Recently I decided to look for other guilds in World of Warcraft before the new expansions hit. A lot of guilds I've seen give template and ask very particular questions that you merely fill in the blanks, but one guild had a very broad application. They gave you their personal requirements, but other than that the application process was "tell us what you think is important".
Instantly I got to work and thought back over my seven years on/off relationship with Warcraft, and sooner or later I had thrown something together. I refined it and split it up into sections to make it easier to read; personal life, career summary, raiding experience, my other characters, my pc and addons - that sort of thing. After editing it I saved it into Microsoft Word so that I could use it for other applications I may make and I noticed that it was 4 pages long. For a hobby. To join dudes who kill dragons a bit faster than I already do.
I found that really insane, my online dragon killing CV is more impressive than my real CV, so I asked a friend how long his was, and we had a look at each others (yeah, I know how that reads...) and his was also around 4 pages long. The interesting thing was a lot of the information we gave differed - whilst he went into the more technical aspects of his current play style and justified how he did things I focused more on my past and heavily suggested that I as a person was good and adaptable.
I find it very interesting how two people of about the same age who play the same game and know it well can apply to the same guild and produce two very different answers. By keeping an open application the guild in question must be able to judge various players on their preferences and priorities without having them explicitly state or reel off a "this is what they want me to say" answer. It seems like a fantastic way to find the like minded people they want to kill some dragons.
Hopefully by the end of this week I shall have a response from them as to whether I am an eligible candidate or not - and then I get on to the Ventrilo interview stage - for those unfamiliar with Ventrilo, it is a Skype-like service. Again, for my hobby of killing dragons I have to go to a phone interview to see if I'm an eligible candidate to contribute to the murder of magical animals.
Without sounding like a jaded player, it's hard to remember when Warcraft simply felt 'fun'. It seems now whenever I play any class on the game I think about the over all use of him, be it his professions or raid viability, it's never just "I leveled him because he was cool". It seems the awe and mystery was taken out of the game after the first time playing, when I started raiding the game became about getting those extra numbers through any means; gear, gems, food buffs - whatever.
That being said, I do still enjoy the game and there are not many things more satisfying than that first kill on the dude who ground you into the floor forty times. It just seems a shame that for me to feel like I'm not 'wasting my time' in Azeroth I have to jump on my high horse and sneer at those who still haven't killed Spine of Deathwing...
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Wednesday, 18 July 2012
WWE and John Cena
I've been watching wrestling on and off for over a decade now but I feel like the past few months of story have been really boring and samey, and as the title may suggest I am blaming it all on John Cena.
It's felt like despite him not being the WWE Champion he has headlined every event since and including Wrestlemania. For events like Wrestlemania I can understand him and The Rock being the main event, but for it to have been billed as being the main event a year in advance and despite two championship matches and the End of an Era Hell in a Cell seems to me very improper. Having the Icon vs Icon match overshadow every other match on the bill before they're even announced just doesn't feel right to me, but I do understand it is the match with arguably the biggest draw, so I understand why Cena is main-eventing Wrestlemania.
What I don't understand is why he has headlined seemingly all other events since Wrestlemania. One fantastic example is why he was the last match on the bill, which to me is the main event, against John Laurinaitis at Over the Limit. I've watched squash matches before; I've seen Goldberg, The Funkasaurus, Brock Lesnar, Ryback and Triple H all destroy opponents in obvious one sided matches, but this match was a whole new level. Not only was it completely unfair having, arguably, the biggest star in WWE now facing a man who doesn't wrestle (any more) - which in itself is utterly boring, but it sent out the wrong message to the WWE Universe.
The WWE cannot honestly expect its 'Be A Star' campaign to work when they bill a wrestler who is adored by kids to literally bully a weaker person in the ring. This wasn't even the regular kind of wrestling bullying, this was traditional school yard bullying; pouring water on him, throwing rubbish at him, putting him in a bin, hurting him so he begs and then doing it again - all whilst laughing and looking at the crowd for encouragement. Way to 'Rise Above Hate' Cena....
That little rant aside John Cena is still very bland to watch simply because the outcomes are so easy to predict. At Money in the Bank I don't honestly believe there was any doubt that Cena would not win. Michael Cole made it abundant that Cena had never participated in a Money in the Bank ladder match, and there were promos illustrating this. No matter how hard people try John Cena is not, and will never again be, an underdog - so putting him in a 'free title shot' match is the long way of saying 'Cena will headline the next PPV for the belt', and like the predictable man he is he used his shot to schedule a match instead of cashing in on a weakened champion.
The point I'm trying to make (whilst enjoying having a moan at Cena) is he is just too predictable to be interesting. I re-watched Wrestlemania XX, ECW One Night Stand 2006 and Summerslam 2011 - all of these matches had Cena in them, but in each match he was the underdog and in each match he was forced by the fans to adapt his style. At Wrestlemania XX he cheated to win the United States Championship, at One Night Stand he fought hardcore (and admittedly, in true Cena style, it took three 'referees' and a spear through a table by Edge for him to lose) and ultimately dropped the belt after almost being boo'd out of the building. Summerslam was another instance where he got boo'd out of the building and only lost due to his own heroic traits (which is again annoying) but he showed that under hostile environments, or when he is actually the underdog he can be interesting and deliver a great match.
Perhaps it may be time for a John Cena heel turn, if he won the belt then maybe he goes all 'ruthless aggression' with it and defends it no matter what; pre-match assaults, DQ victories, getting himself counted out. I doubt this will happen, as it stands he's the best role model in the company, and I'm sure he rakes in an awful lot of money; but The Rock, Austin, Triple H, Undertaker and many others stayed fresh by adapting, or changing, their gimmick or by using tactical face/heel turns.
We can only hope that when The Rock comes back we're graced with a fantastic Rock/Punk feud instead of just dragging out 'that' Wrestlemania XXVIII over the course of a year.
It's felt like despite him not being the WWE Champion he has headlined every event since and including Wrestlemania. For events like Wrestlemania I can understand him and The Rock being the main event, but for it to have been billed as being the main event a year in advance and despite two championship matches and the End of an Era Hell in a Cell seems to me very improper. Having the Icon vs Icon match overshadow every other match on the bill before they're even announced just doesn't feel right to me, but I do understand it is the match with arguably the biggest draw, so I understand why Cena is main-eventing Wrestlemania.
What I don't understand is why he has headlined seemingly all other events since Wrestlemania. One fantastic example is why he was the last match on the bill, which to me is the main event, against John Laurinaitis at Over the Limit. I've watched squash matches before; I've seen Goldberg, The Funkasaurus, Brock Lesnar, Ryback and Triple H all destroy opponents in obvious one sided matches, but this match was a whole new level. Not only was it completely unfair having, arguably, the biggest star in WWE now facing a man who doesn't wrestle (any more) - which in itself is utterly boring, but it sent out the wrong message to the WWE Universe.
