Oh, You Wanted A Game That Works?

Source

Good Luck Earning Me...

    So I suffer from a common gamer ailment known as "completestism." When there's a game I really enjoy, which happens alot, I want, nay, NEED to earn its platinum. I've been playing games long enough that, no matter the difficulty, I know with the right amount of patience and persistence, there really isn't anything I can't do in a game. Long gone are the brutal difficulties of the NES days and mostly everything, with the right amount of persistence, can be achieved with patience rather than skill.

   That is, ofcourse, assuming the game isn't bugged!

   Enter Dragon Age II, the source of much thought and emotion over the past few weeks for me. When I first got it, I thought it was meh. Then I downright hated it. Then I took a small hiatus and came back to it with a renewed sense of purpose and ended up loving it. And when I love a game, I have to get the platinum. I must. But I can't get the platinum in this case. It isn't a question of skill, but one made of coding. One trophy, known as the "Epic" trophy, is apparently bugged and only obtainable in a method contrary to its description. Crap. Thanks, Bioware.

 

Source

I spit in your face!

  The description of the gold trophy says that you can earn it by either beating the game with an uploaded file from Dragon Age: Origins or just beat the game twice. But the news around the interwebz is that the second option doesn't work. Just flat out doesn't. Folks who have a complete Origins file to upload have had success getting it, but there's no way I'm going to play through Origins just to play through DAII again just to get it. And the kicker is I did play through Origins back in the day, but lost the save when my first PS3 kicked the bucket. So now, myself and the others consumers who bought DAII without an Origins are flat out of luck in our search for platinum goodness until a patch is released, whenever the hell that will be.

   This has gotten me thinking about patching as a whole, since its a fairly new element in the console space since this generations connectivity. Since when did it become acceptable to release and sell broken games? The most recent example besides this trophy mess was Fallout: New Vegas. Despite coming from a solid franchise, it was considered virtually unplayable when it was first released, complete with broken quests, freeze points, and a slew of other problems. And these definitely weren't out of the blue. The consensus before the release was that this game would need a few months of patchwork to be worth it. But when did it become acceptable to sell a product that won't work properly right out of the box - KNOWINGLY?!

Source

Totally natural pose

   I understand, with the way the industry is today, there's a lot of pressure for developers to ship a game on time. Delays never sit well with anyone. But if it ain't ready, it's simply unfair to the fans who plan on supporting that product day 1. Patches are definitely a good thing and I love the idea, especially with things like multiplayer when balance isn't really figured out until thousands of testing hours later, that a game will be optimized if it can be. But patches shouldn't be a crutch.

   Recently David Jaffe, director of the original God of War and Twisted Metal series, said that he thinks that Sony and Microsoft should impose rules on patching to prevent developers from selling products that are not ready for the shelves. He suggested that maybe every game should only be allowed to be patched 4 times, forcing developers to fix bugs before rather than later. I, personally, think this is a bit of an overkill. If developers can fix something - let them fix it. But I love his passion for gamers and his willingness to stick up for the consumer. In the end, I guess it's up to us, as gamers, to speak with our wallets. If it's broke, we shouldn't by it.

What do you think? Is the current system of patching fair or should Sony and Microsoft do something to prevent broken games and force developers to not release games until they are perfect?

Lessons From Waggleton P. Tallywacker

Source

You won't forget me, pal

   So after beating Dragon Age II, I decided to take a break before going for the platnium to check out Epic's Bulletstorm. They game got fairly good reviews(somewhere in the mid 80's on Metacritic) and a decent word of mouth around the various podcasts on the interwebz and, from what I've seen in my 5 or so hours of playing this far, the reception is on the spot. Bulletstorm's skillshot mechanic isn't revolutionary and can be sometimes downright frustrating if your trying to do everything(I shot him in the balls! Give me the credit!), but it changes things up just enough to compliment the above average visuals to make a refreshing FPS in a very crowded market. But what I've taken away thus far is one name and one name alone: Waggleton P. Tallywacker.

   Your time with Mr. Tallywacker, a giant remote controlled creature with mounted lasers and a nack for smashing things, is short but certainly memorable. All the characters in the game, in fact, from the protagonist Gray, Ishi, and Trischka(now that's a name) all fit well into the writing that doesn't take itself too seriously and delivers a game that I won't remember for the actual gameplay, but because of the characters. They don't develop or go through personal emotional struggles (actually Gray drinks too much, but its more of the funny alcoholic) but the humor is on point without feeling like the developers were trying too hard, which isn't an easy thing to pull off. This has got me thinking about the whole blend of gameplay and writing that developers try to implement but only occasionally get them both right. In the end, what's more important?

