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.
måndag 21 november 2011
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!™
söndag 7 augusti 2011
Fable III
Hi!
As I have mentioned in a previous entry not too long ago I got a new X-Box 360 Slim when my old one RRoD'ed. The guy who sold it to me managed to convince me to buy the package deal with two extra games - Halo: Reach and Fable III. Since I don't have anything to play right now, I decided to at least give Fable III a chance and check it out.
Fable III is an RPG that takes place in a fantasy world called Albion (an anagram of Albino perhaps??). It says in the intro of the game that it takes place in the age of industry, but when playing the game it becomes apparent that it's really about Fable III being steam punk rather than fantasy. At first I thought this was a bit of a bummer, because I prefer straight-up high fantasy to steam punk, but the latter works fine in Fable III. This is a fantasy-skewed steam punk where there still is a lot of magic and melee combat involved (I don't know about you, but did they really use swords in combat after the age of industry had been introduced here on Earth?).
The game plays pretty much like any other RPG. You are a man or woman on a quest to bring the people together to overthrow the evil dictator who rules the kingdom, this person also happens to be your brother. You hack and slash through monsters to level up. I didn't realize it until I had finished the game and saw the credits, but this actually is a Peter Molyneux game, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. As you play the game you can decide to go on all these strange side quests, like interacting and becoming friends with NPCs. You can also marry people and have children... All for an extremely mariginal gain, it's just thrown in there. There are also many choices throughout the game to determine whether you are good or evil - which I suppose change the ending, I've only finished it while being a goody two shoes.
I think Fable III was a nice experience, not something you write home to your parents about, but perfectly fine all things considered. The graphics are of varied quality, the characters for example look so-so. I get that they are supposed to be at least somewhat stylized, but their textures and models look only slightly better than those found in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess which is an old game by now. The enviroments look awesome though, probably the best I've seen in a game so far actually. Normally I'm not a huge fan of RPGs outside of Zelda or Pokémon, but they did a good job here of mixing it up with hack n' slash and it also has some good voice acting by who has to be John Cleese among others. My main complaint concerns the story and pacing of the game. It's hard to say too much without spoiling it, but when you think the game is going to be over, a deus-ex-machina-like revelation occurs and you have to continue playing through a seemingly pointless and strange final portion of the game. They could've handled this part better for sure, but it's just a minor annoyance in an otherwise nice game.
Laters!
As I have mentioned in a previous entry not too long ago I got a new X-Box 360 Slim when my old one RRoD'ed. The guy who sold it to me managed to convince me to buy the package deal with two extra games - Halo: Reach and Fable III. Since I don't have anything to play right now, I decided to at least give Fable III a chance and check it out.
Fable III is an RPG that takes place in a fantasy world called Albion (an anagram of Albino perhaps??). It says in the intro of the game that it takes place in the age of industry, but when playing the game it becomes apparent that it's really about Fable III being steam punk rather than fantasy. At first I thought this was a bit of a bummer, because I prefer straight-up high fantasy to steam punk, but the latter works fine in Fable III. This is a fantasy-skewed steam punk where there still is a lot of magic and melee combat involved (I don't know about you, but did they really use swords in combat after the age of industry had been introduced here on Earth?).
The game plays pretty much like any other RPG. You are a man or woman on a quest to bring the people together to overthrow the evil dictator who rules the kingdom, this person also happens to be your brother. You hack and slash through monsters to level up. I didn't realize it until I had finished the game and saw the credits, but this actually is a Peter Molyneux game, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. As you play the game you can decide to go on all these strange side quests, like interacting and becoming friends with NPCs. You can also marry people and have children... All for an extremely mariginal gain, it's just thrown in there. There are also many choices throughout the game to determine whether you are good or evil - which I suppose change the ending, I've only finished it while being a goody two shoes.
I think Fable III was a nice experience, not something you write home to your parents about, but perfectly fine all things considered. The graphics are of varied quality, the characters for example look so-so. I get that they are supposed to be at least somewhat stylized, but their textures and models look only slightly better than those found in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess which is an old game by now. The enviroments look awesome though, probably the best I've seen in a game so far actually. Normally I'm not a huge fan of RPGs outside of Zelda or Pokémon, but they did a good job here of mixing it up with hack n' slash and it also has some good voice acting by who has to be John Cleese among others. My main complaint concerns the story and pacing of the game. It's hard to say too much without spoiling it, but when you think the game is going to be over, a deus-ex-machina-like revelation occurs and you have to continue playing through a seemingly pointless and strange final portion of the game. They could've handled this part better for sure, but it's just a minor annoyance in an otherwise nice game.
