Prince of Persia: My Review

When the latest Prince of Persia reboot was announced, I have to admit that I was more or less uninterested in the game. Having had no experience with any of the previous games (Nope, not even the supposedly stellar Sands of Time -- shame on me), the newest version of Prince seemed to be little more than the same game play from the past three games dressed up in a pretty new graphics engine. Yet somehow, as more and more of the game was revealed, my interest became progressively piqued.

I’ll be honest, the main draw for me with Prince of Persia was the amazing art direction and graphics style. From the very outset the game is gorgeous; balancing sparse, desolate wastelands with lush fields of flowers and vegetation all in a remarkable (if somewhat familiar) cel shaded style reminiscent of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. However, Prince of Persia is cast graphically in a more serious and realistic tone with dark, heavy outlines around the characters and stunningly realized textures. Luckily for gamers, the game only gets more impressive as it progresses.

Each of the four main areas in the game are incredibly varied, from dark stone castles to bright, carnival-esque air balloons hanging impossibly in the sky, all of which are meticulously detailed. There were numerous occasions in the game where I found myself stopping to just pan the camera around and admire the scenery. There are very few games that inspire this sort of awe, yet Prince of Persia easily joins their ranks.

Its not just the beautiful graphics engine that makes the game so pleasing to look at. I suppose a large amount of the credit is also due to the rock solid frame rate that rarely (if ever) drops. Traversing the world and scaling the massive structures within is a breathtaking experience, made all the more incredible by the impressive engine upon which the game runs.



But there’s more to this game’s appeal than just its aesthetic. Set in a fictitious fantasy world where the dark god Ahriman threatens to be unleashed upon the land, it becomes the Prince’s job to assist Elika, the last remaining member of an ancient bloodline known as the Ahura, in her quest to banish Ahriman back from the prison he came. The relationship that grows between the Prince and Elika is one rarely done effectively in gaming. The two quickly become reluctant friends, whose bond only grows stronger as the game draws to its close.

A large part of this successful friendship is the excellent dialog between the characters, brought to life near perfectly by their respective voice actors. The Prince at first comes off as a carefree vagabond with a mouth full of smart remarks, yet blossoms into a character I think everyone can empathize with by the end of the game. While his reckless nature and (sometimes cheesy) one liners never fully dissipate, it is obvious the Prince matures through the course of the narrative, made all the more clear by Nolan North’s (Who you may recognize as Drake from the game Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune) spot on portrayal.

At any time during the game players can stop and speak to Elika by pulling the left trigger and at key moments during the story progression, which is where the real magic occurs. The conversation between the Prince and Elika is always sincere and frequently humorous. The two often take snotty shots at each other and its here that the real roots of their friendship show, as well as the brilliance of the dialog. All of this is cemented by an exceedingly excellent musical score and intriguing (yet somewhat cliché) storyline told mostly through flashbacks and spoken exposition.

But of course, the most important part of a game is how it plays. Coinciding with recent industry trends, Prince of Persia is set in an open world environment where players can tackle any of the areas in whatever order they wish… Almost. Unfortunately the game places arbitrary limits on how and where players can progress by requiring certain “powers“ (of which there are four total -- more on that later) in each area, effectively sheep herding players into a certain direction. However, which powers players choose and in what order is completely up to them, so in essence, the game is open world, just in a very odd manner of speaking.



Once players turn the Prince loose upon the world they are introduced to the game’s core platforming mechanic which, for all intents and purposes, works just fine. Wall running, climbing and pole swinging (staples of the franchise) all make a return, but in absence of the time manipulating concept from previous games. While I have no context with which to lament the loss of the time manipulation, I can’t help but feel the core game play might have been much more interesting had Ubisoft Montreal decided to include it.

Regardless, leaping from place to place is oddly satisfying, particularly upon completion of a complex string of maneuvers. What struck me the most, however, is the odd sense of rhythm that the platforming possesses. The controls are somewhat delayed in their response to player input and at first I found this incredibly frustrating as I kept dying due to this delayed response rather than by my own lack of skill. However, as I dove deeper into the game and began to discover this sense of rhythm in the platforming, I was able to easily settle into the “flow” of the game and found myself performing much better. Even stranger, the delayed controls started to feel natural.

This same sense of rhythm carries over into the combat system which, in keeping with the reboot of the franchise, breaks drastically from previous entries. Encounters with enemies are strictly on a one-on-one basis and I feel that this is a great addition to the combat.

