13 Aug 2008
Played on Xbox360
Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved was the title that really kicked off the whole Xbox Live Arcade thing. It combined classic simple gameplay with high production values at a low price, making it hard not to like. It’s been quite some time since then, and this whole notion of small scale downloadable games on consoles has really taken off. And after all this time we now have a sequel, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2.
Honestly, I wasn’t super excited for this release. As good as Geometry Wars for its time, a lot has happened since then. The core formula was really simple, and since then two-stick shooters have become as ubiquitous on XBLA as first-person-shooters on the PC. I just couldn’t see how this little game about shooting shapes in a rectangle could really evolve into something more interesting.
I couldn’t have been more wrong.
You see, the original Geometry Wars was pretty hardcore. The whole scoring mechanic celebrated The Perfect Game. Dying reset your multiplier, but the difficulty of the game constantly increased, so a mistake early on prevented you from getting a decent score. The beginning of the game was really easy, so it took awhile to see if you were going to cut the mustard and walk away with an awesome score. But difficulty skyrocketed from trivial to ridiculous in a short time period, and pretty soon you were dead and stuck with too many enemies and no multiplier. The end result was largely decided by one little split-second mistake. Although I appreciated the skill involved in it, I just wasn’t interested in getting that hardcore over a split-second.
The sequel innovates in a couple of key ways that dramatically improve the experience. First, your multiplier is not reset when you die, so there’s no need to get overly frustrated when your perfect run is flawed. Second, your multiplier is not defined by how many kills you get, but instead by these little green geoms that drop from defeated enemies. This forces you to balance your play between adding to your score and increasing your long-term score potential by gathering multiplier. It also forces you to play aggressively, flying head-on into enemies instead of endless circling. Finally, the game features a couple of truly innovative modes that feel unlike anything else out there and emphasize the best parts of the new Geometry Wars gameplay.
Probably my favorite of these modes is King. In King there are bubbles where you are protected for a short time, but you cannot shoot while outside a bubble. This creates a brilliant pacing between aggressive and defensive gameplay. One moment you’re unleashing carnage, the next you’re racing for your life. It’s one of the most brilliant gameplay innovations I’ve ever experienced. It effortlessly blends strategy into an action-packed twitch-fest.
GW2 also introduces multiplayer to the franchise, and King with four players is one of the best multiplayer experiences I’ve ever had. It’s not head-to-head in that you don’t shoot at other players, but that’s not to say that it isn’t brutally competitive. Do you put yourself at risk to farm multiplier or do you stay safe and shoot? Where do you shoot so that the geoms are most likely to benefit you and not your opponents? How do you plan your movement between bubbles so that you have a safe escape route at all times? How many bubbles can you pop to limit your opponent’s options without impeding your own strategy? The amount of stuff going on is gleefully overwhelming. And at the core of this is a fast paced action game, so pretty much every part of your gaming brain is being tickled at once. It’s incredibly fun, and thoroughly addictive.
King is great, but Pacifism is pretty awesome too. In this mode you can’t shoot at all. The only way to kill enemies is to fly through gates that explode as you cross through them. Instead of dealing with sparse nimble enemies you deal with lumbering swarms. By having your offensive capabilities crippled you’re forced to focus completely on movement, frantically bobbing and weaving through overwhelming odds. As far as I’m concerned the mode could have been called Balls, because without them you will fail. Just as in the other modes you have to balance multiplier and score, but in Pacifism getting that multiplier often means launching yourself directly towards the oncoming swarm. Seriously, balls.
Singleplayer turns out to be just as addictive as multiplayer in GW2, primarily due to the tight integration of friend leaderboards. You are constantly aware of your friend’s high scores and encouraged to better them. It feeds that competitive drive, but in an oddly social way. My only complaint is that there is no persistence to multiplayer scores whatsoever.
Achievements are often misused in games. They should add something to your game experience, not entice you with ridiculous goals that exploit your inner obsessive completist. Geometry Wars 2 strikes a perfect achievement balance. Each mode in the game has an achievement that encourages you to play it in a different way. Instead of merely awarding excellence, the achievement gives you new stuff to do. It enhances the core game.
All told, I’m happy to have been proven wrong. I wasn’t really looking forward to this game, and it’s completely surprised me. Geometry Wars 2 has brought some serious innovation to the two-stick shooter genre. And it’s only $10. So, um yeah. Hot.
06 Aug 2008
Played on Xbox360
Given the reviews I knew that Stranglehold (sorry, “John Woo Presents Stranglehold”) probably wouldn’t rock my world, so I guess I wasn’t too disappointed when it didn’t. It’s not bad, but I certainly wouldn’t recommend it over all the other games out there. The premise is solid: a shooter with crazy destructible environments and a combo system that awards you for taking dudes out with style. But the execution of that premise left something to be desired.