 

Source

Who cares who I am, I iz fun to play

   Obviously, every developer wants to make a game that is fun to play but also has an interesting story and characters. But it has been shown that it's easier said than done, and usually one outshines the other...or both just suck. But is it really important to have interesting characters and a gripping story? In the end, unlike movies and books, games can have terrible stories and characters but, because of gameplay, can still be memorable and worthwhile. Even if the writing is rubbish, most gamers will stomach through it if the gameplay is good. But the other way around doesn't really apply.  As interesting as the plot might be, I think most gamers won't waste their time if they have to grind through an experience.

   In his book, Extra Lives, Tom Bissell talks about this very idea and gives a great example in the first Resident Evil. When it came out, it was refreshing and revolutionary, essentially mainstreaming a new genre while launching a franchise that is still considered AAA today and a series of movies. The first iteration wasn't my favorite in the series(Resident Evil 4 getting re-released HD = me moist) but definitely stands as one of my personal favorites from that generation and a must play for any gamer.

   Oh, and the story was ABYSMAL!

Source

I hope this isn't...CHIRS' BLOOD!

   Ok, maybe the concept was solid, but the writing and voice acting were historically terrible. But did it matter? Nope. Not a bit. Because in the end, gameplay has and seems will always trump story. Fighting zombies in the mansion was tense and EVERY bullet felt like it counted. I couldn't help but laugh when Jill opened her mouth, but reaching a save room and hearing that typewriter save my game was like a wave of ecstasy because the gameplay was just so engrossing. If you disagree that gameplay rules the school yard, you should check out NPD's recently released list of the 10 best selling games of all time. It broke down like this:

 

1. Wii Play
2. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
3. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
5. Wii Fit
6. Mario Kart w/ Wheel
7. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
8. Madden NFL '07
9. Call of Duty: World at War
10. Namco Museum

    Kinda sad, right? Jeese, especially #2. And you know its only a matter of time before Black Ops gets on there. But out of those 10, I can say only GTA: San Andreas had an above average story and characters. Don't say COD 'cause you're just gonna sound ignorant. But if this list does anything, besides make you weep, is that gameplay matters more to the average player than story does. That's not to say there is no place or desire for great stories. Most of these games are never in serious contention for the GOTY because they're fun but shallow experiences. There are plenty of games that tell great stories and still sell well (GoW, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption) but in the end, if they don't play well, it doesn't matter. Waggleton P. Tallywacker and the cast of Bulletstorm are really funny and memorable characters, but I will only remember them because Bulletstorm is fun to play.

   

The Strong Silent Type

Source

Don't say much, do ya?

   In a year where it seems like there are atleast 1-2 must buy games  being released each month, Rage has been on my radar since it made its debut at E3 last year and is shaping up to be a hell of a time. For those you you haven't been keeping track, its basically Borderlands but with way smarter enemies and visuals which will make you cream your pants. Yes, cream, nothing else. While you were reading this a baker snuck a cake into your pants which will explode in creamy goodness when you play it. But only then.

   Wow, tangent. Anyway, I was watching an interview by one of the dudes from Epic, who are making the game, and he talked about the decision to keep the protagonist "classic Epic" which mainly means that he/she doesn't have a character but, as the player, you're led to believe that you "are" this fella going about the wasteland turning wrongs into rights. You go about and "talk" to people, but you don't hear yourself speak and rather the other characters react to you. This is not a new convention, but it got me thinking about the role of main characters, as alot of different games use them in varying ways, each with differing results.

   This method, the silent protagonist, can definitely work and make you really feel wrapped up in the story. You don't speak a word in Bioshock, but there was never a second I felt disconnected from the events in Rapture. That was me running from the Big Daddy, and it scared the crap out of me. Fallout 3 is another good example that, while not done as perfectly, aimed to make you feel that you are simply you in the game, rather than just some random joe. This gave you even more control of the actions, letting you decide what to say, but you never really heard it.

   My only beef with this approach is that sometimes its just downright frustrating not having a voice, literally. In Homefront(which you shouldn't play 'cause it blows) there is one part where you are separated from your pack and they're looking for you. You can hear them calling for you over the radio, but you don't say anything back. I was saying something, yelling on my couch, but the game couldn't hear me and translate my voice, which made me kinda hate the silent protagonist. Maybe I need to buy Kinect(Chuckle). If that's the route the programmers are going to take, fine, but don't put in situations that a mime shouldn't be in.

Source

Don't ask me, man. I has no voice!

   The opposite end of the spectrum is games that have a static main character and gives us the reins during the gameplay and make us simply sit back during the cut scenes. This certainly has its pitfalls, especially when you hate the main character (I'm calling you out Raiden! You pu$$y!). But there are still the Nathan Drakes, the Niko Bellics, the Solid Snakes etc. who are just so well-rounded and interesting that they should be nominated for some video game best actor oscar.  We don't get to be them, but we care about them enough that we want to seem them through to end. I actually think I prefer this method more actually. Not that I don't want to be me sometimes in games, but I like exploring characters and seeing what they do vs. what I would do.