Laters!
torsdag 28 juli 2011
Dules of the Planeswalkers 2012
Hello!
I thought that I'd already written something about DotP12, but it appears I've only ever so briefly mentioned it, so here are a few short words about it. It's basically the same game as the first one only a bit updated. The decks now each have a planeswalker associated with it, and there is a multiplayer "Archenemy"-mode. The AI has been slightly improved, the amount of incredibly stupid plays it does has been cut down significantly. The Archenemy mode works fine, I've only played it with computer allies so I think this one would be a lot more fun with other people. One of my biggest gripes with the game is that the decks are not varied enough.
While it's good that you now can take any card out of the decks (not just the ones you unlock like in the first one) and that the lands are changed automatically based on how many other cards are in the deck, they are all basicly aggro decks where you play creatures and attack with them. This means you get tired of them quickly, the only real fun deck that does something different is the Kiora Atua's blue-green manaramp deck. It however has some bad matchups, if you play against the illusion deck you are basically going to win one out of ten games. Speaking of Jace's deck, that one should not have been in the game to start with. The illusions are stupid creatures to base a deck around since if your opponent has access to removal they suck, if not you are just going to straight up win. Worst of all though is that Jace always seems to have the Lord of the Unreal which just makes the game very non-interactive which in Magic is never fun. All in all I would still very much recommend the game to new players and old alike, even though it is simple it's fun and worth the money.
Later!
I thought that I'd already written something about DotP12, but it appears I've only ever so briefly mentioned it, so here are a few short words about it. It's basically the same game as the first one only a bit updated. The decks now each have a planeswalker associated with it, and there is a multiplayer "Archenemy"-mode. The AI has been slightly improved, the amount of incredibly stupid plays it does has been cut down significantly. The Archenemy mode works fine, I've only played it with computer allies so I think this one would be a lot more fun with other people. One of my biggest gripes with the game is that the decks are not varied enough.
While it's good that you now can take any card out of the decks (not just the ones you unlock like in the first one) and that the lands are changed automatically based on how many other cards are in the deck, they are all basicly aggro decks where you play creatures and attack with them. This means you get tired of them quickly, the only real fun deck that does something different is the Kiora Atua's blue-green manaramp deck. It however has some bad matchups, if you play against the illusion deck you are basically going to win one out of ten games. Speaking of Jace's deck, that one should not have been in the game to start with. The illusions are stupid creatures to base a deck around since if your opponent has access to removal they suck, if not you are just going to straight up win. Worst of all though is that Jace always seems to have the Lord of the Unreal which just makes the game very non-interactive which in Magic is never fun. All in all I would still very much recommend the game to new players and old alike, even though it is simple it's fun and worth the money.
Later!
onsdag 27 juli 2011
Mirror's Edge
Hi!
It's slower than slow on the video game front right now, I guess it's the time of the year. You're supposed to be outside and play in the sun, not be indoors and play vidya gaems. The next game I'm interested in won't be out until September, and that's Dead Island (talk about an unfortunate title considering the terrible recent events that took place in Norway). Gotta keep busy somehow though, so I downloaded Mirror's Edge from Steam. I've always been hesitant about getting this game from the reviews and what I've heard about Mirror's Edge, but it was cheap and like I said I have no other game right now to play.
When playing the game it becomes clear that it was advertised completely wrong (I believe most of the reviews touched upon this as well). If you've seen the movie Fight Club, it was advertised as an action film in the trailers, even though it's more of a psychological thriller/drama with a very small numbers of action scenes in it. In a similar fashion, Mirror's Edge was wrongly portrayed as an FPS, when it's really Le Parkour-the game. If you're not familiar with Le Parkour, it's a kind of urban "sport", where the participant jumps from buildings to buildings and do flips and other crazy stunts, originating from France. And that's what you do in this game, as a "runner" -- a sort of unlawful Robin Hoodesque character, although you are gathering information instead of riches.
In the game you are Faith, who lives in a 1984-inspired heavily controlled world, a sort of police state. Most buildings and surfaces in the city are white - supposedly heightening the feeling that everything is ordered and under control - although the feeling it creates to me is more that it feels like you are in a hospital or a big playground with bright colors (not just the whites). In fact I think that if the city was more gritty and grey, it would feel more realistic and heighten the tension because as it is now you never really take the game seriously since the world it takes place in feels so plastascene.
