The Game Critique

SLRC is dead Long Live SLRC

So reads the title of the ever changing acronym SLRC blog. Ben Abraham if not the most prolific internet critic is definitely one of the most important. Besides his own blog he was the creator of Critical Distance, an effort to bring all the best of game criticism under one URL after the game has had time to be digested. Probably the most ambitious project in the ludodidecahedron. Ben is the reason Far Cry 2 is recognized as much and taken as seriously as it is. He is the connected critic from down under. And now he ends his personal blog.

Ben moves on to his thesis project, on internet criticism. Whether it’s solely based on video games or not I don’t know. He is not removing himself from the field, just away from the formal essays and the like. His new blog can be found here: http://iam.benabraham.net/

Though man did you have to make your last post that depressing to the rest of us.

Well I have only one last thing to restate. So Long Righteous Comrade.

Last year I said I called it to a number of predictions I had made. Then in February I made several predictions about the coming year. Let’s see how I did.

1- On Resident Evil 5 I said that it would be an end to the series being about horror mostly because of co-op as an effect of its focus on action. I also said that it wouldn’t be as well regarded as Resident Evil 4. I nailed this one. Other than the discussion on race that the game spawned and some discussion on co-op this game was largely forgotten a month later. A few people in making their end of year lists had to be reminded that it came out and then ignored it.

2- I called Killzone 2 another competent, run of the mill shooter and would have as much influence as one could have. Yes, got this one too. After all the hullabaloo and yelling from the fanboys defending it, it really fell off the radar. Not to take away from the game, like I said a decent shooter.

3- inFamous, I said was a strong and solid title that would be a clunker when it came to the moral choice aspect like Bioshock was. Again I think I’m going to give myself a win for this.

4- Heavy Rain. Doesn’t matter what I said about it. It got delayed twice and is coming out first quarter of next year. So much for that one.

5- Prototype. There is some disagreement on this one. Some defend it, others fall on my side of the camp. One thing is consistent throughout, regardless on your stance on the play mechanics, the story is crap. Since that’s what I focused on, because that’s what their marketing focused on, I’m giving myself this one as well.

6- Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. Great game, a little better than the first in every way. As for whether or not I’ll end up defending every little nit pick that gets leveled against the game, we shall have to wait and see for me to get caught up on my reading. Glad to see everyone catching up for my love of the series.

7- I Am Alive. Another failure on my part. Ubisoft has got to get its facts straight when it will be releasing a game. Didn’t come out, so my comments are moot.

8- Assassin’s Creed 2. I said it would be an improvement over the first with more varied missions. From all accounts it does just that. It does stumble in some new territory, but I didn’t say it would now did I.

9- Alan Wake. I said it wouldn’t be out this year and I’m three days away from the end, so I’m calling it a win.

10- Dragon Age: Origins. The PC version is better than the console versions and no it doesn’t live up to Baldur’s Gate in my mind. Still an excellent game like no other. Nailed this one as well.

So in summery I called 8 out of 10. It all seems so obvious now. Maybe I’ll try and make a few more difficult predictions next year. And hope delays don’t screw up my guesses next time.

For those of you following me on twitter, which I suppose is all of you given my repeat audience, you will know of my present troubles. Two weeks ago I had midterms, which took up a lot of my time. The week after that I got a horrible case of the flu that my only condolence was that it happened after midterms. The unfortunate downside being that I missed a good deal of classes and did not write the essays that were due due to the fact my brain could not function properly. Then last Sunday, almost a week after I first became ill my computer corrupted itself. I had it fully reformatted by IT specialist and it seemed to be all clean and new. Then when I went to reinstall programs, it was a no go near the end. The whole system started to go down once again. Then earlier this evening when the whole machine crapped out and could not function. It doesn’t even recognize there being an OS on it anymore. The present theory is that the hard drive itself is corrupted, as in physically there is something wrong with the disk. Tomorrow I plan to purchase a new one and get it installed, then skip over Vista entirely and try out a free copy of Windows 7 a friend has and then get all my data and files back on. Hopefully that will be done by tomorrow night. I will then have all of Sunday to get myself caught up on the two weeks of school work I’m missed.

As of right now, I’m standing in the front hall of my dorm typing this out at a computer station as they vacuum the floor behind me.

