So I've finished the campaign on Gears of War 3 and I wanted to think about my impression of the game before I posted a review. You may agree or disagree with some of what I have to say and that's okay . . . just say what you have to say in the comments section.
1) The boys are back . . . but their neutered
This games was cowritten by Karen Traviss who wrote a bunch of Star Wars books and is writing the Gears books. While I've liked her books there just seems to be something off with the characters in this game. Their banter could be a little annoying sometimes in the earlier game but it's what made those characters stand out and have their own personalities. In this game it feels like everyone is the same. The constant banter between Cole and Baird is gone and everyone walks around like a mute. Part of what made some of the characters hilarious was their interaction with Carmine (and his responses). There was a whole promotional campaign to "save Carmine" or "kill Carmine" a year or so ago but the Carmine brother in this game seems nonexistent. So what was the point of those avatar t-shirts except for making money? There was so much potential for the characters in this game, given the history of the planet, but I feel like they've all been neutered.
2) Hello, not everyone is going to read the books
I've only read the first Gears of War book although I own the next 3 or 4. When the game started I had no clue what was going on in the story or why things were the way they were at that time. What made it worse was there was no backstory in the game. If you wanted to know what was going on you had to read the books. There were some things that made sense because I have read the first book, but other things are still lost on me. Since I've told my friends NOT to spoil the books for me they can't tell me anything. So if you haven't read any of the books you're basically going to be lost for a lot of what is going on and the why behind it all.
3) A major case of deja vu
While playing this game I couldn't help but get the feeling that I was actually playing other games. The doors and wires the squad had to walk through to get from one area to another was like the elevator rides in Mass Effect. It's a way to load the next area without a blank load screen. Towards the end the designed gave up that pretense and had their own elevator rides/load screens. And the "farmers" (I think that's what they're called) that all of a sudden came chasing after you like zombies from Left 3 Dead? Been there. Done that. There was even a scene that felt exactly like one from that game. It involved not disturbing ash people just like you shouldn't disturb cars to set off their alarms in L4D. And then there wasn't much story between action scenes . . . kind of like a Call of Duty game. That wasn't like the first couple of games. Who could ever forget the "slow" moment of Kai's death? Or when Dom finds Maria? Or either Carmine's deaths? Gears wasn't a run-and-gun type game. It had story. It had heart. But not in this one.
4) Foreshadowing should be more than 2 minutes before things happen
When you want to foreshadow something you should really lay hints out long before the event happens. Having Dom give up his dog tags before the "event" happens in the next scene is NOT foreshadowing. It's an "oops we forgot to set this pivotal moment up" decision. When Dom is looking for Maria in the second game you see and hear him talking about that long before he finds her. And when you get to the part of the story where he's looking for her he doesn't find her in the first place he looks. Once you have a big pivotal scene like that you have the after effects. And based on previous games the after effects should have had a longer deeper feeling to it than "oh well, let's move one". Whatever passion for life Marcus had been keeping a tight hold on for years should have at least bubbled to the surface a little bit afterwards. But Marcus was just the same afterwards as he was beforehand. While I liked him in the first two games, I though he came across as a emotionless bastard in this game. When they neutered the characters they stripped all emotion from them as well.
5) combat de-evolved
One area of combat that annoyed the heck out of me was the corpser scene. All the other "boss" battles and such in all the other games was about finding a way to kill all the enemies present. There was no "do this" then "do that" and then "boss dies". Going through the 5 stages with the corpser (and to some extent with the final boss battle) felt like battling a boss in an RPG game that evolves as the battle progresses. The first incarnation is a fire demon (attack with water). The next incarnation is a dark demon (attack with light). The next physical defenses are down (attack with your weapon). It's repetitive and monotonous. And boring. There had to be a better way to make that battle more interesting. There's a ceiling so no Hammer of Dawn. Why not have the guys try to position the corpser under a section of roof and blast a pillar down, hopefully not on their heads? There was potential there but I think it failed miserably in the execution.
6) weapon change outs
I could buy that the saw-off shotgun and retro lancer were older guns that Gears retired and moved to something a little more advanced. But where does the One Shot fit in in all that? And what about the Hammer of Dawn? I can't tell you how many battles I faced where the Lancer (or retro) was all I needed to get through an area. In the other games there were several places that only a certain weapon would see you through to the next area. In this game it didn't really matter what you had equipped. So where's the challenge in that? I want a little challenge to my murderous rampages. Is there a guy on a far tower I need to kill that my guns won't reach? Give me a special gun in order to get him. Unfortunately there were no special guns because there were no guys on far ledges that you couldn't reach. Everything was up close and personal so a Lancer and and shotgun was all you needed.
I'm sure I could tell you more things that bugged me about this game, but I want to hear what you have to say. (Just don't get me started on Marcus's hair.) I'll give my review of the multiplayer portion later. Overall I liked the game. I just wished I knew more about what was going on and that the feel of the previous two games was included in this game. The campaign was short but that's a typically Gears game for you. I didn't find it all that challenging to play but I'm glad I played it. I'm now working on the hardcore and insane play throughs. If you want to join me jump on it.
Overall score (out of 10): 8
Combat: 7
Story: 5
Characters: 7
Showing posts with label RPGs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RPGs. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Grinding away
There is one key to success in RPG type games. I know. I play a lot of them. It's grinding. If you play RPG games you'll agree with me.
