Quantcast Magnus’ Blog | Vagary.TV - Part 2

Magnus’ Blog Archive

0

Infinity Blade Review

By
Magnus Risebro
– December 12, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog, Mobile Gaming, Reviews, Staff Blogs

Oh, Unreal Engine 3, you just seem to pop up everywhere, don’t you?

It seems your sharp-as-a-knife but slow-loading textures can be found in a third of the games released nowadays.

And as Cliffy B rolls himself another 100 Dollar bill-cigar and blasts off in his Lamborghini with the words “Bigger, Better, more Badass” painted on the side, you now arrive to the iPhone too.

Infinity Blade is the much-hyped iDevice release running on Epic Games’ widely-used engine. The graphical demo released earlier this fall ensured a stream of buzz regarding the game’s visuals, and us internet folks were as pumped as our little geek hearts would allow for a proper console-experience on a handheld.

The truth is, Infinity Blade is anything but. This is a bite-sized, “five-minutes-on-the-buss”-style game, disguised in snazzy graphics. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but the game falters in other areas.

Before I get ahead of myself, let me explain what little story there is:

The hero arrives in the chamber of the God-King (who was apparently not satisfied with being a king and decided to add “god” to his title) and attempts to defeat him, however, the God-King quickly kills our hero using his mythical “Infinity Blade”. This somehow shapes destiny so that the hero’s son will arrive in the God-King’s castle twenty years later to trying to take down his father’s killer. Should he fail, his son will make another attempt, and so on.

Time spent playing Infinity Blade consists mostly of fighting enemies, one at time. This is done through a combat system that has you swiping the screen to slice at your foes, and tapping on-screen buttons to dodge and block.

Although this is quite entertaining at  first, one quickly realizes that every baddie is fought in the same way; figure out when and how they attack, then dodge/block/parry until you get an opportunity to slice back.

There is no subtlety involved, as every said opportunity will be announced with big text saying “BLOCK/DODGE/PARRY BREAK” signaling when it’s time to run your fingers over the screen again.

Between the fights, there exists two things:

Cutscenes, mostly of the protagonist strolling along, and pathetic attempts at exploration, the latter of which go like this:

Your hero stands, looking about. You “drag” the screen about to find bonus items and alternate paths. However there are no real opportunities for finding said paths, only once can you truly choose your way, and even then does selecting one path merely skip a portion of the other.

It’s disappointing, because Infinity Blade’s graphics are truly jaw-dropping, and being able to properly explore the wonderfully-designed castle environments (as one could in the tech-demo!) would have been fantastic.

In addition, Infinity Blade has another major issue: it’s one level long, although the word “long” has no place in a sentence describing this game’s length. Eight to ten fights and a bunch of short cutscenes are all that stand in the way of finishing our hero’s quest. Seeing the credits (Sit through them for a strange “plot”-twist) takes between twenty to sixty minutes depending on how often the God-King sends you back to the start for another attempt.

However, Infinity Blade is not a complete failure, there is a somewhat clever character-customization system that allows you to purchase more shinily-textured gear and assign points to various character traits as you level up.

This is obviously designed with many playthroughs (or rather, a meatier game) in mind, as it is impossible to hit the level cap on the first run through.


Also, despite a near lack of any story-exposition, the game succeeds in conveying an almost mythical atmosphere, you really get a feeling that defeating the God-King is the hero’s prophesied destiny.

This is probably thanks to the moody music that mixes dark bass synths with the traditional fantasy-orchestra fare. Some brilliant visual design also helps set the mood, the castle setting is masterfully crafted, with huge halls and bridges overlooking planes far below. Not to mention the enemy design, which makes excellent use of Unreal 3’s potential for intricate texturing (prepare for some convincingly bulging veins!).

It’s ironic that a tech-demo was released pre-launch, when the final product feels like an unfinished build polished up, with a leveling system slapped on for good measure.

Supposedly, more levels will be released for Infinity Blade in the future, and perhaps this will improve it, however, I can’t rate games based on promises.

Infinity Blade might match console-quality in the graphics stakes, but has more in common with a play-and-forget flash game at heart.

2.5 out of 5.


1

Are gamers a destructive bunch?

By
Magnus Risebro
– December 1, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog, Vagary.TV


Not long ago, I purchased Halo: Reach, and came home to gun down some virtual aliens, much to my enjoyment.