That is my reason for not working on anything here. This is unfortunate, especially since this is the busiest and most important time of the year for a video game critic. Though I console myself with Q1 of 2010 is going to be the same or even more so.

Also I want to get one last word on this Citizen Kane of Video Games. This is a cry to the mainstream as anyone in the critical community, brainysphere or not, is pissed off at this subject for more than a few reasons. But as I was walking home from a friend’s apartment my mind wandered to it and I have to write it. Skip it if you want.

Most people decry “when are we going to get our Citizen Kane?” What they really are asking, “when are we going to get a sufficient enough example to point to when people give us that snobbish look whenever we get caught talking about them?” They want to have something where they can just say the title and have the other person nod and move on, because they will just know what they are talking about, even if they have not played it themselves. Just like Citizen Kane is that title even though most people have not seen it, but it became the emblem of film as art. Watchman did this for comic books.

In reality the Citizen Kane of video games has nothing to do with cultural relevance, or artistic viability, but with gamer’s own insecure egos. Our own predisposition fears of being cast as the outsider, while at the same time, hypocritically decrying anything that interferes with our own geek hierarchy when regular people come into the scene. We are a strange bunch, but personally I separate myself from that portion of the community. I like to think of myself as a geek with the ability to step back and recognize there is a larger world and have enough humility to realize I am not the end all be all.

I say that of course, without a hint of irony, as THEGameCritique.

Finally, when I do start writing again, it wont be anything recent. I have two essays for Heroes of Might and Magic II and then I’m probably going to move on to Silent Hill and/or King Kong. Unless I can get Dragon Age running of course. Also I plan to continue my Indie Game Spotlight over at Creativefluff.com and get more literary type criticism done over here. I also plan to start a new series looking at the form of video games. Rather than specific design choices of mechanics, I mean as Scott McCloud describes the six layers of art, Form is number two. I plan to start a series of posts, also at Creativefluff.com, of using example video games to explore the form of the medium. So look forward to that and see you on the other side.

The following is a comment I posted over on the latest GameCritic’s podcast. It may seem a little rantish, but that’s why I’m going to expand on it at the end.

—————

You said during the podcast that Nintendo had revolutionized gaming. I have to respectfully disagree. They have only revolutionized it superficially. What they have done replaced button presses with Wii-mote waggles. The idea is to simplify gaming with simple controls that can make sense. And for Wii Bowling or Wii Tennis its perfect. But as soon as you take the control outside of that simple one type movement control you up the complexity of the game. There may only be one button, but if you translated each movement to a button press or analog stick movement you’d realize how equal the complexity is for anything other than the mini-game compilations. Given the nature of motion control at present and its impreciseness it makes the controller even more complex and frustrating.

It has been proven with testing that for an abstract action a button press that stays consistent within the game, i.e the same button for the same action, makes more sense than trying to emulate the action, mainly because it is easier to replicate input with a thumb press than it is to move the entire arm in the exact same manner.

I have no doubt that motion control can offer a different experience, but developers are still treating it as a standard controller and are having to make up for the loss of button with waggle. Then there are the games that do not need it, but add it in out of some necessity of being on the Wii. Twilight Princess comes to mind where you had to act out many of the actions, where the Gamecube controller used a few simple button presses to perform the same actions.

Yes the current gen controller are prohibitive, as were last gen. In fact there is a high learning curve for new gamers, but kids some how manage it. That’s another issue of cognitive age response and learning, but the NES has a D-pad and 2 buttons. Some games now can work with that. The idea is not to simplify the machine, but the in-game system. If you gave a newcomer a game on the 360 or PS3 that only utilized the d-pad and two buttons there would be no problem in getting into it.

———–

I should add some testimonial I hear about the new Wii Motion Plus. I cannot verify the validity of these comments, but it sounds truthful to me. That yes it does change gaming on the Wii, but does come with some problems. Namely, when the Wii first came out people were waving their whole arms, because that is how they thought and were told it would work, but then people adapted to only moving their wrists, for it was the basic movement not the degree that mattered. Now Wii Motion Plus changes all that because now you have to control it like you first thought it would work and will cause people to re-adapt.