The first style system I remember was from Project Gotham Racing. It had these challenge modes where the goal was to string together longs stretches of flashy moves while keeping up a fast pace and not bumping into anything. If you were really good you could keep one combo going for the entire circuit and get a crapload of points. Stranglehold tries to integrate a similar thing into its shooter mechanics, with you being rewarded for stuff like making a headshot while leaping through the air dramatically. Instead of getting points you fill up a meter that lets you heal yourself or unleash devastating barrages. Unfortunately the game has overly simple rules for detecting how suave you are, resulting in your best performances going by unnoticed while some sloppy mishap gets you tons of points. The adrenaline is there keeping you gunning for a longer streak, but the inability of the system to correctly gauge flair makes the whole experience feel slightly disconnected. It becomes clear pretty early on that the best way to get style points is to game the system, not to actually have any style.
It doesn’t help that the weapons are uninspired. There’s a long stream of guns that mostly feel identical. I know I’m spoiled by games that have the luxury of inventing death rays and plasma rifles, but realistic weaponry doesn’t have to be so spectacularly generic. My advice: concentrate on fewer weapons but make them feel like they pack a punch. Anyway, from a game about gunplay I expect more.
The plot of the game is generic action movie fluff. You’re a cop who doesn’t exactly play by the book, and at some point I think the chief asks you to turn in your badge, although I could be confusing it with a dozen other action cop flicks. For a video game a generic plot is the norm, so he plot is perfectly satisfactory. The audio leveling, however, is not. This isn’t the first time I’ve complained about being unable to hear story sequences in a game. It felt like I was watching FOX, where the commercials are many levels louder than the program you care about. Each time a story sequence came up I had to crank the volume, and then I had to remember to turn it down again as soon as the action started again. If they were looking for an efficient way to break my immersion, then mission accomplished.
Thankfully the destructible environments mostly distracted me from the lackluster gunplay and varying sound quality. While the bullets are whizzing by whatever area you’re in gets torn to shreds. At the end of large fights I often
04 Aug 2008
Played on Xbox360
I’ve been doing the GameFly thing for quite some time now, and I’ve noticed that my play style has changed somewhat. Gone are the days of playing only a handful of games, but playing them so deeply that I know every last inch. I don’t think it’s correct to say my taste has changed, but I do think it has expanded. I now seek out games where the reviews criticize it for being “too short.” I often would rather have short but memorable experiences with multiple games than a long deep relationship with one epic game. I’ve shifted to be a gaming polygamist. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy deep, long-term gameplay (just look at how much MMO blogging I do), but I’ve now got a soft spot for the short but sweet weekend rental.
Conan is just that sort of game. Not to be confused with Age of Conan, the MMO, the Conan for the Xbox 360 is a simple third-person action slash-fest. You are Conan, and you kill stuff. And being the barbarian badass that you are, you vanquish your foes with gratuitous force. It’s quite satisfying.
There’s nothing terribly complicated about the core gameplay. There are three primary attack buttons and different combos for various sequences of these attacks. For the most part you can mash buttons and watch the carnage unfold. Later in the game you’ll encounter foes that require you pull off specific combos to get passed their defenses, but it never gets too intricate. All told the combat feels pretty solid.
The boss battles in Conan are appropriately grand. You fight everything from a sand dragon to a kraken to an undead elephant. Seriously, the game gets major points for memorable boss creatures. Defeating the bosses involves a mix of standard combat and Quick Time Events. Thankfully the QTEs are lenient and never immediately fatal, so defeating a boss is never a matter of repetition until you achieve perfection.
You may be reading all of this and thing to yourself, “But I’ve played this game before.” Yes, Conan is the posterchild for derivative game design. There is absolutely nothing here that hasn’t already been done in dozens of other action games. But it’s done well. Combat feels good, the animation is great, the bosses are memorable, and the whole experience only takes up about five hours of your time. This is the video game equivalent of the popcorn action flick. It won’t give you any deep and meaningful revelations, but it sure is fun.
That’s not to say that the game is lacking character. Conan may be a man of few words, but those few words are delivered well and are absolutely hilarious. The game has a charm to it. It’s a chauvinistic and violent charm, but for some reason in the world of Conan the Barbarian that’s totally endearing. For example, instead of collecting hidden packages, flags, or agility orbs, Conan seeks out topless women chained to poles. They strip off their shackles and thank Conan suggestively… achievement unlocked. It all sounds really offensive, but it fits thematically, and for some reason that makes it okay. Don’t get me wrong, this game is not for the feint of heart. But for a five hour romp of decapitations and one liners, it’s excellent.
29 Jul 2008
I’ve been having a good time with Last Night on Earth, but poking around on BoardGameGeek I’ve always been a little jealous of those swank miniatures that some people have painted. I’ve also noticed that it’s very possible to confuse the heroes while playing, so the painted figured do serve some functional value. So I decided to take up an arts and crafts project to paint the pieces from my game.
