Brendan Doms

This is one of those spontaneous it's Valentine's-Day-and-I-feel-like-writing-something posts. This time, I want to write about what I love (abstractly) about video games. Appropriate, huh?

It's the rhythm. I love the rhythm that good games have. It's most apparent in those moments where you enter a really tough area but do really well because you're into the grove of the game. At its best, I suppose this is about role playing and getting into the idea of the game, but at its worst I suppose this is just totally understanding how a game's mechanics work. I'd like to assume that for good games it's the former, and for not-so-good games it's the latter.

There's something kind of zen about this whole concept too. As an example, there was this time about a year ago that I was playing Counter-Strike: Source on the LAN with my friends here at school and I got a call from home. I took the call, but kept playing the game. In order to pay attention to both, I had to back my senses out of the game. I stopped paying attention to every little detail and just let my intuition kick in. I ended up getting something around 13 kills without dying. My friends (and I) were astonished, and I didn't have a good explanation for it then. But, I'd like to think now that I had just totally arrived at a rhythm for CS:S when I was forced to zoom out of it a little.

It's probably more common for single player experiences to have that kind of moment, but it's fun nonetheless. It's really easy to like games that reward this sort of playing because you feel good for delving really deeply into the game. Most good games have a fun, fast rhythm, and I love it.

I just finished Call of Duty 2 again, went a couple levels through Killzone, and started up FEAR on my X700. So, I have a lot on my mind about what makes a good single player experience for an FPS. That, and alwaysBETA is distracting me with its huge recent surge in traffic.

Call of Duty 2

First, my second impressions of Call of Duty 2 after beating it on a machine where I could crank the graphics up. The game is absurdly pretty at points. Specifically, landing at Pointe du Hoc. If you have all the shaders enabled your jaw will drop when a wave of water crashes into you and your vision gets misty for a moment. The opening of that level is really just...cinematic, and packed with energy. I think my problem with the game is that apparent lack of energy or cinematic feeling throughout the first half, despite all the prettiness. During the Russian campaign I felt like I was trudging along, whereas later in the American campaign I felt like I was actually immersed in frantic battles. In comparison, past Call of Duty titles have given me that frantic feeling for the entire game. Call of Duty 2 gets off to a slow start, and then, even when it ramps up, doesn't really seem to go anywhere.

Killzone

Even now, during my second playthrough, I'm still in awe of the gritty look of this unique wonder that is the PS2 FPS. Just the color scheme of the game - its muted tones, dark shadows, and constant dirtiness - makes you feel as if you have arrived on a war torn planet. The controls take getting used to, but for that I am inclined to blame the PS2 dual shock. It's great for most things, but can't stand up to that good old fatty Duke XBox controller when it comes to the FPS genre. Killzone has the story and exotic locations, but it largely lacks something vitally necessary, which prevents it from becoming a truly great game: varied gameplay. You can shoot tanks, but not operate them. There is also very little variety in the types of enemies fought. And rarely are you presented with more than 5 or 6 enemies on screen at any time. The Normandy style beach landing level in the game is one of the exceptions - and a great one. More moments like that would have me be even more enthusiastic about this sleeper hit. I hope that the next version has tighter controls, and lets me drive a tank or boat that I got to watch zoom by in this first installment.

FEAR

My X700 has finally really come through. When I went through FEAR the first time, it was at 800 x 600 with all of the options turned all the way down. Now I've been able to turn everything up and still get between 20 and 25 frames per second. That's not exactly finger-twitch playable, but it has let me see what the game was meant to look like. I can now say with confidence that it is gorgeous. The soft shadows and dynamic lighting are probably the best I've ever seen. The water is superb, and every texture is crisp and clear. Just check out that fullsized screenshot above. Beyond the graphics, jumping into the FEAR world has reminded me of the best parts of Doom 3 and Quake 4 - it has that creepy, dark feel to it while still being action packed. I'm excited to go through the game again, rediscovering the entire story through voice mail messages and playing around with the nail gun.

