Being an Uncle is awesome.
Being an Uncle with Nephews who love Star Wars is even MORE awesome.
This holiday, I went up to my mom's house to spend time with family- which included my oldest Sister's two boys- one five, the other one and a half. Thanks to the miracle of Skype, the oldest of those two had already seen a lot of my collection of Star Wars toys. Needless to say, he wanted to see these toys 'in person'.
So it was that when I loaded up my car, the trunk was filled with the cream of my collection- the 'Hoth Playset' as I now call it. This included an AT-AT walker, a Snowspeeder, a Squad of Snowtroopers, a Squad of Rebel Hoth troopers plus some taun-tauns, a Wampa, and various droids and the like. Also along for the ride were a TIE fighter, an X-Wing, a Y-Wing and Boba Fett's Slave I.
I arrived before the kiddies, so I had a little time to 'set up'. Of course when they arrived, I had to do the Uncle thing and pretend that I had forgotten to bring my toys. My sister unfortunately ruined my teasing by telling her son I was full of beans. Within moments, my oldest Nephew and I were playing Star Wars.
And you know what? It is still fun. We had a blast- and more importantly- HE had a blast. In particular, he loved the Y-Wing. This made me grin as I have to admit that as a kid, that particular toy would have been my favorite as well. We are talking the 'Old Republic' version of the Y-Wing here, from the Clone Wars series. This features seating for a Piot, a Gunner AND an Astromech droid- plus it has spring loaded pop-up missile bays- into which you can fit ANOTHER droid (or so my Nephew discovered). It could also FIRE six spring-launched missiles and drop two bombs. Yep, that would be my favorite, and it certainly was his.
But lets not forget little brother. The one-and-a-half-year-old was just as fascinated by the toys as his older brother. Again I had to grin. Even at that age, he totally 'got it'.. you put the pilots into the cockpit, you take them out, you fire the missiles, you put the missiles back and fire them again.
Sigh. Good times.
In any case, I am glad to see that some things DO seem to bridge the generations. Say what you want about the electronic age and all the distractions and entertainments therein. There is still something amazing about actually holding a toy and playing with it. I'm not sure that will ever go out of style.
In case you were wondering what the exact point of this post was, there isn't one beyond the fact that playing Star Wars remains awesome. That is all. Happy New Year, everyone.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
TUESDAY TANGENT: Skyrim and the Illusion of Freedom
Contrary to the activity of my blog, I am not, in fact, dead. Truth be told, I am in the year-end crunch that most people experience at their jobs. Between that and planning for my vacation I've been swamped. And when you add to that the release of a new video game (Skyrim), well...lets just say the blog got put on the back burner, hm? In any case, I am finally taking some time to discuss something game related- though not at all Star Wars related (thus the tangent).
My introduction to the Elder Scrolls series (of which Skyrim is the 5th chapter) was with its predecessor, ES-IV: Oblivion. I purchased this game shortly after playing Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic. I was looking for something to give me that same 'fix' of awesome, free-ranging roleplay. I played Oblivion for...oh, about two hours before I sadly discovered that it was nowhere near the experience I had hoped it would be. Many people would consider this an unfair comparison, and it is to an extent. But only to an extent. I think the exact moment I quit Oblivion is when I entered into 'conversation' with a random NPC and found myself in a bizarre mini-game involving different 'moods' and colors and... yeah. After the friendships I'd formed in Knights of the Old Republic (for example the awesome dialogue with Jolee Bindo), I found the whole thing to be very flat.
Even so, years later, when I saw the ads for Skyrim I thought that it looked pretty cool. So I took the plunge and hours and hours later, I finished the main storylines of the game. My initial reaction to the game was one of awe. The world was HUGE and beautiful, and I could go wherever I wanted. Okay, so maybe the NPCs were shallow, the combat was fun, as was the exploration. The sheer number of things to do was staggering. There were all kinds of dungeons and ruins and towns to explore. Okay, so maybe the big set-piece battles of the game were a little uh.. low key. Not epic, but still fun and playable. I was certain, though, that as things built towards a climax with the civil war AND the dragon invasion that there would be those big MOMENTS. I was sure that some of the characters (the main ones) would prove to be more than your typical NPCs... that they would have deeper stories to tell and have personalities that come out through association with them and... well, when I 'finished' the game, I was still waiting for this to happen. Don't get me wrong. I think Skyrim is a good game. I had (and am having) a lot of fun with it. But for all it's vast scope, it is not a very 'deep' game. And that is probably the reason why I am not nearly as enthusiastic about it as I was about other games.
Now, before I keep rambling, I want to get to the point of this blog entry- namely that Freedom in any video game is an Illusion. And to me, a well done illusion of freedom is a lot better than a game that offers freedom but seemingly without dramatic impact. I will explore this by comparing Skyrim to a couple contemporary games: The Dragon Age series and even Mass Effect. Now again, some folks might call the comparisons unfair- that Skyrim is going after another kind of role playing experience. But I am talking personal preference here-which is all anyone can really do, since there is no great 'universal truth' to making a game 'fun'.
First of all, I'd like to describe what I mean by 'Freedom' within a game. Ultimately what I'm talking about here is being able to make MAJOR choices that affect either the world or the story being told-which, in effect, allow me to steer the course of the story (and in effect the 'game world') in the way I want it to go. In games like Skyrim (and Dragon Age), this kind of freedom is achieved in three major ways- through the setting, the characters and the 'setpiece' events and storylines.
As far as setting goes, Skyrim achieves the illusion of freedom by allowing the player to go wherever he/she wants. The only 'invisible walls' are the borders of the huge realm of Skyrim. Other than that, if you want to get there, odds are you can find a way to do so-be in the peak of a towering mountain or the depths of an icy lake. The size of Skyrim makes this very impressive indeed. You aren't confined to one set of corridors or a single path that takes you through a forest. If you're on a road that goes east and west, you can make a right angle turn and go north or south and STILL find adventure. That is impressive. Especially when you compare it to something like the Dragon Age series, where travel through the world is achieved through menu screens and only 'encounter areas' are actually open for exploration.
Where this Freedom of travel/setting thing begins to break down, however, is in the scope of human habitation in Skyrim. Miles of tractless wilderness are one thing, but when you reach a large town or city, the 'illusion of reality' begins to falter. Yes, you're able to go ANYWHERE within that city map, but the city itself is small-maybe a couple dozen or so buildings all-told. And while, at first glance, it gives the impression of being larger than it actually is, the more you visit and explore a location, the smaller you realize it is. In games like Dragon Age (or even the Fable Series), there are 'snippets' of large cities present to explore, but beyond those are hints at the larger scope of the setting- buildings leading off into the distance. Even if I can't physically break into and rob each of those houses, the fact they are there creates the 'Illusion' of an epic scale to a story. A city LOOKS like a city, not just a collection of a few buildings. I would point to Mass Effect 2 for an almost perfect illustration of my point. One planet, Ilium, is a vast metropolis, a la Coruscant or Blade Runner- and yet the part you can explore is (in comparison) almost laughably small. Even so, when you look off of a balcony and see the miles and miles of cityscape stretching out... well, you get feeling- the illusion- that you're in a vast world. And yes, again I realize (and have heard) arguments that Skyrim's cities are supposed to be small, but seriously, 'real' medieval cities were a LOT larger than Skyrim's.
