Safety's Off

Why PC Developers Need to Accept the Mac Platform

Adriaan Noordzij — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:19:40 +0000

Although the PC gaming community resembles an elitist cult at some times, their primary sin is a general sense of reluctance to accept anything that challenges what they’ve come to expect from their gaming experiences. This general attitude has pervaded into the market strategy for many developers, resulting in a vast majority of games that are perfectly capable of running on most Macintosh computers being developed exclusively for the PC. Why are PC gamers so unwilling to allow titles such as The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 to show up on what many largely consider to be “rival hardware”? And, more importantly, why do developers listen to this nonsense?

The truth is, the PC gaming market is slowly dwindling in value, and an increasing amount of developers are finding it difficult to fit a PC port of their titles into the budget. Whether the excuse is piracy or a lack of development time, developers are finding more and more reasons to skimp on the PC version of their games. Fortunately, a few major developers such as Valve and Blizzard have stepped up to the plate to try and bring killer games to the Mac community, despite what the vocal PC crowd bitches and whines about. Why all the hate? Today, even games that do manage to release for the PC are receiving unprovoked scorn from the PC gaming community, and typically for very narrow-minded reasons. Take, for example, the numerous games that have released in the past several years that have been negatively received by the PC gaming community simply for being considered “console ports” of their Xbox 360 and PS3 counterparts. Whether this assumption is the result of a skeletal settings menu or the presence of auto-aim, the general mentality applies to how PC gamers approach the idea of their favorite games making an appearance on the Mac platform, even when such a notion could improve their demographic’s appeal to developers.

As I’m sure you’re already well aware, the console gaming community is several orders of magnitude larger than the PC’s market share, and even though Macintosh computers don’t occupy a terribly large chunk of the personal computing space, they do represent a much more succulent demographic for developers. Think about it for a moment: how many MacBooks do you see in a college classroom? What do college kids typically do to unwind? Are you starting to see the connection I’m trying to make here? The people that invest in the premium-priced MacBook lines are more than well-equipped to handle many games in today’s market, even if the graphics settings need to be turned down to accommodate the lack of graphical processing power present in mobile computing. Coupled with the slick and painless interface of the Mac OS platform alongside the trademark Apple synergy, and you’ve suddenly discovered a new way to engage people and sell more copies of your games to a broader market. Win-win, right?

Blizzard and Valve are not only excellent developers, but they also understand that by exploring the untapped potential of the Mac community, they are clearing a path for others to follow in their footsteps. Expanding the PC community by including Mac users is not only beneficial for potential sales numbers, but innovation as well. There’s no denying that the App Store is the most well-organized and functional method of delivering software, and having a single, unified platform to provide content for users will only increase revenue for developers. This kind of exposure for titles is exactly what the PC community needs to learn to accept, considering that there is a complete lack of unity on the PC platform (Steam comes close, however). With platforms such as Xfire, Origin (boo!), and Steam all competing against each other, it’s difficult to stay organized when you have so many different ways of connecting with your buddies to play a game. Should Game Center on the Mac be expanded to allow integration across all games (similar to how Xbox LIVE is handled), there could be a serious tectonic shift in the way that people approach the Mac platform. It suddenly becomes not only a great (yet pricey) investment for education or work purposes, but also an easy and painless gaming device with a rabid fanbase of passionate people just looking for things to spend their money on.I’m not sure if developing full-fledged titles is an exercise in patience and frustration on the Macintosh platform, but if it’s anything like the SDK that App Store creators use, I’d be willing to bet that it’s not too bad. PC developers need to learn to ignore the discordant cries of the PC elite and increase the market potential of delivering games for the non-console crowd. If that means pissing off a very opinionated group of people to expand a market that many developers continue to be unworthy of allocating time and money to, it’s certainly worth it. It’s time for developers to follow the lead set by companies such as Blizzard and Valve to bring gaming to the masses, and whether or not their computer has a glowing white fruit on it should be completely irrelevant.

