Right now I am a few hours into Skyward Sword (I'm currently at work so I can't check the exact number), and about to enter the third "dungeon"-area. From what I've read this is a pretty long game so it's not really fair to come to some sort of final judgment just yet, but I still want to share some initial impressions and discuss what's good and not so good about the game. Zelda games are probably among the most anticipated games to get released, and as such the expectations are really high every time a new one sees the light of day. Skyward Sword is no exception to this rule.
Each new Zelda game tries to come up with something new while staying true to the old tried and proven formula of gathering stuff from chests and hackin' and slashing the old Moblins. New in this one is first and foremost the Wii Motion Plus controls which really are something else. This is what you envisioned the Wii being used for when it first came out. I've read mixed reports on the responsiveness of the controls, but in my humble opinion they work fine. Swordplay really immerses you into the game in a way few other games right now do, especially on other systems. I believe this really is the future although Wii-U, Nintendo's next console, seems to take a step back and forego motion control for a more traditional (X-box hueg) gamepad. My only gripe would be that when fighting even the easiest opponents that wield swords, they anticipate your strikes with great success. When playing you sort of feel the need to exaggerate your moves in order for them to register which makes even the weakest enemies parry them effectively. Of course there are enemies that don't carry swords and can't parry your attacks, but the ones that do should've had an easier tier I believe.
As a nod to Wind Waker, probably my favorite Zelda game of all time (and it would be appear that it will stay that way for at least a while longer), you start out on an "island" in the sky appropriately named Skyloft. Instead of a boat you have an Avatar-inspired bird compatriot that you can fly around with to other small island or down below a cover of clouds to the dungeon areas below. One of the main complaints about Wind Waker, unfortunately was that sailing on the huge sea became tedious after a while. Personally I thoroughly enjoyed doing this and never really felt it became boring (after a while you could warp to most places instantly like in any Zelda game anyway). Nintendo have obviously listened to this piece of critique and the area that you can fly around in is as a result extremely limited in scope. this is a bit of a bummer, but again flying around contrary to sailing really is boring since there is zero sense of movement or speed about it. The distant islands slowly crawl toward you, a bit like flying in an airplane.
Some reviewers have focused on the dungeons now being less defined to the start of the "cave"-part of the dungeon and instead stretching to the area outside as well. I can't understand how this is any different than any of the other 3D-Zeldas going back to the very first one; Ocarina of Time, but maybe these reviewers know something I don't.
Speaking of the dungeons, the first couple of ones that I've been to so far have not impressed me. Even though the first dungeons should be simple in their design and easy, that doesn't stop them from being able to be interesting or challenging from a novice's perspective. I found the first two ones in SS quite bland and uninspired. The new items don't feel that innovative and frankly aren't that fun to use.
Wind Waker, and even Twilight Princess, although to a lesser degree, both had that wow-feeling when playing them for the first time which largely is missing here. Aside from the Wii Motion Plus-aided swordplay, SS more or less feels like Twilight Princess 2. That accounts for the graphics resolution as well which to be honest is not up to par in SS. Wii-U with its 1080p resolution can't come around fast enough.
What I've written so far sounds very negative, but make no mistake that all these things aside, SS is still a very good game and quite addictive to boot. I'm just worried that it won't pick up and become the awesome game you expect every new entry to this series to be. Time will tell.
tisdag 22 november 2011
måndag 21 november 2011
Super Mario 3D Land
Inbetween playing The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and checking out the coverage of the last real World Championships in Magic: The Gathering, I have also had time to kick back and play some Super Mario 3D Land. There's not much of a story more than the princess being kidnapped and you as Mario having to rescue her, as usual. Because of this you can check your brain by the door so to speak when you play it and that's always nice for a change of pace.
The levels in SM3DL are in 3D just like Super Mario 64 and the subsequent 3D Mario games for the Gamecube and Wii, but it plays more like the New Super Mario Bros games. Even though the levels are in 3D, their layout is similiar to the ones you find in a 2D Mario game because of their linear style, and most of the time they only have a certain limited depth. SM3DL is a 3DS-game where the 3D actually serves a functional purpose in the game. As you maneuver Mario through the levels you have to time and calculate your jumps based on your 3D perception. In fact playing without 3D makes the game harder. Reviews have stated that SM3DL is the first game to do this, but I would digress, Rayman 3D for example uses it as well although perhaps not as explicitly.
