwidth is mostly meaningless and all that, it’s not unusual to see a demo clock in at about 1.5 gigabytes and just plonk you in the second or third level. With Dead Space, EA have taken a conscious effort to try and hide the game from you whilst, at the same time, trying to convince you to actually buy it.
It certainly left an impression with me, leaving me wanting more. I haven’t picked up Dead Space yet, but I imagine I will do it quicker now. Which is the mark of a good appetizer, is it not? It’s certainly different to the demo for Tomb Raider Underworld, which convinced me that I can wait until that one reaches bargain bin prices.
--Martin at 19:34
Comment
[ 2 ]
Feedburner