The WWE cannot honestly expect its 'Be A Star' campaign to work when they bill a wrestler who is adored by kids to literally bully a weaker person in the ring. This wasn't even the regular kind of wrestling bullying, this was traditional school yard bullying; pouring water on him, throwing rubbish at him, putting him in a bin, hurting him so he begs and then doing it again - all whilst laughing and looking at the crowd for encouragement. Way to 'Rise Above Hate' Cena....
That little rant aside John Cena is still very bland to watch simply because the outcomes are so easy to predict. At Money in the Bank I don't honestly believe there was any doubt that Cena would not win. Michael Cole made it abundant that Cena had never participated in a Money in the Bank ladder match, and there were promos illustrating this. No matter how hard people try John Cena is not, and will never again be, an underdog - so putting him in a 'free title shot' match is the long way of saying 'Cena will headline the next PPV for the belt', and like the predictable man he is he used his shot to schedule a match instead of cashing in on a weakened champion.
The point I'm trying to make (whilst enjoying having a moan at Cena) is he is just too predictable to be interesting. I re-watched Wrestlemania XX, ECW One Night Stand 2006 and Summerslam 2011 - all of these matches had Cena in them, but in each match he was the underdog and in each match he was forced by the fans to adapt his style. At Wrestlemania XX he cheated to win the United States Championship, at One Night Stand he fought hardcore (and admittedly, in true Cena style, it took three 'referees' and a spear through a table by Edge for him to lose) and ultimately dropped the belt after almost being boo'd out of the building. Summerslam was another instance where he got boo'd out of the building and only lost due to his own heroic traits (which is again annoying) but he showed that under hostile environments, or when he is actually the underdog he can be interesting and deliver a great match.
Perhaps it may be time for a John Cena heel turn, if he won the belt then maybe he goes all 'ruthless aggression' with it and defends it no matter what; pre-match assaults, DQ victories, getting himself counted out. I doubt this will happen, as it stands he's the best role model in the company, and I'm sure he rakes in an awful lot of money; but The Rock, Austin, Triple H, Undertaker and many others stayed fresh by adapting, or changing, their gimmick or by using tactical face/heel turns.
We can only hope that when The Rock comes back we're graced with a fantastic Rock/Punk feud instead of just dragging out 'that' Wrestlemania XXVIII over the course of a year.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Back from the Dead
After suffering a computer death and lack of funds I've finally got myself up and running again.
Having had some time off I've decided to shift my focus slightly onto more common traits found in fictions, but I still have some petty gripes to moan about with games!
Anyway, with the subject being about coming back from the dead, let's talk zombies! Over the past few years they seem to have resurfaced a lot and become very very popular; there's been numerous films, games, game addons and mods; and we've even seen the X-Men and friends as flesh eating monsters.
My main question about zombies is why have they seemingly changed so much? We've gone from the zombies of Dawn (and Shaun) of the Dead and the original Resident Evil games to having athletic zombies who can make an athlete jealous - like 28 Days Later and Left 4 Dead. I don't understand when this shift happened, but it seems to me that the games and film industry have silently decided that this is the new norm for zombies.
Out of recent memory I can only really think of Dead Rising and Saints Row: The Third have the more shambling zombies. Admittedly in Saints Row the zombies do sprint at points, but to its credit - its a game about gang war, not zombies. I know these games also invite ridiculous weapon play and are quite tongue in cheek as a whole, but it can still be easy to succumb to the shambling hordes, which is still a suggestion that the 'classic' zombie is still deadly and not obsolete - even when you have guns and double chainsaw staffs!
I understand that having a shambling monstrosity isn't the most terrifying thing, but having a corpse, or infected human, being able to perform feats that they could have never ordinarily done in life, or to have them suddenly discover they have phenomenal stamina, strength and endurance doesn't make much sense either, in my opinion. I feel like if you're going to make a zombie such a vicious apex predator then it may as well be any other sort of monster.
It seems to me that Resident Evil could have forced a good transition between say a shuffling zombie merely infected by the T-Virus and a modified Tyrant or whatever, but it seems as this trend has gone on they're the one who are forsaking the term 'zombie' more and more! I played Resident Evil 5 and most of the time the villager's hadn't seemed to have died, and most of the bosses retained their original personalities, and to me that isn't how a zombie works!
I also feel that having a seemingly compulsory zombie mode or Easter egg in certain games feels really.... strange. The Call of Duty Nazi Zombies and subsequent zombie installments would have felt more at home if they were commandos, or terrorists, suicide bombers or an impoverishment militia (to eliminate the argument that the other folk would have guns and wouldn't function as melee only foes).
I hope we see a return of classic zombies, or at least separate tiers of zombies, soon simply because they are a classic fiction and fantasy tradition, and when used in the correct way can seem more fearsome and terrifying than super zombies.Plus I just miss them...
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Social Student Blog #1: Post Apocalyptic Edition
Just posted my first blog on Social Student, it's all about The Book of Eli, The Road and Fallout New Vegas.
Here's a link my post, please read it and comment on it!
Here's a link my post, please read it and comment on it!
Thursday, 8 March 2012
My New Blog at Social Student
After doing some emailing I have been asked to be a contributor for Social Student.
My blog on Social Student will revolve around comparisons between various games and films that a student could buy for around £20 or less.
This blog will be published about once a week and I already have ideas for numerous comparisons already.
Hope anyone who reads and enjoys this blog will enjoy my blogging on Social Student.
By the way, isn't repetition fun?
My blog on Social Student will revolve around comparisons between various games and films that a student could buy for around £20 or less.
This blog will be published about once a week and I already have ideas for numerous comparisons already.
Hope anyone who reads and enjoys this blog will enjoy my blogging on Social Student.
By the way, isn't repetition fun?
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Game Rant #7: JRPG vs. WRPG
An argument I've often thought about, and something I've never decided which camp I sit in is which do I prefer, a Japanese role playing game or a Western Role playing game. My friends who play computer games seem to either match my school of thought and enjoy both, or they go completely against me and think both are crap and boring - which is an unhelpful opinion.
To assist me in my argument I'm going to rely on my good friends Final Fantasy, but for the purposes of my argument I have to ignore Final Fantasy XIII - as it has thus far put me off of the franchise from now on until they remake Final Fantasy VII (yes, I'm still holding my breath for that one). To help me balance my argument I will confer with my younger, better looking friends Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Oblivion and Skyrim - sorry Mass Effect, I count you as sci-fi even with your morality system.
Final Fantasy VII was my first RPG ever, as it predated Pokemon Red/Blue by a year, and it is the game I feel that even now I could turn on and gladly waste a good few months of my life playing. I felt that the story was wonderful, the characters were well fleshed out and contrasting and the materia system was brilliant, allowing for a good level of customization.