Grinding is where you run around in one area just to start battles and gain experience points, items, or leveling up your characters abilities. The stronger the character the easier the battles. At some point in the story you'll sometimes find yourself in an area where the enemies are much stronger than you so grinding becomes required to get through some areas of games.
The experienced RPG player knows this so they start grinding early. There's nothing like battling low level opponents early on in the game to get your character levels higher than where they should be right off the bat. If you go to a new area with level 10 enemies are you've already gotten your characters up to a level 15 it makes things so much easier.
Unfortunately the downside to grinding is that battles can get very tedious and monotonous. It becomes the same things over and over again. And pretty soon those few experience points you get out of every battle aren't going to do much to get your character to the next level.
The RPG that I've been playing recently is Blue Dragon. I love this game . . . or at least as far as I previously got in the game. But I didn't love it at first. I found the battles tough and costly for the first couple of areas. That was because I wasn't grinding. Once I decided to grind away a couple of level increases the battles got much easier and that was when I started to get into the story . . . and when my stuff got robbed.
I've been looking for something to play by myself since a lot of my friends have gone missing on Xbox Live (or at least sporadically missing). I've tried Mass Effect but my system seems to have problems with that game by freezing up and doing weird things. So I pulled out Blue Dragon again (only because of an alphabetical order of my games).
Because I know how the game plays and what I need to do I've been able to level up almost twice as high as where I was at before. I've learned several more Dragon skills than I knew before and the large amount of gold I've collected from those battles has let me equip my characters to the max for what is available this early in the game. I've played for about 5 and 1/2 hours and I bet 2 1/2 to 3 hours of that has been grinding. And it's starting to wear on me.
I love the game but there's just so many times you can battle cute little butterflies and jumping crickets before you say "enough is enough". I want to move on with the story. I want to know what happens next. When grinding gets too tedious and I get bored that seems to be when I put the game aside and play something else. But if I want to progress the story why do I put the game aside?
Because I'm usually grinding in a place that's as far away from where I need to go as I can possible get. In order to progress the story I've got to traverse a lot of ground which means getting into a lot of battles; which means boredom. I got so fed up with trying to get back to the story line in Lost Odyssey that I picked "flee" from the command options every time, even if I knew I could beat the enemy rather easily. It just wasn't worth the effort for me.
You can't grind in shooters, racers or platform games. RPGs seem to have an exclusive market on that particular gaming ritual. RPGs are also my first love of video games (platformers a close second, followed by hack-n-slash type games, but more on that in another post). Because I love RPGs I do send a lot of time grinding. Now Blue Dragon is a 3-disk game so I don't think it will be a game I finish this year (considering my gaming habits), but I hope to get farther a long in the game than where I was before. And for right now that means I still have a ways to go in the game to get there. Maybe things will go easier now that I've been grinding more at the beginning. Or maybe I'll pull out another game and start playing.
Sometimes you grind for fun. Sometimes the grinding grinds you down to nothing. Only time (and more grinding) will tell.
Grinding is where you run around in one area just to start battles and gain experience points, items, or leveling up your characters abilities. The stronger the character the easier the battles. At some point in the story you'll sometimes find yourself in an area where the enemies are much stronger than you so grinding becomes required to get through some areas of games.
The experienced RPG player knows this so they start grinding early. There's nothing like battling low level opponents early on in the game to get your character levels higher than where they should be right off the bat. If you go to a new area with level 10 enemies are you've already gotten your characters up to a level 15 it makes things so much easier.
Unfortunately the downside to grinding is that battles can get very tedious and monotonous. It becomes the same things over and over again. And pretty soon those few experience points you get out of every battle aren't going to do much to get your character to the next level.
The RPG that I've been playing recently is Blue Dragon. I love this game . . . or at least as far as I previously got in the game. But I didn't love it at first. I found the battles tough and costly for the first couple of areas. That was because I wasn't grinding. Once I decided to grind away a couple of level increases the battles got much easier and that was when I started to get into the story . . . and when my stuff got robbed.
I've been looking for something to play by myself since a lot of my friends have gone missing on Xbox Live (or at least sporadically missing). I've tried Mass Effect but my system seems to have problems with that game by freezing up and doing weird things. So I pulled out Blue Dragon again (only because of an alphabetical order of my games).
Because I know how the game plays and what I need to do I've been able to level up almost twice as high as where I was at before. I've learned several more Dragon skills than I knew before and the large amount of gold I've collected from those battles has let me equip my characters to the max for what is available this early in the game. I've played for about 5 and 1/2 hours and I bet 2 1/2 to 3 hours of that has been grinding. And it's starting to wear on me.
I love the game but there's just so many times you can battle cute little butterflies and jumping crickets before you say "enough is enough". I want to move on with the story. I want to know what happens next. When grinding gets too tedious and I get bored that seems to be when I put the game aside and play something else. But if I want to progress the story why do I put the game aside?
Because I'm usually grinding in a place that's as far away from where I need to go as I can possible get. In order to progress the story I've got to traverse a lot of ground which means getting into a lot of battles; which means boredom. I got so fed up with trying to get back to the story line in Lost Odyssey that I picked "flee" from the command options every time, even if I knew I could beat the enemy rather easily. It just wasn't worth the effort for me.