It is a minor concern yes, but it is worth saying. It also attaches to my argument of the Wii-mote’s movements being a replacement for button presses. Now with full motion recognition it is supposed to have 1-1 replication. The thing is you can only replicate simple motions. If you design something too difficult people would not be able to replicate the action in their own house. The basic idea of escapism that most, not all, games are based upon would suffer with this idea. Sword, tennis racket, baseball bat swinging are all basic motions that we all understand in real life and replicate on the Wii. However if you want any finesse with those motions or to do more complex motions like rowing, driving, etc. you will be sorely disappointed. One problem is that it does take some practice or practical knowledge of those activities to do them correctly. Secondly, there is a certain amount of resistance required to do them properly. Without that resistance, with the new fine motion controls you are going to overshoot what you were doing, it is going to look ridiculous and immersive breaking on screen and more than likely you are going to fail. I can see scenarios where the motion breaks the experience instead of immersing you.

Example: Say you are rowing a boat the Wii-mote and Nun-chuck are the oars. But you speed up because you get into it and there being no real water resistance you suddenly see your character flapping the oars around like a chicken with its wings. A real person cannot row like that and yet you are seeing it. Immersion broken.

It wasn’t understood when it was first created, but the control is much more than an input device. It is a blank slate of iconography. Each button, each analog stick is a symbol for an action. It is different for every game, so the controller is a blank slate. The player learns and know that the icons (buttons) are, but they have no meaning on their own. There are basic principles that people understand about the buttons, because they generally hold true through all games and if not there is a reason for it. In North America anyway on the Playstation, X is ok, O is cancel, left analog stick for movement, right analog stick for camera. This works for First Person shooters as well. In Japan X and O are reversed, but they remain the same for all games in that region. The only exception I can think of is the Metal Gear Solid series that does that for specific purposes, but that is getting a bit of topic. The controller is a bunch of icons. The game than tells you what those icons and symbols mean. You then associate when you need to do something with that icon for the rest of the game. Humans are very iconographic. We associate people, concepts, countries and ourselves with icons and symbols of the greater whole.

The Wii-mote in the name of simplifying the control removes that iconographic interface. People get sucked in by meaning and association, its why we can read, because letters are nothing but icons to sounds. Movement however is not an icon. You cannot be shown a picture of it and understand what the motion means to the game world. You may know to move the Wii-mote left will aim left, but there is no mental association going on that allows your conscious mind to focus on the interactive area, but rather on the interactive motion of your avatar. It forces the mind to think about what you are doing step by step rather than as a whole experience. That is not how people function in the real world. We do not think about every step we take, we just walk. We do not take into account every letter in this sentence you are reading right now, we just read it and comprehend what it is saying.

Simplification is needed for new gamers in the current market, but the Wii and everyone copying them is the entirely wrong approach. Simplifying means cutting away complexity, not replacing it. Most of the Wii games, use the classic Wii controller, which has the same amount of buttons are a Gamecube controller. If you want it to be simple, create games that could be played with an NES controller. Everyone got that back in the day. There is only a D-pad and two buttons to worry about, but the association will stick and it the representation can be understood by the player as he immerses himself in the game.

I haven’t posted anything for almost a month. This is not due to lack of trying. My original plan was to finish up the last of my Beyond Good and Evil related posts now taking a total of 3 months of my life to complete, while the game took me less than two weeks. (Writing that post is like pulling teeth.) Then I was going to move onto Heavenly Sword and write out my thoughts there after replaying it for refresher. Then I was finally going to start on my first playthrough of Far Cry 2. (Ben you’d be so proud.) I also had a few post ideas for the interim while I was playing the games.

That was the plan and it looks like and has looked like for a while that will not be happening.

Instead what happened was a minor incident that escalated. Not to get your worries up, but it isn’t that big. A certain game on Steam went on sale a few weekends ago, Heroes of Might and Magic 5. For anyone who has noticed the few tweets that I’ve actually posted over the last week or two. This got me reminiscing about another game from my childhood that so thoroughly kicked my ass I have never won a single game of it. I would waste hours only for eventual defeat. Months passed and everyday I would be no closer. And that was before I learned there was a campaign mode. That game is Heroes of Might and Magic II.

For those of you who don’t know, Heroes of Might and Magic II is a turn based strategy game with fantasy monsters and your army controlled by heroes during battle. There is an over world filled with a variety of resources that have to managed and controlled. Everything is turn based and each individual turn doesn’t take up much time, but games take up a lot of turns.