Playing all these FPSs has given me one to-be-expected desire - I really want to go through Half-Life 2 for the 5th (or 6th?) time. And, I've gotten another, maybe less predictable want - I feel the need to go play some awesome 3rd person action games. I'm feeling the call of Ninja Gaiden: Black, Devil May Cry 3, Prince of Persia, and God of War. So many games, so little time.

I have a difficult purchasing choice to make this month. There are two new games are coming out for the current generation consoles that I want to buy, but, being a poor college student, I generally limit myself to one new game per semester. This means that this can be a pretty big decision.

This time around, the competition is between Tales of Legendria - an RPG for the PS2 - and BLACK - an FPS I would get on the XBox. Now, both games have been given fairly positive previews, but that aside, there are some simple stereotypes that I want to take into consideration.

Genre

First, RPGs will always get you more gameplay hours per dollar (unless we're talking about an FPS with insanely good multiplayer, like Halo, or Counter-Strike: Source). And, as it looks, BLACK is going to clock in at the typical FPS rate of 8 - 10 hours. My guess is that Tales of Legendria will follow the recent RPG trend of being more in the 30 - 35 hour range. The real question is whether or not those hours will be good. Based on everything I've seen so far, the answer is yes for both games.

Advice

Next, one of my good friends, and really one of the only ones without any semblance of a web presence or blog, John Shaeffer, once said to me, "A good FPS is always better than any other kind of good game," or something close to it. And, in some ways, I agree. A really good FPS experience is an amazing thing to go through. But, games capable of that effect on me are very rare.

Publisher

Finally, Namco is making Tales of Legendria while EA is making BLACK. Now, Namco has constantly been a source of good surprises - like Xenosaga - for me, while EA has constantly been the place I go for disappointment and crappy sequels - they made at least four Bond games for the XBox and I bet you couldn't name them all. If I had to put my money down on what the better game would be, regardless of genre, I would go with Namco every time.

So, the answer is sadly anti-climactic. I'm going to wait until Tales of Legendria comes out on Tuesday and then read the harshest review I can find. If it still seems like a good buy, then I'll go for it. Otherwise, I'll wait another three weeks and then read all the BLACK reviews. My instinct is that Tales of Legendria is going to win out by the end of the month, especially considering BLACK's total lack of multiplayer, which is usually an FPS killer if I ever saw one.

Occasionally good things do happen in this world. Sometimes a fun game just comes into your life and asks nothing in return except your time. Lots of your time.

Recently, rather than doing work of any kind, I've been playing Trackmania Nations - a free, very pretty, and fun racing game. Thankfully the physics are not realistic at all, which allows for some fun and crazy stunts. (All I want out of this game is a stunt mode a la San Francisco Rush.) The challenges are difficult but addictive. I've found myself playing for hours without ever intending to. Despite a lack of any real races against computer opponents, the game is simply fun.

And then there's the multiplayer. Get your friends to come online and have team competitions, or give yourself a window of 5 minutes to see who can complete a short course the fastest. When you're all in the same room it can get seriously intense.

Finally, as if that weren't enough, there is the pinnacle of foresight included with this package: a built in custom track editor. It's already been used by Sean to make a hugely ridiculous map for us to play on. I wish more games would do this sort of thing with a simple system. Developers, take a hint from Nadeo and include an easy to use map editor. (If you want the best example I can think of then go back to Lode Runner 2. My friends and I spent many a day making custom maps and using that engine in ways the developers never dreamed of.)

My gripes? Well, there is no real "racing," per se. There aren't really circuits or that sort of thing. And if you fall off of a long track - you're screwed. It would be nice to be able to collide with other players (making the game much more difficult, but also a lot more fun). And the medals you get on each race (the usual Bronze, Silver, Gold) don't really do anything. Still, for the price of $0, this game is definitely worth your money.

(If you want another really good free game, but one that's an FPS, then check out Hidden and Dangerous: Deluxe. I think it and its sequel are the best tactical FPS's out there.)