Of course, there were times when my rhythm was off and I… Was brought back by Elika. Unlike most video games, Prince of Persia does away with the notion of death and retries and replaces it with a sort of saving grace wherein Elika is there to save the Prince at every turn, no matter if he’s falling off cliffs or getting stepped on by giant monsters of stone. While I have the feeling that most gamers will reject this design decision, arguing that it removes the challenge from the game, I must say that I disagree. Due to the removal of deaths in the game, there is much less frustration from trial and error game play.



Its unfortunate then that the game play quickly devolves into a repetitive structure of liberating areas known as “Fertile Grounds” by taking down one mini-boss multiple times, after which players are tasked with collecting a set amount of “Light Seeds” before they can progress. Each area has 45 light seeds, but its not required to collect them all. This structure may be interesting at first but quickly wears thin when players inevitably realize that they are essentially doing the same thing over and over again in different areas, similar to its Ubisoft cousin Assassin’s Creed.

But like Assassin’s Creed before it, Prince of Persia is the sort of game whose drawbacks are minor and easily overlooked in the grand scheme of the painting. Gamers who are able to look past the repetitive game structure are in for one excellent experience in gaming, capped off by one of the most memorable endings in recent years. There’s no doubt that Prince of Persia has its fair share of problems, but I would not hesitate to recommend it.

B+

Highly Recommended!

Prince of Persia: First Impressions

So I picked up Prince of Persia yesterday and played quite a bit of it. I haven't finished the game yet and thus cannot write my full review, but there are so many things I want to talk about in the game that I figured I would do a post that's sort of unusual for me and something that I might do more often; a First Impressions post.

Upon starting the game I was somewhat underwhelmed by the astronomically hyped art style and visuals. The game opens in a desert setting where everything is more or less a light shade of brown, but quickly opens up into something much more colorful and impressive. From that point on I was consistently surprised at how great the game looked, if a bit irked by the fact it wasn't quite as "illustrative" as the developers had led me to believe. Think of the art style as more of a glorified cel shading and you'll have about the right idea. Nonetheless the game still looks and runs gorgeous.

The framerate is almost always locked at a solid number, though I'm unable to tell if that's 30 or 60 frames per second. Either way it holds up nicely, clipping or lagging very rarely.

The voice acting and dialog is absolutely superb. While I don't feel the casting of Nolan North (Who you might know as the voice of Nathan Drake from Uncharted: Drake's Fortune) was the best choice, he does a great job of bringing the Prince to life as a sarcastic, cynical adventurer. The banter between the Prince and Elika is great and there have been multiple times I've literally laughed out loud at their snippy remarks to each other. However, sometimes the lines do become a bit ham fisted and cheesy, but overall the dialog is enjoyable and spot-on.

The basic platforming premise and mechanic in the game works fairly well, but starts to run into some issues during complex strings of maneuvers. The main issue is that the controls feel a little bit delayed, so there are instances when you press the button to make the Prince jump at an exact moment, only to have him respond a few seconds after you've pressed the button, sending you leaping to your doom. Combine this with the fact that upon your "death", wherein Elika springs to your rescue and simply places you back at the last place you had your feet on the ground, you are forced to restart the entire string of acrobatics. This becomes frustrating very quickly, particularly when your deaths are more fault of the unresponsive controls than your own skill or input.

When you aren't platforming, however, you're fighting. The combat is a bit strange in that all encounters are on a one-on-one basis. If you have ever played Assassin's Creed, imagine that game's combat system grafted into this game with fewer enemies and you've got Prince of Persia. While this isn't necessarily bad, it does become repetitive when nearly every battle plays out the same way. Guard, attack, guard, attack, quick time event, etc. There are a few instances during encounters when the formula is varied up a bit, but they are few and far between and largely don't add enough to keep the combat from feeling like the same old thing.

Actually, that seems to be a problem throughout the game. While the game is open ended and you can tackle it (almost) however you like, it doesn't really matter since you are doing the same thing in a different area. Upon entering a "corrupted" area, you are tasked with finding the "Fertile Ground", wherein you must activate Elika's magic powers to cleanse the land of corruption. Getting to these Fertile Grounds is a simple matter of platforming about with your given powers and those you unlock as you progress through the game. Once the area is cleared of corruption, however, glowing orbs of light known as "Light Seeds" spawn all around the area and it is your job to collect as many as you can until you've reached the required amount. Once you've done this you can go back to the central Castle in the game and unlock a new power (of four total) that will help you progress farther into areas you haven't been to as well as areas you've already explored. While this is fine the first and second time around, it quickly grows stale once you realize that this is what you will be doing for the duration of the game. Over and over.