But more than just the setting itself, the characters (people and beasts) who populate it really help bring a world (and a game) to life. In Skyrim there are hundreds (if not thousands) of NPCs scattered across various cities, towns and even farms and remote cabins. Most of them can be interacted with in some manner. And then there is the wild life. Walking through the mountainous tundra, you can find everything from tiny butterflies to elk, to mammoths. And you're able to interact with ALL of them. Nothing here is 'just for show'. Are you really in the mood for some delicious mammoth snout sandwiches? Well, go ahead. Attack one of the beasts (I wouldn't recommend it though). Do you need butterfly wings for one of your potions? Go ahead, send your heavily armored dragon-slaying warrior skipping around the fields of flowers to catch one. It is all possible.
More to the point that most gamers seem to bring up, if you feel like killing some random villager for casting a disparaging remark in your direction (which, for some reason, they seem to do with frequency), you can do that. You can slaughter to your heart's content. Well, except for children. Because that would be bad. Oh, and except for shop-keepers or folks who are important to the storyline in certain quests and...hmmmm. So maybe my freedom is somewhat limited after all.
I normally play a good guy, so this 'unkillable NPC syndrome' doesn't usually bother me-I don't fancy random slaughter of children or anything else for that matter. But I ran into a situation in my own game that irked me. In one town, there is a crooked noblewoman- Maven Black-Briar. She basically runs the Thieves' Guild in her city. In fact, several NPCs tell you this outright. She is also thoroughly unpleasant to boot. So, after the tenth time of her making some snide remark as she walked past me, I decided enough was enough. I'd take her out, and the Guild with her. It would be one of those 'justified killings' (at least in my mind) for the greater good (the greater good!). Imagine my annoyance when I found out that she was unkillable. So much for freedom of choice. And honestly, in my play through I saw NO reason at all why she would be immortal. I didn't participate in any of the Thieves' Guild stuff, so her life (or death) were of no consequence to me or the main storyline as a whole. But in the end, it just serves to illustrate my point. As much as Skyrim may tout its 'you can do anything' selling point, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule.
In other games, such as Dragon Age, there were characters who I (or rather my character) would have very much liked to kill. But within the confines of that game, you knew up front that you couldn't do so unless it was 'scripted'. There was never any option to 'go berserk and kill everyone'. Therefore, such situations didn't really bother me. In games that tout 'freedom of action', however, anything that curtails that freedom really does become an issue. Once again, the Illusion of Freedom is broken- and if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to know up front (out of character) that some annoying people are just untouchable.
Another point regarding characters in Skyrim is the fact that all of them-even the lowliest farmer in his field or woodcutter plying his trade-have something to say. Most of them are able to interact with your character in some way. Some just have a few lines of dialogue, others have quests and still others turn out to be elements of various larger stories or adventures. Each town has its own rogue's gallery of denizens, each of them going about their daily lives. At first glance, this serves to make the world seem 'alive'- to make those cities (however small) seem to be bustling. But the fortieth time you return to your hometown and have the SAME NPCs spout the same lines at you that they have for the entire game. Well...it gets old. And I'm not sure if I have a good 'solution' to this one. In fact, Dragon Age and Mass Effect kind of do the same things, though they do have a lot fewer NPCs with lines.. and well, I don't mind that, actually. While I feel it is rewarding to talk to NPCs in a video game, I tend to only do so when that NPC has something interesting to say-and I don't just mean a fetch quest. I mean the ability to carry on some kind of conversation that teaches me about the world or the NPC. So while at first glance 'chatty' NPCs may seem like a good way to liven up a world, it tends (for me at least) to get old fast. Perhaps the whole 'less is more' thing is preferable. You can have a city populated by NPCs, but maybe only have a few of them speak and/or interact. And those that do should hopefully have some 'reason' for being interacted with- be it a quest, some general information or even just a laugh.
The last character-related issue I want to discuss is the depth of personality of specific, plot-important NPCs and companions. In Skyrim, unfortunately, this depth is lacking. Even the most important people in the game-the Greybeards, General Tullius and Ulfric Stormcloak, do not develop much through play. Nor do you ever feel like you are creating a 'relationship' with any of them. About the only nods to this are the bits of dialogue prior to them handing out quests. If you've been doing good for them, they'll comment on it, but that's about it. And for me at least, the Villains (or rather, the enemies I chose to label as such), didn't seem to react to me at all. I mean, I had helped the Empire capture two forts and was able to just walk into the capital of the Stormcloak rebels without any fuss except a guard commenting. "Hey, how come you're not wearing our kind of armor?"
As far as actual adventuring companions go, they might as well have just named them all 'meatshield' and/or 'walking inventory space'. None of them have any personality- at least not while they are with you. Oh sure, some of them might have a bit of a backstory (the Companions, for example), but once they begin traveling with you, they robotically adhere to the behavior (and even dialogue) of all other companion characters. Yes, Lydia, that does look like a cave. Yes, Erik the Slayer, that does look like a cave. Yes, Aela the Huntress, I too wonder if we should explore that cave. It is perhaps unfair to compare Bioware games and their very well developed NPCs to those of Skyrim, but... well, if you're going to include the option of recruiting people to join you, shouldn't there be SOME kind of reason for them to do so outside of helping in combat and carrying all your excess loot? In the end, I found companions to be more of a nuisance than anything else. And when that happens, you lose a wonderful way of helping players connect to the world and the story.
Finally, we come to the 'story' aspect of a game: how your choices affect the way things work out. In most modern computer roleplaying games, the player character is central to the resolution of whatever conflict is going on in the game world. Skyrim is no different in that regard- save for the fact that there are two ‘main’ quest lines running through the game. The first is the civil war between the Empire and the Stormcloak rebels. In truth, both sides are portrayed as rather ‘grey’, so whichever one you wind up choosing (if either) become the ‘good guys’ of your story. The second major storyline is the return of Dragons to Skyrim from their centuries-long slumber. In this case, you have a more definite ‘enemy’ in the big-bad dragon, “Alduin the World Eater”, who is destined to bring about the end of the world and the birth of a new one. So, unless you LIKE the idea of dieing to make room for a new world, odds are you’re going to try and fight Alduin.