I went on a short searching spree before tracking it down. I have all the manuals and extra inserts, but for the life of me I have no idea where the disc is. Wikipedia informed me of several compilation and one of them had games 1-4 for the price of one. I thought what a great deal. Now I think wikipedia lied to me. And none of the other compilations, for a reasonable price, exist on ebay or amazon that contains II. I eventually found a place I could download it for $15. I chose the 60 minute free trial first. After 60 minutes were up I was in the middle of my turn and a few seconds later I was $15 the poorer and one game richer. One hell of an addictive game richer. I am now on the last map of the good campaign and I have the evil side to go.

There’s more to this story.

At the beginning of this weekend another game was brought to my attention. This time on the PSN. It was Battlefield 1943, also for $15. It came with a 30 minute free trial demo. 30 minutes later I was kicked out and was soon $15 poorer and one game richer once again. I played and played this online multiplayer shooter. Then I noticed there was light outside, it was 5 am and I should get some sleep.

In short response what happened I got sucked in to two very addictive games that just ask of you “5 more minutes” at every twist and turn. The Battlefield 1943 Coral Sea challange doesn’t help one bit. I got sucked into games I did not expect, nor was I planning to. Is it just me? Am I that weak willed that I cannot do what I set myself out to do?

From what I’ve heard of people who’ve played Civilization 4, I am not alone in the turn based strategy game department, nor is that the case with online shooters. As for getting sidetracked by other games, isn’t that kind of the point. For a game to catch and hold the attention of the player. A game that distracts you from other games is a good thing, because it means you are engaged with the title. I use the term addictive and its true, both games are addictive. But a story cannot be as addictive as gameplay in our ludocerntric medium. It is the gameplay, the ludic elements that force us to continue on is such a manner. The continual interaction is not broken up and every second both both of these games has layer input and consequences. Not to say there aren’t story elements in either title, but they do not intrude into the game.

Another factor for their addictive quality is the quick play nature of the titles. For Heavenly Sword or Far Cry 2 I would have get over that initial hurdle of having to sit down for a significant amount of time to play the game. That hurdle may disappear once I am actually playing, but it exists as an obstacle that often isn’t overcome. No such factor exists with Heroes of Might and Magic II or Battlefield 1943. These are quintessential examples of in and out gameplay. I could stop typing and in 15 seconds be playing my next turn in Heroes and finish in another 15 seconds, save and be back to writing. of course one turn would lead to another and another and another and before I know it this would remain unwritten and I would have missed dinner…again. Same with Battlefield 1943. It would take about the same amount of time to jump in, then I can spend however long shooting, driving, running and then drop out and that be it, except one thing would lead to another and again I would miss my next meal for fighting in the Pacific campaign.

Both titles require a time investment to get what the game is offering, but unlike other AAA titles they don’t have the hurdle of time commitment that hype and excitement have to help to get over and actually put the disc in. It’s why everyone runs out for the first day, so when they run home the inertia lets them pop in the disc and they are off to the races. Maybe the real key is remove that hurdle altogether. The games can remain how they are, but somehow remove that hurdle that makes you think about putting the disc in, instead of just putting it in.

And now for the second half of this post’s title. The plan for now is, keep playing these addictive games, for I don’t think I can stop at the moment. Then post on them when the time comes. And if by some miracle of fate the mood strikes me, actually get back to all those drafts I have waiting to be finished and find their home here.

That includes some experimental stuff for here and for the design blog I work for, CreativeFluff, on the form of game design. Hope to write again very soon and not a month hiatus.

I feel like all I’m about to do is state the obvious.

A thought came to me as I finished up Heavenly Sword as my mind turned to stories in video games. Video games need stories crafted specifically for the medium. Every medium that tells stories has their own way of crafting a story. Length is one way to look at it, but detail, pacing, depth all contribute for a successful story in any medium. The measures of each is very different for each medium and transitions of a work from one medium to another takes effort in learning what to cut, shift or otherwise edit. Video games are different, as they usually require additions instead.