Roughly two months after that, I, like about 5.6 million others, went out and bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. Coming home, I booted the game up, and in no time computer-people were going down in high-def pools of blood.

It will probably not be long before I go out and buy another game, maybe a shooter, perhaps a beat-’em-up, where I can in some way fight or kill my enemies.

I’m sure Jack Thompson would agree with me when I say an awful lot of games see the player engaging in physical conflict, why aren’t there more games about being say, a lawyer? Like how about a game where you play as an attorney who gets on talk-shows and presents questionable evidence for why video games are planting seeds of evil in kid’s brains?

But I’m getting side-tracked here, there is a reason why so many video games feature violence, and it’s not because gamers are psychopaths with murder-fantasies:

Think about the nature of a “game”. Not necessarily a video-game, just any sort of competition. You can “win” and “lose”, succeed and fail.

The most direct way of translating a loss to a fictional game world is, in most cases, death: Master Chief kills the aliens, aliens lose, Master Chief wins.

Oftentimes, killing the enemies might not be the actual goal the game sets for you, just as dribbling the ball from opposing players is not directly what causes you to win a soccer match.

Even though Master Chief might have been tasked with, say, “disabling the shield generator”, he will probably not be able to without taking out the Covenant in his way.

Killable enemies are not in video games because the people who play them want a substitute for taking a life in reality, they are there as obstacles in the way of a goal. That goal might even be exclusively achievable by killing enemies, but the rule holds true nonetheless, it’s still player vs. obstacles.

When I play an FPS and feel satisfaction from killing my enemies, I feel that satisfaction because I know it means I am one step closer to what the game has convinced me to be “winning”, something today’s games do using increasingly elaborate means, with their stories penned by New York Times Bestselling AuthorsTM and their Hans Zimmer-musical scores.

Video games don’t tap into some mysterious part of brain tissue that has been left untouched since before their invention, humans have always wanted to be intrigued, excited and fascinated, and video games, like other games that man has entertained himself with throughout history, allow more or less instant access to this.

1

Call of Duty: Black Ops review

By
Magnus Risebro
– November 14, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog, PC, Reviews, Xbox 360

Ever since the corporate bigwigs at Activision realized that they could fatten their wallets a lot more if there was a CoD every year, Treyarch have been developing every second game in the franchise.

Their two games before Black Ops are not regarded as holding a candle to the ones developed by series creator Infinity Ward, but the pre-launch hype for Black Ops has hinted at that this might be a significant improvement to their previous effort. Some have gone so far as to say this will better last year’s Modern Warfare 2.

And in some ways, it does:

Modern Warfare 2 had nonsensical plot-twists and characters that were only there to look cool on magazine covers (I´m looking at you, Ghost), while Black Ops sets a milestone for the series with a plot that dares to stray from the “Bad guys, kill them”-stories of military shooters past.

You are the Sam Worthington-voiced special ops dude, Mason. Strapped to a chair in a dingy interrogation room in 1968, you are tortured and questioned about your past missions. You then play these missions as flashbacks, taking you from the streets of Havana to the jungles of Vietnam.

It´s rare for through-and-through shooters to have a brilliant plot, but Black Ops certainly does. It´s suspenseful, you care about the characters, and it keeps you guessing until the end.

Modern Warfare 2 may have botched the plot, but it did other things brilliantly:

One, the feeling of firing a weapon was the best, in any shooter, ever.

Two, the pacing was near-perfect, no section ever dared to even get close to dragging.

Three, it knew exactly what the player was doing, when, where and how. One would arrive at doors just as fellow soldiers were booting them down, one would naturally look in the right direction to see helicopters crashing in front of you, and so on.

Black Ops keeps the fantastic gunplay, but lags behind in the two other aspects. The pacing is not bad, but there are far to many shootouts that feel the same. Sure, you might be popping baddies in the jungle one second and in the snow the next, but there is rarely any proper gameplay variety. In MW2, the favela level´s firefights were completely different to the Oil rig ones, here, almost every infantry-encounter is the same. To it´s credit, Black Ops also includes vehicle sections, but these are short and don´t serve as proper meat on the gameplay bone.

