Tag Archive for 'games'

Blur: Bizarre Creations’ Next Racing Game

Published on March 2, 2010 in Gaming and geek. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

GiantBomb have a good quick look of the upcoming Blur beta. The game looks pretty interesting, blending Bizarre’s traditional arcade styled racing with physics based weaponry. The game has a good look and the visual effects are stunning. I’ll have more on the game when I play the beta later in March. If you want to get into the beta you can try to get a code from http://www.giantbomb.com/blurbeta/. There are only 1000 codes though, so I suspect they’ll go quickly.

Check out the quick look below:

Shattering The Illusion

Published on February 28, 2010 in Gaming and geek. 2 Comments Tags: , , .

It’s often said that breaking a mirror earns you seven years bad luck. If this is the case, Codemasters seem to have escaped lightly as every single mirror in Race Driver: GRID is utterly broken. I thank them for at least trying to include functional mirrors on the cars in their (arcade) driving simulation. However their implementation is so poor as to actually shatter the illusion that the rest of the game does well to create. The problem is that on the surface the graphics in GRID are very impressive. And while the game makes really impressive use of smoke, its mirrors leave so much to be desired.

In GIRD whenever you look in the mirrors – which is often given this is a racing game – you see a version of the game world which has been stripped of any beauty. I can’t be sure exactly what is rendered differently, but I suspect it’s a combination of lower resolution polygon models and also lower resolution textures. Maybe the lighting is different for the images seen in the mirrors as well. It’s really jarring to see the low quality of the scenes seen through the mirrors as opposed to the relatively high quality of what you see out of the cockpit.

I suspect I’ll have more to say on GRID in the next few weeks. It shares a lot of the issues that concerned me about Colin McRae: DIRT. That makes me worry about F1 2010, which is bound to use the same engine as both of these games. The mirrors in GRID are symptomatic of the occasionally odd decisions made in the development of these otherwise very good games.

The Rules of Engagement

Published on January 28, 2010 in Gaming. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

One of the greatest failings in game design is the failure to properly explain the rules of a situation to the player. When this occurs, the player can find themselves repeatedly in a game’s fail state through no fault of their own. Games can explain the rules of a situation in several ways. The Legend of Zelda series springs to mind as perhaps being slightly heavy handed regarding this in some situations, though it is not exempt from this failing itself. In general though, the series tends to let the user know what is required through a set of visual and audio cues; more often than not a camera zoom / pan and/or audion jungle. The other main way in which games can help in this regard is to force the player past the solution in the environment, before activating the obstacle.

I recently played through Dead Space which failed in this regard on a number of key occasions. I say key occasions because they had a detrimental impact on my opinion of the game. On one occasion I was left repeatedly dieing and on another wondering around aimlessly due to the game not being able to impart crucial infromation about how a situation was supposed to be tackled. The result is that there were a number of occasions where the game was unnecesarilly frustrating, meaning my opinion of the game as a whole was damaged. In this case it left me feeling that the game was just good, falling short of greatness by some small margin because of these failings.

It’s particularly heartbreaking when a game commits this sin as it’s something which could be solved quite easily with an adequate level of playtesting. Often the game designer is in a uniquely poor position to determine if the game is adequately explaining the rules of a situation to the player, as they already know and understand the rules. Adequate playtesting can account for this however. It’s no surprise that the developers which carry out the highest levels of playtesting rarely fail in this regard.

Edinburgh Interactive Entertainment Festival

Published on August 14, 2008 in Gaming and geek. 2 Comments Tags: , .

I was asked by a friend to write a post on my experiences at EIEF for the recently launched TGN blog. Here’s the post, take the time to check it out if you can.

You should also check out our photo album of the free stuff we got at the event. If you’re not convinced to take a look, perhaps this photo will entice you.

Bjorn borg... I think

Bjorn borg... I think

Assassin’s Tutorial

Published on August 14, 2008 in Gaming. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Last night I played through the opening sections of Assassin’s Creed. These sections left me very conflicted about the game. The actual gameplay seems really fun, particularly the parkour style acrobatics. Additionally the stealth mechanics are different enough from those in most stealth games to keep it interesting. The game also looks really nice, the graphics are impressive from both a technical standpoint and an artistic one. These elements really drew me in and made me want to play more.