You can't grind in shooters, racers or platform games. RPGs seem to have an exclusive market on that particular gaming ritual. RPGs are also my first love of video games (platformers a close second, followed by hack-n-slash type games, but more on that in another post). Because I love RPGs I do send a lot of time grinding. Now Blue Dragon is a 3-disk game so I don't think it will be a game I finish this year (considering my gaming habits), but I hope to get farther a long in the game than where I was before. And for right now that means I still have a ways to go in the game to get there. Maybe things will go easier now that I've been grinding more at the beginning. Or maybe I'll pull out another game and start playing.
Sometimes you grind for fun. Sometimes the grinding grinds you down to nothing. Only time (and more grinding) will tell.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Decline of RPGs
The first video games I played were Tetris and Mario Bros. A puzzle and platform game respectively. But my love of video games in general came with RPGs. Those Role Playing Games that allow you to customize your character's strengths and weaknesses and battle enemy foes using physical attacks and magic. There was strategy involved but you were not scripted to playing the game a set way.
If any series cemented what RPGs were all about it was Final Fantasy. Although there were RPGs before the first Final Fantasy game was released no other series has done it better than developer's Square's (whether they were Square Soft, Square Enix or just Square) long loved series. But I'm beginning to wonder about the health of RPGs in today's gaming environment and whether or not Square has given into the pressure of making the games more action oriented and faster paced.
In order to see the decline of the RPGs, let's start at the beginning. Most of the very first RPGs had a similar system of battle. You had three or four characters standing in a line facing any number of foes (also standing in a line) and you each took turns in the battle. A menu would pop up of available moves and the player entered whatever commands they wanted to see their characters preform. Playable characters also had designated jobs or job skills and no matter how much you wanted that magic user to use a sword they were never going to be very good at it. Your warrior would always be your muscle man. Your healer would always be a girl. Your black mage would always be the shy dorky one.
One problem with early RPGs was that you wouldn't always know when your characters would take their turn. There was nothing more frustrating than having a character with low hit points get killed off before one of your other characters could heal them and all because of their turn order. That curative spell now gets redirected to a character that doesn't really need it and it's a waste of magic points.
Then along came "attack gauges" or "turn order line ups". These allowed you to see when in the order of battle which characters would act first. If you notice that all the enemy are going to strike before you even get a turn then there's no point in trying to save a teammate if they're going to get struck down before you get a chance to heal them. You turn(s) would be better served striking at the enemy with the characters you do have or shoring them up for the next turn. It was a balancing act of attack and defend. There was strategy involved and the player had to think ahead in order to survive some tough boss battles.
So now players had "turn order" displays to better help them battle enemies, but characters where still standing in a straight line at the start of battle. In the 'guise of making RPGs better, developers now instituted what I call a "roaming" nature to the battle. Instead of drawing a line in the sand of where each team would stand and fight from,characters now roamed about the battle field. But enemies roamed around as well. At the start of a battle a character might be in front of the enemy but later on they could isolated and surrounded by the enemy. While this did make the battle systems more "active" and faster paced because you not only had to keep track of commands issued and the order they would be performed you had to keep an eye out for enemy movement so no one character gets in trouble. The problem with all this movement was that a lot of information was being displayed on the screen and a battle could get very distracting to a player if they paid attention to every blip and dot that showed on the TV.
Some time after "roaming" was introduced to RPGs developers decided that it was just too much for games to handle so they started to create games where the computer controlled the movements and commands of some of your party members. No longer would players have to concentrate on keeping three or four characters alive and active on the field. Now they only had to concentrate on one. Those characters that were previously designated as "healers" "warriors" or "magi" were now locked into those roles and that was the only thing they could do. The gamer had one character they could customize and grow however they wanted to. Everyone else's destiny was written in the programming code.
You would think that RPGs could go no further in eliminating the human player from the game, but they have. Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of that. When a battle starts there is an "auto battle" option available. What this command option does, is have the computer pick the best attack options and programs them in for you. One click of a button and your character will execute three preprogrammed commands. And your other characters are left to whatever commands the games programmed them for. But there's a twist. If you team is in need of healing, you either have to use potions yourself or you have to switch your whole team to a different "paradigm" in order for one of the AI controlled characters to heal you.
What a "paradigm shift" is, is a pre-programmed set of class skills for your party. Unfortunately, you might be in a position to want to throw a lot more fire power at an enemy at the same time you might need someone to heal the group. Having a paradigm shift that gives you both is impossible. Instead of three strong attackers you now might have one attacker, one support person and one healer.
For me, all of these changes have created a disconnect with RPGs and the characters that inhabit them. I don't care as much about Lightning or Hope as I did about Cloud or Vivi. Vanille is more annoying than Rikku ever was. And I don't care if Snow gets to save Sara as much as I cared if Tidus got to save Yuna. The games are still RPGs. You can still customize your characters (albeit down a very limited, straight forward path).
RPGs were like Chess games for gamers. There was thought and planning involved. They took hours to play and had a story line that merited the time invested in the game. Now a days is seems it's all about throwing the player right in and GIVE THEM ACTION ACTION ACTION!!!!