We have always known this; the difference for video games is that there is a need for the interactive elements, the gameplay elements, which changes the nature of how the story flows. The technical requirements of a game require a different type of story. Many of which grind to a halt when the interactive elements of the game show up and when transitioning between the two it’s like you can hear an audible clunk. The game portions are either wedged in or the game goes so outlandishly out of its way to force extra gameplay sections to make sense.

Heavenly Sword didn’t seem to have either of these problems, or at least not for the reasons I mentioned. I wish the game had smoother transitions between the varying sections and less load times, but back to the point at hand. The story was well crafted and the underlying structure was solid. With some edits it probably could be made into a movie, but most of it was specifically made for the video game medium. Not only did the story allow for the combat, it required it. The writer left spots open or crafted sections specifically so player interaction could happen. The gameplay sections are melded into the overall story because the story allows for their existence. The story in Heavenly Sword is simple enough that it’s easier to see the working parts from a conceptual standpoint, but once the process is understood it can be applied to more complex story ideas.

I wrote a three part series on CreativeFluff.com about the division of story and gameplay and what was being done to try and merge the two part together. I did not, however, consider the following. The first step to the process is to get a writer who understands what video games are and understands the medium’s specific needs when it comes to interactivity. It isn’t about cut scenes or in game dialogue or audio journals or visual clues for the story to be conveyed better in a video game. What is needed is a story specifically suited to the video game medium. Video games require a different set of rules when it comes to pacing, tension, information, etc etc. Those terms don’t mean the same thing in video games than they mean for movies or TV, the two most often imitated formats.

I don’t know the specifics of how to create working stories for the medium. That will take further thought.

Having played the 4 key Sonic games from the Genesis era recently thanks to the Ultimate Genesis Collection I have come to a realization. These platformers are very different than every other platformer ever made before and after it. There are other platformers on the collection as well and using them as a bench mark I notice a sharp difference not only in the game, but also in my mindset in playing.

The original Sonic games to me are Sonic 1, 2, 3 and Sonic and Knuckles. These four stuck with the basic premise that made the series great. They all have the same basic mechanics. Speed and a sense of momentum is key to these games. Much of the level design is based around moving fast and the rings are there as a safety net in case you run it to something. Several of the jumps require a good deal of speed for the distance. You get the instinct to constantly press forward on the d-pad. This is fine for the Sonic games, but it leads to instant death in other platformers.

There are even moment in the Sonic games that go against its own mentality of speed and momentum. Sections where you have to stand still and wait for some elevator to move or a platform system to come and pick you up. If you go get too impatient you find yourself running into spikes or getting crushed to death.

In the gamer scheme of things I am a freak of nature. I finish nearly every game I buy. Weird right? The fact of the matter is that most narrative based games are not completed. It was considered an enormous success by the developers of Bioshock that 50% of those who played it reached the end. Even the Half-Life 2 episodes, which are only about 6 hours long and have extremely friendly level design aren’t finished more that that. It’s been compared to elsewhere, and for the life of me I wish I could remember where, to imagine if 50% of people walked out of a movie mid way through, every movie. It’s strange.

It begs the question: what drives a player to complete a game?

Obviously the answer is going to be different for every person. Not every aspect of every video game is going to appeal to every person in the same degree. Hell, not every video game appeals to every person. I’m not going to pretend I can break it down it wide ranging categories that cover the basics. Personally it’s the stories that drive me to finish games. I want to see what happens in the end, the gameplay is a means to that end. I recognize this; because I have played some god-awful video games that had little redeeming value and I have finished all of them, save for two types of instances. Instances where the game collapses in on itself in a wondering display of corrupted saves, code or disc or the fact that its an RPG where I reach the point where there is no story and all grinding gameplay (in most cases a JRPG).

For example, a game I received as a birthday gift, Orphen: Scion of Sorcery. Go ahead and look it up, I’ll wait. Suffice to say the game was next to unplayable and the story a little loose unless you were paying attention. The combat was plodding and the puzzles trial and error. I dropped over 10 hours into that game to reach the end only to find the game sending me back to the beginning and tell me to pick up the second storyline. Apparently there were two narratives you could choose from and enough time travel to make you choose both. Two hours later I found myself in a room with no exit running in circles with a camera trapped behind the cramped walls most of the time. I looked up the walkthrough and found that I had to leave via a door that didn’t exist in my copy. Game dropped.