Tagged: apple, blizzard, diablo 3, gamingd, mac, microsoft, pc, portal 2, team fortress 2, valve

The 8 Best Damn Games of 2011

Adriaan Noordzij — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:14:00 +0000

It’s fairly evident that 2011 was a great year for gamers, and although the myriad of titles available during the holidays are sure to occupy much space on many a gamer’s best of the year list, it’s important to look back a little further and remember the earlier blockbusters of the year. Although heavy-hitters such as Battlefield 3 and Skyrim are certainly killer games, I often find the most recent titles adorning these lists simply because the memories of their experiences are freshest in gamers’ minds. That being said, there were some seriously kickass games that released this year, and I’ve managed to narrow my personal list down to eight of the best titles 2011 had to offer. Take a walk with me.

8.) Battlefield 3

- While I never had the chance to play its true predecessor, Battlefield 3 was a hotly anticipated title that easily found its way onto every gamer’s wishlist the second it was announced. Although the launch of the game couldn’t have possibly been any rockier, DICE delivered the premier multiplayer FPS experience of the year. Jets make a triumphant return to the online warzones packed with 64 trigger-happy players, while the gunplay successfully builds on the lofty precedent set by its most recent predecessor, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The gunplay was visceral, the graphics were gorgeous, and the intensity was superglued on 11. Some technical issues still hold DICE’s magnum opus back from being a whole-hearted recommendation of mine, but when everything works as it should, Battlefield 3 is a solid and adrenaline-soaked shooter that simply demands your attention.

7.) Deus Ex: Human Revolution

- There goes a saying in the vast world of Internet forums that whenever somebody mentions the original Deus Ex, somebody reinstalls it. If the not-quite sequel, Human Revolution, is any indication of the first game’s technical and story-telling prowess, then I can certainly see why. Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a title with an incredibly unique aesthetic that paints an elegant and realistic portrait of our society’s potential future, and delves into subjects that could easily become controversial topics in the years to come. It was also really, really fun. I was a tad concerned about the merits of Human Revolution’s creative blend of FPS and RPG elements prior to the game’s launch, but once the game shows you what it’s capable of, you’ll find an ambitious title that refuses to compromise the integrity of either of its core components for the sake of mainstream appeal. Deus Ex: Human Revolution proved to developers around the world that depth doesn’t have to come at the cost of accessibility, and that video games can address mature topics in an engaging and enjoyable fashion.

6.) Dead Space 2

- The original Dead Space gave the survival horror genre a much-needed breath of fresh air, and eschewed much of the traditional wonkiness typically associated with its peers. The game controlled wonderfully, the scares were atmospheric and genuine, and combat was satisfying and unique. Dead Space 2 built on the rock-solid foundation of its predecessor, and kicked up the intensity about two billion notches without forgetting its fear-inducing roots. Although the action-packed title garnered some criticism for becoming too Michael Bay-ish in some regards, I found Dead Space 2 to be a logical evolution of the franchise while retaining its trademark gore-soaked terror. The pacing was damn near perfect, the combat was even better, and the game was absolutely beautiful to boot. Certainly one of EA’s finest titles to date.

5.) The Witcher 2: Assassin’s of Kings

- I had heard many great things about the first title in CD Projekt Red’s fantasy series, but never actually had a chance to play or see much of it. So when my killer new graphics card arrived and PC enthusiasts across the nation began using The Witcher 2 as a benchmark, I figured it was time to give the franchise a shot. I still can’t believe I let this game slip under my radar for so long, considering it was one of the most engaging and rewarding fantasy RPGs I had played since the original Fable (which I’m sure is a comparison that will elicit many confused and, perhaps, furious retorts). The narrative thread was truly mature in nature, and was immediately engrossing despite the steep learning curve and difficult to understand menu and combat systems. Perhaps the most impressive component of the title was its complete dedication to the concept of branching paths and ambiguous decision-making, which governed the majority of the game’s engaging storyline and made selecting a critical plot option require calculated thought and foresight. Despite its slight accessibility flaws, The Witcher 2 proved to be an immensely satisfying experience that was fascinating and enjoyable throughout the course of its well-written and even more skillfully-executed fantasy epic.