Personally I really liked the game, it was a pleasant surprise. As mentioned I was very hesitant after having read the reviews for the game, but I don't really agree with the points that seemed to be the consensus of the reviews. That's a first right, me not agreeing with professional reviews of computer games? First of all, this game never claims to be an FPS, it just so happens there are guards that try to stop you and sometimes you have no other choice than to unarm them and use their gun against them. Faith is not supposed to be professional at handling weapons, so it's only natural you can't aim down the sights, that the accuracy of the weapons is not perfect and so on. The game was made by DICE after all, the creators of the Battlefield franchise, so if they wanted perfect weapon handling they would have no problem implementing it, that's for certain.
Another common critisism was that the game is too short, and while it's certainly not Heroes of Might and Magic-length, eight hours is fine. Most games today are a lot shorter - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, CoD: Black Ops and Portal are all much shorter and they have never gotten much of any critisism for that. And speaking of Portal, that's one game this one really reminds me of which makes Mirror's Edge flopping even more confounding. Portal has absolutely zero gunplay, but still was a huge success and has a big following on the Internet. DICE probably almost literally shot themselves in the foot by including guns in ME at all, if they wouldn't have, maybe the puzzle fanatics would've found this gem instead of being turned off by the huge FPS-stamp on its figurative forehead. Because to me ME is everything Portal ever wanted to be and then some.
When playing Mirror's Edge it felt like a breath of fresh air in a more and more homogenic video game market, which is probably one of the reasons why it supposedly didn't sell that well. It was just too different in a way that its supposed target audience (FPS-fans), did not know what to make of. I also think that it lies in the nature of people who like this genre that running away is not what you want to do, you want to have a weapon and confront every danger with your own lethal force. Oh well, I sure hope they make a sequel. And now I'm going back to thinking what the hell I'm going to spend my spare time with until September. Emulators I guess?
Until next time, signing off.
It's slower than slow on the video game front right now, I guess it's the time of the year. You're supposed to be outside and play in the sun, not be indoors and play vidya gaems. The next game I'm interested in won't be out until September, and that's Dead Island (talk about an unfortunate title considering the terrible recent events that took place in Norway). Gotta keep busy somehow though, so I downloaded Mirror's Edge from Steam. I've always been hesitant about getting this game from the reviews and what I've heard about Mirror's Edge, but it was cheap and like I said I have no other game right now to play.
When playing the game it becomes clear that it was advertised completely wrong (I believe most of the reviews touched upon this as well). If you've seen the movie Fight Club, it was advertised as an action film in the trailers, even though it's more of a psychological thriller/drama with a very small numbers of action scenes in it. In a similar fashion, Mirror's Edge was wrongly portrayed as an FPS, when it's really Le Parkour-the game. If you're not familiar with Le Parkour, it's a kind of urban "sport", where the participant jumps from buildings to buildings and do flips and other crazy stunts, originating from France. And that's what you do in this game, as a "runner" -- a sort of unlawful Robin Hoodesque character, although you are gathering information instead of riches.
In the game you are Faith, who lives in a 1984-inspired heavily controlled world, a sort of police state. Most buildings and surfaces in the city are white - supposedly heightening the feeling that everything is ordered and under control - although the feeling it creates to me is more that it feels like you are in a hospital or a big playground with bright colors (not just the whites). In fact I think that if the city was more gritty and grey, it would feel more realistic and heighten the tension because as it is now you never really take the game seriously since the world it takes place in feels so plastascene.
Personally I really liked the game, it was a pleasant surprise. As mentioned I was very hesitant after having read the reviews for the game, but I don't really agree with the points that seemed to be the consensus of the reviews. That's a first right, me not agreeing with professional reviews of computer games? First of all, this game never claims to be an FPS, it just so happens there are guards that try to stop you and sometimes you have no other choice than to unarm them and use their gun against them. Faith is not supposed to be professional at handling weapons, so it's only natural you can't aim down the sights, that the accuracy of the weapons is not perfect and so on. The game was made by DICE after all, the creators of the Battlefield franchise, so if they wanted perfect weapon handling they would have no problem implementing it, that's for certain.