SM3DL uses the same art style as in the NSMB and Mario Galaxy games. Together with the 3D it looks really good even considering the 3DS's low resolution compared to a smart phone's screen. The selection of powerups includes the leaf from Super Mario Bros 3, a fire flower which is untimed thank God and a new Koopa Brothers-boomerang. My main complaint is that the levels in the game are too short and a bit too simple in their design, which in turn makes the game very easy. There is a ton of replay value though in getting all three star coins in every level, and a dark "special" world where the stages are played backwards and are a lot harder.
The controls which usually are spot-on in Mario games are not that perfect here, they are a bit "floating" and Mario is too slow when running. Calculating your jumps based on the 3D takes a while getting used too, so I suspect there is a reason for this in it making controlling Mario more forgiving. The same case can most likely be made for including the SMB3-leaf as well since it makes missing a jump less of a concern when you can float in a slow descent to the nearest platform.
SM3DL is a nice relaxing game but ultimately I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just make a Galaxy-type game with nonlinear big stages, or just make the stages a bit more detailed and complicated. Still if you are a fan of Mario games I heartily recommend this one. I want to write a blog post about my initial impressions of Skyward Sword so far too, but I will save it for another day.
The levels in SM3DL are in 3D just like Super Mario 64 and the subsequent 3D Mario games for the Gamecube and Wii, but it plays more like the New Super Mario Bros games. Even though the levels are in 3D, their layout is similiar to the ones you find in a 2D Mario game because of their linear style, and most of the time they only have a certain limited depth. SM3DL is a 3DS-game where the 3D actually serves a functional purpose in the game. As you maneuver Mario through the levels you have to time and calculate your jumps based on your 3D perception. In fact playing without 3D makes the game harder. Reviews have stated that SM3DL is the first game to do this, but I would digress, Rayman 3D for example uses it as well although perhaps not as explicitly.
SM3DL uses the same art style as in the NSMB and Mario Galaxy games. Together with the 3D it looks really good even considering the 3DS's low resolution compared to a smart phone's screen. The selection of powerups includes the leaf from Super Mario Bros 3, a fire flower which is untimed thank God and a new Koopa Brothers-boomerang. My main complaint is that the levels in the game are too short and a bit too simple in their design, which in turn makes the game very easy. There is a ton of replay value though in getting all three star coins in every level, and a dark "special" world where the stages are played backwards and are a lot harder.
The controls which usually are spot-on in Mario games are not that perfect here, they are a bit "floating" and Mario is too slow when running. Calculating your jumps based on the 3D takes a while getting used too, so I suspect there is a reason for this in it making controlling Mario more forgiving. The same case can most likely be made for including the SMB3-leaf as well since it makes missing a jump less of a concern when you can float in a slow descent to the nearest platform.
SM3DL is a nice relaxing game but ultimately I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just make a Galaxy-type game with nonlinear big stages, or just make the stages a bit more detailed and complicated. Still if you are a fan of Mario games I heartily recommend this one. I want to write a blog post about my initial impressions of Skyward Sword so far too, but I will save it for another day.
måndag 14 november 2011
Battlefield 3
This weekend I had time to play through the campaign of Battlefield 3 and since I made some fixes no crashes were to be had. The campaign was fine, but I would say a notch worse than the one in Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The one in the aforementioned game was more tounge-in-cheek and had some fun characters, were the BF3 one feels like a failed attempt at recreating a Call of Duty campaign. Like many professional reviewers have mentioned, the interview meta-story with flashbacks is pretty much lifted from Black Ops. And while the jet flying-mission is really cool the gameplay in it has nothing to do with Battlefield, same with the quick-time events. There is a reason there was no campaign mode in Battlefield 1942, the first game of the franchise (except for playing with bots). The multiplayer is where these games shines and the reason you play them.
The multiplayer mode of BF3 is clearly a continuation of the one in BF2 and its strong points lie in things that were good in that one. There are a lot of small things to unlock, lots of weapons and gadgets to keep you playing for a long time. I can't help comparing this game to BFBC2 since that was the previous one, one that I really enjoyed and put a lot of hours into. BC2 has a more casual approach where BF3 goes for realism which I think is a bit of a negative. I have only played the BF3 multiplayer around six hours so it's a bit early to come to conclusions, but there was a spontaneous teamwork that appeared out of nowhere in BC2 that is not around in the same way in BF3. Also these games stand and fall with the maps available. When it comes to rush mode, maps with a lot of open spaces are not always a good idea since it becomes too easy for the defenders to just sit back and well, defend. Slightly more confined spaces are better since rush after all just is bomb defusion mode of Counter-Strike ported to Battlefield. In conquest mode large maps are fine since there is no front line where all the players are. I feel the maps in BF3 are not perfect, but with that being said I haven't played nearly enough to learn them so I could be wrong. Not all of the maps in BC2 were perfect either but overall they are better.