Admittedly that was 15 years ago when I first thought all of those things and I was 7 years old then, so nostalgia fills me up because the story is pretty confusing and there's your generic angsty one, angry one, madly in love one, quirky one and mysterious one in there - which seems like a pretty solid formula to not only every other Final Fantasy I've played but to pretty much every JRPG I've played. The materia system did allow for a good level of customization, but my 7 year old self thought it was good to sort of flesh out my characters with their spells, so Tifa healed (because she was a girl, and girls can't fight), Cloud got the ice and thunder materia with related summons (because he started with them and was obviously supposed to have them) and Barret got fire materia (because he was angry and fire is angry too, and so was Ifrit - he was angry).
My simplistic choices aside, the materia system gave a sense of freedom that enabled the player to subdivide the characters into a class system, or allowed the player to make each character similar to each other to enable flexibility in combat. This on the whole is pretty consistent with other Final Fantasy games, as if the classes weren't predetermined (Final Fantasy IX) they allowed for equal customization (Final Fantasy VIII) or gave a rough guide line that could later be overruled in favor of creating immensely powerful characters who were similar (Final Fantasy X). Ultimately this means that the game offers you a range of classes to mix and match and sense of freedom to make whoever you want into whatever you want, but really what it gives you is a linear structure for you to work around - on boss fights you will need someone who can heal and often a certain element to use against the boss.
Linking to the false sense of freedom is the ability to roam the open world whenever you get your air ship or can escape from the city you start in. This again seemingly allows you to travel across the entire world and do whatever you please, but due to restrictions in the game - either story imposed or level imposed - you can often only go to one location due to the fact that other places are either; inaccessible due to a plot device, are too low level to warrant going to or are too high level that monsters will instantly kill you.
Western RPG's on the other hand often allow you to make a nameless, voiceless character who has to endure a tutorial level before being flung into an open world, allowing you to do whatever you want in whatever order you want. My choice of the Bethesda games really allow you to make whatever decision you choose, for example I will always remember Mr. Burke asking you to blow up Megaton and giving you the promise of a good reward. This is a true open world experience that can only be made linear by if you choose to play the game as an utter saint or an utter douchebag.
The combat and character leveling system is also as open ended buy allowing you to put skill points into certain skills and picking talents or perks to augment your pre-existing skills. I did find that this is often seemingly less linear than it is seems too, as in my earlier blog about the imbalance at around level 40 of Skyrim you're pretty much forced into archery and sneak if you want to survive dungeons, and in Fallout if you want to take on Deathclaws you're pretty wise to have a gun orientated character.
Currently all I seem to have concluded is that neither game is as open ended as they first appear, but there is always the replay and difficulty to compare. I've found that across all of the Final Fantasy games the story has a progressive difficulty curve - if you don't level up you will not defeat the bosses, and usually the end boss is generally very challenging to an average team. This can be averted by leveling to the max difficulty, but in Final Fantasy VIII the monsters level with you, and in virtually all Final Fantasy titles there are the super bosses that will prove challenging to even the highest level characters; and if you beg to disagree I ask you to kill Emerald Weapon in Final Fantasy VII with ease without using Knights of the Round.
The Bethesda games seem to have taken a leaf out of Final Fantasy VIII's book and have given their monsters scaled leveling, so the world gets harder the more powerful you become. This seems to be more manageable in the Fallout games, as you can often rely on a powerful sniper rifle to eliminate threats before they become too much of a problem (thank you Anti-Material Rifle), but in games like Oblivion and Skyrim this poses a real threat and a real challenge, especially when you get high level Daedra, Dragons and Vampires all out and looking for your blood. Though these games don't particularly have boss mobs (usually there is a final boss, or difficult and high stat named normal monsters) there is a Hardcore Mode in Fallout: New Vegas that factors in tiredness, hunger and dehydration as well as having all items being weighted and no instant health recovery items. Though I have not personally been man enough to complete a Hardcore run, I know for a fact it is challenging.
It seems after all of this typing I've not found out which camp I reside on the JRPG vs WRPG debate, perhaps anyone who reads this could leave a comment and tell me what they feel is the superior genre.
To assist me in my argument I'm going to rely on my good friends Final Fantasy, but for the purposes of my argument I have to ignore Final Fantasy XIII - as it has thus far put me off of the franchise from now on until they remake Final Fantasy VII (yes, I'm still holding my breath for that one). To help me balance my argument I will confer with my younger, better looking friends Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Oblivion and Skyrim - sorry Mass Effect, I count you as sci-fi even with your morality system.
Final Fantasy VII was my first RPG ever, as it predated Pokemon Red/Blue by a year, and it is the game I feel that even now I could turn on and gladly waste a good few months of my life playing. I felt that the story was wonderful, the characters were well fleshed out and contrasting and the materia system was brilliant, allowing for a good level of customization.
Admittedly that was 15 years ago when I first thought all of those things and I was 7 years old then, so nostalgia fills me up because the story is pretty confusing and there's your generic angsty one, angry one, madly in love one, quirky one and mysterious one in there - which seems like a pretty solid formula to not only every other Final Fantasy I've played but to pretty much every JRPG I've played. The materia system did allow for a good level of customization, but my 7 year old self thought it was good to sort of flesh out my characters with their spells, so Tifa healed (because she was a girl, and girls can't fight), Cloud got the ice and thunder materia with related summons (because he started with them and was obviously supposed to have them) and Barret got fire materia (because he was angry and fire is angry too, and so was Ifrit - he was angry).
My simplistic choices aside, the materia system gave a sense of freedom that enabled the player to subdivide the characters into a class system, or allowed the player to make each character similar to each other to enable flexibility in combat. This on the whole is pretty consistent with other Final Fantasy games, as if the classes weren't predetermined (Final Fantasy IX) they allowed for equal customization (Final Fantasy VIII) or gave a rough guide line that could later be overruled in favor of creating immensely powerful characters who were similar (Final Fantasy X). Ultimately this means that the game offers you a range of classes to mix and match and sense of freedom to make whoever you want into whatever you want, but really what it gives you is a linear structure for you to work around - on boss fights you will need someone who can heal and often a certain element to use against the boss.
Linking to the false sense of freedom is the ability to roam the open world whenever you get your air ship or can escape from the city you start in. This again seemingly allows you to travel across the entire world and do whatever you please, but due to restrictions in the game - either story imposed or level imposed - you can often only go to one location due to the fact that other places are either; inaccessible due to a plot device, are too low level to warrant going to or are too high level that monsters will instantly kill you.