   I think Bioware actually has found a nice mix between the two, with games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age II where you control a character to the utmost degree, deciding if they look like you or someone completely different and basically how you want them to respond in given situations. In these games, you can be you - look, act, etc. - or you can create your own character that would set a barn full of nuns ablaze, even if you wouldn't.

Source

It's cool, it's just my character burning them alive

  In the end, there are just alot of different ways to skin a cat. Which way do you like your games playing out?

Those Darn Slavers

Source

I am teh worst guy everzz

 So after a quick flirt with 3D Dot Game Heroes, I got a second wind for Dragon Age II, despite the hate fest I delivered in my last post (Hypocritical much?)  I've come to see Bioware's game as kind of a retarded puppy. Once you accept him for what he is, only then can you come to love him. I cast aside my mage(punnery!) and opted to play the game the way it is meant to be played - swinging your swords all around to show your manliness(or womanness...er if you made your character that way.) I am enjoying the tale much more now as a Rogue since it's ok to mash the attack button, so win for me.

  Anyways, after getting ambushed in the 'ol Bait and Switch mission, I've come to see that, in a world where there is often never a "right" decision, one group has overcome this and become always hate worthy in every situation. Yep, I'm talking about you, slavers! You jerks!

  Wherever you fall in the templar vs. mage struggle, you'll still find some on both sides that are worthy of your mercy and even friendship. Don't like the elves? Well, poop on you because there are some nice ones. How about those money hungry dwarfs always digging and such? Varric is awesome and damn charming. But there is no, and I repeat, NO slaver that ever seems worth a second look. And I'm not just talking DAII, in every game, there is no story of a slaver with a heart of gold. I know it comes from the nature of their work, but thieves and pirates rape and pillage with the best of them, but we'll always come across one that makes me want to buy him/her a pint. Nope, not Slavers. They're the Nazis of the D&D world.

Source

I'm a real nice guy...honest

  Yeah, sure. Let me just stab you now and get my good karma reward ASAP.

"Atleast I Tried" - My Attempt AT Dragon Age II

Source

So you want to play an RPG, do you?

Looking back at all the games I've played over the years, Baulder's Gate II has to be up there in amount of man hours clocked in. I ran through Bioware's epic story and later expansion Throne of Bhaal atleast a half dozen times, trying out different classes, party members, etc. I remember my cousin and I, one summer while working together cleaning toilets(just as fun as it sounds), used to spend our brakes scrawling out different combinations of characters before our next run through to maximize efficiency. To this day, I still remember that feeling of sheer contentment at reading through what happened to my companions after our journey was over. It was epic. It was awesome. It was unforgettable.

Dragon Age II on the consoles is none of these things. You've teased me again Bioware.

I played through Origins on a whim and, while I had some trouble really getting into the story, I finished it and even flirted with going through with a second playthrough to see what would have happened if I changed alot of my choices and alliances through the story. It wasn't great though. The combat was slow and I never really felt in control of everything, having to make my way awkwardly through the bumpers and such to assign my fellas their tasks. Nonetheless, when DAII was announced, I knew I was onboard. Awesome looking dude in the trailer? Check. Promised better combat? Check. Engrossing story? Check. I got my butt to the evil Gamestop store and bought that puppy, ready to get my RPG on!

Source

You like mashing buttons, don't you?

After about 10 hours or so of DAII, I think my high expectations have gotten the best of me and I think I'm walking away, which is rare for me. The new "fast-paced" combat is a bit too fast and I'm having flashbacks of playing Dynasty Warriors, just spamming the attack button while waiting for my special attacks to recharge. While you certainly can employ some strategy, pausing the game and assigning each of your party to a specific action, it's ultimately unnecessary and just quicker to let your gang just go crazy. Most critiques have written that this is the one area that has improved greatly from the first. I'm not feeling it as much. In Mass Effect, with the shooting and all, I was contempt with just controlling my main guy and letting the others do their thing. In a medieval setting, where character classes play a much more integral role, I want control. But you have made it so hard! Blast you!

I realize that playing the PC version would probably lend more to the strategic experience I am hoping for. But alas, I have a trophy addiction and can't get myself to playing something that isn't adding to my Gamer Rank. I need help...

I like how Hawke is an active participant in the story, but he and the rest of the initial never really struck a nerve for me. I hope things turn out well for them. But, in the end, I'm not gonna waste 20-30 hours trying to make sure. Dragon Age II, rather than feel like a step forward, feels like a step sideways. If they want to make this Mass Effect meets D&D, stop fiddling around and do it. I'll be fine with that. Just let me control one guy with the exception of a few commands and let's just go.Don't try to be a tactial RPG when all I really need to do is spam the attack.

Maybe down the line I'll give DAII another whirl, but my first foot forward with this was a misstep. Time for the shelf.