One thing in particular however put me right off. The tutorial was extremely over the top in its hand holding and generally poorly implemented. A tutorial should not be intrusive in a computer game, it ruins the immersion and we’ve come far enough now to not need such intrusive tutorials surely? On top of this, the game’s excuse for removing your advanced abilities after the opening section is nowhere near as elegant as those in the Metroid series. Admittedly in Metroid games now there is a certain amount of eye-rolling when your abilities are lost, at least the excuse is a reasonable one. In Assassin’s Creed the removal of your weapons and abilities just felt like punitive game design.

These criticisms aside, the game seemed pretty fun and I look forward to playing some more of it.

Apollo Justice DS Review

Published on May 14, 2008 in Gaming and review. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , .

As the fourth in the series, Apollo Justice has a lot to live up to in terms of providing memorable characters, brilliantly devised music and cases with as many twists and turns as the A57. Apollo Justice is the first incarnation of the Phoenix Wright games made exclusively for the DS, not counting the extra case on the original re-issue. As such, it has new features and a new protagonist in Apollo Justice and his side-kick Trucy.

Despite the game being called Apollo Justice as opposed to Phoenix Wright, Phoenix features quite heavily in all four cases, especially the fourth, which delves into his past. The older Phoenix lacks any sort of charisma at first and you often find yourself resenting his appearances and wondering why Capcom didn’t just do away with him altogether. However, as the game progresses you find that he has links with many of the cases which all come together in the fourth and final case. This case sees the player taken back in time ‘seven years earlier’ and you become Phoenix Wright in all his youthful glory. To add to the nostalgia here, the graphical syle changes back to a more simple look, and the music from the original game makes a comeback. I found myself a bit too happy to hear it, as Apollo Justice doesn’t really deliver on the musical front the same as the first three games have done. The fact that the addition of the older music seems to show up the new music as being lacklustre, seems to be a failing on Capcom’s side.

Speaking of music though, the third case features a singer called Lamiroir whose song is quite well composed, albeit without any vocals. The graphical capabilities of the DS are also utilised here in the form of a video of the concert you have to watch for clues. Each of the cases are preceded by a more complex FMV which is quite nice and a welcome addition to the Phoenix Wright franchise. The character animations have stayed much the same but this is no bad thing as even the few expressions and actions each character has, are enough to convey their personality and feelings.

The characters and their personalities have always been something that has stood out about Phoenix Wright. In Apollo Justice, there are nowhere near as many great characters, apart from the main protagonists of Apollo and Trucy and the recurring character from the first game on the DS, Ema Skye. Some of the characters in particular were downright annoying. This does seem to be a trend from the previous games though, as the characters can be very hit and miss. Unfortunately, Apollo Justice seems more ‘miss’ than ‘hit’ in terms of original characters.

The unique capabilities of the DS are utilised well in the new investigation techniques which appear in Apollo Justice. You can dust for fingerprints, take casts of footprints and examine evidence more closely with the touchscreen. However, as great as all this is, it features very little in the game and it could have been so much better if it was used more frequently.

Apollo Justice is no doubt a good game, but perhaps one for die hard fans of the series only. The DS exclusive features are definitely a step in the right direction, and I wold hope that if Capcom carry on the story of Apollo, these features will be utilised more frequently and more fully. The game almost feels like a test run on the DS, rather than a full blown touch screen experience of the game.

Game In Scotland

Published on March 30, 2008 in Gaming, code, conference and geek. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Game in Scotland was an interesting event from my point of view. It was the first time I’d been at an event so obviously aimed at recruitment, and it was interesting to see the kinds of pitches people were making. Some companies were appealing to the technical geekery of everybody there, by going in depth and showing some code. Demo reels were common, and one company even had a demo stand. What was most interesting however was the sessions which could probably be considered the main focus of the event. These took the form of companies getting roughly a twenty minute slot to talk about their company and what they do. I’m going to talk a little more about a few of the sessions without naming any names. There’s no need for me to talk directly about the companies, I just wanted to describe a few of the things that interested me and a few of the things that put me off.

One presentation really turned me on and piqued my interest. This session was probably the most technical of the lot, but even then it didn’t actually go in depth. What it did offer up however was a sense of the challenge involved in the area the company was working in. Additionally they were kind enough to give a very good idea about the type of company they were, and the hours of work expected. I suppose if you aren’t a computing person, you probably don’t get why that’s important but historically computing jobs have involved quite long hours of work. Needless to say I spoke to this company after the session to get an idea of what exactly they’d expect from a graduate and to get an idea of what sorts of things would help an application to that company be considered really seriously.

