First things first. I've never been a "music person." Since I've put it in quotes, I suppose I should explain the term. In my mind, a music person is someone who cares deeply about music. They may or may not be a musician themselves, but they care deeply about music. This doesn't necessarily mean that they listen to it more than other people, but it does mean that they follow it more intently. They probably started going to concerts when they were fairly young, and they're constantly on the lookout for new music. They may have a specific genre they prefer, or they might listen to at least some artists in a wide range. Sadly, they're often incredibly elitist about all of this, and mainly seem interested in finding artists that next to no one listens to.
So that's not me. I may be a food snob, and I'm turning into a wine snob, but I've never been, and probably never will be a music snob. Still, that doesn't mean I don't listen to it, or have good taste in it. It just means it's a background impulse.
Still, when I was younger, I actively sought out new music, or at least music that was new to me. In my high school and college years especially, my tastes broadened quite a bit. However, in the time since, I've felt like I've hit the Music Wall. In short, I've stopped adding to my musical collection. Oh sure, I might pick up a new CD from an artist I like, and every now and then I'll listen to someone new, but that rate has slowed way down.
I think the biggest reason is that with the current technology, all of my music is incredibly accessible. Right now, as I sit at my computer writing this post, I have access to thousands of songs. While I obviously listen to some more than others, it's hard to imagine running out.
Another reason might be a natural product of getting older: since much new music is geared at the people who care the most about music (younger people), it's naturally going to pass over my head. Or under my feet, really.
Still, I think this is an interesting process. People don't stop watching new movies, or reading new books, but at some point in their life, most of them stop listening to new music. Perhaps music grounds us in a time of life more than those other forms. I know that for the rest of my life, "Basket Case" by Green Day will always make me feel like a 4th-grader, and reading Disclosure by Michael Crichton and not knowing what the word "cock-sucker" meant. Is that a feeling I want all the time? No, but it's a feeling that no new song (certainly no new Green Day song) could give me.
It could have been worse. Certain other authors on this blog hit the Music Wall years ago, much to my chagrin. Has this happened to you?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Suddenly It Makes Sense
I’ve been trying to describe why the last forty five minutes of The Dark Knight didn’t do it for me and getting thoroughly mixed reactions. Some, like the blogmaster here, agree wholeheartedly. Others fervently disagree. I meanwhile have been attempting to reconcile how a movie that was so incredible in the first hour and forty five minutes could collapse so quickly in a relatively short period of time.
To my surprise, the answer came from an unlikely source.
“An Associated Press critic called "The Dark Knight," a movie of recycled comic-book clichés, "an epic that will leave you staggering." The Arizona Daily Star compared the film favorably to Michelangelo's "David." “
That is from Greg Easterbrook, (italics are mine) better known as ESPN.com’s Tuesday Morning QB. Now, I don’t agree with what that comment probably meant, which was as a description of the whole movie, nor do I like that Easterbrook might be becoming the long winded, penned version of Skip Bayless’ “Professional Hater”. However his comment turned on the light bulb for me.
Why was the first two thirds of The Dark Knight so damn good? Because it wasn’t a comic book cliché. Sure, it had moments, like the high tech kidnapping from Hong Kong. But overall the tone, subject matter and storyline were compelling. It wasn’t your typical fluffy comic tale. It asked questions, gave you moral ambiguity and seemed to be heading towards a climatic, natural conclusion.
Then the final forty five minutes flipped all of that on its head by turning it into… a comic book movie.
The scenarios presented become a cliché, melodramatic clap trap. Harvey Dent’s character goes from interesting to bland and one dimensional, as most comic book movie villains end up. His rationale for his behavior seems to change more frequently than he can flip his coin, which ironically enough doesn’t jive with the character as it was created.
The Joker continues to be his usual psycho self, but he creates such a ridiculous scheme that it’s hard to take the character seriously. What made the Joker menacing in the first part of the movie was how he was over the top psychotic killer going about it in a low key way. In other words, he made select, high profile and telling displays of power and chaos that affected few people personally but created a mass effect of fear. Killing the commissioner, judge and then destroying the lives of Rachel Dawes and Dent made him menacing just because on that level he could inspire a realistic fear. By attacking those specific, protected people, no one was safe. Thus chaos ensued.