The game also suffers in the third place where Modern Warfare succeeded: I often found myself waiting for my trusty allies to open doors I knew I was entering. And when they did get there it was followed by them comically shouting “MASON, THROUGH THE DOOR ON THE RIGHT!”.

But at the end of the day, I´m nitpicking here. Even during similar gunfights, the game never failed to entertain me. Black Ops is definitely a very exciting game, even if it is partially because of the gameplay conventions set by Infinity Ward, rather than Treyarch’s creativity.

But while people might come for the campaign, they will stay for the multiplayer, and naturally Black Ops comes prepared here too.

There is little new to speak of though: Perks have been re-balanced, some new weapons and game modes have been introduced, there is a Halo-style theater mode, class customization is altered, but the game is not good because of any of these changes, it is good because it deviates little from the multiplayer formula started in CoD 4. It is definitely a viable option for matchmaking thrills, but the it´s hard to shake the feeling that it´s last years game on slightly inferior maps.

At this point, you´d be forgiven for thinking Black Ops is an underwhelming experience, but thanks to the brilliant trick up Treyarch´s sleeve this is not the case. I´m talking of course about the cooperative Zombies mode. The mode first introduced in World at War is present here, and boy does it rock:


The premise is simple, four comedy WW2 stereotypes gang up and defend against infinite waves of Nazi Zombies. As you gather up points, you open new areas and purchase new weapons. Like stated, the premise is simple, but the execution is anything but. coordinating four players who all need ammo, new weapons, and reviving regularly is a nail-biting affair, but beat your previous best and you are gaming kings.

There is a funny intentional B-horror movie feel to it all, from the zombie´s glowing eyes to the one-liners spouted by the characters (“I DRINK YOUR PAIN!”), and this makes the mode not only fantastic from a gameplay perspective, but hilarious as well.

At the moment, there are only two maps available (the latter of which sees said WW2 stereotypes replaced by caricatures of 60´s political figures) but there are undoubtedly more on the way. It would be a crime not to support this mode with DLC, as, dare I say it, it is the best Black Ops has to offer.

The CoD formula might be getting tired in a few years, but Call of Duty: Black  Ops, like most games in the series, is some quality Bang for your Buck.

A great campaign, a good, if a little tired, multiplayer and a “bonus” mode that, had it included more maps, would be worth the asking price alone.

4 out of 5.

2

Death – What’s the Point?

By
Magnus Risebro
– November 4, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog

Remember those times in GTA IV when one would suddenly get a phone call triggering a plot-critical mission? In some ways, these missions are a genius idea; reminding you that the game´s storyline exists even when you don´t feel like walking into a glowing yellow spot on the ground. It trims off some of the suspension of disbelief that sandbox games of GTA IV´s nature usually require.

On the other hand, it´s hard to prepare for an unexpected shootout, so poor Niko had to walk into the warehouse were this critical plot-point was taking place lacking body armor, decent shooters, or even full health. Naturally, this led to poor Niko having to respawn at the local hospital a few minutes – or in game-time, six hours – later. But while Niko could be miraculously reanimated, the same could not be said for the tension of the situation.

Having to die, respawn and laboriously drive back to the warehouse completely crushed any sense of importance the scenario might once have possessed. The second time around, you don´t really care.

Even in the best of games, is dying ever anything but a disappointment? Since games nowadays often aim to give film-like experiences, the bitterness of death is made all the worse. But if you could not die or fail in any way, the point of the game is kinda removed. Exciting parts in say, Call of Duty,  are exciting because of the threat of death, so removing it altogether is obviously a bad idea.

It´s a tough balancing act when developing action games: Make the game too easy and the suspense is gone, make the game too hard and frustration takes immersion´s place. It´s why Halo 2 and every COD since then has recharging health: So I can feel in danger when the game wants me too, and not walk into fights that I can´t win because I forgot to step on a health pack in the last room.

There are developers who perform this balancing act without resorting to the recharg-o-health method. Valve´s Half-Life games, for instance, stick to the vintage med-pack system, but place said med-packs exactly right, so the player is frequently close to death, but seldom dying. I lost count of the amount of time my health was at the 2% mark when I was playing Half-Life 2, but the amount times I actually died could be counted on one hand. And when I did get offed, despite it being my own stupid fault (Note to self: don´t hold exploding barrels in front of your face when under fire), it was still the worst part of the game.