Western RPG's on the other hand often allow you to make a nameless, voiceless character who has to endure a tutorial level before being flung into an open world, allowing you to do whatever you want in whatever order you want. My choice of the Bethesda games really allow you to make whatever decision you choose, for example I will always remember Mr. Burke asking you to blow up Megaton and giving you the promise of a good reward. This is a true open world experience that can only be made linear by if you choose to play the game as an utter saint or an utter douchebag.
The combat and character leveling system is also as open ended buy allowing you to put skill points into certain skills and picking talents or perks to augment your pre-existing skills. I did find that this is often seemingly less linear than it is seems too, as in my earlier blog about the imbalance at around level 40 of Skyrim you're pretty much forced into archery and sneak if you want to survive dungeons, and in Fallout if you want to take on Deathclaws you're pretty wise to have a gun orientated character.
Currently all I seem to have concluded is that neither game is as open ended as they first appear, but there is always the replay and difficulty to compare. I've found that across all of the Final Fantasy games the story has a progressive difficulty curve - if you don't level up you will not defeat the bosses, and usually the end boss is generally very challenging to an average team. This can be averted by leveling to the max difficulty, but in Final Fantasy VIII the monsters level with you, and in virtually all Final Fantasy titles there are the super bosses that will prove challenging to even the highest level characters; and if you beg to disagree I ask you to kill Emerald Weapon in Final Fantasy VII with ease without using Knights of the Round.
The Bethesda games seem to have taken a leaf out of Final Fantasy VIII's book and have given their monsters scaled leveling, so the world gets harder the more powerful you become. This seems to be more manageable in the Fallout games, as you can often rely on a powerful sniper rifle to eliminate threats before they become too much of a problem (thank you Anti-Material Rifle), but in games like Oblivion and Skyrim this poses a real threat and a real challenge, especially when you get high level Daedra, Dragons and Vampires all out and looking for your blood. Though these games don't particularly have boss mobs (usually there is a final boss, or difficult and high stat named normal monsters) there is a Hardcore Mode in Fallout: New Vegas that factors in tiredness, hunger and dehydration as well as having all items being weighted and no instant health recovery items. Though I have not personally been man enough to complete a Hardcore run, I know for a fact it is challenging.
It seems after all of this typing I've not found out which camp I reside on the JRPG vs WRPG debate, perhaps anyone who reads this could leave a comment and tell me what they feel is the superior genre.
Game Rant #6: The Pokemon Trend
Before you read this I want to leave the following disclaimer: I love pokemon. It was with me when it first came out in the UK when I was in primary school, and I still play on it now when I'm in my twenties. I think it's a fantastic and brilliant game both in it's simplicity and it's replay value. I do have to say that during the fifth generation of the pokemon games I have some reservations about the future of the franchise, especially with the announcement of Pokemon Black 2 and Pokemon White 2.
I played Pokemon White when it first came out, and for that matter I also bought Black when it first came out, and I enjoyed the Unova region. I liked the little tweaks that were made to the game that made buildings feel like they were 3d and the cinematic sequences with the bridges and when you encounter Zekrom. I also enjoyed other core game play changes such as the permanent TM's, and the poke-mart being in the poke-center, however I can't call this blog a 'Game Rant' if I'm going to say how much I loved it.
My main gripe about the current generation of pokemon is that until you complete the main story line for the first time you are forced into using new and mysterious pokemon. I suppose this was an attempt to recreate the magic of when Red and Blue came out and the player saw a pokemon for the first time and had no real idea what it could do until you caught it and trained it. That, in principle, is fine - but when you have a loyal fan base as big as the pokemon community does you cannot take away the favorites and familiars that people have grown up with until post game and expect them to take a liking to the new monsters as well as they did to Charmander or Pikachu.
The main reason why I feel you cannot allow an entire new generation of pokemon and not allow some of the previous species into the game is because all you end up with is yet more carbon copies of the useless ones. How many people are fed up of a new Rattata, Geodude, Caterpie and Zubat? I know people get tired of playing a new game and catching the same thing in the generic beginner cave and the same thing in generic beginner bug forest, but will adding a new lick of paint to the same tired generic pokemon really make people embrace the new monsters?
I also think that by introducing an entire new set of monsters that include generic leveling pokemon each generation you end up taking something away from the cooler pokemon of that generation. In White I ended up leveling a Hydreigon (a three headed evil dragon), Volcarona (a giant fire moth) and Golurk (a ghostly golem that can fly) to level 100 because I thought they were pretty damned impressive, but I will think a lot of people might not appreciate them as much because of pokemon like Trubbish (a living pile of rubbish), Vanillish (an ice cream cone) and Watchog (a cross between Ratatta and Furret with funny eyes).
The idea of a direct Pokemon sequel bothers me. It will be the first in the main series of games to have a direct sequel, and I can't imagine how it will go. If it takes place in Unova, will it have the same pokemon and starters, or will it be a new area with a new protagonist and new pokemon? If it's the former then why don't they bring out the Gray version everyone suspected they would, and if it's the latter why not make it a new generation? I know that Gamefreak have plans for Kyurem (a legendary ice dragon) and they left the story on a cliff hanger with N, but it's not unusual for pokemon games to refer to previous generations. Black/White had Cynthia in them, Gold/Silver had Kanto in it complete with 8 Gym leaders and Red! The concept of a direct sequel seems unique but I'm not entirely sold on it, but knowing me I will still probably pay my hard earned wages for it!
Ultimately I'm still an avid fan and lover of Pokemon - I feel my childhood was better off because of it, and I do think that the gameplay is simplistic, fun and terribly addictive (World of Warcraft wouldn't be ripping it off in Mists of Pandaria if it wasn't!) but I do still take an issue with the whole force feeding of a new bunch of mundane monsters you're going to give to Bill as soon as you get past the first gym.
I played Pokemon White when it first came out, and for that matter I also bought Black when it first came out, and I enjoyed the Unova region. I liked the little tweaks that were made to the game that made buildings feel like they were 3d and the cinematic sequences with the bridges and when you encounter Zekrom. I also enjoyed other core game play changes such as the permanent TM's, and the poke-mart being in the poke-center, however I can't call this blog a 'Game Rant' if I'm going to say how much I loved it.
My main gripe about the current generation of pokemon is that until you complete the main story line for the first time you are forced into using new and mysterious pokemon. I suppose this was an attempt to recreate the magic of when Red and Blue came out and the player saw a pokemon for the first time and had no real idea what it could do until you caught it and trained it. That, in principle, is fine - but when you have a loyal fan base as big as the pokemon community does you cannot take away the favorites and familiars that people have grown up with until post game and expect them to take a liking to the new monsters as well as they did to Charmander or Pikachu.
The main reason why I feel you cannot allow an entire new generation of pokemon and not allow some of the previous species into the game is because all you end up with is yet more carbon copies of the useless ones. How many people are fed up of a new Rattata, Geodude, Caterpie and Zubat? I know people get tired of playing a new game and catching the same thing in the generic beginner cave and the same thing in generic beginner bug forest, but will adding a new lick of paint to the same tired generic pokemon really make people embrace the new monsters?