The resolution of the Alduin storyline is pretty straightforward— find the tools necessary to defeat him and then go do it. The civil war is a lot more open ended—and how it ends depends entirely upon who you side with. There are also dozens of smaller quest-lines that can be picked up or ignored. You can become the Archmage of the College of Magic. You can join and take over the thieves’ guild, you can become an assassin in the Dark Brotherhood. On the surface, at least, it appears as though the sky is the limit (no pun intended). In practice, however, very little seems to change. The 'major earthshaking events' of the story don't seem to amount to much. The only things that really seem to change are the color of the city guards' uniforms and a few of their random bits of dialogue. In fact, even after I had defeated the 'main villain' of the piece, Ulfric Stormcloak (well, he was the villain in MY particular story), the various rulers of the different towns didn't even seem to recognize that he was gone. All the same (previously exhausted) bits of dialogue were still there, including questions as to why they chose this or that side in the war. And the responses I got were the same AFTER the war as they were while it was going on. Disappointing. For all the importance placed on my character, the world itself didn't change outwardly at all.
The same can be said of a lot of the other quest lines. I became Arch Mage of the college of magic. But apart from the snazzy new apartment and some robes, it didn’t mean anything. Only the Mages in the college ever referred to me by my title, nobody else in the world seemed to care. The same could be said for me becoming the leader of the Companions (Warrior Guild). No reactions at all, for the most part. So while you’re free to choose to do whatever you want, not a lot comes of it. There don’t SEEM to be any consequences or effect on the larger world.
Then again, when I look at a game like Mass Effect, it isn’t as though a whole lot changes based on your decisions- at least not within a single game. But when I played ME2 AFTER ME1, I really DID have the illusion that my choices had an impact. The dialogue of quite a few NPCs depended entirely upon what I decided to do in the last game- as did the tone of various encounters- and with the game continuing into its third installment, I can see how my game might be VERY different from someone else’s. Perhaps something like this will happen in Skyrim- either with DLC or the next game, but to me, the open-ended nature of the game seems to work only because you CAN’T change the setting that much. And that makes me feel less impactful as a hero.
Another aspect of story is ‘drama’- and by placing almost the entirety of Skyrim’s ‘camera work’ in the hands of the player, you can really miss out on a lot of drama. There were entire scenes and interactions between NPCs that I missed entirely because I ran past them by accident, then returned only to find the conversation over. Likewise, some big villain might be making his big entrance onto the battlefield, but I missed it because I was looting a corpse elsewhere. While this can be attributed to my own bad timing, it does contribute to an overall lessening of the ‘drama’. While I am not a huge fan of cut-scenes, I do feel that they can really enhance an encounter- even if only to momentarily focus your adventurer on some momentous happening.
And finally, there is something to be said for a sense of scale. In Dragon Age, the opening big battle of the game is preceded by an awesome cut scene of thousands of monsters and men doing battle. When you cut back to your character, you find yourself in a much smaller scale battle, but it FEELS like it is part of something larger. In Skyrim, the big assault on the enemy fortress seems to be conducted by me and twelve other guys, against a couple dozen bad guys, who come in waves. It was distinctly underwhelming. And I’d wager that in both games, there were probably the same number of enemies, the difference was the illusion of scale and scope present in Dragon Age and absent in Skyrim.
Anyway, that’s just what I wanted to ramble off the top of my head. And remember, despite everything I have said, I DO enjoy Skyrim for its own merits. I just can’t help but wonder if there will ever be a marriage of concepts. A game as BIG as Skyrim, and as Deep as Dragon Age. If it ever came to be, it would rank as one of the best games of all time, I think.
My introduction to the Elder Scrolls series (of which Skyrim is the 5th chapter) was with its predecessor, ES-IV: Oblivion. I purchased this game shortly after playing Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic. I was looking for something to give me that same 'fix' of awesome, free-ranging roleplay. I played Oblivion for...oh, about two hours before I sadly discovered that it was nowhere near the experience I had hoped it would be. Many people would consider this an unfair comparison, and it is to an extent. But only to an extent. I think the exact moment I quit Oblivion is when I entered into 'conversation' with a random NPC and found myself in a bizarre mini-game involving different 'moods' and colors and... yeah. After the friendships I'd formed in Knights of the Old Republic (for example the awesome dialogue with Jolee Bindo), I found the whole thing to be very flat.
Even so, years later, when I saw the ads for Skyrim I thought that it looked pretty cool. So I took the plunge and hours and hours later, I finished the main storylines of the game. My initial reaction to the game was one of awe. The world was HUGE and beautiful, and I could go wherever I wanted. Okay, so maybe the NPCs were shallow, the combat was fun, as was the exploration. The sheer number of things to do was staggering. There were all kinds of dungeons and ruins and towns to explore. Okay, so maybe the big set-piece battles of the game were a little uh.. low key. Not epic, but still fun and playable. I was certain, though, that as things built towards a climax with the civil war AND the dragon invasion that there would be those big MOMENTS. I was sure that some of the characters (the main ones) would prove to be more than your typical NPCs... that they would have deeper stories to tell and have personalities that come out through association with them and... well, when I 'finished' the game, I was still waiting for this to happen. Don't get me wrong. I think Skyrim is a good game. I had (and am having) a lot of fun with it. But for all it's vast scope, it is not a very 'deep' game. And that is probably the reason why I am not nearly as enthusiastic about it as I was about other games.
Now, before I keep rambling, I want to get to the point of this blog entry- namely that Freedom in any video game is an Illusion. And to me, a well done illusion of freedom is a lot better than a game that offers freedom but seemingly without dramatic impact. I will explore this by comparing Skyrim to a couple contemporary games: The Dragon Age series and even Mass Effect. Now again, some folks might call the comparisons unfair- that Skyrim is going after another kind of role playing experience. But I am talking personal preference here-which is all anyone can really do, since there is no great 'universal truth' to making a game 'fun'.
First of all, I'd like to describe what I mean by 'Freedom' within a game. Ultimately what I'm talking about here is being able to make MAJOR choices that affect either the world or the story being told-which, in effect, allow me to steer the course of the story (and in effect the 'game world') in the way I want it to go. In games like Skyrim (and Dragon Age), this kind of freedom is achieved in three major ways- through the setting, the characters and the 'setpiece' events and storylines.
As far as setting goes, Skyrim achieves the illusion of freedom by allowing the player to go wherever he/she wants. The only 'invisible walls' are the borders of the huge realm of Skyrim. Other than that, if you want to get there, odds are you can find a way to do so-be in the peak of a towering mountain or the depths of an icy lake. The size of Skyrim makes this very impressive indeed. You aren't confined to one set of corridors or a single path that takes you through a forest. If you're on a road that goes east and west, you can make a right angle turn and go north or south and STILL find adventure. That is impressive. Especially when you compare it to something like the Dragon Age series, where travel through the world is achieved through menu screens and only 'encounter areas' are actually open for exploration.