Maybe you don't think RPGs have changed. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's me that has changed. I'm older. I've got more things and responsibilities going on in my life so my expectations for RPGs might naturally have changed. But there's one problem with that. I've finished Final Fantasy X but I still love to go back and play it. It stills brings the same emotions and excitement out in me as when I played it the first time. Now some scenes in the beginning are more poignant than they were the first time around because I know what's going to happen. With newer RPGs I'm just not feeling that. It's like developers are saying "we've got to hook 'em first with action and make the game easier to play to they'll stick with it". To be honest that's not usually why gamers get involved with RPGs.
I will probably always love RPGs. They haven't messed them up enough where I'm turned off the genre as a whole. I have learned to be more cautious with my expectations and purchases for games in that genre. That didn't use to be the case. I would buy any and every RPG I could find. The first game I finished to the end credits was Legend of Dragoon. That is an RPG worthy of (and set up for) a sequel. I have since gone back and restarted that game as well because I miss it.
There is a saying that "if it's not broke, don't fix it". I wish developers would have listened to that as they have evolved the RPG style of game. While, attack gauges and turn orders are nice they still keep the integrity of the RPG experience intact. When the game starts to control more characters than the human playing it, I think they've gone to far. Hopefully this is only a trend and this "decline of RPGs" is only a pothole on the road to some great RPG games to come out in the future. Long live Vivi!
If any series cemented what RPGs were all about it was Final Fantasy. Although there were RPGs before the first Final Fantasy game was released no other series has done it better than developer's Square's (whether they were Square Soft, Square Enix or just Square) long loved series. But I'm beginning to wonder about the health of RPGs in today's gaming environment and whether or not Square has given into the pressure of making the games more action oriented and faster paced.
In order to see the decline of the RPGs, let's start at the beginning. Most of the very first RPGs had a similar system of battle. You had three or four characters standing in a line facing any number of foes (also standing in a line) and you each took turns in the battle. A menu would pop up of available moves and the player entered whatever commands they wanted to see their characters preform. Playable characters also had designated jobs or job skills and no matter how much you wanted that magic user to use a sword they were never going to be very good at it. Your warrior would always be your muscle man. Your healer would always be a girl. Your black mage would always be the shy dorky one.
One problem with early RPGs was that you wouldn't always know when your characters would take their turn. There was nothing more frustrating than having a character with low hit points get killed off before one of your other characters could heal them and all because of their turn order. That curative spell now gets redirected to a character that doesn't really need it and it's a waste of magic points.
Then along came "attack gauges" or "turn order line ups". These allowed you to see when in the order of battle which characters would act first. If you notice that all the enemy are going to strike before you even get a turn then there's no point in trying to save a teammate if they're going to get struck down before you get a chance to heal them. You turn(s) would be better served striking at the enemy with the characters you do have or shoring them up for the next turn. It was a balancing act of attack and defend. There was strategy involved and the player had to think ahead in order to survive some tough boss battles.
So now players had "turn order" displays to better help them battle enemies, but characters where still standing in a straight line at the start of battle. In the 'guise of making RPGs better, developers now instituted what I call a "roaming" nature to the battle. Instead of drawing a line in the sand of where each team would stand and fight from,characters now roamed about the battle field. But enemies roamed around as well. At the start of a battle a character might be in front of the enemy but later on they could isolated and surrounded by the enemy. While this did make the battle systems more "active" and faster paced because you not only had to keep track of commands issued and the order they would be performed you had to keep an eye out for enemy movement so no one character gets in trouble. The problem with all this movement was that a lot of information was being displayed on the screen and a battle could get very distracting to a player if they paid attention to every blip and dot that showed on the TV.
Some time after "roaming" was introduced to RPGs developers decided that it was just too much for games to handle so they started to create games where the computer controlled the movements and commands of some of your party members. No longer would players have to concentrate on keeping three or four characters alive and active on the field. Now they only had to concentrate on one. Those characters that were previously designated as "healers" "warriors" or "magi" were now locked into those roles and that was the only thing they could do. The gamer had one character they could customize and grow however they wanted to. Everyone else's destiny was written in the programming code.
You would think that RPGs could go no further in eliminating the human player from the game, but they have. Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of that. When a battle starts there is an "auto battle" option available. What this command option does, is have the computer pick the best attack options and programs them in for you. One click of a button and your character will execute three preprogrammed commands. And your other characters are left to whatever commands the games programmed them for. But there's a twist. If you team is in need of healing, you either have to use potions yourself or you have to switch your whole team to a different "paradigm" in order for one of the AI controlled characters to heal you.
What a "paradigm shift" is, is a pre-programmed set of class skills for your party. Unfortunately, you might be in a position to want to throw a lot more fire power at an enemy at the same time you might need someone to heal the group. Having a paradigm shift that gives you both is impossible. Instead of three strong attackers you now might have one attacker, one support person and one healer.
For me, all of these changes have created a disconnect with RPGs and the characters that inhabit them. I don't care as much about Lightning or Hope as I did about Cloud or Vivi. Vanille is more annoying than Rikku ever was. And I don't care if Snow gets to save Sara as much as I cared if Tidus got to save Yuna. The games are still RPGs. You can still customize your characters (albeit down a very limited, straight forward path).
RPGs were like Chess games for gamers. There was thought and planning involved. They took hours to play and had a story line that merited the time invested in the game. Now a days is seems it's all about throwing the player right in and GIVE THEM ACTION ACTION ACTION!!!!