4.) Marvel vs. Capcom 3

- As I’m sure most of you know by now (or, at least you do if you follow me on Twitter or listen to Dual Wielding) I’m a huge fan of Capcom fighting games. Having never really spent a significant amount of time with Marvel vs. Capcom 2 due to its unrelenting speed and brutal learning curve, I was hopeful for a fresh start with MvC3. It was love at first hyper combo. Not only is Marvel vs. Capcom 3 distilled morphine for my brain’s pleasure centers, it also opened me up to an entirely foreign world of comic book lore, which became a new guilty pleasure of mine. While my current relationship with its “sequel”, Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, has become one of conflicted emotions, the franchise continues to occupy nearly all of my mind’s free thinking time, and there aren’t many moments that pass by where I envision potential team arrangements or combos. I’m definitely hooked.

3.) Batman: Arkham City

- Batman: Arkham Asylum was a title that shocked everyone when it released two years ago. Not only was it the first game that successfully captured the essence of the Batman mythos, but it was a damn fine action game as well. Regardless of your interest in comic books or Batman, Arkham City takes the already successful formula of Arkham Asylum and blows the doors right off anything you might have come to expect about superhero games. A fully-realized open world setting, gorgeous graphics, a dark and brooding storyline with phenomenal voice-acting, and one of the most well-constructed combat systems this side of Bayonetta. Batman: Arkham City not only redefines what it means to be a licensed title, it raises the bar significantly for action games in general, with one of the best characters of all time standing atop its astronomically high standards.

2.) Skyrim

- You knew it was going to be on here somewhere, didn’t you? Much like Chad, I was a huge fan of Oblivion, and although I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to sink into the successor to one of my favorite RPGs of all-time, I can already tell that it lives up to the impossible amount of hype surrounding its launch. Skyrim builds on the strengths of Oblivion while eliminating (almost) all of its weaknesses. Improved menu navigation, denser worlds, more interesting dungeons and quests, the list truly goes on. While the lack of direction in the beginning stages of the game was a tad overwhelming initially (much like it was for me in Oblivion) it wasn’t long before the seductive embrace of the game’s open world structure began to welcome me into its “just one more quest” arms. Considering I haven’t even scratched the surface of what Skyrim has to offer, I’d say that’s a pretty damn good sign.

1.) Gears of War 3

- There isn’t a single game that released this year that offered the amount of value and entertainment as Gears of War 3 does. As a Gears fanboy, I was sorely disappointed by the second game in the franchise after falling madly in love with the first entry in the trilogy. Thankfully, Epic Games heard my (and, evidently, many others’) cries and delivered the most expertly crafted shooter I’ve played since Call of Duty 4. Everything that was missing or broken about Gears of War 2 was promptly addressed with logical and kickass additions that make the overall package Gears of War 3 has to offer undeniably amazing. The storyline was unwaveringly excellent, the multiplayer is simply unparalleled in intensity, and Horde/Beast mode are enjoyable enough on their own to justify the $60 you pay for Epic’s latest…epic. I’d honestly wager that Gears of War 3 is the best deal since The Orange Box, and the fact that the game is so universally outstanding makes it my easy pick for Game of the Year 2011.

Tagged: 2011, battlefield 3, dead space 2, deus ex: human revolution, game of the year, gears of war 3, GOTY, skyrim, top games

Why Video Game Journalism is Failing

Adriaan Noordzij — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:28:00 +0000

Before I continue, I feel that it’s important to preface this article by establishing that video game journalism in and of itself is not a bad thing – there are many fantastic writers in the field, and several of them are well-versed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they cover. However, for every Charles Onyett, there’s a Jim Sterling – a professional with a knack for journalistic critique for every needlessly controversial amateur. With such a rift between the two types of game journalists, the concept of taking the whole entity seriously falls by the wayside when so much of the content that is pumped out of the mainstream news sites is trite, uninformative, or childishly incendiary. Allow me to demonstrate.

Modern Warfare 3 received insanely generic reviews for such a big-budget title.