In a lot of ways Prince of Persia is almost too similar to its Ubisoft produced brother Assassin's Creed. A lot of the complaints from that game (Repetitive gameplay, frustrating combat) can also be leveraged at Prince of Persia. Overall the game is not bad at all, its just a little disheartening to see something with so much promise aesthetically go to waste on an average and somewhat mediocre gameplay structure. The open world environment is a good idea and stands in line with the current industry trend, its just not executed as well here as it is in other titles like GTA IV and Fallout 3.

But, as I mentioned at the start of this post, I have yet to finish the game so I'm remaining cautiously optimistic that the further I get the more interesting the game will become. I'm hoping that the gameplay expands beyond the "platform to mini-boss, fight, collect light seeds, repeat" formula, but I can't say it looks promising as I'm more than halfway through. I'll let you all know my final thoughts in a few days when I finish the game and publish my full review.

Mirror's Edge: My Review

When Mirror’s Edge was first introduced a year ago, it set the gaming press ablaze with the combination of its shocking concept of first-person parkour and the Apple-esque minimalist art style. Set in a futuristic world where the flow of information is controlled by the government, players control the character Faith. Faith is a “runner”; a member of an underground group that literally runs information to destinations outside of government control. 

This is the backdrop for the game, and while it sounds simplistic and uninspired on paper, it works fairly well, mostly because the visuals are so convincing. Let’s get this out of the way, this game is absolutely stunning visually. The stark, overbearing amount of white in the game is used to great effect, being cleverly and seamlessly blended with splashes of neon bright colors all across the palate. Make no mistake, this game is a post-modern artist’s wet dream come true. Liberal amounts of motion blur are applied with every action players make as Faith, occasionally overwhelming the screen when Faith’s hands and legs dart in and out of view as she leaps effortlessly across seemingly impossible gaps. 



Its easy to miss most of the beauty in the visuals, however, as players are constantly being pressured to move. In the few occasions there are to stop and admire the clinical world, the art style and colors really pop and show a lot of attention to detail, despite the seemingly minimal decoration. In the beginning of the game most of the environments are easily exchangeable, cut and paste jungle gyms, but as players progress the settings become progressively more intricate and interesting visually, sometimes to the point of over saturation with their moderate use of vibrant colors.

Its unfortunate then that this striking visual style is lost among the various cut-scenes that pepper the game. Players are torn out of the engaging first person perspective and left to watch cinematics presented in a cartoon style reminiscent of insurance company e-surance’s television ads. While the cut-scenes effectively dole out the narrative, they do so at the cost of breaking the illusion that players are Faith and ultimately this was a step in the wrong direction. While the animations in the in-game engine are somewhat canned and unrealistic, cut-scenes presented in game could have provided just as much style and flare without the childish tones present in the animated scenes. 



More important, however, is how the game plays in conjunction with the presentation and point of view. Thankfully its more of a hit than a miss, due mostly to the simplistic and intuitive control scheme. The left shoulder button controls all upward motions such as jumping, while the left trigger controls all downward motions such as crouching, sliding and rolling. The right shoulder button serves as a handy quick-turn that rotates Faith 180 degrees, and the right trigger is your all purpose attack button. Navigating Faith through treacherous terrain and over gaping chasms feels natural and exhilarating and never loses its thrill, even when players are forced to repeat sections multiple times over when they fail. The game plays best when players are forced to simply run, hopping over obstacles and scaling pipes and small buildings. 

Unfortunately, the game play falls apart during enemy encounters. While attacks can be combined with motions for added depth in combat, I found the standard jump-kick, punch, punch combo seems to be the most effective in nearly every situation. Players can disarm their foes by pressing the correct button when their weapon flashes red, avoid enemies altogether or engage them in combat. While fighting in the game feels fine, and the selection of attacks is pretty varied, it almost never matters as the hit detection in the game rarely registers leading to frustration when Faith is downed by two melee attacks from her enemies. There were multiple occasions when I knew I had hit the enemy with my attack, but the game counted it as a miss. This is even more upsetting when the game locks Faith in a room full of multiple enemies and little room to maneuver, which happens much more frequently than I would like. The enemy A.I. is somewhat intelligent, and the enemies will often close in on your position to surround you. The trick to combat is isolating single enemies to quickly fell them, but this is not an intentional design decision. The combat in the game is wonky, to the point it almost feels broken, and it forces players to tackle their foes this way. Adding guns to the equation dumbs down the feeling of being a runner in the game and makes it much less frustrating to deal with enemies, but I found that I didn’t want to use weapons at all, and I hope EA/DICE remove them altogether in the inevitable sequel. 