I also think that by introducing an entire new set of monsters that include generic leveling pokemon each generation you end up taking something away from the cooler pokemon of that generation. In White I ended up leveling a Hydreigon (a three headed evil dragon), Volcarona (a giant fire moth) and Golurk (a ghostly golem that can fly) to level 100 because I thought they were pretty damned impressive, but I will think a lot of people might not appreciate them as much because of pokemon like Trubbish (a living pile of rubbish), Vanillish (an ice cream cone) and Watchog (a cross between Ratatta and Furret with funny eyes).
The idea of a direct Pokemon sequel bothers me. It will be the first in the main series of games to have a direct sequel, and I can't imagine how it will go. If it takes place in Unova, will it have the same pokemon and starters, or will it be a new area with a new protagonist and new pokemon? If it's the former then why don't they bring out the Gray version everyone suspected they would, and if it's the latter why not make it a new generation? I know that Gamefreak have plans for Kyurem (a legendary ice dragon) and they left the story on a cliff hanger with N, but it's not unusual for pokemon games to refer to previous generations. Black/White had Cynthia in them, Gold/Silver had Kanto in it complete with 8 Gym leaders and Red! The concept of a direct sequel seems unique but I'm not entirely sold on it, but knowing me I will still probably pay my hard earned wages for it!
Ultimately I'm still an avid fan and lover of Pokemon - I feel my childhood was better off because of it, and I do think that the gameplay is simplistic, fun and terribly addictive (World of Warcraft wouldn't be ripping it off in Mists of Pandaria if it wasn't!) but I do still take an issue with the whole force feeding of a new bunch of mundane monsters you're going to give to Bill as soon as you get past the first gym.
Game Rant #5: Create a Character
I love it when a game includes a create a character feature, especially when I can invest myself into the franchise. I often find the best sort of create a character systems come from fighting games, and the earliest game I can remember making a character was a WWE game, and once I did it I used to use that character to win belts and enjoy myself.
Lately though I seem to fail to see the point in create a character. WWE games still use this feature, and they have the incentive of obtaining achievements, but every year it's the same goals with the same items. Variety seems to have been completely eliminated and all we are given is a bog standard option to appease ourselves with a variety of silly items and nods to other franchises.
What seems to baffle me more is when the feature is given to us, and we are given items from playing through the game, but there isn't any actual purpose to do so. There's no achievements to aim for, there's no exclusive create a character mode to play through and there's no apparent point when I can use the same moves on something a professional designer has created for me to look at.
The only reason I can think of is to give us the illusion that we are getting something useful, or perhaps it's simply an option to be able to use the moves we love on a female character who has the 'Chest' slider cranked all the way up to full so we can admire the jiggle physics in whatever game we're playing.
Even if this were the case I don't think I'd mind it as much if the clothes weren't either incredibly hard to unlock, or if they didn't look so generic and identical to the previous installment. I know I've mentioned this earlier, but why do developer's merely update the skins for the main characters each game and not the custom clothing? If they the developers wanted us to believe that the main casts style had changed from the last game to this one, why are all the create a character clothes the same? Similarly if the main cast look roughly the same since the last game, why am i forced to use an entirely new selection of clothes on my custom characters.
Ultimately I see that character creation has been a great feature, but either the current generation of gamers are not that interested in this feature as I am, or perhaps developers aren't as interested in letting us hash out our own little characters to wreak havoc with. Either way I feel that a lot of games could perhaps benefit from more character customization - if you're going to be playing a game for a while you might as well add your own personal touch to it!
Lately though I seem to fail to see the point in create a character. WWE games still use this feature, and they have the incentive of obtaining achievements, but every year it's the same goals with the same items. Variety seems to have been completely eliminated and all we are given is a bog standard option to appease ourselves with a variety of silly items and nods to other franchises.
What seems to baffle me more is when the feature is given to us, and we are given items from playing through the game, but there isn't any actual purpose to do so. There's no achievements to aim for, there's no exclusive create a character mode to play through and there's no apparent point when I can use the same moves on something a professional designer has created for me to look at.
The only reason I can think of is to give us the illusion that we are getting something useful, or perhaps it's simply an option to be able to use the moves we love on a female character who has the 'Chest' slider cranked all the way up to full so we can admire the jiggle physics in whatever game we're playing.
Even if this were the case I don't think I'd mind it as much if the clothes weren't either incredibly hard to unlock, or if they didn't look so generic and identical to the previous installment. I know I've mentioned this earlier, but why do developer's merely update the skins for the main characters each game and not the custom clothing? If they the developers wanted us to believe that the main casts style had changed from the last game to this one, why are all the create a character clothes the same? Similarly if the main cast look roughly the same since the last game, why am i forced to use an entirely new selection of clothes on my custom characters.
Ultimately I see that character creation has been a great feature, but either the current generation of gamers are not that interested in this feature as I am, or perhaps developers aren't as interested in letting us hash out our own little characters to wreak havoc with. Either way I feel that a lot of games could perhaps benefit from more character customization - if you're going to be playing a game for a while you might as well add your own personal touch to it!
Game Rant #4: Character Continuity
Sometimes when a game is allowed a sequel they pull it off masterfully and you feel like there was never a gap between the last installment and the one you're playing, but other times you find that you just cannot enjoy yourself because the game just isn't the same. I'm not talking about engine changes, or when a new villain is introduced from out of nowhere, I mean when the character who you've followed just seems to have completely changed over night.
A little example to illustrate this is Final Fantasy X. You go through the game following and guarding Yuna on her pilgrimage. She is effectively a nun sent to sacrifice herself to save the world, and you grow can understand why she is quiet and humble, and you can completely immerse yourself in that atmosphere. Come Final Fantasy X-2 you pretty much se e her running round in short shorts duel wielding pistols and chatting willy nilly to everyone under the sun like some sort of Lara Croft chat show wannabe! This is the sort of things that seem to spoil the continuity and make me ask myself "why didn't they just name this game something other than Final Fantasy X-2?"
Another gripe I have is when a character is for some reason omitted from a game and replaced by an utter carbon copy. After progressing further into Soul Calibur V you encounter a group of four fighters; Maxi, Natsu, Xiba and Yan Leixia. Maxi is the only character in this group to make a return to the game, but the others are carbon copies of Taki, Kilik and Xianghua (respectively), and upon further reading Yan Leixia is the daughter of Xianghua. This seems peculiar to remove known characters and replace them, but to retain Maxi and have him stay the same age and make no real reference to the original characters is bizarre. Also, though I have yet to encounter him in the story, Cervantes doesn't seem to be a super powered immortal zombie badass any more, just a regular pirate - which sort of makes me question the continuity of the series.