Personal feelings about the title itself aside, IGN’s Modern Warfare 3 review was unworthy of the term “review”. While it was structurally and grammatically sound, the content present therein was hardly in-depth or analytical, and read more like a press release straight from Activision with mild hints of an opinion sprinkled throughout for good measure. In fact, if you examine the majority of the Modern Warfare 3 reviews, you’ll notice that they all say, more or less, the exact same thing with only slightly different words. Most reviews in this generation of consoles have become increasingly more bite-sized, and have settled for becoming mere overviews while being perfectly satisfied with glossing over key points without digging into the meat of the games themselves. While the argument that a plethora of deadlines and an abundance of games makes for a limited amount of time to review each heavy-hitting title is certainly not unfounded, some of the biggest games of the year in the last generation of consoles (Halo 2, Half-Life 2, etc) released during very cramped timeframes where journalists were required to write roughly the same amount of reviews for similarly big-budget titles. Despite this, quality was still of paramount importance during such crowded times, while today we have arguably more complex games that are receiving considerably less attention than their somewhat antiquated predecessors.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m just a jaded gamer who hates how “mainstream” one of his favorite hobbies has become? Take a gander at IGN’s Resident Evil 4 review, and then give any review written in the last six months a glance. It’s not just a matter of pages and word counts, it’s a question of critical exploration versus socially-induced apathy. Video games are unique in that they provide a level of interaction and agency that other entertainment media completely lack, and as a result, lose much of the gravitas that video games can deliver through narrative-driven experiences. Based on the coverage and reviews you see today, however, you’d be forgiven for thinking video games were as infantile and simple as mainstream society often claims them to be.

“It’s not just a matter of pages and word counts, it’s a question of critical exploration versus socially-induced apathy.”

Video games, like paintings or sculptures, deserve an exaggerated amount of attention to understand and identify the numerous intricacies they possess, and the best games often times unconditionally demand such attention. As it stands, only the so-called “arthouse” games receive this kind of professional investment by the press, while “dumb” or “simple” titles get the bullet point treatment and a score that (depending on which site you write for) is designed to either generate as little or as much controversy as possible. The fact that very little time is spent discussing the design decisions of the developers or how the mechanics interact with one another is a bold indicator of just how immature gaming journalism has become as the lowest common denominator continues to plummet and news sites constantly strive to appeal to such a demographic.

Bioshock was one of the few games that got the critical treatment it deserved.

While I’m not arguing that every review (or game, for that matter) is deserving of a 10-page magnum opus consisting of every possible perspective on the inner workings of the game in question, I do believe that the purpose of reviewing video games is largely misunderstood by both the industry itself and the gamers that demand them. It is most certainly possible to be succinct and concise without compromising critical details (as Roger Ebert has proven on numerous occasions in his film reviews) but video game reviews are written in such a simplistic fashion that it’s difficult to see how anyone could develop an informed opinion after reading one. Critiques of game mechanics are short and under-developed, pacing and artistic direction get little attention, and the conceptions of value and functionality are almost completely undermined by the fact that reviewers are sent advance copies accompanied by gifts from the developers. How could anyone possibly determine the value of a $60 title if they: 1.) Did not purchase it themselves, 2.) Did not play it in a controlled, neutral environment free of outside bias, and 3.) Did not play the game for longer than a weekend?

Nothing less.

The problems with video game reviews don’t end at the words that they consist of, however. It could be quite easily argued that the most fundamental problem with game reviews lies in the scale by which we score and rate such titles. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that video game scores are placed on a heavily-weighted scale that is ridiculously unrepresentative of the quality of the games they are assigned to. Apparently unbeknownst to a large number of gamers (and journalists), a 7 on a scale of 1-10 is not actually an “average” score. Speaking in purely mathematical terms, that role actually belongs to the number 5, which has been universally recognized as a “bad” score. In fact, many big-budget games are often viewed as “flops” if they fail to score under some heavenly-ordained number that is seemingly identified in accordance with the amount of hype the title is receiving prior to launch. Such a mentality is growing increasingly more widespread, and only creates additional problems for the credibility of video game reviews as scores become more and more meaningless to the average consumer.

Unlike film or literature, video games are experiences, and as a result, it shouldn’t be unexpected for a wide variety of opinions to be expressed across a range of reviews. The fact that so many reviews currently read like carbon copies of each other is a depressing representation of the level of respect we give video games. This apparent disinterest in delving deeper into the complexities of video games extends further than just reviews, however, and is present in nearly every level of game journalism today. Opinion pieces and investigative reports, while certainly not completely scarce, are relatively underrepresented while press releases are continually regurgitated and previews (that are almost always entirely too positive) lack any form of subjective feelings about a title’s potential shortcomings or missteps. Much of the personality that drives the grueling process of game design is depressingly absent from video game journalism, and although several sites attempt to tap into this largely unclaimed charm and character, (Destructoid being the most apparent) many of them forget that they are primarily paid professionals with a journalistic responsibility and integrity to uphold.