It´s not dying that makes games interesting, it´s the possibility of dying, and developers are realizing this more and more. Alternate methods of dealing with death are being experimented with, and though not always a success (Bioshock´s vita-chambers), there are interesting things going on with this aspect of games.

Maybe someday, we´ll have the FPS where you never die but always think you´re about to. Until then, I´ll be wrenching Big Daddy´s to death, knowing my only loss is time.

3

“Presentation” in games

By
Magnus Risebro
– September 15, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog

On my everlasting quest through countless gaming forums, magazines and articles I  have noticed how often the term “graphics over gameplay” or its variants comes up, most frequently in silly fanboy-populated flame-wars.

Of course, to a point, these “gameplay-supremacists” are right. I would much rather have a game with slightly lackluster facial textures than one with monotonous and boring gameplay, but at what point does one distinguish “presentation” from the “gameplay experience”?

Would Red Dead Redemption be the same without the awe-inspiring vistas of the old west, as that surely goes in the “presentation” slot, right? In this writer´s humble opinion those breathtaking views are one of the defining aspects of the RDR experience.

And story? Story can´t count as “gameplay” right? Even when the tale of John Marston is central to what Red Dead is, it is to be passed of as simple window dressing?

This is why the “graphics vs. gameplay” discussion is fundamentally flawed. In a great game, there should be no surplus material. Every line of ones and zeroes in the code should be something that the game would be lesser without.

Of course, there exists many games where I did not give a flying fornication about story, art design, and other non-gameplay elements.

Did I like these games? Sometimes, yes, but a game will inevitably be better when all elements, be it visual, audial, interactive, or story, compliment each other perfectly.

In some cases, such as with puzzle games like Tetris, the best way for story to compliment the game would be to have no story at all, and the best way for the graphics to compliment the game is for them to be as functional as possible.

Even so, Tetris fits the rule of elements complimenting each other, but in this case, by some elements being as minimalist as possible.

In my experience, the place “graphics over gameplay” is the most popular is in communities of avid Nintendo-fans. There it is often used as an argument for why it is pointless to have a console with higher graphical capabilities than the Wii.

Unfortunately, these people are a little naïve. Just as Wii sports would not be the same on the 360 (let´s forget Kinect for now), certain technically-demanding games would be worse off on less powerful consoles.

So despite all the good intentions of not focusing on the visual aspects of games, we must in fact realize that, in some games, technically demanding elements are central to the experience.

No matter how fantastic Zelda is.

6

Length=Value?

By
Magnus Risebro
– August 25, 2010Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog

Take a glance at almost any given review of a game. Chances are, at some point, there will be a mention of the amount of time “completing” the game will take, and not rarely, a complaint that said game is too short.

Call of Duty, for example, is annually criticized for being “too short”, and while some might argue that Soap & Co.´s war-adventure is lacking in length, I respectfully disagree.

Take Borat, which in my eyes is a work of pure genius, both in terms of comedy and social commentary. Borat, as good as it might be, lasts only about one hour and twenty minutes, yet in that time, the film has said everything it needs to say perfectly well.

To name a video game example, the recent Alan Wake took me about eight hours to complete. Those eight hours had consisted predominantly of running through the woods while aiming my flashlight.

And I found Alan Wake to be an amazing game, as running through said woods with said flashlight was an experience I´ll look back on with fondness.

I never felt the game was repetitive. But had the game lasted twenty hours, that might not have been the case.

I´m not saying all good games need not be longer than a demo, what I´m saying is that the elements of a game should fit the length. Alan Wake´s gameplay lacks the depth to support a 70-hour game, just as the story lacks the complexity to support something that long. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, has story and gameplay perfectly fitting it´s 35-hour length.

That does not necessarily mean Mass Effect 2 is “better” because it can support a longer game, it just means it´s different in style.

For example, I found GTA IV to be a little too long. The game was brilliant, sure, but I must say I felt Rockstar´s supposed “masterpiece” dragged in places. The story was engaging, but did not have enough to say to warrant the 30-or-so hours of game time, and the same “enter room-shoot everyone” combat started to lose it´s edge towards the game´s end. The length of GTA IV, was out of balance with the experience of GTA IV.

So when you feel the credits screen in CoD: Black Ops makes it´s appearance too quickly, ask yourself:

Would this game really be enjoyable for another five hours?

Newer Entries