I know in some cases, such as Soul Calibur, it doesn't matter as much as the story telling is merely a device to link one fight to the next, but in a game like Final Fantasy where the story is the most integral part of the game it pushes my suspension of disbelief. Yes I believe that that naked can transform into two different giant monsters. Yes I can believe that that character can throw a volley ball at someone and inflict 1,500,000 damage. Yes, I can even believe that that giant evil whale is the father of the main protagonist. No, I cannot believe that nun is now a stripper adventurer.
A little example to illustrate this is Final Fantasy X. You go through the game following and guarding Yuna on her pilgrimage. She is effectively a nun sent to sacrifice herself to save the world, and you grow can understand why she is quiet and humble, and you can completely immerse yourself in that atmosphere. Come Final Fantasy X-2 you pretty much se e her running round in short shorts duel wielding pistols and chatting willy nilly to everyone under the sun like some sort of Lara Croft chat show wannabe! This is the sort of things that seem to spoil the continuity and make me ask myself "why didn't they just name this game something other than Final Fantasy X-2?"
Another gripe I have is when a character is for some reason omitted from a game and replaced by an utter carbon copy. After progressing further into Soul Calibur V you encounter a group of four fighters; Maxi, Natsu, Xiba and Yan Leixia. Maxi is the only character in this group to make a return to the game, but the others are carbon copies of Taki, Kilik and Xianghua (respectively), and upon further reading Yan Leixia is the daughter of Xianghua. This seems peculiar to remove known characters and replace them, but to retain Maxi and have him stay the same age and make no real reference to the original characters is bizarre. Also, though I have yet to encounter him in the story, Cervantes doesn't seem to be a super powered immortal zombie badass any more, just a regular pirate - which sort of makes me question the continuity of the series.
I know in some cases, such as Soul Calibur, it doesn't matter as much as the story telling is merely a device to link one fight to the next, but in a game like Final Fantasy where the story is the most integral part of the game it pushes my suspension of disbelief. Yes I believe that that naked can transform into two different giant monsters. Yes I can believe that that character can throw a volley ball at someone and inflict 1,500,000 damage. Yes, I can even believe that that giant evil whale is the father of the main protagonist. No, I cannot believe that nun is now a stripper adventurer.
Game Rant #3: Soul Calibur V First Impression
Being pretty new to fighting games this seems like an idea to give an unbiased opinion of the newest Soul Calibur game. I have played fighting games before, mainly Soul Calibur series (II, III and IV) and the Tekken series (2, 3, tag, 4 and 5), but these have been on a casual basis, and I played them more for the stories (weirdo that I am) than for the pure love of kicking the ever loving crap out of my friends and online starngers.
I'm not very far into Soul Calibur V, but from what I can see the modes have been limited - there's no more gallery or shop, which does not effect the game play, but I always enjoyed obtaining new pictures and sounds through purchases. As I'm not very far into the game I can only suspect that with the lack of a gallery there is also a lack of a video gallery for any cut scenes that may be present in the game.
The story mode has changed as well, you no longer pick a character and fight through 10 stages to get a little cut scene, now it seems you get given Patroklos, and get subbed in for his sister Pyrrah from time to time. From what I can tell Patroklos is the most unlikable character known to human kind, but knowing how games often function, as the good sword chose him he will man up and become awesome at the end. I do have to say, for a fighting game that forces you into being one character they chose a complete newbie character with the smallest range ever. I tend prefer characters like Nightmare or Siegfried, as gigantic swords tended to compensate for my pure lack of skill (plus they both look badass!).
On the topic of being a complete newbie to the game, the practice mode seems overly complicated. Compared to other games it seems to have so much stuff on the UI, but so little substance in terms of holding my hand and telling me how not to die every fight. Dragonball Z games tend to go the overkill route of telling you how to pick up a pad first, but at least by the end of the training I could actually fight. This training mode feels more like a practice mode, whereby if you know how to play the game you can perfect your skills here, but if your new you just flail about madly against a static opponent.
The create a character system is one that suckers me in every time, and is often a deal breaker when I'm undecided. So far I like the look of it, you get to choose every item you're new warrior wears, which character's fighting style he or she rips off and there's even a feature to let you adjust the voice so when you win you sound different from every other character. How you unlock more clothes and weapons isn't mentioned in the game, but from my useful friend - the internet - I now know it's from leveling up, which is done by winning fights - which makes sense in a fighting game.
It goes without saying that the game is pretty, and it certainly does still pander to the younger lads - looking at you Ivy! But it seems more sophisticated compared to the other Soul Calibur games in my memory, for example I've not seen Taki with her jiggling assets, and Ivy seems to be more covered up - but she still reminds me as a Victorian prostitute with an S&M fetish.
Looking back on my last rant, and although I've not used him, Ezio doesn't seem too out of place here, considering the general time period and the fact that I imagine he could fight a bit like Cervantes with the secret gun, and would also be useful in really close quarters with his secret blades. In my opinion though I don't believe this series needs any guest fighters, as it's already popular enough to be on it's fifth installment on the main Soul Calibur series (ignoring the Soul Blade games too), but he doesn't spoil the game as much as the appearances of Darth Vader or Yoda. I have also read that there is a create a character Jin Kazama available, which I do think is a tad unnecessary because it would be stupid if Nightmare appeared in the next Tekken game, but again - just my opinion, and I don't have to make him if I don't want him in my game.
My overall first impressions are quite good really, it clearly has a difficulty curve, so I imagine veteran players can still get killed the same as I seem to, and in my death's I've not thrown a pad through the wall or decided the game is unplayable, but I do think it could have been made more accessible to people who tend to hardly, or only casually, touch beat 'em ups.
I'm not very far into Soul Calibur V, but from what I can see the modes have been limited - there's no more gallery or shop, which does not effect the game play, but I always enjoyed obtaining new pictures and sounds through purchases. As I'm not very far into the game I can only suspect that with the lack of a gallery there is also a lack of a video gallery for any cut scenes that may be present in the game.
The story mode has changed as well, you no longer pick a character and fight through 10 stages to get a little cut scene, now it seems you get given Patroklos, and get subbed in for his sister Pyrrah from time to time. From what I can tell Patroklos is the most unlikable character known to human kind, but knowing how games often function, as the good sword chose him he will man up and become awesome at the end. I do have to say, for a fighting game that forces you into being one character they chose a complete newbie character with the smallest range ever. I tend prefer characters like Nightmare or Siegfried, as gigantic swords tended to compensate for my pure lack of skill (plus they both look badass!).