Video game journalism isn’t a boon to the industry, it’s just not reaching its full potential in its current state. When a fledgling medium becomes wildly successful in such a short span of time, it’s understandable that growing pains will be present, but as video games continue to evolve, the industry often fails to follow suit. While absolute ignorance of other entertainment media would be foolish and short-sighted, emulating it wholesale is equally so. A sensible combination of professionalism and charm is something the video game industry should strive to exemplify in every aspect of itself, and defying the traditional conventions we’ve come to expect from the entertainment industry is instrumental to obtaining the respect and reverence it so deserves.

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments!

- Adriaan Noordzij

Tagged: charles onyett, failing, ign, jim sterling, journalism, video games

Are Fighting Games Doomed to Repeat History?

Adriaan Noordzij — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:41:00 +0000

Fighting games have recently enjoyed quite the revival in this generation of consoles, and as much as I love the fact that we’repractically being showered with fresh experiences and new games to tinkeraround with, a part of me can’t help but wonder if companies such as Capcom areforgetting their pock-marked history and are on track to repeat it. For thoseof you who are unaware, fighting games were quite the business in the early tomid ‘90s, with Street Fighter II enjoying a healthy amount of attention inaddition to SNK’s King of Fighters games. Due to the commercial success ofthese games, fighter developers such as Capcom and SNK started releasing tonsof mildly updated versions into the wild, effectively splitting the tight-knitcommunity that had begun to rally around the most popular titles. Eventually,people stopped supporting these incremental iterations, and the fighting gamescene died, or, rather, went into a deep hibernation. But that’s old news,right?

SF3: 3rd Strike hit arcades just as the fighting game genre was dying out.

Today, a handful of fighting games dominate the market, mostnotably Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition and Marvel vs. Capcom 3, while afew other franchises are trying to reclaim their lost glory amidst the heavy hitters.The resurgence of fighting games has breathed new life into the community, andevents such as EVO have seen record turnouts, but can it all last with abusiness model that has already failed in the past? Capcom has released fouriterations of Street Fighter IV to date, and has already announced a standaloneexpansion to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 with Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, but can thetrend of tacking on a prefix or suffix here or there allow the community toremain as strong as it is today? What if by the time Street Fighter x Tekkenreleases, gamers are already anticipating a “Super” or “Turbo” edition,resulting in lackluster sales as gamers wait with bated breath for the updatedand definitive version of the game? Such a premise isn’t exactly far-fetched,and as hyped as I am for both Ultimate MvC3 and SFxT, I can’t help but feel asif Capcom is beginning to notice that their “updated” business model is aprofitable one.

Street Fighter X Tekken looks to mix things up in the fighter genre.

If one were to gauge player interest of fighting gameexpansions purely on sales numbers, they’d be ignoring one of the more criticalcomponents of the fighting game genre: community response. Take one look at theforums on Shoryuken.com or the comments on a reveal trailer for a freshexpansion, and you’ll get more information about how players feel than anynumeric value could ever tell you. What’s most worrisome about this, however,is that many fighting game developers are based in Japan or other parts ofAsia, and certainly very few are native to the United States. This disparitynot only creates a sharp divide between community desires and corporate interests,but a difficult language barrier to transcend as well. Read a few interviewswith Seth Killian (Special Advisor for Capcom) and you can see this rift atwork; he explains tiresomely that he and his team are trying their best torelay community feedback to the developers overseas, but are finding itdifficult to accurately convey the true nature of fan feedback.