Where this Freedom of travel/setting thing begins to break down, however, is in the scope of human habitation in Skyrim. Miles of tractless wilderness are one thing, but when you reach a large town or city, the 'illusion of reality' begins to falter. Yes, you're able to go ANYWHERE within that city map, but the city itself is small-maybe a couple dozen or so buildings all-told. And while, at first glance, it gives the impression of being larger than it actually is, the more you visit and explore a location, the smaller you realize it is. In games like Dragon Age (or even the Fable Series), there are 'snippets' of large cities present to explore, but beyond those are hints at the larger scope of the setting- buildings leading off into the distance. Even if I can't physically break into and rob each of those houses, the fact they are there creates the 'Illusion' of an epic scale to a story. A city LOOKS like a city, not just a collection of a few buildings. I would point to Mass Effect 2 for an almost perfect illustration of my point. One planet, Ilium, is a vast metropolis, a la Coruscant or Blade Runner- and yet the part you can explore is (in comparison) almost laughably small. Even so, when you look off of a balcony and see the miles and miles of cityscape stretching out... well, you get feeling- the illusion- that you're in a vast world. And yes, again I realize (and have heard) arguments that Skyrim's cities are supposed to be small, but seriously, 'real' medieval cities were a LOT larger than Skyrim's.
But more than just the setting itself, the characters (people and beasts) who populate it really help bring a world (and a game) to life. In Skyrim there are hundreds (if not thousands) of NPCs scattered across various cities, towns and even farms and remote cabins. Most of them can be interacted with in some manner. And then there is the wild life. Walking through the mountainous tundra, you can find everything from tiny butterflies to elk, to mammoths. And you're able to interact with ALL of them. Nothing here is 'just for show'. Are you really in the mood for some delicious mammoth snout sandwiches? Well, go ahead. Attack one of the beasts (I wouldn't recommend it though). Do you need butterfly wings for one of your potions? Go ahead, send your heavily armored dragon-slaying warrior skipping around the fields of flowers to catch one. It is all possible.
More to the point that most gamers seem to bring up, if you feel like killing some random villager for casting a disparaging remark in your direction (which, for some reason, they seem to do with frequency), you can do that. You can slaughter to your heart's content. Well, except for children. Because that would be bad. Oh, and except for shop-keepers or folks who are important to the storyline in certain quests and...hmmmm. So maybe my freedom is somewhat limited after all.
I normally play a good guy, so this 'unkillable NPC syndrome' doesn't usually bother me-I don't fancy random slaughter of children or anything else for that matter. But I ran into a situation in my own game that irked me. In one town, there is a crooked noblewoman- Maven Black-Briar. She basically runs the Thieves' Guild in her city. In fact, several NPCs tell you this outright. She is also thoroughly unpleasant to boot. So, after the tenth time of her making some snide remark as she walked past me, I decided enough was enough. I'd take her out, and the Guild with her. It would be one of those 'justified killings' (at least in my mind) for the greater good (the greater good!). Imagine my annoyance when I found out that she was unkillable. So much for freedom of choice. And honestly, in my play through I saw NO reason at all why she would be immortal. I didn't participate in any of the Thieves' Guild stuff, so her life (or death) were of no consequence to me or the main storyline as a whole. But in the end, it just serves to illustrate my point. As much as Skyrim may tout its 'you can do anything' selling point, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule.
In other games, such as Dragon Age, there were characters who I (or rather my character) would have very much liked to kill. But within the confines of that game, you knew up front that you couldn't do so unless it was 'scripted'. There was never any option to 'go berserk and kill everyone'. Therefore, such situations didn't really bother me. In games that tout 'freedom of action', however, anything that curtails that freedom really does become an issue. Once again, the Illusion of Freedom is broken- and if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to know up front (out of character) that some annoying people are just untouchable.
Another point regarding characters in Skyrim is the fact that all of them-even the lowliest farmer in his field or woodcutter plying his trade-have something to say. Most of them are able to interact with your character in some way. Some just have a few lines of dialogue, others have quests and still others turn out to be elements of various larger stories or adventures. Each town has its own rogue's gallery of denizens, each of them going about their daily lives. At first glance, this serves to make the world seem 'alive'- to make those cities (however small) seem to be bustling. But the fortieth time you return to your hometown and have the SAME NPCs spout the same lines at you that they have for the entire game. Well...it gets old. And I'm not sure if I have a good 'solution' to this one. In fact, Dragon Age and Mass Effect kind of do the same things, though they do have a lot fewer NPCs with lines.. and well, I don't mind that, actually. While I feel it is rewarding to talk to NPCs in a video game, I tend to only do so when that NPC has something interesting to say-and I don't just mean a fetch quest. I mean the ability to carry on some kind of conversation that teaches me about the world or the NPC. So while at first glance 'chatty' NPCs may seem like a good way to liven up a world, it tends (for me at least) to get old fast. Perhaps the whole 'less is more' thing is preferable. You can have a city populated by NPCs, but maybe only have a few of them speak and/or interact. And those that do should hopefully have some 'reason' for being interacted with- be it a quest, some general information or even just a laugh.
The last character-related issue I want to discuss is the depth of personality of specific, plot-important NPCs and companions. In Skyrim, unfortunately, this depth is lacking. Even the most important people in the game-the Greybeards, General Tullius and Ulfric Stormcloak, do not develop much through play. Nor do you ever feel like you are creating a 'relationship' with any of them. About the only nods to this are the bits of dialogue prior to them handing out quests. If you've been doing good for them, they'll comment on it, but that's about it. And for me at least, the Villains (or rather, the enemies I chose to label as such), didn't seem to react to me at all. I mean, I had helped the Empire capture two forts and was able to just walk into the capital of the Stormcloak rebels without any fuss except a guard commenting. "Hey, how come you're not wearing our kind of armor?"
As far as actual adventuring companions go, they might as well have just named them all 'meatshield' and/or 'walking inventory space'. None of them have any personality- at least not while they are with you. Oh sure, some of them might have a bit of a backstory (the Companions, for example), but once they begin traveling with you, they robotically adhere to the behavior (and even dialogue) of all other companion characters. Yes, Lydia, that does look like a cave. Yes, Erik the Slayer, that does look like a cave. Yes, Aela the Huntress, I too wonder if we should explore that cave. It is perhaps unfair to compare Bioware games and their very well developed NPCs to those of Skyrim, but... well, if you're going to include the option of recruiting people to join you, shouldn't there be SOME kind of reason for them to do so outside of helping in combat and carrying all your excess loot? In the end, I found companions to be more of a nuisance than anything else. And when that happens, you lose a wonderful way of helping players connect to the world and the story.
Finally, we come to the 'story' aspect of a game: how your choices affect the way things work out. In most modern computer roleplaying games, the player character is central to the resolution of whatever conflict is going on in the game world. Skyrim is no different in that regard- save for the fact that there are two ‘main’ quest lines running through the game. The first is the civil war between the Empire and the Stormcloak rebels. In truth, both sides are portrayed as rather ‘grey’, so whichever one you wind up choosing (if either) become the ‘good guys’ of your story. The second major storyline is the return of Dragons to Skyrim from their centuries-long slumber. In this case, you have a more definite ‘enemy’ in the big-bad dragon, “Alduin the World Eater”, who is destined to bring about the end of the world and the birth of a new one. So, unless you LIKE the idea of dieing to make room for a new world, odds are you’re going to try and fight Alduin.