The ending cinematic leaves the world wide open for exploitation in further games, and while the narrative in the game is nothing groundbreaking for the industry, everything else about the game is. Its hard to maintain that level of quality across the board and I think unfortunately the story got the short end of the stick. Having said that, the story is more or less disposable, involving Faith’s sister being framed for a crime she didn’t commit and Faith’s quest to clear her sister’s name. There are a few major twists and turns, but overall the plot is largely take it or leave it. If players choose to become invested in the narrative, it is very well written despite being somewhat clichéd and provides decent enough motivation to see the game to its (rather quickly reached -- I completed the game on normal in about six hours) conclusion. Faith’s character, however, is great. The writers did an excellent job of bringing her to life. From the spot-on voice to the snarky dialogue and determined nature, Faith is a welcome breath of fresh air for heroines in gaming and is easily one my favorite new characters. 

Mirror’s Edge delivers on almost all of its ambitious aspirations and has definitely set a new standard of excellence among first person games. Its at once a breathtaking showcase of what games are capable of as well as a reminder that the industry still has a lot of room to grow. Where the game largely succeeds in its representation of visceral first person acrobatics and stunning visuals, it is unfortunately held back from being the spectacular game it could have been by a broken combat system and occasionally frustrating trial and error game play. Despite these issues, however, Mirror’s Edge is still one of the freshest and most interesting games to come out in the past five years, and deserves to be experienced by anyone interested in the future of the gaming industry. For this, I give Mirror’s Edge…

A-

Flawed, but great!

Fable II: My Review

It was clear from the very beginning that Fable II had a lot to live up to -- the astronomical aspirations of its Creative Director, Peter Molyneux, as well as the high expectations of both fans and the industry as a whole. The first entry in the series left a somewhat bitter taste in a large portion of people’s mouths, due mostly to the general problem of over promising and under delivering. What was touted as an epic, free-roaming RPG was quickly revealed to be nothing more than a six hour romp with a few great ideas tossed in. The morally conscious design, coupled with the affects of your decisions on your character’s model, led to an interesting backdrop for an otherwise somewhat uninteresting game. Let me just say that Fable II effectively rectifies all of these issues and more.

In Fable II, a much touted feature known as “One Button Combat” makes its debut, wherein players should theoretically be able to conduct combat with the use of one button. While that isn’t necessarily true, and the system boils down to something more along the lines of three button combat, it is still a welcome improvement from the first game and is instantly accessible. Three of the face buttons are designated to the three different styles -- melee, ranged attacks and magic. Through a tiered setup, you can “stack” your abilities, holding down the respective face button to charge your attacks, known as a “Flourish“, or simply jabbing on them for fast attacks. Its nothing overly complex, and it doesn’t need to be. What appears to be simplistic on the surface is quickly revealed to be a very deep system as you unlock more spells and abilities via Experience Orbs.


One -- Er, Three Button Combat!

Experience Orbs are dropped by defeated enemies and are divided into four categories: Strength, Skill, Will and General. The player is awarded orbs from each category depending on the style they choose to defeat their enemies. Engage primarily in melee combat, and be rewarded with Strength orbs. Cast magic spells from afar and be rewarded with Will orbs and so on. The Experience Orb system is also combo based, allowing for massive multipliers that will greatly increase the Orb output if the player successfully uses Flourishes and a mixture of the three styles of combat. Orbs can be spent on various things, such as improving the strength of your character or to buy new Spells for your character to cast. Its completely up to the player, and if ever they change their mind about spent orbs, a refund is always readily available, albeit at a fraction of the cost originally paid.

Another lauded new addition to the series is the Dog, a companion met very early on, who accompanies the player throughout the duration of the game. The dog can be named and taught new tricks via books. The dog also serves as the player’s navigational guide. He (or she) will sniff out hidden treasure chests and dig spots, and even assists in combat. He barks when there are enemies nearby, and often issues the finishing blow to downed enemies. Unfortunately, the dog seems to find pretty inane items, and more often than not gets in the way during combat. It can’t die, but when it is injured it will whimper and stumble until healed, which requires a command from the player.