But then the prisoner’s dilemma is straight comic movie junk. “Oh no! Now he’s going to put hundreds of people in danger! Ooooh! BAD!!! That makes him sooo evil.”
Um no. It makes him cartoon-ish. And the resolution, no offense to anyone who liked it, was insulting to my intelligence. If you really want to believe human beings, who have been shown willing to do all sorts of unsavory things to one another for lesser things than their own lives, would not blow up a boat of nameless, faceless, convicts to save their skins, you can. Here in the real world, we’ll shake our head and lose a bit of respect for what the movie was trying to accomplish.
It sounds overly negative, but in the end I have no choice but to lose respect. The Dark Knight was living up to its name; a deep and interesting look at a very depressing situation without a clear right answer. It could have continued down that path (or ended after Dent became Two-Face) and followed events to their logical conclusion. Can you imagine if someone on the ship pressed the button only to have their OWN ship blow up? Immensely depressing, but it would have been incredible as a cruel, sick and twisted joke. Not like they had a villain who would be into that sort of thing.
But instead the movie whores itself out to the cliché that good must always win out in the end. People will always rise above the temptation of evil, the bad guy will always come up short and even if the world doesn’t know it, the hero is always watching over them.
In the end it feels like an insult to the first part of the movie, which did it’s best to set up an impossible situation for Batman, only to have him come out relatively unscathed. Sure he lost Rachel, but she was ditching him anyway. (He actually ends up with a better memory of her than if she had lived, in an ironic twist) Dent’s “dead” but Bruce only thinks something of him in the first place because he believes if he lets Dent become the legal Batman, he can get Rachel back. The Bruce Wayne that has been established in these movies WANTS to be Batman. He doesn’t want to be Bruce Wayne and since Rachel was never going to be with him anyway, the only reason he had for changing is gone. So losing Rachel and Dent mean little to him, no matter what BS the movie claims in the end. That Batman is a fugitive also means nothing, since he goes where the law doesn’t anyway. Besides if the mob can’t take him down with their resources, will some BS effort from Commissioner Gordon actually be a concern? Not to mention he couldn’t exactly walk the streets of Gotham in mid day before, so what does it change?
I once told everyone who would listen the first Spider-Man movie could have been the movie of the year had they actually had the balls to do a true rendition of The Night Gwen Stacy Died/The Green Goblin’s Last Stand arc. Those two comics are widely considered to have ushered in the modern age of comics we know today precisely because they broke trend. Comic books always put the hero in that aforementioned impossible situation that he, and occasionally she, managed to find his way out of.
The Night Gwen Stacy Died changed that. The comic book resolution didn’t happen. Peter Parker didn’t save his girlfriend. The Green Goblin’s death in the next issue is almost anticlimactic, as Parker notes himself. The reader is left shocked because that’s not what they are accustomed to. It was built up as a comic like no other and ended that way. We know Peter Parker’s world will never be the same again and in fairness, that is the second most important moment in the Spider-Man mythos.
The Dark Knight stood on the threshold of doing that with the comic movie. It could have made the comic movie something more; it could have turned it into a serious medium taking complex and difficult concepts and given us a real world answer. In other words, the imperfect answer. Batman could have lost Rachel (without her having leaving a note saying it was essentially moot), he could have had to deal with a psychotic mirror of himself in Two-Face. He could have had to actually sacrifice something to defeat the Joker, or see the Joker proven right about basic human nature.
Instead, the movie took a look over the edge and retreated. It ran back to comfortable confides of the comic book realm. Don’t like the shitty, unrealistic resolution of the prisoner’s dilemma? “You’re just are a naysayer who doesn’t have hope! I mean that is what they were trying to show, right?” (Forget the fact that the prisoner’s dilemma itself states you BLOW UP THE OTHER BOAT!!!) Dent become an idiot without any depth at the end? “Dude, lighten up, it’s a comic book movie.”