The resolution of the Alduin storyline is pretty straightforward— find the tools necessary to defeat him and then go do it. The civil war is a lot more open ended—and how it ends depends entirely upon who you side with. There are also dozens of smaller quest-lines that can be picked up or ignored. You can become the Archmage of the College of Magic. You can join and take over the thieves’ guild, you can become an assassin in the Dark Brotherhood. On the surface, at least, it appears as though the sky is the limit (no pun intended). In practice, however, very little seems to change. The 'major earthshaking events' of the story don't seem to amount to much. The only things that really seem to change are the color of the city guards' uniforms and a few of their random bits of dialogue. In fact, even after I had defeated the 'main villain' of the piece, Ulfric Stormcloak (well, he was the villain in MY particular story), the various rulers of the different towns didn't even seem to recognize that he was gone. All the same (previously exhausted) bits of dialogue were still there, including questions as to why they chose this or that side in the war. And the responses I got were the same AFTER the war as they were while it was going on. Disappointing. For all the importance placed on my character, the world itself didn't change outwardly at all.
The same can be said of a lot of the other quest lines. I became Arch Mage of the college of magic. But apart from the snazzy new apartment and some robes, it didn’t mean anything. Only the Mages in the college ever referred to me by my title, nobody else in the world seemed to care. The same could be said for me becoming the leader of the Companions (Warrior Guild). No reactions at all, for the most part. So while you’re free to choose to do whatever you want, not a lot comes of it. There don’t SEEM to be any consequences or effect on the larger world.
Then again, when I look at a game like Mass Effect, it isn’t as though a whole lot changes based on your decisions- at least not within a single game. But when I played ME2 AFTER ME1, I really DID have the illusion that my choices had an impact. The dialogue of quite a few NPCs depended entirely upon what I decided to do in the last game- as did the tone of various encounters- and with the game continuing into its third installment, I can see how my game might be VERY different from someone else’s. Perhaps something like this will happen in Skyrim- either with DLC or the next game, but to me, the open-ended nature of the game seems to work only because you CAN’T change the setting that much. And that makes me feel less impactful as a hero.
Another aspect of story is ‘drama’- and by placing almost the entirety of Skyrim’s ‘camera work’ in the hands of the player, you can really miss out on a lot of drama. There were entire scenes and interactions between NPCs that I missed entirely because I ran past them by accident, then returned only to find the conversation over. Likewise, some big villain might be making his big entrance onto the battlefield, but I missed it because I was looting a corpse elsewhere. While this can be attributed to my own bad timing, it does contribute to an overall lessening of the ‘drama’. While I am not a huge fan of cut-scenes, I do feel that they can really enhance an encounter- even if only to momentarily focus your adventurer on some momentous happening.
And finally, there is something to be said for a sense of scale. In Dragon Age, the opening big battle of the game is preceded by an awesome cut scene of thousands of monsters and men doing battle. When you cut back to your character, you find yourself in a much smaller scale battle, but it FEELS like it is part of something larger. In Skyrim, the big assault on the enemy fortress seems to be conducted by me and twelve other guys, against a couple dozen bad guys, who come in waves. It was distinctly underwhelming. And I’d wager that in both games, there were probably the same number of enemies, the difference was the illusion of scale and scope present in Dragon Age and absent in Skyrim.
Anyway, that’s just what I wanted to ramble off the top of my head. And remember, despite everything I have said, I DO enjoy Skyrim for its own merits. I just can’t help but wonder if there will ever be a marriage of concepts. A game as BIG as Skyrim, and as Deep as Dragon Age. If it ever came to be, it would rank as one of the best games of all time, I think.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
TUESDAY TANGENT: Mass Effect and Difficulty
My favorite kind of video game is the ‘role playing’ type. Just what constitutes an RPG is open to debate— but to me, it is something that allows me to play the role of a character- to make decisions that impact the world around them and shape the story of the game. However, I am also a fan shooters (first or third person). It should come as no surprise, then, that the Mass Effect game series is one of my favorites. These games combine incredibly well-done storytelling with increasingly more ‘visceral’ gunfighting combat. But if I were forced to choose one or the other, the RPG aspect would definitely come first.
This attitude and the desire to experience the story of these games often causes me to do my initial run-through on very low difficulty settings. In fact, most of my subsequent run-throughs are on the ‘casual’ or ‘average’ settings. This allows me to focus more on the story and worry less about the combat (which is, in my opinion, ultimately peripheral).
That being said, once I have completed the game (usually several times over), I have made a point of going back through on the most difficult setting available- or at least I have done so with both Mass Effect games thus far. I have recently finished doing so with Mass Effect 2 and discovered something quite interesting along the way— a sense of real accomplishment and a whole new appreciation for a game that I have played literally dozens of times.
Oddly enough, instead of detracting from the RP elements, the incredibly difficult combats often made me much more ‘involved’ than I normally am. A case in point is the whole last act of Mass Effect 2- the final confrontation with the villains. The fights were incredibly difficult, requiring me to really make use of ALL the ‘bells and whistles’ of the combat system. I had to think tactically, ordering my companions into advantageous positions. I had to make use of the variety of special abilities that I and my companions had- I couldn’t just shoot bullets into every problem to solve it. I had to always be mindful of my ammo and medical supplies. And in the end, this playthrough really made me feel as though I were part of a ‘unit’ rather than a lone gunman.
For example, there was a part of the game where zombie-like beasts were swarming my small group. We had to keep falling back, until at last we were cornered. Things were looking pretty grim. Then one of my companions- Grunt the Krogan (big brick lizard dude) does his battle cry. “I. AM. KROGAN!” and suddenly charges forward, trampling down and destroying most of the zombie horde. I had heard him use that cry dozens times before. I’d even seen his charge before. But in that desperate situation I actually cheered out loud.
There were plenty of other situations like that throughout the playthrough. More than once, my companions saved my butt (or vice versa) by a well-timed shot or Biotic body slam. And in the midst of actual adrenaline filled combat, those actions had a lot more impact. The climactic string of battles were especially intense- most notably those events that were time dependent. No way I was going to let Tali die in those ventilation shafts!
In short (too late), it was almost like playing a brand new game.
It also got me thinking about my table-top gaming and some of the ‘best fights’ we’ve ever had there. In my Star Wars group, in particular, we have had a LOT of fights. But the ones we really remember were the most hard-fought- where the players really had to pull out all the stops in order to just survive. So yeah. Next time we play, I might crank up the difficulty setting a few notches and see what happens.
This attitude and the desire to experience the story of these games often causes me to do my initial run-through on very low difficulty settings. In fact, most of my subsequent run-throughs are on the ‘casual’ or ‘average’ settings. This allows me to focus more on the story and worry less about the combat (which is, in my opinion, ultimately peripheral).