I’ve never painted anything like these soft plastic miniatures before, so I posted a query to the BGG crowd for tips. And I’m so glad I did, because those people were ridiculously helpful. Armed with pages of discussion on optimal painting techniques I headed to Michael’s to get my materials.
Supply list:
- Apple Barrel 24 color acrylic paint set - $4.99
- Apple Barrel white, 2oz - $0.79
- Apple Barrel black, 20z - $0.79
- Delta Ceramcoat matte interior varnish - $2.29
- Loew-Cornell set of four sable brushes - $6.99
- Elmer’s adhesive putty - $1.99
- Solo bathroom cups (package of 80) - $2.39
Total: $21.88 (including tax)
The first step was to wash the minis. Apparently they have some residual stuff on them from the mold, and if you don’t wash them the paint will have problems sticking. So I washed all the minis and left them to dry for a couple hours.
The next step was to prime them. I started with the zombies, because you’ve gotta screw up pretty fierce to make zombies look bad. Two coats of black paint later, my zombies were looking like freaky little tar monsters.
Someone from the boards had the excellent suggestion of using sticky tack to affix the figures to something so I didn’t have to actually touch the figure while painting. Thus the plastic cups. There are two colors of zombies, green and brown, and since I needed to preserve that in my final output I marked the cups with either a “G” or “B”.
With all the prep complete it was time to break out the color. I wanted to preserve the original skin tone difference between the two sets of zombies, so I mixed two not-quite-human skin colors. After the skin was painted on zombies I was able to go nuts applying various clothing colors to them, making full use of the 24 colors in my palette. Lastly I finished off the bases, starting with a dark-green base (to match the game board) and then accenting them with either a light green or brown to bring back the two zombie team colors.
The final step was to apply a coat of matte varnish to make sure that the paint won’t wear down as the figures get handled during gameplay.
You can see more photos of the final result here. Personally, I’m extremely happy with how they turned out. Now that I’ve cut my teeth on the zombies, the next step is to tackle the heroes. There’s more detail to worry about with the heroes, but the core steps should be the same. I’ll post photos when I’m done.
29 Jul 2008
I worry sometimes that I’m too negative. If I scan back through what I’ve written on this blog, I see more negative statements than positive statements. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with criticism, but when that’s all you’ve got to say it’s pretty darn depressing. Saying the glass is half empty is fine, but focusing on the fact that it’s one eighth empty is taking it a bit far. I don’t want to be that person.
Sometimes the most succinct way to describe something is in the ways that it differs from something similar. If you had to illustrate everything from scratch every time, building up from the base to the small details, it would take forever. It’s far easier to talk about things in relation to other things. This is a fundamental optimization of communication. But hidden in these comparisons are value statements. You say what something is, and you say what it is not. And in saying what it is not, you are often describing what it should be. And in pondering too often what things are not, it is too easy to lose sight of what they are.
This is a common problem. No one really talks about the ways in which the world’s religions and denominations are similar; we focus on (and wage wars over) the miniscule ways that they are different. We don’t talk about similarity because similarity is understood. There’s nothing more to say. Everybody likes ice cream; everybody likes bacon. It’s far more interesting to talk about ways in which we are different. But there’s a difference between knowing how you are different from something and defining yourself by how you are different.
I don’t think of myself as a negative person, and I don’t think that I’m overly negative in my interactions with other people. I enjoy a good argument, but that’s not the basis for how I relate to others. So is this disproportionate negativity just an anomaly of my writing?
I definitely know that I struggle with it constantly in blogging. Far more topics flit through my head than I have the time to put to words. So there’s an ongoing selection process for deciding what topics to write about. The topics I write about are the ones that I have the most to say about. I’ve talked before about how this leads to me writing about games. But it turns out it’s also a factor in contributing to an overall negative tone.
Concrete example: You’ll notice I never wrote about Iron Man. Why? Iron Man was freaking awesome. Thoroughly enjoyable. I’d recommend it to almost anyone. But everyone knows that Iron Man was awesome. I didn’t feel the need to tell anyone. It was just understood.
I also haven’t written anything about The Orange Box, which was one of my favorite games from last year. Portal is gaming perfection, Team Fortress is refinement of a classic, and Episode Two ends with one of the most epic gaming sequences I’ve experienced in a long time. It’s not like I decided to not write about it. It’s still totally on my list. But I’ve subconsciously preferred so many topics over it. What’s wrong with me?
I think it’s a natural tendency, and one I’ll probably always struggle with. Constant Vigilance, I guess. But at least I’m aware of it. I began this blog as an effort to help my memory, and in respect of that I think it’s important to keep my personal time capsule from becoming a depressing log of spiraling negativity.