On the topic of being a complete newbie to the game, the practice mode seems overly complicated. Compared to other games it seems to have so much stuff on the UI, but so little substance in terms of holding my hand and telling me how not to die every fight. Dragonball Z games tend to go the overkill route of telling you how to pick up a pad first, but at least by the end of the training I could actually fight. This training mode feels more like a practice mode, whereby if you know how to play the game you can perfect your skills here, but if your new you just flail about madly against a static opponent.
The create a character system is one that suckers me in every time, and is often a deal breaker when I'm undecided. So far I like the look of it, you get to choose every item you're new warrior wears, which character's fighting style he or she rips off and there's even a feature to let you adjust the voice so when you win you sound different from every other character. How you unlock more clothes and weapons isn't mentioned in the game, but from my useful friend - the internet - I now know it's from leveling up, which is done by winning fights - which makes sense in a fighting game.
It goes without saying that the game is pretty, and it certainly does still pander to the younger lads - looking at you Ivy! But it seems more sophisticated compared to the other Soul Calibur games in my memory, for example I've not seen Taki with her jiggling assets, and Ivy seems to be more covered up - but she still reminds me as a Victorian prostitute with an S&M fetish.
Looking back on my last rant, and although I've not used him, Ezio doesn't seem too out of place here, considering the general time period and the fact that I imagine he could fight a bit like Cervantes with the secret gun, and would also be useful in really close quarters with his secret blades. In my opinion though I don't believe this series needs any guest fighters, as it's already popular enough to be on it's fifth installment on the main Soul Calibur series (ignoring the Soul Blade games too), but he doesn't spoil the game as much as the appearances of Darth Vader or Yoda. I have also read that there is a create a character Jin Kazama available, which I do think is a tad unnecessary because it would be stupid if Nightmare appeared in the next Tekken game, but again - just my opinion, and I don't have to make him if I don't want him in my game.
My overall first impressions are quite good really, it clearly has a difficulty curve, so I imagine veteran players can still get killed the same as I seem to, and in my death's I've not thrown a pad through the wall or decided the game is unplayable, but I do think it could have been made more accessible to people who tend to hardly, or only casually, touch beat 'em ups.
Game Rant #2: Franchises Mingling
One common theme I've noticed become more and more popular is the mingling of characters from various franchises in a similar game. For most part's I can see why they would, such as Super Smash Brothers, or SEGA racing/tennis titles, as these games are based around the developer as opposed to a specific series, however some inclusions to gaming rosters don't make sense.
One series that seems to have included this a lot if Soul Calibur, as they have included; Spawn, Heihachi Mishima, Link, Kratos, Ezio, Starkiller, Darth Vader and Yoda. Forgive my skepticism, but in an arcade fighting game about an evil sword I cannot see any logical link to these characters despite their in game story descriptions. If Darth Vader truly wanted an evil sword, I'm sure with the help of the Empire, the Death Star, the Force and a light saber he could get what he wanted and not need to worry about Voldo knocking him out in a two out of three fighting competition.
Super Smash Brothers was an example I gave of where this mingling works, as Nintendo has a colourful roster of anthropomorphic characters and colourful child friendly settings - which is also the reason why I feel that Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games is a great child friendly way to get children to be interested in sports. My gripe with this is when they brought Solid Snake into the roster. Again, when using the logic that can be said about Darth Vader, how could Solid Snake lose in a brawling competition when he's against a fat plumber and a blue hedgehog? Even ignoring the practicality of it, when he's standing next to characters like Kirby or Bowser he is aesthetically out of place.
Another point I can't seem to understand is when a none gaming entity is merged with a pure gaming company. A brilliant example of this is Mortal Kombat in it's later years, when they merged with the DC Universe, or when they included Freddy Kruger in their latest game (as a DLC character). My main complaints about this aren't particularly from a gameplay perspective - as who doesn't want to see a fight between Batman and Superman - but from a 'lore' perspective. Freddy Kruger has his own back story, and he exists in the dreams of people on Earth, similarly with the DC roster - they each have their cities, ethics and modus operandi; I just find it difficult to believe, and completely out of character, that Batman would choose to fight Superman or Sonya Blade knowing the Joker is on the loose, as well as Darkseid and the various murderers/villains form the Mortal Kombat universe..
When typing this I can think of bonus and secret characters, such as Fred Durst being present in an old WWE game, or gimmicky characters like Mokap being present in Mortal Kombat. I was not referring to these of tongue-in-cheek inclusions, as they seem to make sense as either in jokes or an acknowledgement to a person related to the franchise or someone who helped contribute in some way.
On arguing that two franchises mixing for the pure benefit of profit I do concede that the mix between Square-Enix and Disney completely disproved my skepticism when they made Kingdom Hearts, which is still one of my favorite franchises to date.
One series that seems to have included this a lot if Soul Calibur, as they have included; Spawn, Heihachi Mishima, Link, Kratos, Ezio, Starkiller, Darth Vader and Yoda. Forgive my skepticism, but in an arcade fighting game about an evil sword I cannot see any logical link to these characters despite their in game story descriptions. If Darth Vader truly wanted an evil sword, I'm sure with the help of the Empire, the Death Star, the Force and a light saber he could get what he wanted and not need to worry about Voldo knocking him out in a two out of three fighting competition.
Super Smash Brothers was an example I gave of where this mingling works, as Nintendo has a colourful roster of anthropomorphic characters and colourful child friendly settings - which is also the reason why I feel that Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games is a great child friendly way to get children to be interested in sports. My gripe with this is when they brought Solid Snake into the roster. Again, when using the logic that can be said about Darth Vader, how could Solid Snake lose in a brawling competition when he's against a fat plumber and a blue hedgehog? Even ignoring the practicality of it, when he's standing next to characters like Kirby or Bowser he is aesthetically out of place.
Another point I can't seem to understand is when a none gaming entity is merged with a pure gaming company. A brilliant example of this is Mortal Kombat in it's later years, when they merged with the DC Universe, or when they included Freddy Kruger in their latest game (as a DLC character). My main complaints about this aren't particularly from a gameplay perspective - as who doesn't want to see a fight between Batman and Superman - but from a 'lore' perspective. Freddy Kruger has his own back story, and he exists in the dreams of people on Earth, similarly with the DC roster - they each have their cities, ethics and modus operandi; I just find it difficult to believe, and completely out of character, that Batman would choose to fight Superman or Sonya Blade knowing the Joker is on the loose, as well as Darkseid and the various murderers/villains form the Mortal Kombat universe..
When typing this I can think of bonus and secret characters, such as Fred Durst being present in an old WWE game, or gimmicky characters like Mokap being present in Mortal Kombat. I was not referring to these of tongue-in-cheek inclusions, as they seem to make sense as either in jokes or an acknowledgement to a person related to the franchise or someone who helped contribute in some way.
On arguing that two franchises mixing for the pure benefit of profit I do concede that the mix between Square-Enix and Disney completely disproved my skepticism when they made Kingdom Hearts, which is still one of my favorite franchises to date.