Yesterday was a very exciting day for me. Many things happened that were very good. Among them were me getting published in a real scientific journal and an alwaysBETA post of Sean's about video games and communism getting on Joystiq. I also posted on how things were going with my search for the best free 3D engine out there.

On top of that, I'm currently going through Call of Duty 2 again with my X700. But, I have this strange desire to be playing Killzone. That game infected me somehow. Also, my personal website has been launched and is being updated very frequently.

A definite improvement.

Capcom is becoming one of my favorite developers out there. Unlike some companies (see Bungie) they actually listen to the recommendations of their players rather than basing successive titles entirely on their own thoughts. Devil May Cry was great, but fans clamored for wider spaces and angles. Capcom tried it out in Devil May Cry 2, but players complained and said they hated it. Instead of getting upset and saying, "You made us do this!" Capcom listens to the feedback and goes back to the basics for Devil May Cry 3. They're going through a similar series of transitions with the Onimusha line, and I'm happy to say, the Megaman X series as well. Of course, it is ultimately the developer's responsibility to make a game good, it is encouraging to find one that at least considers the opinion of the fan base. Look at Rockstar. Somebody said, "I want to play a game where I can do everything!" and they delivered GTA.

So, Megaman X8. It's better than Megaman X7. By a lot. They ditched the "true 3D" style with six degrees of freedom and went back to the standard four and mere 3D graphics...to great effect. The game looks great, and it finally seems like the series got those experimental kinks out of its system. No more Nightmare System or bad 3D design. This game, story included, is the closest one of the next generation X games to come the closest to the original Megaman X classic.

So, Vile and Sigma are back - big surprise. More importantly, exploring for those powerups is once again vital. And other than some simply dumb boss names (Optic Sunflower? Gigabolt Man-O-War?), the game delivers. My one grief about the game is not about something like a difficult spike puzzle at the end of the final level (I loved it, actually), it's one of the characters: Axl. I thought he was dumb before, I thought his extra power of transforming into enemies was pointless, and this game has only reinforced those beliefs. The worst is that in order to find a lot of the powerups, you are forced to use him and that ability of his. I found that quite aggravating and frustrating.

Thankfully, things like good level design, boss variety, and the ever suave Zero make up for it. The Burn Rooster stage is particularly exciting: after you beat him down, instead of the level ending, lava starts filling the room - forcing you to quickly improvise jump your way out. When I realized I was on my last life and touching the lava would mean an instant demise then the adrenaline really started pumping.

With the success of Megaman: Anniversary Collection, I was afraid that Capcom might have abandoned making new games for the X series. But, I was pleasantly surprised when I finally sat down to play this game and it was not only new, but for the most part, good.

Last year I had a discussion with one of my friends at school who claimed that the Super Nintendo was the greatest system of all time for a fan of the RPG genre. I disagreed, and stated that it was quite obviously the Playstation, since it had a greater number of good RPGs. So, which one of us was right? To determine that I am going to tally the good RPGs on each system, and then do a raw comparison of those results (without counting PSX remakes of the SNES games). Let the fight begin (in no particular order)!

Super Nintendo

• Secret of Mana
• Secret of Evermore
• Chrono Trigger
• Final Fantasy II
• Final Fantasy III
• Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals
• Earthbound
• Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
• Breath of Fire
• Breath of Fire II
• Ys III: Wanderers from Ys
• Illusion of Gaia

Playstation

• Final Fantasy VII
• Final Fantasy VIII
• Final Fantasy IX
• Lunar: Silver Star Story
• Lunar II: Eternal Blue
• Legend of Dragoon
• Legaia
• Star Ocean: The Second Story
• Xenogears
• Tales of Destiny
• Tales of Destiny II
• Breath of Fire IV

What's funny is that I had no idea the two systems would tie in this competition. Though, while compiling this list, I did realize why I thought the Playstation was better: it simply has a far greater number of RPGs. But, like the Super, it only has a dozen good ones. If you're looking for a tiebreaker, I'm still giving the victory to the PSX, because it has a greater number of good games that are half RPGs - action RPGs like Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve.