Sadly that wasn’t how it began. But that’s how it ended; along with any chance it would be considered one of the best movies I ever saw.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Roommate Search: What Not To Do
So over the last few weeks I've been busy looking for a new roommate. My current one is moving back home at the end of the month, and rather than give up my awesome and almost comically under-priced apartment, I've decided to use the strange and mighty powers of CraigsList to find a new roomie. While I think I'm narrowing in on a good potential candidate or two, I wanted to share a bit of the wisdom I've gleaned from the process so far. Here's my advice to anyone searching CL hoping to find a room for rent.
-Read the ad. Closely. My ad wasn't exactly Homer's Odyssey, but I was amazed to see how many responses I received from people who clearly hadn't read more than the headline. If you ask basic questions that were answered in the text of the ad, I'm going to wonder about your basic mental health, and that's a bad sign right there. When I say pets aren't allowed, I don't care how awesome your dog is, I can't make the landlords change their policy, but I can make sure that I ignore your e-mail.
-Make sure you fit the general criteria. No, I wasn't too specific (intentionally), but when I say that I'm 24, and say I'm looking for someone in my age range, don't be 40. That's just silly. Similarly, don't have a kid. I know I can't actually put that in an ad, but what kind of parent wants to move into a two bedroom apartment with a stranger, when all they'll have is a single bedroom. Also, how desperate would I have to be to take on that kind of roommate?
-Respond to the ad with some semblance of competence. If you followed the first point, you would have noticed that my ad was free of spelling and grammar mistakes. This probably means that a response along the lines of "hey dood i saw ur ad & wz thinking id be a kewl rommate k let me no" will probably not pique my interest much. No, you don't have to be the world's greatest writer, but since most web browsers now have a built-in spell-check, shit like that is just inexcusable anywhere but your friend's MySpace page.
-Say something like: check out my Facebook/MySpace page, without realizing that you have your profile set to private (something that I encourage in general). It just makes you seem stupid. Say a few things about yourself...remember, I'm going to be sorting through quite a few responses, so you have to give me some reason to even spend the time corresponding with you.
-Respond to e-mails fairly promptly. Ok, so maybe you don't spend your day in front of the computer (I don't). But more than a day or so passes, and you haven't responded to my e-mail? You better have a really good reason, or I'm assuming you have negligible social skills. If you're not interested in the room, or found some place else, have the decency to say so.
-Show up to an appointment on-time. Much as I love showing off my apartment, there are plenty of other things I can do when I'm not at work, many of which involve beer. If you're going to be late, please call.
-Along those lines: if you are lost, call. I know my apartment is hard to find...I got badly lost when I first went to see it. I also know the neighborhood fairly well, and can direct you if you get lost. What doesn't work, however, is saying that you're going to be over at 1, calling at 1:30 saying you're almost there, and then showing up after 2, just in time to say you were really badly lost. Yes, you lost out on the apartment alright.
-Allow yourself enough time to actually see the apartment and then meet me. No, a cursory look at the apartment is not enough time to judge if you want to live here. Additionally, considering we exchanged maybe 100 words, I'm not really confident that you'd be a good fit. If you only spend three minutes in the apartment, don't act surprised when I tell you I don't think it will work.
-Ask basic questions ahead of time. If having a washer and dryer in the unit is a deal-breaker for you, ask me ahead of time if I have one. That way, you don't waste my time when you show up, spend 30 seconds looking around, ask, and then leave. Seriously, we exchanged e-mails, you even asked me several other questions...did this one just slip your mind?
-Come prepared with a question or two. Yes, my ad was fairly descriptive, and once you got here I said plenty more, but there are always things I forget to cover. If you ask a question or two, it makes me feel like you're paying attention, and actually care about your future living situation.
-Similarly, be prepared to have a conversation. Just like you have to decide if you like the apartment, I have to decide if I want to live with you. Even if we don't have to be best buddies, I still would like to be able to engage in the occasional conversation with the other human sharing the space. Even if you are socially retarded, at least try. Also, don't have a really creepy laugh. This is more of a general social thing, but it applies in this specific situation as well.
-Don't be surprised that I'm going to ask for a deposit. If I stop searching, and then you decide you'd rather move to Mozambique, I'd really prefer to not be left holding the bag. If paying first and last month's rent, plus half of the security deposit is a big surprise to you, you probably don't have much rental experience.