Maybe you don't think RPGs have changed. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's me that has changed. I'm older. I've got more things and responsibilities going on in my life so my expectations for RPGs might naturally have changed. But there's one problem with that. I've finished Final Fantasy X but I still love to go back and play it. It stills brings the same emotions and excitement out in me as when I played it the first time. Now some scenes in the beginning are more poignant than they were the first time around because I know what's going to happen. With newer RPGs I'm just not feeling that. It's like developers are saying "we've got to hook 'em first with action and make the game easier to play to they'll stick with it". To be honest that's not usually why gamers get involved with RPGs.
I will probably always love RPGs. They haven't messed them up enough where I'm turned off the genre as a whole. I have learned to be more cautious with my expectations and purchases for games in that genre. That didn't use to be the case. I would buy any and every RPG I could find. The first game I finished to the end credits was Legend of Dragoon. That is an RPG worthy of (and set up for) a sequel. I have since gone back and restarted that game as well because I miss it.
There is a saying that "if it's not broke, don't fix it". I wish developers would have listened to that as they have evolved the RPG style of game. While, attack gauges and turn orders are nice they still keep the integrity of the RPG experience intact. When the game starts to control more characters than the human playing it, I think they've gone to far. Hopefully this is only a trend and this "decline of RPGs" is only a pothole on the road to some great RPG games to come out in the future. Long live Vivi!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
RPG should stand for Really Pissed Gamer
My first foray into gaming came from Frogger and Mario Bros. I loved those platform games but once I figured out the timing that genre lost a little of it's lustre. My real love of gaming came with RPGs. I absolutely love them.
Anyone can go "fire ball, fire ball, jump, fire swing, jump, jump, jump". There's no great skill involved besides looking for patterns in the movements of enemies or obstacles. When you play an RPG there's a lot of skill in involved. Do you want to win the battle without taking any damage? You can try for it. Do you want to win a battle while greatly over matched? Go for it. There are so many different ways to play the game, and let's not forget about customizing your characters, that the game can be played multiple times, and although you have the same story (most games), it's a whole new experience each time.
Unfortunately, I'm not feeling the RPG love right now. I've been trying to play Lost Odyssey for the last couple of weeks and have only moved the story forward marginally, at best. I'm not running around exploring every corner of the map or village. I'm trying to move the plot forward. I just keep getting my ass kicked in battle. I'm left with magic users only when all I want are my muscle guys. Or my muscle guys are getting pounded by magic and spend more time healing or guarding than fighting. And if I've got the right characters they always seem to have the wrong equipment for the enemies I face.
I've played several RPGs and haven't had nearly this much trouble even in the hardest parts. I have the strategy guide but I'm trying very hard to get through this all on my own. I know, what's the point in getting the guide if I'm not going to use it? You can play an RPG by using the guide but usually you end up stopping every couple of steps to think do I turn left or right? Do I cast fire or earth against that boss? While following the guide will get you safely through the game and to the end credits it takes away some of the fun at having figured things out on your own. I still have fond memories of bosses that were tough to beat but that I did without any outside help. The rush of the achievement (minus the gamerscore points) was enough for me. I can also remember battling bosses while using the guide as a reference. The battles seemed shallow and the victories hollow.
Sometimes I wonder if I've played too many FPS to really get back into the mindset for an RPG game. Have I given in to the fact action, run and shoot approach to plot development instead of the slower what do I need to do to get from here to there? type of puzzle solving? And have instant action and known points of engagement replaced random battles? I don't know.
I really want to play Blue Dragon. I don't know why, but there's something about that game that is calling me right now. Unfortunately I told myself I wouldn't play another RPG until I have finished Lost Odyssey. At least not one in the fantasy genre. Maybe I should go back to Mass Effect or even further to Knights of the Old Republic. Maybe a Star Wars game (and a really good one at that) would get me out of this RPG funk. Maybe it's Lost Odyssey's lack of a small mini game like Sabaac (KotOR) or Tetra Master (FF9) or Blitzball (FF10). I miss those mini diversions. Nowadays they would make great Xbox Live Arcade titles, but unfortunately they weren't released or created that way. The Pub Games from Fable 2 are the exception.
Well, with whatever happens that lets me get my RPG mojo back I'll still be playing FPS. I'm just going to have to sprinkle in some more RPG time. Or maybe a platformer or two just to break up the monotony. If I don't, RPG really will stand for Really Pissed Gamer. Or maybe Radioactive Psycho Gamer. But only if I get bitten by a spider.
Anyone can go "fire ball, fire ball, jump, fire swing, jump, jump, jump". There's no great skill involved besides looking for patterns in the movements of enemies or obstacles. When you play an RPG there's a lot of skill in involved. Do you want to win the battle without taking any damage? You can try for it. Do you want to win a battle while greatly over matched? Go for it. There are so many different ways to play the game, and let's not forget about customizing your characters, that the game can be played multiple times, and although you have the same story (most games), it's a whole new experience each time.
Unfortunately, I'm not feeling the RPG love right now. I've been trying to play Lost Odyssey for the last couple of weeks and have only moved the story forward marginally, at best. I'm not running around exploring every corner of the map or village. I'm trying to move the plot forward. I just keep getting my ass kicked in battle. I'm left with magic users only when all I want are my muscle guys. Or my muscle guys are getting pounded by magic and spend more time healing or guarding than fighting. And if I've got the right characters they always seem to have the wrong equipment for the enemies I face.