Game Rant #1: Finding a New Game
Recently I have played a lot of World of Warcraft, raiding on a Resto Shaman, PVPing on a Frost Mage and just simply wasting time on an Arms Warrior. I have managed to sink a lot of time into gearing up, obtaining Thunderfury and attempting to make Sulfuras, but due to personal reasons I have decided it is best for me to simply stop playing.
Due to this decision I have attempted to find new games to play, either on my PC, Xbox, DS or PSP, and ultimately I've not found anything meaty enough to keep me interested in for too long. When deciding what to play I encounter the same problems that either make me stop playing a game, or stop me from starting to play the game.
The first main block that stops me from playing any games is that I have completed it. Back when I used to play games such as Final Fantasy (VII - XII) I could usually find some form of distraction in the late game that would mean i kept playing for months - in some cases years - after completing the main story. These were often self imposed goals, like killing super boss X in order to obtain item Y, or just generally attempting to create a perfect team at max level - despite already being unstoppable. I find that now there generally aren't any challenges like this, and games simply end when the final boss is killed.
When I've tried to play games like Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 I find that the solo player campaign is often too linear; for example getting killed at one checkpoint simply requires you to keep at it and you'll get past it soon enough without any change in approach or sense of accomplishment. This usually makes the campaign so unplayable because it is so repetitive and dull, or it means that after an initial completion you choose to not bother going through it again on harder difficulties as you're going to do exactly the same thing but just die a lot more.
Often with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield the main focus is on the multiplayer, and this can be a thoroughly fun and enjoyable experience, but the main issue with is is that in some matches it feels like all you do is log on to get killed. Most people may say that this is because I'm not good enough and I haven't played the game enough, but this becomes a moot argument if whenever I do attempt to play the multiplayer all I do is die. I would also like to add that I do often rank top of the loser team (which nine times out of ten is the team I'm on), and even when my team wins I tend to leave many lobbies as I simply do not enjoy myself.
Another unfortunate feature I've found is on long games that allow for hundreds of hours play time on a single save, such as Skyrim or Fallout, I hit a point where the game either becomes completely easy or impossibly unplayable. An example is on Skyrim I am around level 40 with full legendary Daedric Armour with perks that make my armour rating around 520-600+ (depending on if I wear a shield or not), and a lot of my level up points have contributed towards improving my health. However, an Elder Dragon, named Dauger or High Level Vampire is capable of killing me in one or two hits with magic and melee attacks, but when I face any other sort of enemy I can kill them with general ease and take barely any damage at all. This sort of lack of consistency makes me feel like the game is unplayable, or that it hinders and limits what I can or can't do in such an open ended game.
I also run into problems when trying to install my older games on my computer, such as Warcraft 3, Battle for Middle Earth and Command & Conquer Generations as despite successfully installing the games and running compatibility mode they refuse to play for one reason or another. Though there may be ways to get them working it seems so disheartening that in order to play games I know I enjoy I have to go through such long winded procedures. I encountered a similar problem when my Playstation 3 died thanks to it's third Yellow Light of Death - and with a £120 fee every time I want to play Final Fantasy VII/VIII/IX it seems logical to simply buy another Playstation or Playstation 2 with a memory card rather than replace my Playstation 3.
I don't know whether these difficulties I face are a sign that I am getting older and grumpier than I think of myself as being, or if perhaps the quality of games is decreasing or adjusting to a newer generation of gamers who need easier and more accessible games to play. Sadly I feel it may be the latter as even World of Warcraft - a game that's been around for seven years - feels much easier and less challenging that it was when I started playing and raiding.
Due to this decision I have attempted to find new games to play, either on my PC, Xbox, DS or PSP, and ultimately I've not found anything meaty enough to keep me interested in for too long. When deciding what to play I encounter the same problems that either make me stop playing a game, or stop me from starting to play the game.
The first main block that stops me from playing any games is that I have completed it. Back when I used to play games such as Final Fantasy (VII - XII) I could usually find some form of distraction in the late game that would mean i kept playing for months - in some cases years - after completing the main story. These were often self imposed goals, like killing super boss X in order to obtain item Y, or just generally attempting to create a perfect team at max level - despite already being unstoppable. I find that now there generally aren't any challenges like this, and games simply end when the final boss is killed.
When I've tried to play games like Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 I find that the solo player campaign is often too linear; for example getting killed at one checkpoint simply requires you to keep at it and you'll get past it soon enough without any change in approach or sense of accomplishment. This usually makes the campaign so unplayable because it is so repetitive and dull, or it means that after an initial completion you choose to not bother going through it again on harder difficulties as you're going to do exactly the same thing but just die a lot more.
Often with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield the main focus is on the multiplayer, and this can be a thoroughly fun and enjoyable experience, but the main issue with is is that in some matches it feels like all you do is log on to get killed. Most people may say that this is because I'm not good enough and I haven't played the game enough, but this becomes a moot argument if whenever I do attempt to play the multiplayer all I do is die. I would also like to add that I do often rank top of the loser team (which nine times out of ten is the team I'm on), and even when my team wins I tend to leave many lobbies as I simply do not enjoy myself.
Another unfortunate feature I've found is on long games that allow for hundreds of hours play time on a single save, such as Skyrim or Fallout, I hit a point where the game either becomes completely easy or impossibly unplayable. An example is on Skyrim I am around level 40 with full legendary Daedric Armour with perks that make my armour rating around 520-600+ (depending on if I wear a shield or not), and a lot of my level up points have contributed towards improving my health. However, an Elder Dragon, named Dauger or High Level Vampire is capable of killing me in one or two hits with magic and melee attacks, but when I face any other sort of enemy I can kill them with general ease and take barely any damage at all. This sort of lack of consistency makes me feel like the game is unplayable, or that it hinders and limits what I can or can't do in such an open ended game.
I also run into problems when trying to install my older games on my computer, such as Warcraft 3, Battle for Middle Earth and Command & Conquer Generations as despite successfully installing the games and running compatibility mode they refuse to play for one reason or another. Though there may be ways to get them working it seems so disheartening that in order to play games I know I enjoy I have to go through such long winded procedures. I encountered a similar problem when my Playstation 3 died thanks to it's third Yellow Light of Death - and with a £120 fee every time I want to play Final Fantasy VII/VIII/IX it seems logical to simply buy another Playstation or Playstation 2 with a memory card rather than replace my Playstation 3.
I don't know whether these difficulties I face are a sign that I am getting older and grumpier than I think of myself as being, or if perhaps the quality of games is decreasing or adjusting to a newer generation of gamers who need easier and more accessible games to play. Sadly I feel it may be the latter as even World of Warcraft - a game that's been around for seven years - feels much easier and less challenging that it was when I started playing and raiding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)