I must say that the problem with crashes I have had is really bad of DICE too. You shouldn't release an unfinished game is number one, two is the official support STILL haven't managed to solve the crash issues. Personally I did three different small fixes that I read about on forums at once, so I can't tell which one of them fixed the game for me, but it's really bad I had to go through that channel. Someone who is new to computer games likely wont have the knowledge or patience to scour forums for this kind of stuff, so they will likely return the game for their money back or not buy another BF game again.
Compared to BC2, the average skill level you encounter in BF3 is way higher which I also think is a problem. The only BF game I haven't played extensively is BF2, and in BC2 I almost always finished in the top three players, but I was struggling with BF3 and is just now starting to get the hang of it. It's a bit of a problem that the more you play the better weapons you get because the best players will have even more of an edge on the low-ranked or new players. Losing is never fun, even less so when you're constantly losing an unfair fight against opponents that are more skilled, have better knowledge of the maps which is crucial, AND have way more powerful upgrades.
Another problem with the points and rank system is that in rush when you play as a defender, it's correct to sit around and do nothing guarding the objectives. And this will more than often not gather you that many points. If you go after the attackers you are much more likely to get killed, and it's way easier for the opponents to slip past you and plant the explosives.
BF3 is still a very good game and I will play it for hours to come, but all things considered I feel it's a downgrade from BC2 which is unfortunate. Realism in computer games has never been directly related to a good game experience (try a flight sim with 100 % realism if you don't believe me), and I think that's the only thing holding BF3 back. If it was a just a few notches less "hardcore" it would be an even more enjoyable experience even though the BF2 purists would probably beg to differ.
The multiplayer mode of BF3 is clearly a continuation of the one in BF2 and its strong points lie in things that were good in that one. There are a lot of small things to unlock, lots of weapons and gadgets to keep you playing for a long time. I can't help comparing this game to BFBC2 since that was the previous one, one that I really enjoyed and put a lot of hours into. BC2 has a more casual approach where BF3 goes for realism which I think is a bit of a negative. I have only played the BF3 multiplayer around six hours so it's a bit early to come to conclusions, but there was a spontaneous teamwork that appeared out of nowhere in BC2 that is not around in the same way in BF3. Also these games stand and fall with the maps available. When it comes to rush mode, maps with a lot of open spaces are not always a good idea since it becomes too easy for the defenders to just sit back and well, defend. Slightly more confined spaces are better since rush after all just is bomb defusion mode of Counter-Strike ported to Battlefield. In conquest mode large maps are fine since there is no front line where all the players are. I feel the maps in BF3 are not perfect, but with that being said I haven't played nearly enough to learn them so I could be wrong. Not all of the maps in BC2 were perfect either but overall they are better.
I must say that the problem with crashes I have had is really bad of DICE too. You shouldn't release an unfinished game is number one, two is the official support STILL haven't managed to solve the crash issues. Personally I did three different small fixes that I read about on forums at once, so I can't tell which one of them fixed the game for me, but it's really bad I had to go through that channel. Someone who is new to computer games likely wont have the knowledge or patience to scour forums for this kind of stuff, so they will likely return the game for their money back or not buy another BF game again.
Compared to BC2, the average skill level you encounter in BF3 is way higher which I also think is a problem. The only BF game I haven't played extensively is BF2, and in BC2 I almost always finished in the top three players, but I was struggling with BF3 and is just now starting to get the hang of it. It's a bit of a problem that the more you play the better weapons you get because the best players will have even more of an edge on the low-ranked or new players. Losing is never fun, even less so when you're constantly losing an unfair fight against opponents that are more skilled, have better knowledge of the maps which is crucial, AND have way more powerful upgrades.
Another problem with the points and rank system is that in rush when you play as a defender, it's correct to sit around and do nothing guarding the objectives. And this will more than often not gather you that many points. If you go after the attackers you are much more likely to get killed, and it's way easier for the opponents to slip past you and plant the explosives.
BF3 is still a very good game and I will play it for hours to come, but all things considered I feel it's a downgrade from BC2 which is unfortunate. Realism in computer games has never been directly related to a good game experience (try a flight sim with 100 % realism if you don't believe me), and I think that's the only thing holding BF3 back. If it was a just a few notches less "hardcore" it would be an even more enjoyable experience even though the BF2 purists would probably beg to differ.
fredag 11 november 2011
Check those corners!
Danger close!