I've played several RPGs and haven't had nearly this much trouble even in the hardest parts. I have the strategy guide but I'm trying very hard to get through this all on my own. I know, what's the point in getting the guide if I'm not going to use it? You can play an RPG by using the guide but usually you end up stopping every couple of steps to think do I turn left or right? Do I cast fire or earth against that boss? While following the guide will get you safely through the game and to the end credits it takes away some of the fun at having figured things out on your own. I still have fond memories of bosses that were tough to beat but that I did without any outside help. The rush of the achievement (minus the gamerscore points) was enough for me. I can also remember battling bosses while using the guide as a reference. The battles seemed shallow and the victories hollow.
Sometimes I wonder if I've played too many FPS to really get back into the mindset for an RPG game. Have I given in to the fact action, run and shoot approach to plot development instead of the slower what do I need to do to get from here to there? type of puzzle solving? And have instant action and known points of engagement replaced random battles? I don't know.
I really want to play Blue Dragon. I don't know why, but there's something about that game that is calling me right now. Unfortunately I told myself I wouldn't play another RPG until I have finished Lost Odyssey. At least not one in the fantasy genre. Maybe I should go back to Mass Effect or even further to Knights of the Old Republic. Maybe a Star Wars game (and a really good one at that) would get me out of this RPG funk. Maybe it's Lost Odyssey's lack of a small mini game like Sabaac (KotOR) or Tetra Master (FF9) or Blitzball (FF10). I miss those mini diversions. Nowadays they would make great Xbox Live Arcade titles, but unfortunately they weren't released or created that way. The Pub Games from Fable 2 are the exception.
Well, with whatever happens that lets me get my RPG mojo back I'll still be playing FPS. I'm just going to have to sprinkle in some more RPG time. Or maybe a platformer or two just to break up the monotony. If I don't, RPG really will stand for Really Pissed Gamer. Or maybe Radioactive Psycho Gamer. But only if I get bitten by a spider.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
What I hate about RPGs
No, I'm not talking about Rocket Propelled Grenades (noob tubes in Call of Duty 4), which I do hate, but Role Playing Games. I really do love that type of game play but there's one thing that annoys me to no end.
I hate it when you do something in the game that advances the story but locks you out of a certain area at the same time. For instance, I was playing Lost Odyssey the other night I spent some time just exploring the Crimson Forest before venturing back to Numara. Once I got back into the city, before I did anything else, I walked up to the fountain area which triggered a cut scene about the smear campaign that my characters are now up against. I didn't know that activating that cut scene would prevent me from getting into the city itself. I've got crystal shards for a side quest that I've got to deliver. But I can't do that.
Of course I didn't know exactly what was going on until I pulled the strategy guide out and found where I was in the story. Then I knew. Unfortunately I don't have a previous save to go back to so I can complete my side quests BEFORE I trigger the cut scene.
I'm not much of a fan of having multiple save of a game while playing it. Yes, it would have helped in this situation, and many others I've encountered, but I think it just gets too messy. Some games store the most recent game at the top of the list, others at the bottom. Sometimes those game descriptions are hard to figure out where you are in the game play. There's nothing worse than loading a prior save and finding out you're further back than you wanted to be. Plus then you've got to go and pick up those things you've already picked up in another save file. I've used them before but they take up too much room on a memory card (PS2) and I've accidentally delete the wrong save file when I'm cleaning things up.
I did use multiple save files while playing BioShock. I saved every chance I could get. I did this for various reasons. I hated getting into a new area and finding out I had the wrong plasmids equipped to deal with things. Going back to a previous save (usually by a gene bank) allowed me to make the necessary adjustments and continue on. And even if I had the right equipment in a new area I might not be prepared to face a Big Daddy or a bunch of splicers that come on me unaware. It was nice to see what was coming, back out to an earlier save, and then jump into the action. Is this cheating? Perhaps. But it's better than being frustrated and putting the game away when you have difficulty.
But losing access to an area in an RPG game is frustrating. Especially if you're working on side quests. Now, all of a sudden, that area and those completed quests are no longer available until when? Who knows. It could be until the very end of the game or maybe never at all. Legend of Dragoon did this, Final Fantasy does this and every other RPG game I've played has this in there to some extent. When Numara opens up again for me will I remember to go back to that artist and deliver those crystal shards? I hope so but depending on how soon that happens probably not.
There are other things I might not like about RPGs, like few and far between save points in some games, but there's really not much that gets under my nerves. That's probably why that type of gaming is my favorite. I might play a lot of shooter games with friends, but my heart belongs to RPGs even if they lock me out of places I want to go. Hey, it could be worse. They could be leaving the toilet seat up.
I hate it when you do something in the game that advances the story but locks you out of a certain area at the same time. For instance, I was playing Lost Odyssey the other night I spent some time just exploring the Crimson Forest before venturing back to Numara. Once I got back into the city, before I did anything else, I walked up to the fountain area which triggered a cut scene about the smear campaign that my characters are now up against. I didn't know that activating that cut scene would prevent me from getting into the city itself. I've got crystal shards for a side quest that I've got to deliver. But I can't do that.