That being said, once I have completed the game (usually several times over), I have made a point of going back through on the most difficult setting available- or at least I have done so with both Mass Effect games thus far. I have recently finished doing so with Mass Effect 2 and discovered something quite interesting along the way— a sense of real accomplishment and a whole new appreciation for a game that I have played literally dozens of times.
Oddly enough, instead of detracting from the RP elements, the incredibly difficult combats often made me much more ‘involved’ than I normally am. A case in point is the whole last act of Mass Effect 2- the final confrontation with the villains. The fights were incredibly difficult, requiring me to really make use of ALL the ‘bells and whistles’ of the combat system. I had to think tactically, ordering my companions into advantageous positions. I had to make use of the variety of special abilities that I and my companions had- I couldn’t just shoot bullets into every problem to solve it. I had to always be mindful of my ammo and medical supplies. And in the end, this playthrough really made me feel as though I were part of a ‘unit’ rather than a lone gunman.
For example, there was a part of the game where zombie-like beasts were swarming my small group. We had to keep falling back, until at last we were cornered. Things were looking pretty grim. Then one of my companions- Grunt the Krogan (big brick lizard dude) does his battle cry. “I. AM. KROGAN!” and suddenly charges forward, trampling down and destroying most of the zombie horde. I had heard him use that cry dozens times before. I’d even seen his charge before. But in that desperate situation I actually cheered out loud.
There were plenty of other situations like that throughout the playthrough. More than once, my companions saved my butt (or vice versa) by a well-timed shot or Biotic body slam. And in the midst of actual adrenaline filled combat, those actions had a lot more impact. The climactic string of battles were especially intense- most notably those events that were time dependent. No way I was going to let Tali die in those ventilation shafts!
In short (too late), it was almost like playing a brand new game.
It also got me thinking about my table-top gaming and some of the ‘best fights’ we’ve ever had there. In my Star Wars group, in particular, we have had a LOT of fights. But the ones we really remember were the most hard-fought- where the players really had to pull out all the stops in order to just survive. So yeah. Next time we play, I might crank up the difficulty setting a few notches and see what happens.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Star Wars, Realism and Ion Drives
As always, I tend to overthink things related to the Star Wars movies. One of these things is the ‘reality’ of space travel- or rather, the dangers involved in it. It is one of the things glossed over in almost all Sci Fi films, but which is a huge threat in real-life space travel- namely: Collisions. I’m not talking about ships hitting other ships or even meteors or asteroids, but the idea of micro-meteors and other tiny bits of matter that could be traveling at incredible speeds. Just one hit by one of these fragments could seriously damage even a large ship. And when you think of a spacefaring culture like the one shown in Star Wars, there would likely be all KINDS of space junk floating around. How is it, then, that ships in the Star Wars universe aren’t just torn to shreds on a regular basis- to say nothing of trying to navigate a battlefield with all kinds of debris flying around.
One could say that the whole issue is simply avoided by ships having ‘shields’ and that these shields deflect any such incoming matter. That's fine. I’m good with that. But what about all those ships out there that don’t have shields. Like TIE fighters, for instance- though there are several other examples (at least in expanded universe continuity). How is it that TIE fighters and other unshielded ships can fly through battle-zones likely FILLED with deadly particles and not get destroyed.
Well, I have a theory- entirely made up, of course, and no doubt riddled with scientific impossibilities, but a theory nonetheless. I am also borrowing bits of pseudo science from Star Trek (and likely other sources I don’t know about).
In any case, Starships in the Star Wars universe are described as having ‘Ion Drives’ as their primary means of sublight propulsion. Like most Star Wars tech, the exact functioning of such devices is purposely vague.
Well, what if these Ion Drives weren’t simply thrusters that propelled a ship, but ‘generators’ as well- something that created an ‘ionized bubble’ around a starship (a-la the ‘warp field’ utilized in the Trek universe). In effect they surround a ship with a field of energy that ‘streamlines’ the ship from bow to stern, perhaps even functioning like a ‘slip-stream’- both pulling and pushing the ship through space. This ion-bubble would divert micro-meteors and other small space debris- instead of hitting the ship, they would just ‘flow around’ it. To me, at least, this is a tidy little way to talk around at least one of the real life hazards of space travel.
It might also explain why some vessels (like the X-Wing) seem to have forward facing ‘intakes’ to their engines. Perhaps these are not intakes, but rather the forward ‘projectors’ of the Ion Drive. I don’t know, but again, it works for me.
And on a slight tangent, I am of the opinion that the ‘solar panels’ on the TIE fighter are NOT solar panels at all, rather they ARE the ‘Twin Ion Engines’ of the craft (not those two little red dots on the back of the cockpit pod). Instead of conventional ‘thrusters’, these engine panels use an ionic charge to both draw and push the fighter through space. The large size of these ‘engine panels’ would certainly help explain the speed of the craft relative to its size.
One could say that the whole issue is simply avoided by ships having ‘shields’ and that these shields deflect any such incoming matter. That's fine. I’m good with that. But what about all those ships out there that don’t have shields. Like TIE fighters, for instance- though there are several other examples (at least in expanded universe continuity). How is it that TIE fighters and other unshielded ships can fly through battle-zones likely FILLED with deadly particles and not get destroyed.
Well, I have a theory- entirely made up, of course, and no doubt riddled with scientific impossibilities, but a theory nonetheless. I am also borrowing bits of pseudo science from Star Trek (and likely other sources I don’t know about).
In any case, Starships in the Star Wars universe are described as having ‘Ion Drives’ as their primary means of sublight propulsion. Like most Star Wars tech, the exact functioning of such devices is purposely vague.
Well, what if these Ion Drives weren’t simply thrusters that propelled a ship, but ‘generators’ as well- something that created an ‘ionized bubble’ around a starship (a-la the ‘warp field’ utilized in the Trek universe). In effect they surround a ship with a field of energy that ‘streamlines’ the ship from bow to stern, perhaps even functioning like a ‘slip-stream’- both pulling and pushing the ship through space. This ion-bubble would divert micro-meteors and other small space debris- instead of hitting the ship, they would just ‘flow around’ it. To me, at least, this is a tidy little way to talk around at least one of the real life hazards of space travel.
It might also explain why some vessels (like the X-Wing) seem to have forward facing ‘intakes’ to their engines. Perhaps these are not intakes, but rather the forward ‘projectors’ of the Ion Drive. I don’t know, but again, it works for me.
And on a slight tangent, I am of the opinion that the ‘solar panels’ on the TIE fighter are NOT solar panels at all, rather they ARE the ‘Twin Ion Engines’ of the craft (not those two little red dots on the back of the cockpit pod). Instead of conventional ‘thrusters’, these engine panels use an ionic charge to both draw and push the fighter through space. The large size of these ‘engine panels’ would certainly help explain the speed of the craft relative to its size.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Interesting Star Wars Quote
I was recently going back through some old Star Wars DVDs I had- a 'home made' collection of the various Star Wars TV specials that have aired over the years. I wound up watching one that must have come out in the era between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. This particular behind the scenes special was narrated by Mark Hamill. During the show, he made a couple comments (scripted or not) that I found interesting. The first was regarding the Force:
"More people ask me about the Force than anything else. And I don't like to be too specific when I answer. Everyone has their own ideas about it. And if none of them is exactly right, none of them is necessarily wrong. Ultimately, the Force is what YOU make of it."