-Don't ask if you can spend a night here before you decide. First, the apartment is not haunted, so it's not like you have to worry about ghosts. Second, this isn't a hotel. If you're just moving to town, I'm sorry, but you can't just "crash" here.
-Generally, don't be a dick. That sort of shit might have been really popular with your date-raping frat buddies, but I'm an actual grown-up human, so I'm more likely to call the cops when you tell me that you might be bringing home some nearly-comatose bar skank.
So just keep that in mind, and I can still reject you because you're not as hot as one of the other applicants...
-Read the ad. Closely. My ad wasn't exactly Homer's Odyssey, but I was amazed to see how many responses I received from people who clearly hadn't read more than the headline. If you ask basic questions that were answered in the text of the ad, I'm going to wonder about your basic mental health, and that's a bad sign right there. When I say pets aren't allowed, I don't care how awesome your dog is, I can't make the landlords change their policy, but I can make sure that I ignore your e-mail.
-Make sure you fit the general criteria. No, I wasn't too specific (intentionally), but when I say that I'm 24, and say I'm looking for someone in my age range, don't be 40. That's just silly. Similarly, don't have a kid. I know I can't actually put that in an ad, but what kind of parent wants to move into a two bedroom apartment with a stranger, when all they'll have is a single bedroom. Also, how desperate would I have to be to take on that kind of roommate?
-Respond to the ad with some semblance of competence. If you followed the first point, you would have noticed that my ad was free of spelling and grammar mistakes. This probably means that a response along the lines of "hey dood i saw ur ad & wz thinking id be a kewl rommate k let me no" will probably not pique my interest much. No, you don't have to be the world's greatest writer, but since most web browsers now have a built-in spell-check, shit like that is just inexcusable anywhere but your friend's MySpace page.
-Say something like: check out my Facebook/MySpace page, without realizing that you have your profile set to private (something that I encourage in general). It just makes you seem stupid. Say a few things about yourself...remember, I'm going to be sorting through quite a few responses, so you have to give me some reason to even spend the time corresponding with you.
-Respond to e-mails fairly promptly. Ok, so maybe you don't spend your day in front of the computer (I don't). But more than a day or so passes, and you haven't responded to my e-mail? You better have a really good reason, or I'm assuming you have negligible social skills. If you're not interested in the room, or found some place else, have the decency to say so.
-Show up to an appointment on-time. Much as I love showing off my apartment, there are plenty of other things I can do when I'm not at work, many of which involve beer. If you're going to be late, please call.
-Along those lines: if you are lost, call. I know my apartment is hard to find...I got badly lost when I first went to see it. I also know the neighborhood fairly well, and can direct you if you get lost. What doesn't work, however, is saying that you're going to be over at 1, calling at 1:30 saying you're almost there, and then showing up after 2, just in time to say you were really badly lost. Yes, you lost out on the apartment alright.
-Allow yourself enough time to actually see the apartment and then meet me. No, a cursory look at the apartment is not enough time to judge if you want to live here. Additionally, considering we exchanged maybe 100 words, I'm not really confident that you'd be a good fit. If you only spend three minutes in the apartment, don't act surprised when I tell you I don't think it will work.
-Ask basic questions ahead of time. If having a washer and dryer in the unit is a deal-breaker for you, ask me ahead of time if I have one. That way, you don't waste my time when you show up, spend 30 seconds looking around, ask, and then leave. Seriously, we exchanged e-mails, you even asked me several other questions...did this one just slip your mind?
-Come prepared with a question or two. Yes, my ad was fairly descriptive, and once you got here I said plenty more, but there are always things I forget to cover. If you ask a question or two, it makes me feel like you're paying attention, and actually care about your future living situation.
-Similarly, be prepared to have a conversation. Just like you have to decide if you like the apartment, I have to decide if I want to live with you. Even if we don't have to be best buddies, I still would like to be able to engage in the occasional conversation with the other human sharing the space. Even if you are socially retarded, at least try. Also, don't have a really creepy laugh. This is more of a general social thing, but it applies in this specific situation as well.
-Don't be surprised that I'm going to ask for a deposit. If I stop searching, and then you decide you'd rather move to Mozambique, I'd really prefer to not be left holding the bag. If paying first and last month's rent, plus half of the security deposit is a big surprise to you, you probably don't have much rental experience.