Another common critisism was that the game is too short, and while it's certainly not Heroes of Might and Magic-length, eight hours is fine. Most games today are a lot shorter - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, CoD: Black Ops and Portal are all much shorter and they have never gotten much of any critisism for that. And speaking of Portal, that's one game this one really reminds me of which makes Mirror's Edge flopping even more confounding. Portal has absolutely zero gunplay, but still was a huge success and has a big following on the Internet. DICE probably almost literally shot themselves in the foot by including guns in ME at all, if they wouldn't have, maybe the puzzle fanatics would've found this gem instead of being turned off by the huge FPS-stamp on its figurative forehead. Because to me ME is everything Portal ever wanted to be and then some.
When playing Mirror's Edge it felt like a breath of fresh air in a more and more homogenic video game market, which is probably one of the reasons why it supposedly didn't sell that well. It was just too different in a way that its supposed target audience (FPS-fans), did not know what to make of. I also think that it lies in the nature of people who like this genre that running away is not what you want to do, you want to have a weapon and confront every danger with your own lethal force. Oh well, I sure hope they make a sequel. And now I'm going back to thinking what the hell I'm going to spend my spare time with until September. Emulators I guess?
Until next time, signing off.
fredag 8 juli 2011
Games on mobile devices
Hello!
I've recently given in to temptation and bought myself an iPhone 4. Like any computer nerd worth his salt, I've always reviled Apple and their products (namely Mac's), but I guess even my self-imposed restrictiveness when it comes to electronic gadgets has a limit. To be fair I've owned an iPod for quite some time, since my previous mp3-player by Sony did not like when you played *cough* *cough* "home-made" mp3-files on it (i.e. ones not downloaded legally or ripped from a CD you own). Not to mention that the iPod had a much better interface than my previous mp3-player.
This is a blog about video games so that's what I had in mind writing about, believe it or not! I've downloaded Resident Evil 4 Lite for my iPhone, as well as Mega Man II Lite. Now, my favorite genre when it comes to video games is without a doubt games that include some sort of action component. For example Mega Man is an action game where timing is of the outmost essence. This becomes a bit of a hassle when it comes to playing a game like this on a mobile device which - unlike the 3DS for example - has no buttons. You instead need to use the touch screen to control the game, and it's not perfect since you can never really tell when you've "pushed" the right button, and it doesn't always respond. Unlike on a real console where pressing a button always nets you the same result. Games like Angry Birds work fine on an iPhone since it's a slower kind of game, but trying to jump in Mega Man and failing is equal to dying instantly.
Some people on various discussion forums on the Internet claim that the iPhone and its imitators is going to take over the handheld gaming scene completely, which I think will not be the case because of the reasons I've discussed in this post. The library of games available might be very extensive, and downloading a game sure is cheap (although at least on my iPhone I have to download it to the computer via iTunes first, because of limitations imposed by my operator (I think)), but a console like 3DS is made purely (well) for gaming and it shows.
Laters!
I've recently given in to temptation and bought myself an iPhone 4. Like any computer nerd worth his salt, I've always reviled Apple and their products (namely Mac's), but I guess even my self-imposed restrictiveness when it comes to electronic gadgets has a limit. To be fair I've owned an iPod for quite some time, since my previous mp3-player by Sony did not like when you played *cough* *cough* "home-made" mp3-files on it (i.e. ones not downloaded legally or ripped from a CD you own). Not to mention that the iPod had a much better interface than my previous mp3-player.
This is a blog about video games so that's what I had in mind writing about, believe it or not! I've downloaded Resident Evil 4 Lite for my iPhone, as well as Mega Man II Lite. Now, my favorite genre when it comes to video games is without a doubt games that include some sort of action component. For example Mega Man is an action game where timing is of the outmost essence. This becomes a bit of a hassle when it comes to playing a game like this on a mobile device which - unlike the 3DS for example - has no buttons. You instead need to use the touch screen to control the game, and it's not perfect since you can never really tell when you've "pushed" the right button, and it doesn't always respond. Unlike on a real console where pressing a button always nets you the same result. Games like Angry Birds work fine on an iPhone since it's a slower kind of game, but trying to jump in Mega Man and failing is equal to dying instantly.
Some people on various discussion forums on the Internet claim that the iPhone and its imitators is going to take over the handheld gaming scene completely, which I think will not be the case because of the reasons I've discussed in this post. The library of games available might be very extensive, and downloading a game sure is cheap (although at least on my iPhone I have to download it to the computer via iTunes first, because of limitations imposed by my operator (I think)), but a console like 3DS is made purely (well) for gaming and it shows.
Laters!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)