Wow. If only they'd continued with that outlook in the prequels. I mean, of all the things that did NOT need more explaining, the origin and nature of the Force was one of them.
Another, more telling, statement came in the closing moments of the special:
"Special effects are the purest form of movie making. With them, we can create visions that owe nothing to any other form of artistic expression—and which no other art can possibly duplicate. We now possess a technology that places anything man can imagine within reach of the camera. There's no place, past, present or future it cannot go.
But if we possess this new technology, we mustn't allow it to possess us-as so many of this century's great inventions have come to do. For in the end, a special effect is just a special effect. If it isn't surrounded by people we care about- if it doesn't serve a story that moves and involves us- and if (above all) it doesn't help us to grasp some larger imaginative vision, then it is just a trick- a gimmick."
When I look at the special effect-laden prequel trilogy, I find this whole statement rather ironic. The prequels were gorgeous to look at, without a doubt, but with 'wooden' acting and writing they (to me at least) lack the impact of the original movies. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.
"More people ask me about the Force than anything else. And I don't like to be too specific when I answer. Everyone has their own ideas about it. And if none of them is exactly right, none of them is necessarily wrong. Ultimately, the Force is what YOU make of it."
Wow. If only they'd continued with that outlook in the prequels. I mean, of all the things that did NOT need more explaining, the origin and nature of the Force was one of them.
Another, more telling, statement came in the closing moments of the special:
"Special effects are the purest form of movie making. With them, we can create visions that owe nothing to any other form of artistic expression—and which no other art can possibly duplicate. We now possess a technology that places anything man can imagine within reach of the camera. There's no place, past, present or future it cannot go.
But if we possess this new technology, we mustn't allow it to possess us-as so many of this century's great inventions have come to do. For in the end, a special effect is just a special effect. If it isn't surrounded by people we care about- if it doesn't serve a story that moves and involves us- and if (above all) it doesn't help us to grasp some larger imaginative vision, then it is just a trick- a gimmick."
When I look at the special effect-laden prequel trilogy, I find this whole statement rather ironic. The prequels were gorgeous to look at, without a doubt, but with 'wooden' acting and writing they (to me at least) lack the impact of the original movies. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
TUESDAY TANGENT: BIOWARE GAME DESIGN
I am by no means a designer of video games. But I would consider myself a fairly experienced player of video games—at least of the RPG variety. Admittedly, most of my experience in this area comes from Bioware games—starting with Knights of the Old Republic. But I feel that this actually adds to my ‘credibility’ in what I am about to talk about.
I would like to start by saying that I think Bioware is an excellent company. They’ve given me hours of fun- hell.. days and weeks of fun, even. But they aren’t perfect. One needs to look no further than Dragon Age 2 to see that. As much as I would defend the game to others, I have also come to realize that the ‘little faults’ of the game have finally added up to an overall disappointment for me.
I mean, I didn’t mind the recycled environments or the ever-present ‘second wave’ of enemies spawning in after every fight, or the fact that the kinds of enemies you fought started to become very repetitive by the end of the game (wow. More demons. Really?). Taken individually, these things can be forgiven (by me) if there is a good story to tell. And for the most part, there was. But that’s the problem- it was just a ‘good’ story, not a GREAT one. That’s the problem for a company like Bioware. If ‘excellent’ is the norm, then anything ‘average’ stands out like a sore thumb. And compared to most every other game they have produced, Dragon Age 2 was just ‘average’ for me.
Now, I do NOT have a lot of the problems with it that other folks do. I liked the faster-paced combat. I liked the streamlined inventory and skill system. I didn’t care that my companions dressed themselves and chose their own unique fighting styles. In fact, I liked that. Overall, I didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the story, either- except that it was less focused than Dragon Age: Origins. But when you combine that with the aforementioned ‘little’ problems, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. For me, DA2 fell apart not from some single game-breaking item, but rather a collection of little things “I wished they’d done differently”.
And that trend seems to have continued (for me at least) in one of their Downloadable Content packages- namely the “Legacy” add on. Overall, it was a fun-enough sideline. I especially enjoyed the fact that you get to know your character’s father- and it was nice that if you brought your sibling along, they were impacted by it as well. In fact, I was really LOVING the content right up until the final act.
Here, you have to face an incredibly powerful enemy who makes you run through an increasingly lethal maze in order to finally confront him. Essentially, you’re running in circles, constantly destroying ‘power sources’ that your enemy is using, all the while dodging spawned in creatures and a maze of obstacles. It is a very difficult fight- and it seemed to me to be set up especially for PC gamers- in that in order to successfully get through the maze, you had to constantly tell your NPC companions EXACTLY where to go in order to keep them from being destroyed by the wall of fire that was constantly chasing you through the maze. Now, on the PC you can ‘zoom out’ from the action more than you can in the console. Likewise, you can select your team as a group and have them all move together. On the console, neither of these options seemed to be available (if they were, I sure as heck couldn’t find them). This meant that I had to try and run this gauntlet by constantly pausing the game, switching from one character to the next and telling them where to go. I literally played this battle for HOURS and finally had to RAGE QUIT for a while to calm down- Because every time you died in this final fight, you had to start all the way from the beginning- including a cut scene and the SAME dialogue over and over.
That marks the first time I have EVER had to RAGE QUIT a Bioware game. Ever. And that says something.
To me, this end battle was just a huge FU by whoever designed it. The game gave me helpful hints like “If you’re having a hard time, switch to a lower difficulty level”. Unfortunately, I had already SWITCHED to the lowest difficulty setting and still, after hours of playing, could not get through it. Things were made worse by the fact that without direction, your NPC companions would die within five seconds.
Ultimately, I beat the battle by buffing my main character and allowing all my companions to die (within five seconds). I was just BARELY able to beat the main bad guy. For this, I got the Achievement ‘Conductor’. Evidently a joke on the fact that in order to beat this particular battle, you have to be able to ‘conduct’ (orchestrate) your entire team. Well, if that was the goal, I failed horribly. And when I was done with this DLC I was in the strange position of NEVER wanting to play it again. Sure, the story line was interesting enough, but the thought of having to go through that battle again just makes me ill.
Yes, you could make fun of me for not being as good a gamer as most folks- and I don’t claim to be. But the end result was, that even on the lowest difficulty, I was having no fun. And that is the worst result you can get from any game design choice.