-Don't ask if you can spend a night here before you decide. First, the apartment is not haunted, so it's not like you have to worry about ghosts. Second, this isn't a hotel. If you're just moving to town, I'm sorry, but you can't just "crash" here.
-Generally, don't be a dick. That sort of shit might have been really popular with your date-raping frat buddies, but I'm an actual grown-up human, so I'm more likely to call the cops when you tell me that you might be bringing home some nearly-comatose bar skank.
So just keep that in mind, and I can still reject you because you're not as hot as one of the other applicants...
Saturday, August 9, 2008
GTA 4: Why It's Not Working For Me
So one of the primary reasons I bought a current-gen console was to be able to play Grand Theft Auto 4. I've been a big fan of the GTA series since back in the top-down days on the original PlayStation, and the transition to third-person has worked for me in GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas. I figured that GTA 4 would be another enjoyable installment in that series, and among the first things I did once I hooked up the 360.
Wrong. I've had it for two months, and have maybe logged two hours of gameplay. It's not as if there's anything major wrong with the game, but there are several aspects of the game that I just can't seem to get past.
First, the return to Liberty City is really strange. I know that Liberty City in the series has always been a surrogate for New York City, but the fact that the city is entirely different than the Liberty City in GTA 3 is really disorienting. Or at least, it would be if I'd managed to explore most of the game. Unfortunately, getting into a car and driving has been nothing but an annoyance.
One of my favorite parts of the GTA series has always been how easy it is to drive. Sure, it's utterly unrealistic, but so is just about every other aspect of the GTA experience. You just had to hold down the gas button, occasionally brake around turns, and worry about shaking cops or spraying pedestrians with gunfire. However, this version of GTA does away with all of that in favor of a more realistic style. No longer can you go barreling down the road at 100 miles per hour and pull of a ridiculous 90-degree turn, evading the cops while maybe mowing down a few innocent bystanders. Instead, turns at anything above ten or so miles per hour require judicious and skilled use of the handbrake, and still often result in a wild fishtail.
Look, if I wanted Gran Tourismo, I would have bought it. By making driving so difficult, I have to focus so hard on that aspect of it that I can't even bother to plan the best escape route when I do draw the heat. I do appreciate that it's now possible to escape from the police by outrunning them, but as mentioned this becomes really difficult when any time you get above 30 mph you're liable to run into another car, or a tree, or who knows what. It really kills the visceral thrill I got in early GTA games, and that's a damn shame because it's what set those games apart from so many others (well that and being able to murder hundreds of hookers).
The storyline is supposed to be great, but so far it feels like a pretty generic story: Eastern European immigrant washes up in New York, falls in with bad company. Of course, the inevitable betrayal must be down the road, since it's a GTA staple (though at least in GTA 3 it has the decency to happen at the very beginning of the game).
Furthermore, the social interactions feel pointless. I enjoy bowling, or darts, or pool, as real life activities, but in video game form they're bad enough when it's a game designed around that one event. As a tacked-on feature in a much larger game, they're horribly unrealistic, and not in a fun way. Darts was so easy that I've given it up, while bowling and pool are just repetitive. I understand the idea behind the features, but if you can't make them fun, take them out.
In the end, it feels like Rockstar got caught in a lose-lose situation. One the one hand, you had people expecting more than just upgraded graphics for the next numbered version of the game. On the other hand, you have an incredibly well-established gameplay style that you risk ruining if you stray too far. I, for one, would have been fine with basically the same game with just a few tweaks (plus better graphics and a more involved storyline), but instead they broke one of the core elements of the game. Hell, if you want to up the difficulty curve of the driving, at least allow people like me to turn off the new style if we want.
I'm sure I'll pick the game up again at some point, and eventually it will probably suck me in enough for me to beat it. But no game that was so hyped, and so poised for success, should require four tries to grab my attention. When I start replaying old XBox games for the third or fourth time just to avoid GTA 4, that's about as big an indictment of the game as I can muster.