Its a bird... Its a plane... Its... Your dog!

While the addition of the dog is largely unnecessary in terms of the game play, it serves a greater purpose. Throughout the game players will inevitably become emotionally attached to their canine friend, leading up to a very pivotal and heart tugging moment late in the story. Its this emotional bond between a virtual pet and the player that, in my opinion, makes the addition worthy. There’s nothing like it in any other game. Traversing the sprawling fields of Albion, canine at my side, I couldn’t help but feel a little more at ease, as if my Dog would protect me from anything that came my way. Its an interesting mechanic and one that is pulled off incredibly well.

One addition that isn’t quite as revolutionary, despite its implications, is the local and online co-op. What should have been one of the biggest features and selling points of the game has turned into quite the opposite. Local and online co-op play almost exactly the same. One player hosts the other in his or her world, where the host player is their own custom character. The joining player, however, is limited to a selection of pre-determined characters. In local co-op the joining player really serves no other purpose than to assist the host during the game. There are no rewards for the joining player. In online co-op, however, joining players are still limited to a selection of pre-determined characters, but are allowed to keep all experience orbs and items they earn during battle, which transfer back to their native worlds.


An army of one!

Its easy to lambaste this feature as underdeveloped and tacked on when taken at face value, but dive a bit deeper and the limitations start to make a little more sense. The amount of effort the developers would have had to put into the game to allow for two custom characters to interact in each other’s worlds would be overwhelming. If two heroes are affecting each other’s worlds and the people within them, there would be a giant ripple effect, which could very well break the game. Having said that, I still found myself very let down by this much hyped feature and wonder if maybe it shouldn’t have been included at all.

The story in Fable II takes quite a darker direction than that of its predecessor. It still more or less follows the archetypal “one hero to save the world” motif, and often feels ham-fisted in its delivery. However, the narrative still does an excellent job of drawing the player in and motivating them to see the main quest through to its end. I predict that most players will be drawn to see the conclusion before exploring the myriad of other things the world of Albion has to offer them.

The level of morality in the game has also been ramped up, and many choices players must make have lasting ramifications that will come back to haunt them later on, sometimes immediately. However, a large portion of these decisions are not ones that affected me personally. They more often were issues I could easily choose an answer for without thinking twice, and were even more often much too obvious in their moral alignment.


Sneak attack!

Yet the final choice I was presented with deeply impacted me. Instantly after I made my decision I regretted it. I was never able to determine whether or not this was due to my own personal feelings about the decision I had made or if it was simply because I had been given lengthy guilt trips from a few of the in-game characters. Regardless, its impressive and noteworthy that the game had this effect on me at all. I’ve never questioned my morality in a video game before, but Fable II made me question it several times.

The weight of my decision took its toll on my in-game character as well, aging him dramatically. Of course, everything a player does in Fable II reflects in their character’s appearance and impression on others in the world, and its here that the game has really taken a step up. Coinciding with the more serious tone of the story, the world of Albion and its inhabitants have been given a more realistic look and feel. Gone are the cartoon-like people and the storybook style environments, replaced with a much more dark and fitting fantasy style aesthetic. Think Lord of the Rings crossed with World of Warcraft.


Beautiful.

Despite the incredible art direction in the game, the graphics are unfortunately somewhat sub-par in terms of current generation standards. Let’s be clear, Gears of War this is not. That isn’t to say the game looks bad, quite the opposite actually, I was just a little under whelmed by the visuals. Couple this with the problematic and often frustrating menu system, wherein game crashing freezes are much more frequent than should ever be allowed in a polished first party title, and its easy to see why anyone could be left feeling let down in terms of the presentation. Its nothing that completely breaks the game or ruins the experience, but it is incredibly vexing to see such an amateur menu system come from a world renowned studio like Lionhead.

Fable II is certainly not a game for everyone. Hardcore gamers may find the game much too easy, especially given that it is impossible to die in the game and that one is basically herded in the correct direction by a glowing trail. The game is instantly accessible, yet remains deep and complex beneath its lighthearted surface to provide anyone an enthralling ride should they choose to take part in it. While it may not reinvent the RPG wheel as intended, and with all minor graphical gripes and glitches aside, Fable II is more than worthy of the RPG crown on the Xbox 360, and I suspect that many players will find themselves pleasantly surprised at just how engaged they become with the world of Albion. I know that I can’t wait for my return visit.