In the end, this really tainted my view of DA2 overall. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. This failing was made all the more noticeable by the fact that I was simultaneously playing Mass Effect 2 and its downloadable content. I am currently in the process of trying to beat that game on its highest difficulty level (Insanity). It is tough. Very tough. Very challenging. It is occasionally frustrating and sometimes scares the crap out of me (i.e. the ‘threats’ presented really are that). But the design is such that I have (so far) not had to quit the game in a rage because of a design choice. The challenges are VERY hard, but I can find my own way through them- apply tactics and strategies that work for me in that particular situation. I am not simply a rat running through a maze in the ONE particular way that the designer intended or I will die.
In short, I feel that ME2 was much better designed than DA2. And that seems to be a function of time- in that DA2 felt rushed- which is really a shame.
I would like to start by saying that I think Bioware is an excellent company. They’ve given me hours of fun- hell.. days and weeks of fun, even. But they aren’t perfect. One needs to look no further than Dragon Age 2 to see that. As much as I would defend the game to others, I have also come to realize that the ‘little faults’ of the game have finally added up to an overall disappointment for me.
I mean, I didn’t mind the recycled environments or the ever-present ‘second wave’ of enemies spawning in after every fight, or the fact that the kinds of enemies you fought started to become very repetitive by the end of the game (wow. More demons. Really?). Taken individually, these things can be forgiven (by me) if there is a good story to tell. And for the most part, there was. But that’s the problem- it was just a ‘good’ story, not a GREAT one. That’s the problem for a company like Bioware. If ‘excellent’ is the norm, then anything ‘average’ stands out like a sore thumb. And compared to most every other game they have produced, Dragon Age 2 was just ‘average’ for me.
Now, I do NOT have a lot of the problems with it that other folks do. I liked the faster-paced combat. I liked the streamlined inventory and skill system. I didn’t care that my companions dressed themselves and chose their own unique fighting styles. In fact, I liked that. Overall, I didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the story, either- except that it was less focused than Dragon Age: Origins. But when you combine that with the aforementioned ‘little’ problems, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. For me, DA2 fell apart not from some single game-breaking item, but rather a collection of little things “I wished they’d done differently”.
And that trend seems to have continued (for me at least) in one of their Downloadable Content packages- namely the “Legacy” add on. Overall, it was a fun-enough sideline. I especially enjoyed the fact that you get to know your character’s father- and it was nice that if you brought your sibling along, they were impacted by it as well. In fact, I was really LOVING the content right up until the final act.
Here, you have to face an incredibly powerful enemy who makes you run through an increasingly lethal maze in order to finally confront him. Essentially, you’re running in circles, constantly destroying ‘power sources’ that your enemy is using, all the while dodging spawned in creatures and a maze of obstacles. It is a very difficult fight- and it seemed to me to be set up especially for PC gamers- in that in order to successfully get through the maze, you had to constantly tell your NPC companions EXACTLY where to go in order to keep them from being destroyed by the wall of fire that was constantly chasing you through the maze. Now, on the PC you can ‘zoom out’ from the action more than you can in the console. Likewise, you can select your team as a group and have them all move together. On the console, neither of these options seemed to be available (if they were, I sure as heck couldn’t find them). This meant that I had to try and run this gauntlet by constantly pausing the game, switching from one character to the next and telling them where to go. I literally played this battle for HOURS and finally had to RAGE QUIT for a while to calm down- Because every time you died in this final fight, you had to start all the way from the beginning- including a cut scene and the SAME dialogue over and over.
That marks the first time I have EVER had to RAGE QUIT a Bioware game. Ever. And that says something.
To me, this end battle was just a huge FU by whoever designed it. The game gave me helpful hints like “If you’re having a hard time, switch to a lower difficulty level”. Unfortunately, I had already SWITCHED to the lowest difficulty setting and still, after hours of playing, could not get through it. Things were made worse by the fact that without direction, your NPC companions would die within five seconds.
Ultimately, I beat the battle by buffing my main character and allowing all my companions to die (within five seconds). I was just BARELY able to beat the main bad guy. For this, I got the Achievement ‘Conductor’. Evidently a joke on the fact that in order to beat this particular battle, you have to be able to ‘conduct’ (orchestrate) your entire team. Well, if that was the goal, I failed horribly. And when I was done with this DLC I was in the strange position of NEVER wanting to play it again. Sure, the story line was interesting enough, but the thought of having to go through that battle again just makes me ill.
Yes, you could make fun of me for not being as good a gamer as most folks- and I don’t claim to be. But the end result was, that even on the lowest difficulty, I was having no fun. And that is the worst result you can get from any game design choice.
In the end, this really tainted my view of DA2 overall. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. This failing was made all the more noticeable by the fact that I was simultaneously playing Mass Effect 2 and its downloadable content. I am currently in the process of trying to beat that game on its highest difficulty level (Insanity). It is tough. Very tough. Very challenging. It is occasionally frustrating and sometimes scares the crap out of me (i.e. the ‘threats’ presented really are that). But the design is such that I have (so far) not had to quit the game in a rage because of a design choice. The challenges are VERY hard, but I can find my own way through them- apply tactics and strategies that work for me in that particular situation. I am not simply a rat running through a maze in the ONE particular way that the designer intended or I will die.
In short, I feel that ME2 was much better designed than DA2. And that seems to be a function of time- in that DA2 felt rushed- which is really a shame.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Star Wars Plot Holes
As much as I love the original trilogy (minus all its recent 'improvements'), there are still a few things about these Star Wars movies that have never sat quite well with me- from a purely 'logical' sense, that is. The one I'm going to focus on (briefly) in this post is the whole Mission to Endor at the end of Return of the Jedi.
I am perfectly alright with the whole concept of the Rebel attack on the Death Star. Yes, it is all a bit 'shooting from the hip', but then the Rebels know they are taking a risk here. They just feel that the risk is worth the possible reward. I'm even cool with the whole plan of sneaking people onto Endor using a stolen shuttle and codes. Where that falls apart (for me at least) is after the shuttle has passed through the Imperial blockade. They reported that they are a 'parts and technical crew for the forest moon'. That makes sense, but then they land the shuttle, apparently, in the middle of the forest- a couple days march from the ONLY Imperial installation (that we know of) on the planet. Considering how tight security MUST have been in the system (especially with the Emperor there), you would think that SOMEONE would have noticed this shuttle going off course and heading for the boonies. I mean, they probably had limited approach vectors and ALL that stuff.
Now, you COULD explain this all away by saying that the Empire 'allowed' them to land, since Vader had already sensed Luke and knew there were shenanigans in the works. But that wouldn't explain why the Rebels would have thought this was a good plan. So, yeah. There we are a pretty big plot hole if you ask me. And quite honestly, I don't have a way to 'fix' this. Perhaps there WERE other Imperial installations on the planet and they 'pretended' to land at one, but instead diverted to the forest. But again, you'd think someone would check on this and follow up- especially when you have an entire day (at least) to notice the discrepancy.
So, ummmm... nope. I'm drawin' a blank here. If anyone else has any bright ideas as to what might close this plot hole, I'm all ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)