The other instance is when an RPG stops telling a story and continues on for long periods of grinding before you can move on to the next stage or doesn’t tell you where to go next and expects you to wander around the world map until you find it. This happens with regular frequency in the Final Fantasy series around the three quarters mark and I find myself stopping around that time too.

But then comes the exception to the rule. One of my favorite games of all time, if not my favorite game and yet I have never beaten it. I have started Baldur’s Gate on three separate occasions, sunk a good 40-60 hours into each play through and end up not finishing. Either due to a poorly chosen save point, changing computers or lose of data over a few years. I love the game and its story, but I cannot get myself to the end of the game.

Which brings me to my second question: what counts as completing a game?

I’m still speaking of narrative games only for the purpose of this question. Once again the answer is going to be different for every person and even different with every game. It could be as simple in reaching the end credits and maybe seeing whatever might be on after them (I’m looking at you Prince of Persia). Does epilogue DLC or extra episodes count towards the original game or do you subconsciously think of them as different games? For the actual end, if you put in the work, but couldn’t quite get to the very last spot is it enough to watch someone else complete the game? If there are multiple endings, is one good enough or do you have to play it through multiple times? And now with achievements and trophies, is complete all the points or the platinum trophy?

With Black I got through the whole game except the last room of the last level. It was nearly up to the point where I wanted to heave the controller at the screen, but I still wanted to see the end and couldn’t afford to pay for a replacement TV, so I contacted a friend to do it for me, saw the end of the story and felt I had completed the game.

With Kingdom Hearts I could have beaten the game long before I actually did, but to me that wasn’t finishing the game. I went and grinded up so I could get the ultimate keyblade and take out the two side bosses and finish all the tournaments. Then I went and beat the final boss. That was completing the game for me.

With a movie or book, or play, completing is seeing the ending. Only with video games does this become a near philosophical question to the nature of the medium. I am curious to hear your take on it and any stories of your own.

Ok, my presence on the Internet the last week has been next to non-existent. Not just on this site, but Creative Fluff, twitter, IRC ect. Call it laziness or school, but I’m still alive. It’s that time when my personal projects are numerous and I hope to finish them off before my school work takes complete focus.

Anyway I was thinking about what to write as a quick of the top of my head post and it occurred to me. I did a post last year, I Called It, which was kind of pointless being one of the first half a dozen things I posted on the site. I could have written anything that happened and said I say this would happen. Well I did say those things, maybe not on the net, but in real life to anyone who would bother to listen to me. This year I decided to put my money where my mouth is so to speak and play act as Nostradamus of a little bit, without the cryptic speech that can be interpreted any which way of course.

First off, my thoughts on Resident Evil 5. This game is not going to light the world on fire, nor is it going to get the same kind of “best game of all time” response that Resident Evil 4 received from non-hype machine sources. The game is just like RE4 and unlike it’s predecessor it is not fresh enough to escape the fact that it isn’t frightening anymore and is an action title with some very frustrating controls. Co-op mode, while assuredly fun, should be the first and only needed clue that this is no longer a horror game. It takes its lessons from the school of Gears of War, only with less amiable controls, and not, say, previous Resident Evils. I’m not even speaking towards the game’s quality or the debates that will go on with the game’s “racism.”

Killzone 2- It was marketed as a Halo killer. I’m not sure that’s accurate no matter how nice the grit looks on screen. I was in the multiplayer beta and its just a basic shooter. Which given how much gimmick there seems to be now, a basic shooter may be something new. I am willing to bet that this will be the PlayStation’s answer to Halo. Not in terms of advancement of the genre as the first one was, but I’d say closer to the third one. The multiplayer is the focus and the story is just sort of there for the “few” people that still get shooters for single player. You’re a space marine tasked with killing aliens. It will be a killer app for Sony, if they ever market the bloody thing, but frankly all it is, is another shooter. The best of the bunch, but still just another shooter.

I just looked over the last two paragraphs and realize they could spawn posts in and of themselves. However, since I’m here to make predictions I’m going to curtail reasons for latter game specific posts. Onward.