Of course I didn't know exactly what was going on until I pulled the strategy guide out and found where I was in the story. Then I knew. Unfortunately I don't have a previous save to go back to so I can complete my side quests BEFORE I trigger the cut scene.
I'm not much of a fan of having multiple save of a game while playing it. Yes, it would have helped in this situation, and many others I've encountered, but I think it just gets too messy. Some games store the most recent game at the top of the list, others at the bottom. Sometimes those game descriptions are hard to figure out where you are in the game play. There's nothing worse than loading a prior save and finding out you're further back than you wanted to be. Plus then you've got to go and pick up those things you've already picked up in another save file. I've used them before but they take up too much room on a memory card (PS2) and I've accidentally delete the wrong save file when I'm cleaning things up.
I did use multiple save files while playing BioShock. I saved every chance I could get. I did this for various reasons. I hated getting into a new area and finding out I had the wrong plasmids equipped to deal with things. Going back to a previous save (usually by a gene bank) allowed me to make the necessary adjustments and continue on. And even if I had the right equipment in a new area I might not be prepared to face a Big Daddy or a bunch of splicers that come on me unaware. It was nice to see what was coming, back out to an earlier save, and then jump into the action. Is this cheating? Perhaps. But it's better than being frustrated and putting the game away when you have difficulty.
But losing access to an area in an RPG game is frustrating. Especially if you're working on side quests. Now, all of a sudden, that area and those completed quests are no longer available until when? Who knows. It could be until the very end of the game or maybe never at all. Legend of Dragoon did this, Final Fantasy does this and every other RPG game I've played has this in there to some extent. When Numara opens up again for me will I remember to go back to that artist and deliver those crystal shards? I hope so but depending on how soon that happens probably not.
There are other things I might not like about RPGs, like few and far between save points in some games, but there's really not much that gets under my nerves. That's probably why that type of gaming is my favorite. I might play a lot of shooter games with friends, but my heart belongs to RPGs even if they lock me out of places I want to go. Hey, it could be worse. They could be leaving the toilet seat up.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
New Poll - Are you getting Rainbow 6: Vegas 2?
There's a new poll up. Are you buying Rainbow 6: Vegas 2? Me? I'm undecided at this point.
A lot of my friends are having a hard time believing me when I tell them the shooter genre of video games isn't my first choice. I prefer RPGs. You see they met me while playing Star Wars Battlefront, I joined them in Gears of War and Rainbow 6: Vegas and we've all moved on to Call of Duty 4. So you can understand the confusion.
The thing is I started playing Battlefront not because it was a shooter but because it was a Star Wars game. The fact that it was a shooter with good game play kept me coming back over and over again. When Gears of War came out I was drooling over it and upset that i didn't have a 360 at the time. I corrected that problem and got to enjoy a visually stunning game. I wasn't planing on getting Vegas but when all of my friends jumped over there from Gears I really didn't have anyone to play with. I eventually got that game and had fun. And when Call of Duty 4 came out it was the same thing all over again but much worse.
It's not that I have anything against a shooter game. They're great for relieving stress and tension. But when I play games with blood, guts, and violence I'm more of the run and gun type or the hack and slash type. I don't want to have to go and find the enemy . . . I want to burst into wherever they are and start cutting them to bits. If Vegas 2 is going to be anything like the first one we might have a problem.
But if I don't get the game I won't have anyone to play with for quite some time. All my friends are salivating over this upcoming game. So much so that I hope they don't get their hopes up too high. I would hate to see all these last months of getting themselves worked up come crashing down due to a poorly devised overhaul of the game.
With the price of $60 a game that's a big chunk of change for something I might not enjoy as much as my friends. But if buying that game is the only way for me to hang out with my friends that I'll have to decide if it's worth it to buy at release or wait awhile until the price comes down. Unfortunately with this caliber of game I don't think the price is going to come down anytime soon.
A lot of my friends are having a hard time believing me when I tell them the shooter genre of video games isn't my first choice. I prefer RPGs. You see they met me while playing Star Wars Battlefront, I joined them in Gears of War and Rainbow 6: Vegas and we've all moved on to Call of Duty 4. So you can understand the confusion.
The thing is I started playing Battlefront not because it was a shooter but because it was a Star Wars game. The fact that it was a shooter with good game play kept me coming back over and over again. When Gears of War came out I was drooling over it and upset that i didn't have a 360 at the time. I corrected that problem and got to enjoy a visually stunning game. I wasn't planing on getting Vegas but when all of my friends jumped over there from Gears I really didn't have anyone to play with. I eventually got that game and had fun. And when Call of Duty 4 came out it was the same thing all over again but much worse.
It's not that I have anything against a shooter game. They're great for relieving stress and tension. But when I play games with blood, guts, and violence I'm more of the run and gun type or the hack and slash type. I don't want to have to go and find the enemy . . . I want to burst into wherever they are and start cutting them to bits. If Vegas 2 is going to be anything like the first one we might have a problem.
But if I don't get the game I won't have anyone to play with for quite some time. All my friends are salivating over this upcoming game. So much so that I hope they don't get their hopes up too high. I would hate to see all these last months of getting themselves worked up come crashing down due to a poorly devised overhaul of the game.