One final observation is that it's interesting how often words like "star," "story," "legend," and "Squaresoft" make it into the titles of good, classic RPGs.

I recently happened across the name Uwe Boll, infamous adapter of video games to movies. I discovered that everything he's ever done has been awful, and that he was responsible for Alone in the Dark, which got a 1% rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

1%.

The worst part is that he's not stopping. He's going to continue with movie adaptations of Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, and, to my great dismay, Fear Effect. Obviously when these publishers agree to have him do their games they don't care about quality, and in the case of something like Fear Effect, which would have great potential with its dark atmosphere and completely-out-there story, that's just sad. Though, I can't say I have much faith in the upcoming Halo movie either.

Still not Tekken 3.

Though, a fair deal better than Tekken 4. The characters seem a lot more fluid in this latest release, and the engine is a definite improvement. It's good that games are finally taking advantage of the PS2's full potential as a pretty graphics machine - go play Metal Gear Solid 3 and you'll drool when someone points out that not a single frame of the game is prerendered - and Shadow of the Colossus sports some dynamic lighting, which is something that used to be XBox only where the consoles were concerned (I believe Splinter Cell back was the first game to really do it well).

My biggest complaint as far as Tekken 5 matches up to others in the genre is environment interaction. The arenas are all flat, and other than the occasional texture change for broken glass or crumbling walls, nothing ever really happens. Compare that to DOA3 (which came out as an XBox launch title in 2001) and you'll see what I mean.

However, the worst aspects of the game are the extra parts. Tekken 3 and Tekken Tag Tournament both had fun and wacky side games - Ball Mode and Tekken Bowl - respectively, but Tekken 5 is sadly devoid of any similarly clever time wasters. What it does have is another third person side-scroller-esque fighter called Devil Within, which is reminiscent of Force Mode from Tekken 3. But, just like Force Mode, it sucks. Here's a screenshot of it from the official site:

It's extremely short (like 3 or 4 hours), and I still wanted to put the controller down before I was halfway through. The main game is dependent on money (which you get a big chunk of for beating Devil Within) in order to unlock extra costumes. I was used to Tekken always being nice and giving me extra costumes for each character just for finishing the game with them, but I guess the days of that are over. There's no really quick way to earn money that you can use more than once, so after completing all the essential parts of the game a couple of your characters will still be devoid their third costume. And believe me, you'll have no motivation to sit and fiddle with the game to get the money for those costumes.

Finally, the ending sequences are once again prerendered, and also quite terrible. The game left me really never wanting to go back to the single player ever again. The redeeming factor is that Tekken 1, 2, and 3 are included in the game, but I don't want to put in a disc labeled "Tekken 5" to play Tekken 3, especially considering that the PS2 is backwards compatible (that is, if you haven't played it enough for the laser to stop reading PSX games yet).

Regardless of the hype that Microsoft managed to fully generate for their hardware heavy new system before the launch, it ended up only being half a generation ahead. Glitches galore, an extremely limited software library with very few (I'm talking 3 or 4) original titles, and not enough inventory were all probably caused by a rushed launch date to get the system out before the holidays and the competition, and were all probably responsible in part for the system's early unpopularity.

Now, I'm not going to say that it's dead, or even dying, but when I say flops I mean that the 360 is losing the race in the next generation of console wars. People aren't willing to pay $9,000 on eBay or even $400 at Best Buy to get this system. Sure, we don't know what the competition is really like yet - last I heard, PS3's were still lighting on fire - but the future looks brighter than what we have available now. So, where is the proof for my broad sweeping claim? The GameFaqs daily poll will reveal all:

I really think that speaks for itself. Let's just hope that Sony does something right. With the PS3 being the possible destination for one of the only games I had thought I would want to play on the 360 (see Ninja Gaiden 2), it could become the one stop for my next generation gaming needs.

And while I'm at it, where is Halo 3?