Without a doubt, I give Fable II...

A+

Editor's Choice!

GRT Episode 1!

Hey everyone, nothing too in-depth for me to discuss today. I just wanted to post a heads-up here on the blog to let everyone know that I've started up a gaming podcast with a couple friends, "Gaming Random Thoughts".

We're planning on making it a weekly thing, but no guarantees there. This week we talk a lot about MGS4 and about a lot of news. For full details on the show you can check out the official GRT blog (complete with show notes and a direct download link) here: http://grtpodcast.blogspot.com

Orrrr you can subscribe to our RSS feed to have the podcasts delivered directly to your preferred podcatcher (That includes iTunes!) here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/grtpodcast

Its just over an hour long this time around. I hope you'll all give it a listen and let us know what you think! Feel free to comment here or to send me an e-mail at ssroan [at] gmail [dawt] com (Remove the brackets). Thanks! :)

Whatchu talkin' 'bout Denis?

The man, the legend.

According to the great Denis Dyack, President of Silicon Knights, this is what gamers should do.

Last week Mr. Dyack decided it would be a genius idea to post a topic on the popular gaming board NeoGAF asking members there to post whether they were for or against his company's latest game, "Too Human" for Xbox 360. A pretty innocent question, wouldn't you say?

Wrong. What started as a mostly civil discussion quickly devolved into a show of childish tirades from both gamers and Dyack, but the real firestorm started when Dyack started getting hostile and told someone to "Put up or shut up". Fittingly enough, this is not the first time Dyack has caused a scene. You see, Mr. Dyack seems to have a knack for running his mouth when he really shouldn't. When Too Human was announced a few E3's ago it was ripped on pretty heavily for being derivative and having a terrible frame rate, among other complaints. Denis was quick to come forth and attack both gamers and video game journalists for being too eager to judge games before they were finished, hastily throwing himself into the spotlight, when before he was more or less an unknown name to most.

He then later presented the controversial ideas of withholding games for preview until they are finished and seemingly pioneered the notion of a "one console future", giving a very detailed panel at last year's GDC. And of course, anyone keeping up with the gaming industry knows about Dyack's lawsuit against Epic Games over allegations of their Unreal Engine 3 being unfinished. As you can easily see, Dyack has been steadily building up a hatred for himself and a stigma for his game that I believe would not have happened had he just kept his mouth shut.

Which brings me to the real message of this blog post. The video game industry is a very interesting one in that major developers and industry insiders like Denis Dyack can make their voices heard in the general public through sites such as NeoGAF. Dyack is not the first person to upset the admittedly volatile gaming community. Many before him have had their bouts with us: Jeff Bell, David Jaffe, etc.

No other industry has this sort of open nature, where developers are not only able but willing to communicate directly with those who will be buying their products. Occasionally you'll have an outspoken film director come out and say something worthwhile, but this is not nearly as common an occurrence as it is among game developers.

So my question is, is this a good or bad thing to have happen? In the case of Denis Dyack, it is quite obviously a bad thing. Too Human was already a media and enthusiast whipping boy before this most recent fiasco, but now that Denis has gone and fired off his mouth again, is Too Human doomed? Maybe "doomed" is too extreme a term, but there is no denying that Denis' outspoken ways have had a negative effect on the public perception of Too Human, even to the point that his job standing has been called into question.

Another bombshell involving NeoGAF was the now infamous line from Jeff Bell, ex-Corporate Vice President of Global Marketing for Microsoft, who asked a poster "And your contribution to society is...?" after being taken to task about his rather canned presentation at Microsoft's pre-E3 press conference last year. Now, not even a year later, Jeff Bell has decided to leave Microsoft and move on to other ventures. Is this decision due largely in part to his comments towards and perception among the enthusiast community? No one really knows for sure but I think its pretty safe to say that they at least had some weight in that decision.

David Jaffe, creator of the God of War series, however, is one man who seems to have benefited pretty nicely from his outspoken manner. He's addressed many issues on his personal blog, more so now since his departure from Sony to pursue making games with his own studio. Jaffe has become a very well respected voice among game developers and I don't think he'd have attained that status without speaking directly to gamers.