With the price of $60 a game that's a big chunk of change for something I might not enjoy as much as my friends. But if buying that game is the only way for me to hang out with my friends that I'll have to decide if it's worth it to buy at release or wait awhile until the price comes down. Unfortunately with this caliber of game I don't think the price is going to come down anytime soon.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Poll Results - Favorite Game Genre
So the voting has ended and the scores are like this:
RPG = 2 votes
Shooter - 8 votes
Everything else = 0 votes
I'm a little surprised that hack and slash, racing and platforms didn't get any notes. I guess I shouldn't be since I'm pretty sure only my friends voted in the poll and we play a shooter game every night.
I voted for RPG. And if I hadn't have voted for RPG I would have voted for hack and slash. Why?
As much as I like to play a shooter game like Star Wars Battlefront or Call of Duty 4 someone is always going to be better than me. Sometimes it's not always fun to see your name at the bottom on the list all the time. And it doesn't seem to matter what I do to get better because it doesn't work. When I was level 50+ in Call of Duty 4 and my friends were starting over in another level of Prestige with just the basic weapons they were still getting more points than me in each round. I don't have a High Def TV so I don't have as clear a picture as others and I have issues with my eyes, but that's a post for some other time.
My first foray into "action" (or as some people like to call it "violent") games was through the hack and slash genre. Hunter the Reckoning and Serious Sam to name a few. I liked the running in with sword flailing and see who's still standing in the end. It suited my style. Other hack and slash (or button mashers) like God of War and Conan are great for releasing stress on inanimate objects (instead of co-workers).
But although my very first time with a video game was Tetris and the second time was Mario Bros. I really fell in love with games while playing an RPG. The game was Legend of Dragoon. There was just so much to do and see and collect and master that I spent hours on end playing that game. And when it was done and the credits were rolling I felt sad. Sad that I wasn't playing it anymore. I gave myself time to grieve (play the game and you'll know) and then I immediately wanted to start playing it again. I cared about the characters. They meant something to me. Games could have a human touch instead of mindless button mashing. I missed that game. Could I pick up everything and master everything and finish the game in a shorter amount of time? I certainly wanted to try.
For racing games I'm more inclined to like kart racing games than "real life" racing games. If I wanted to see that kind of racing I'll take the freeway, thank you very much. Besides, you have to agree that there's something about dropping a banana peal behind you and watching someone close on your tail wipe out. It's hilarious
As far was platform gaming is concerned it's all about the timing. Once you learned the timing (admittedly through trail and error) it seems to take the fun out of the game. It seems the game is programmed so that there is only one way to make it through the level. Which to me means I have to play the game the way the developer wanted me to play it. Don't tell me how to play a game. I want to play a game they way *I* want to.
I guess you could say my mind is with the hack and slash type of games, but my heart is with the RPGs. It doesn't really matter too much because I love playing video games and I'll play anything I want.
RPG = 2 votes
Shooter - 8 votes
Everything else = 0 votes
I'm a little surprised that hack and slash, racing and platforms didn't get any notes. I guess I shouldn't be since I'm pretty sure only my friends voted in the poll and we play a shooter game every night.
I voted for RPG. And if I hadn't have voted for RPG I would have voted for hack and slash. Why?
As much as I like to play a shooter game like Star Wars Battlefront or Call of Duty 4 someone is always going to be better than me. Sometimes it's not always fun to see your name at the bottom on the list all the time. And it doesn't seem to matter what I do to get better because it doesn't work. When I was level 50+ in Call of Duty 4 and my friends were starting over in another level of Prestige with just the basic weapons they were still getting more points than me in each round. I don't have a High Def TV so I don't have as clear a picture as others and I have issues with my eyes, but that's a post for some other time.
My first foray into "action" (or as some people like to call it "violent") games was through the hack and slash genre. Hunter the Reckoning and Serious Sam to name a few. I liked the running in with sword flailing and see who's still standing in the end. It suited my style. Other hack and slash (or button mashers) like God of War and Conan are great for releasing stress on inanimate objects (instead of co-workers).
But although my very first time with a video game was Tetris and the second time was Mario Bros. I really fell in love with games while playing an RPG. The game was Legend of Dragoon. There was just so much to do and see and collect and master that I spent hours on end playing that game. And when it was done and the credits were rolling I felt sad. Sad that I wasn't playing it anymore. I gave myself time to grieve (play the game and you'll know) and then I immediately wanted to start playing it again. I cared about the characters. They meant something to me. Games could have a human touch instead of mindless button mashing. I missed that game. Could I pick up everything and master everything and finish the game in a shorter amount of time? I certainly wanted to try.
For racing games I'm more inclined to like kart racing games than "real life" racing games. If I wanted to see that kind of racing I'll take the freeway, thank you very much. Besides, you have to agree that there's something about dropping a banana peal behind you and watching someone close on your tail wipe out. It's hilarious
As far was platform gaming is concerned it's all about the timing. Once you learned the timing (admittedly through trail and error) it seems to take the fun out of the game. It seems the game is programmed so that there is only one way to make it through the level. Which to me means I have to play the game the way the developer wanted me to play it. Don't tell me how to play a game. I want to play a game they way *I* want to.
I guess you could say my mind is with the hack and slash type of games, but my heart is with the RPGs. It doesn't really matter too much because I love playing video games and I'll play anything I want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