Not all is lost, however. NetherRealm Studios (developers ofMortal Kombat 9) are a Chicago-based developer, and the amount of fan servicethat has gone into the development of their latest fighting game is evident.With a steady stream of DLC characters and a regular schedule of hefty updatesbased purely on community feedback, NetherRealm Studios truly exemplifies theterm “fan service.” Whether or not you enjoy MK9 is beside the point, it’s theamount of dedication to their fanbase that is most impressive. Should theJapanese developers follow suit, we may be able to sidestep the very realpossibility of repeating history and witnessing a second ice age for fightinggames. It’s going to take some seriousdedication and some corporate communication to get it done, but if the futureof fighting games holds universally GGPO-enabled titles and franchises thatbehave as platforms, it will all be worth it.

-Adriaan Noordzij

Tagged: capcom, fighters, fighting games, marvel vs capcom 3, mvc3, sfxt, street fighter x tekken, umvc3

Should Singleplayer and Multiplayer Be Reviewed Separately?

Adriaan Noordzij — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:43:00 +0000

With the recent release of Battlefield 3, many critics have noted the large disparities in quality and enjoyment between the game’s campaign and multiplayer modes. The general consensus seems to be that BF3′s singleplayer experience strays away from the formula that makes Battlefield such an enjoyable shooter in favor of something more in the vein of the Modern Warfare series. Some have even gone so far as to say that the campaign mode in Battlefield 3 is notably bad, while the multiplayer stands head and shoulders above the competition. This begs the question – should singleplayer and multiplayer components of video games be reviewed separately? Or should they be graded as a single entity with a score that considers the overall package?

This hotly debated topic isn’t exactly new, but with some of the biggest current-generation titles offering deep and addictive multiplayer experiences with narrative components as a mere bonus, it’s worth bringing up again. Most people aren’t going to buy a game such as Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 solely for the singleplayer experience, and likely couldn’t care less about the dramatic, globetrotting plots of either franchise. As it stands, do review scores alienate this growing demographic, or do they provide a well-rounded analysis of everything the game has to offer?

There are a few caveats to the prospect of reviewing the singleplayer and multiplayer components of a title independently. Most notably, games with a lack of multiplayer may be perceived as less valuable, while those who focus solely on versus modes might be docked a few points for omitting a story mode to accompany the online antics. Secondly, evaluating multiplayer experiences can be a slippery slope, especially when playing titles pre-launch with favorable, predetermined conditions established by the developer to ensure a smooth session for reviewers. A prime example of this conundrum is Gears of War 2, which suffered from an unbelievable amount of matchmaking and netcode issues for months after the game launched. Most reviews, however, failed to mention any of the myriad of problems the game suffered early on, and many gamers (myself included) were left wondering why Epic’s hotly anticipated sequel scored so high when it clearly wasn’t ready for retail.

A singleplayer experience is mostly static in its presentation, and can easily be evaluated accurately prior to launch day, but in the case of multiplayer, it’s not so simple. Although it’s understandable that sites want to release reviews for heavy hitters as soon as the embargo lifts, it might be a pleasant change should a shift in the way that these titles are reviewed emerge. Perhaps dividing the initial review into two parts (one with the full, completed review of the singleplayer, and a first impressions segment for multiplayer to be completed later) would be the optimal way to deliver the most honest and fair analysis of big budget titles.

Another tricky aspect of separating campaign and versus modes is that multiplayer games tend to evolve and expand over time, and it’s difficult to grade a game based on its potential. Some titles have had extraordinary growing pains, only to emerge on the other end as addictive experiences with little to no overbearing issues. Giving so much attention to a multiplayer component only to have the score nullified further down the line somewhat defeats the purpose of dedicating additional time and effort to seeing how developers deliver the online experience in the weeks after launch.

Similarly, when discussing potential, should games be docked points for failing to include additional modes that would fit within the game’s established framework? What if Left 4 Dead was given an eight out of 10 instead of a 9 because it lacked a Team Deathmatch or Capture the Flag mode? Conversely, what if Borderlands was an online-only title that could only be played in co-op? How each of these hypothetical situations would be addressed depends on the reviewer, but they present an interesting challenge when attempting to assign a score to a game based on the way the developers intended for it to be played.