But as we all know, gamers are a notoriously cynical bunch. Are we simply being too hard on these guys who slave away at computers, working ungodly shifts to ship a product they have dreamed about making and have been making for years? Or are we justified in our roles as consumers to rally together and make our concerns known? I happen to think it is a pretty even balance of both, but more often leans in favor of angry gamers.

I can't really blame these developers for snapping at someone every so often, or sometimes much more frequently. They are out there busting their asses to make a game that satisfies us and we almost always find something to complain about. But, we're the people buying their game in the first place, so we should have a say in their creation and be able to express concern for troublesome games, right?

Right. But I think it has come to a point where we all need to be a little bit nicer to each other and understand that this is a give and take sort of industry. We need to appreciate the fact that we as an industry have a voice that is heard and yet realize that we can't abuse it. That goes for both sides, Mr. Dyack.

The Aftermath...

So MGS4 is out. I've finished the game, gave it a ridiculously positive review here on my own blog and well... Now I sort of regret that?

I think maybe I was so wrapped up in the hype for the game and my own shock at actually, well, enjoying it that I had some sort of blinders on. Looking back on it now there are some pretty critical issues with the game that I didn't even touch on in my review. Is that indicative of how reviews are done these days? Seems to me I wasn't the only one out there giving it a near-perfect (or in some cases, perfect) score.

Or maybe its just the fact that I've had a week or two to really digest the game and my experience with it and I've come to the realization that hey, maybe this isn't the masterpiece I thought it was.

What I mean to say is that if you take away all of the cut-scenes (which are important to the MGS experience, I realize this) you are left with about 9 hours of actual game play. I finished the game in just under 18 so roughly half of the game is completely non-interactive. Now granted, most of the cut-scenes are very well acted and scripted so I didn't mind watching them at all (and most of the time I had no fucking clue what was going on story-wise anyway), but in retrospect I have to wonder if this is really the direction games should be taking as a medium.

Just in the past few years a very distinct line in gaming has been drawn between "cinematic games" and "interactive cinema". For the sake of explanation I'll pit these two games against each other: BioShock vs. MGS4.

These games are obviously very different in many ways, but what's interesting is that BioShock has the "cinematic game" shtick down pat. The game actually makes you feel as if you were playing a character in a movie, controlling their actions and ultimate destiny. Granted, its a pretty linear experience and you are often sheep-herded in one direction, but overall it works. The story is doled out to you through interactions with the game world (mostly via audio diaries) and with characters within said world. Obviously there are cut-scenes in this game, but they are not nearly as prevalent as those in MGS4, and the cut-scenes that are there do a very good job of fleshing out the narrative in a clear, cohesive fashion. Yes, they still temporarily take control from you, the player, and yes, they still (arguably) remove players from the experience simply because they are no longer in control, but at this point in gaming it is almost impossible to tell a compelling story without a sparse few cut-scenes.

This brings me to the other side of the fence: MGS4 and what I'm calling "interactive cinema". This is pretty much the complete opposite of BioShock. There are definitely moments where the player has control that the game manages to feel very cinematic (in quite a few instances, actually), but most of the time the player is forced to sit through very lengthy and very wordy cut-scenes that would serve much better as a film. Whereas in BioShock you are largely playing a game and only briefly interrupted by a cut-scene, the reverse is true with MGS4, where you are mostly watching a movie and only briefly interrupted by a game play snippet before being subjected to another lengthy cut-scene.

Given that the very purpose of gaming and the most compelling reason for its existence is the concept of interaction, what good does it serve to create "games" such as MGS4 where the player more often has no control or input into what happens? Better yet, is MGS4 really even a game?

The fact that interactive movies like MGS4 can be released and passed off as $60 "games" rather worries me. Seriously people half of this "game", yes half of it, isn't even playable. Oh sure you get to jam on X for some flashbacks and press R1 occasionally for a different viewpoint, but these are negligable additions in the grand scheme of things.

Previously I was all for narrative in gaming, but MGS4 has got me thinking that maybe this isn't the direction our beloved industry should be heading in after all, especially when the narrative present more or less destroys the plot of previous games (that's a whole blog post in and of itself that I won't get into now).

So, having spewed all of this out I am now going to make it a policy NOT to write reviews on any game until at least a week after I've beaten it, just to make sure that I'm not getting caught in the hype. I think it would be a wise idea for more people to adopt this policy because in this day and age it seems like everyone is being controlled by PR, hype and marketing (NOT by nanomachines -- Sorry Kojima!)

The PR/marketing team behind MGS4 sure knows how to spin!