3. inFamous – I can get behind this game. It is going to be  solid title for the PlayStation 3. That’s it a strong and solid title. That’s not a bad thing, but I doubt the whole open world aspect that inFamous is in a long line of games trying to promote. I don’t think it’s going to offer the freedom to just do anything you want. And as for the choice of being a hero or an anti-hero as much as I love the idea, I think it’s going to fall as flat as Bioshock’s attempt did.

Cuatro: Heavy Rain- This game, like the Quantic Dreams’ last game, Indigo Prophecy, is going to fall squarely into the sphere of the Killer 7 argument. Like the term’s titular game and No More Heroes and Earthbound and Beyond Good and Evil, despite the flaws its worth getting and playing because of the utter uniqueness of the title. I haven’t a clue how much they are going to live up to the ever player action affects the story aspect, but I think its going to shoot for the moon, push the boundaries of what is currently being done and then fall short. Hence the Killer 7 argument.

Quinqu__ Prototype – Really, this is the game getting most of the attention and hype? Two phrases should have turned everyone off this title. “The main character has amnesia” and “Open world game with totally destructible environments.” If that’s your thing you don’t have to wait for the game to come out. Both Grand Theft Auto 4 and Hulk Ultimate Destruction will fill the space. Average, run of the mill, solid but uninspired and that’s being generous. At least inFamous got creative in its excuses for the character to do things.

Roku = Uncharted 2: Among Thieves- I predict that this game will have the exact same effect on me that the first one did. I like the game thought it was solid and even better than average, but on replaying it and on every reflection of the game it goes up in my esteem. I end somehow defending against all nitpicks and am not sure how I got to that point. But honestly, after experiencing that effect once, that’s really what I want the sequel to do to me.

& // I Am Alive – I expect this game to promise a world of new experience in the survival genre and then deliver only dressed up old experiences.

Eight || Assassin’s Creed 2 – An improved Assassin’s Creed game, with more varied missions and interesting interactions. Basically what the first title should have been. And of course another balls to the wall excuse to have it take place in the past.

Nove [] Alan Wake – It will not come out this year.

Zhen ; Dragon Age: Origins- It will not live up to the myth Baldur’s Gate built up over the last 11 years, but it will come damn close. The PC version will be better than the console versions.

Well those are all the games I can think of off the top of my head and is more than enough for ten months from now, when I see how I did.

I decided to not write on it immediately, get a good night sleep and and take some time to digest what Ubisoft has just done. I was angry last night when I checked IGN and found this little tidbit heading the day of news. Basically Ubisoft will release a DLC pack for their recent game, Prince of Persia. It will included an increase in difficulty, two new unlockable skins, a new attack for the Prince, and a new power for Eleka. So far there’s no problem, in fact the increase in difficulty is a much welcome addition, though a difficulty choice at the beginning of the game would have been much better choice, but whatever. However, it is the other additions that really pissed me off. A new location, a new enemy that amounts to a reskining of an old one, and, get this, an epilogue that continues on from the main narrative.

Part of my anger was probably that I found out just as I was putting finally touches on what I thought would be my last essay on the game. Now that I’ve let some time pass to coll off, I find myself still angry at Ubisoft, but not for the same reason. Why wasn’t any of this in the published game? This is seems like nothing more than a tool to gouge more money from the players.

My feelings on the epilogue content are thus. Their so called epilogue wont add anything to the story, but instead will create a new problem, Eleka and the Prince will go about like they did in Act 2 of their adventure, and then reset the status quo so that there can still be a sequel. The very fact that this DLC exists is proof that Ubisoft wont allow some reasonable conclusion to be reached in this game, not if there is room to do it in the sequel.

Fallout 3 offered a unique in game explanation for the DLC to be integrated. It is an elaborate VR machine of certain events in Fallout universe’s history. Or Mirror’s Edge DLC, which isn’t story based at all and is more time trials, which is just an extra to the main game.

We are given an end to the game, however we feel about it we do have an end. It just screams of a quick cash in, especially when their representative admits that the new enemy is a reskin of the Hunter/Warrior. Of course they also admit that you do not have to finish the game to play the DLC, so everyone could just figure it as AU, in which case it has no implications on the story, which they think it does.

Here’s the real question though. Since it does take place after the main game, will Eleka have any mention of the Prince reviving her or his new feelings towards her that caused him to do so? Given that you don’t have to finish the game to play it I think not.

…

Grrrrrrrr…