In the case of Battlefield 3, the game is clearly designed with multiplayer as its primary focus, and the game apparently reflects that mentality. While the singleplayer experience isn’t phenomenal, I’ve found it to be fairly enjoyable, but when comparing it against the chaotic and cinematic multiplayer experience, it appears to be much worse than it really is. When reviewing the game as a whole, this stark contrast presents an imbalanced dynamic between what is essentially two completely different games. The mechanics and visuals may be the same, but what the player experiences in each respective mode is so vastly different, it almost seems unfair to evaluate the campaign based on the merits of the multiplayer. It could be argued that some singleplayer experiences are merely extended, story-driven tutorials for the endless hours you’ll likely spend in the multiplayer modes, but is such a concept giving the singleplayer an equal chance to shine on its own?

What do you guys think? Are multiplayer-centric titles not given the treatment they deserve? Or is it perfectly fair to review such games with the whole package in mind? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Tagged: battlefield3, bf3, multiplayer, review, singleplayer

Battlefield 3, Origin, and You

Adriaan Noordzij — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:00 +0000

Although the community’s lamentation of the lack of Steam support for Battlefield 3 is not completely unfounded, it’s a little ridiculous to think that people will skip out on one of the biggest games of the year simply because they have to download a new client to play it. During my time with the Alpha build of Battlefield 3, Origin performed just fine, and although it wasn’t the prettiest application, it accomplished everything it needed to.

In order to fully understand what EA is trying to do with Origin, think of the client as a new console launch. The software needs a killer app to draw people to it, and once the initial audience has been captured with that kickass game (in this case, BF3) they’re more likely to stick around and use everything the software has to offer. Remember, just because you have to download Origin to play BF3 doesn’t mean your Steam account suddenly becomes useless and that platform goes to hell. The two are competing rivals, sure, but that doesn’t mean that the consumer can’t use both. They’re both free, they both act as digital distribution software, and if anything, the direct competition with one another will ultimately benefit customers.

Although it’s quite likely that most EA games will launch exclusively on the Origin software from now on (actually, you can count on it) there may be other titles that also launch on the service, which ultimately gives gamers more options, and provokes price wars to compete for your hard-earned cash. If the fact that you can’t play Battlefield 3 on Steam is enough to convince you that the game isn’t worth your money, let’s be honest, you probably weren’t very interested to begin with. In the long run, this could be a shitty move and really hurt the franchise, but at least it’s a hell of a lot better than Modern Warfare 2’s PC options and actually has some semblance of potential. Snuff out your torches and put the pitchforks back in the shed, people, it’s Battlefield 3. Battle-fucking-field 3! C’mon!

Tagged: battlefield 3, bf3, ea, electronic arts, origin, pc, pc gaming

Bastion – Video Review (XBLA)

Adriaan Noordzij — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:00 +0000

Bastion is a quirky and unique Xbox LIVE Arcade-exclusive made by the talented team at Supergiant Games, and aims to deliver an immediately accessible and narrative-driven action RPG under the clever guise of an indie game. On most fronts, Bastion succeeds, although a few missteps hinder it from being the quintessential XBLA RPG experience that many were heralding it to be prior to the game’s launch. The burning question remains then: is it worth your hard-earned Microsoft Points?

One of the things that Bastion gets down almost perfectly is its presentation. The game’s art style is both strikingly beautiful and organic all at once, and the environments (of which there are many) are sufficiently varied and vibrant. The soundtrack is outstanding, as well, blending a unique mix of Western and folk music that feels suitably lonely and melancholic where appropriate. The rich detail of each individual level helps immerse you further in the intriguing world that Supergiant Games has created, so it’s especially disappointing that the narrative doesn’t quite deliver on the expectations that the graphics serve up.

The storyline itself is fairly original, revolving around the events that transpire after a terrible event dubbed The Calamity sweeps the lands and wipes out the majority of the world’s population. You take control of the game’s protagonist, known simply as “The Kid” as he heads out to the Bastion, a predetermined safe haven whose sole inhabitant is an old man who narrates your entire experience throughout the game. Much has been made of Bastion’s dynamic narration system, and although it is a clever story-telling and tutorial mechanic all in one, some holes in the writing lead to a general sense of confusion during several different moments during the storyline. In order to remain appealing, the narration isn’t exactly straightforward, and the narrator frequently speaks in riddles that only serve to convolute the already minimal explanation of the story. This is a real shame, considering that there are flashes of brilliance throughout your time with Bastion where hints of a backstory and a bit of flesh on the skeletal context you’re given enrich the experience, only to be dulled by convoluted narration that feels a bit extraneous and too enigmatic for its own good.