The next session I want to talk about was less than enticing. This session didn’t make any mention of trying to make an interesting prodcut. Instead it focussed solely on how the comapny could find new areas of exploitation, new ways to make money, new ways to involve advertising. Frankly it made me feel sick. I understand that business is business, but when you want to attract people to your company you surely at least want to give them an idea that you are making an interesting, worthwhile product. Instead we were treated to a presentation which stressed money above all else.

The final two sessions of the day had some issues as well. These were panel sessions, the first was a relatively dull afair “Is it a man’s world?” I wanted to shout out “Just look around the room.” Personally it’s a simple issue, most women don’t want to go into computing; fewer still want to go into gaming. There’s no problem within the industry, enough women make it to important positions within developers to suggest that there is no discrimination issue, but put simply far less women than men want to go into the profession. This session, and the one that followed, were not helped by the man that chaired the sessions. It’s probably a personal preference, but I got the feeling I wasn’t the only one that didn’t appreciate his sense of humour. Indeed I sensed he was making a number of the panel members rather nervous as they didn’t really want to be associated with some of his “funny” comments.

Overall though it was an excellent event, and one which I certainly intend to attend next year. I can’t stress enough how interesting and informative I found all but that one session. Maybe it’s just me but I’m really turned off by that sort of talk. I like to hear about products; more particularly I like to hear about a product that is designed either to help people, or to allow people to have fun. When it’s pruely business, I’m not impressed at all.

In the meantime I’m going to work away on some demos which I can hand out, hopefully I’ll impress a potential employer there. This work will hopefully be a subject for another day.

Games Reviews

Published on March 27, 2008 in Gaming. 2 Comments Tags: , , , .

In one of my last posts on my old blog I mentioned that I was going to talk about games reviews. This was sparked off by some remarks made by Jeff Gerstmann on the giantbombcast; giantbomb.com’s podcast. The main point Gerstmann was trying to make was that people needed to stop taking games reviews as the gospel truth. There is a tendency among gamers to point at the score of a game, sadly the review text rarely comes into it, and take this as a definitive judgement of a game. Websites like metacritic which offer an average score have only worsened the situation. This seems to be a particular problem when it comes to computer games, computer games are usually seen to be definitively good or bad, people don’t seem to think there can be a subjective element to how they are rated. That viewpoint is clearly ridiculous.

Personally I decided a long time ago that games reviews could not be trusted. The number of games which are hailed as being great which are actually a bit rubbish in my estimation is quite large. Some would say that this is a sign of poor taste. I however would suggest that I know what I like, and I know what I don’t like. It doesn’t matter how technically good something is, if it isn’t doing it for me that’s that. This is something which happens much less often in music. People realised a long time ago that technical excellency does not necesarilly mean music is good. You can play your instruments better than anyone else in the world, but if the composition isn’t interesting it’s not worth my time.

It is this point here that games reviews are currently struggling with. Currently most games reviews tend to assess technical points, indeed some go as far as to award ratings for specific technical aspects as well as an overall score. This misses the point somewhat, especially as these tend to be largely bland things such as “graphics”, “audio”, and “gameplay”. What of a consideration of compostion? How about storyline, or dialogue or… You get the idea. Games reviewers are hung up on this ideal of objectively dealing with a game and providing some rating on a scale of some description. What games reviewers need to do is accept that reviewing is a naturally subjective art. It is an honourable intention to try to look at games objectively but realistically I’d rather have the reviewer admit that they have certain likes and dislikes to aid my ability to judge how closely my opinion will match theirs.

And that is the current crux of the issue for me. There are a few games reviewers who I identify with. Jeff Gerstmann is definitely one of those, and I enjoy reading his reviews and listening to his views. That is part of the reaosn I find GiantBomb such an exciting prospect. However a lot of this is that over time I’ve grown accustomed to his likes and dislikes and learned how those match up with mine. The text of the review is crucial and can tell me oh so much about how much I’ll like a game, regardless of some pointless score that even Jeff has attatched to a game. Jeff reviews in an open, honest and forthright manner. He does not pull his punches, if there is an issue with a game he says there is an issue with the game. Indeed this may have cost him his job at Gamespot. More games reviewers need to take this approach to protect the integrity of the profession.

As gamers we have to start using our heads, and buying games based purely on a score. Most gamers don’t seem to apply these rules of personal likes and dislikes, they like to pretend that they like all games  that review well, and dislike all games that review badly. I admit I enjoy some “average” or “bad” games for my own reasons. Be they nostalgia, a particular love of the genre, an appropriatness for a certain time in my life, or other similar factors. Equally I dislike some “good” games because of various factors.

It’s time that both games reviewers and gamers gre up a little and took a little more care about their respective sides of the games reviewing equation.