Like I have proclaimed many times in this 'ere blog, I did in fact get MW3 on its release day. Having played through the campaign mostly on Hardened difficulty in five hours, I sort of regret getting it though. The old Call of Duty games that took place in WWII were really good (-spinoffs on Medal of Honor), and I mostly consider the four last entries guilty pleasures. Call of Duty 4, MW2 and Black Ops are not much more than interactive movies, but once you realize this they are actually quite enjoyable - if very linear - experiences. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the multiplayer mode in these games (epic quickscope ecks dee, ecks dee) so I disregard it when discussing them. In the last entry in the series it is painfully obvious that what the now ousted developer Infinity Ward brought to the table was something special and not easily replaced. On its surface, MW3 looks and plays just like the previous games, but once you look past that you'll notice that something is missing. The three previous games made you feel something - they really felt larger than life and visceral, like computer games directed by Michael Bay. That's why they sold in droves and that's why people keep coming back to the franchise for more.
Essentially MW2 and Black Ops were just reiterations of the first game just as much as MW3, but the "soul" is missing in the latter one. World War III is in full rage in New York, but it just feels meh because there are no memorable characters to connect to. That and the graphics have not evolved one iota since Black Ops. Battlefield 3 has a new graphics engine called Frostbite 2 which looks insanely good, bordering on photorealistic on the highest settings. Compare that to MW3's plastasene, unconvincing and tired old graphics. The weapon models still look pretty nice but that's about it. The computer game industry moves so quickly these days that not keeping up is just not forgivable. Five hours is inadequate for a full price game, and when the multiplayer is deathmatchy, run-and-gun, strategy-less and infested with kids who aren't old enough to play the game that's no excuse. Bottom line: A very dissapointing entrance to the franchise and (spoiler alert) thank God it seems like it's the last one continuing with this storyline.
I've also bought BF3 which I have not been able to play that much due not having a lot of spare time and it crashing on me a lot. I've finally managed to get it to work though and will play it over the weekend to a great extent. From what I've played so far I've enjoyed it a lot more than MW3 to be sure. I'll save it for another blog entry though once I've finished the campaign and played some more multiplayer. Next week will be pretty busy too, with two huge bombs dropping from Nintendo: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Super Mario 3D Land. Well until next time, I'm Oscar Mike out of here and Ramirez - do everything!
Stay frosty!™
Like I have proclaimed many times in this 'ere blog, I did in fact get MW3 on its release day. Having played through the campaign mostly on Hardened difficulty in five hours, I sort of regret getting it though. The old Call of Duty games that took place in WWII were really good (-spinoffs on Medal of Honor), and I mostly consider the four last entries guilty pleasures. Call of Duty 4, MW2 and Black Ops are not much more than interactive movies, but once you realize this they are actually quite enjoyable - if very linear - experiences. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the multiplayer mode in these games (epic quickscope ecks dee, ecks dee) so I disregard it when discussing them. In the last entry in the series it is painfully obvious that what the now ousted developer Infinity Ward brought to the table was something special and not easily replaced. On its surface, MW3 looks and plays just like the previous games, but once you look past that you'll notice that something is missing. The three previous games made you feel something - they really felt larger than life and visceral, like computer games directed by Michael Bay. That's why they sold in droves and that's why people keep coming back to the franchise for more.
Essentially MW2 and Black Ops were just reiterations of the first game just as much as MW3, but the "soul" is missing in the latter one. World War III is in full rage in New York, but it just feels meh because there are no memorable characters to connect to. That and the graphics have not evolved one iota since Black Ops. Battlefield 3 has a new graphics engine called Frostbite 2 which looks insanely good, bordering on photorealistic on the highest settings. Compare that to MW3's plastasene, unconvincing and tired old graphics. The weapon models still look pretty nice but that's about it. The computer game industry moves so quickly these days that not keeping up is just not forgivable. Five hours is inadequate for a full price game, and when the multiplayer is deathmatchy, run-and-gun, strategy-less and infested with kids who aren't old enough to play the game that's no excuse. Bottom line: A very dissapointing entrance to the franchise and (spoiler alert) thank God it seems like it's the last one continuing with this storyline.
I've also bought BF3 which I have not been able to play that much due not having a lot of spare time and it crashing on me a lot. I've finally managed to get it to work though and will play it over the weekend to a great extent. From what I've played so far I've enjoyed it a lot more than MW3 to be sure. I'll save it for another blog entry though once I've finished the campaign and played some more multiplayer. Next week will be pretty busy too, with two huge bombs dropping from Nintendo: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Super Mario 3D Land. Well until next time, I'm Oscar Mike out of here and Ramirez - do everything!
Stay frosty!™
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)