Bastion is an action RPG at heart, and as such, has a fairly heavy emphasis on combat. Fortunately, beating up bad guys in Bastion is enjoyable, although it grows somewhat repetitive rather quickly. You’re given two weapon slots, each completely open to any type of sword, hammer, musket, or bow you wish to carry with you on your quest. Although you’ll likely find a favorite combination of weapons that works for your particular playstyle pretty quickly, using them doesn’t become stale until you’ve fully upgraded their capabilities. A few of the weapons also appear to be clearly superior to others and simply better suited to a wider variety of situations, making them easy choices for most players who want to play the game in the most efficient way possible.

In addition to your main weapons, you’re given a Special Skill which is occasionally weapon-specific, and also customizable. Some of these skills include hand grenades, scatter shots with your musket, or spells to convert one particular enemy into a temporary ally. These can turn the tide of a battle fairly quickly, and are often times better suited to offensive situations, although a select few are able to get you out of a bind if needed. Other modifiers are present in the game, such as Spirits, which act as passive buffs to your character when equipped at a distillery, or Invoked Gods, which behave almost exactly like the Skulls from Halo and provide a more difficult experience alongside a number of savory XP boosts and rewards.

If it weren’t for these Gods, Bastion would be entirely all too easy. Its default, unaltered difficulty is a joke, and it wasn’t until I turned on a fair number of Gods that I began to actually have any kind of trouble with the game. Without the Gods on, I didn’t die a single time in my playthrough, a number which only changed by a small few after invoking some good ol’ fashioned wrath at the Bastion’s local shrine. The easy difficulty wouldn’t be such a big deal if it didn’t hurt the game’s combat so much. You’ll find yourself growing tired of mashing X to just get to the end of another level, only to do the same thing five minutes later in another world. There are a few challenge areas that test your smarts and speed to break up the monotony of the “go-here-get-this-come-back-do-it-again” gameplay, but Bastion begins to get a bit boring about halfway through, which is a shame because the game appears to explore some hidden potential in the later levels without ever fully realizing it.

Bastion plays wonderfully, using a control scheme that makes sense immediately and allows you to explore all that the game’s combat system has to offer right off the bat. The ability to alter your evade’s direction during the animation is one of the smartest design decisions the game employs, and overall everything feels appropriately responsive. The only significant gripe I have with how Bastion handles lies with the game’s targeting system, which is never properly explained nor is it particularly consistent. This becomes especially apparent when participating in some of the game’s challenge rooms, which require reasonably precise accuracy and positioning. Although it’s not a huge problem and doesn’t really crop up too often in the main chunk of the experience, the targeting system still bugged me enough (and forced me to restart a few challenge rooms) to make it worth mentioning.

At 1200 Microsoft Points, or $15 to us Earth-folk, Bastion is a fairly priced title. The main storyline is meaty enough to justify the purchase, and if you enjoy the game enough the first time around, there’s a New Game Plus mode which has all the usual trimmings of such an option. Much of the game’s additional value comes from this mode, and anything you missed from your initial playthrough or the desire to piss off every single God and make the game as ridiculously difficult as possible for yourself will help make that $15 especially worthwhile. A lack of any sort of co-operative mode is an almost expected oversight, but would’ve worked wonders in extending Bastion’s lifespan and enjoyment.

Bastion is a game that tries very hard to be both accessible and more complex than it needs to be, and as a result its narrative feels a tad contrived when it could’ve been a fairly compelling, yet simple RPG experience that resonated with a large core audience. Despite the game’s enjoyable, albeit repetitive combat and gorgeous art style, a lack of variety from a gameplay perspective makes this polished indie title a good game, rather than a great one. If the simplistic, hack-n-slash gameplay and striking art style are enough to satisfy you, you’ll find a fun little title that proves to be a worthy distraction from your gaming mainstays. Just don’t expect it to have the narrative depth of Braid, or the more refined combat of Castle Crashers.

Tagged: bastion, review, video review, xbla, xbox live arcade