Wrong. I've had it for two months, and have maybe logged two hours of gameplay. It's not as if there's anything major wrong with the game, but there are several aspects of the game that I just can't seem to get past.
First, the return to Liberty City is really strange. I know that Liberty City in the series has always been a surrogate for New York City, but the fact that the city is entirely different than the Liberty City in GTA 3 is really disorienting. Or at least, it would be if I'd managed to explore most of the game. Unfortunately, getting into a car and driving has been nothing but an annoyance.
One of my favorite parts of the GTA series has always been how easy it is to drive. Sure, it's utterly unrealistic, but so is just about every other aspect of the GTA experience. You just had to hold down the gas button, occasionally brake around turns, and worry about shaking cops or spraying pedestrians with gunfire. However, this version of GTA does away with all of that in favor of a more realistic style. No longer can you go barreling down the road at 100 miles per hour and pull of a ridiculous 90-degree turn, evading the cops while maybe mowing down a few innocent bystanders. Instead, turns at anything above ten or so miles per hour require judicious and skilled use of the handbrake, and still often result in a wild fishtail.
Look, if I wanted Gran Tourismo, I would have bought it. By making driving so difficult, I have to focus so hard on that aspect of it that I can't even bother to plan the best escape route when I do draw the heat. I do appreciate that it's now possible to escape from the police by outrunning them, but as mentioned this becomes really difficult when any time you get above 30 mph you're liable to run into another car, or a tree, or who knows what. It really kills the visceral thrill I got in early GTA games, and that's a damn shame because it's what set those games apart from so many others (well that and being able to murder hundreds of hookers).
The storyline is supposed to be great, but so far it feels like a pretty generic story: Eastern European immigrant washes up in New York, falls in with bad company. Of course, the inevitable betrayal must be down the road, since it's a GTA staple (though at least in GTA 3 it has the decency to happen at the very beginning of the game).
Furthermore, the social interactions feel pointless. I enjoy bowling, or darts, or pool, as real life activities, but in video game form they're bad enough when it's a game designed around that one event. As a tacked-on feature in a much larger game, they're horribly unrealistic, and not in a fun way. Darts was so easy that I've given it up, while bowling and pool are just repetitive. I understand the idea behind the features, but if you can't make them fun, take them out.
In the end, it feels like Rockstar got caught in a lose-lose situation. One the one hand, you had people expecting more than just upgraded graphics for the next numbered version of the game. On the other hand, you have an incredibly well-established gameplay style that you risk ruining if you stray too far. I, for one, would have been fine with basically the same game with just a few tweaks (plus better graphics and a more involved storyline), but instead they broke one of the core elements of the game. Hell, if you want to up the difficulty curve of the driving, at least allow people like me to turn off the new style if we want.
I'm sure I'll pick the game up again at some point, and eventually it will probably suck me in enough for me to beat it. But no game that was so hyped, and so poised for success, should require four tries to grab my attention. When I start replaying old XBox games for the third or fourth time just to avoid GTA 4, that's about as big an indictment of the game as I can muster.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
How Much Better Is Good Enough?
So this post is going to be little more than a thought exercise. With the recent release of a massively buggy NCAA Football 09 and the impending release of Madden 09, I'm fully ready to once again not buy a football game, despite being a serious football and video game fan.
Years ago, I bought Madden 04. That fact alone made my room the hub for many nights of college fun. That was the first version of Madden I'd owned in years (since the late 90s), and while it certainly gave me plenty of good times, it also featured a slew of design problems that astonishingly still plague the game five years later: spastic offensive line play, shoddy defensive backs, money plays, and who knows how many others.
None of this will stop EA from selling millions of copies: this is precisely the reason that none of those legacy issues will be fixed any time soon. If there's no financial pressure to improve the product (other than updating rosters and tweaking graphics and gameplay), why bother? With EA having the exclusive rights to the NFL for the next few years, little hope exists.
While no one appears likely to attempt to compete with Madden (or NCAA), I'm curious what it would take to draw a significant percentage of Madden's fanbase away. Obviously, not having the rights to real teams or players is a pretty big obstacle to overcome, so the gameplay would have to be substantially better to lure gamers.
I can think of a few features that would sell me on another football game: superior gameplay, superior dynasty options, superior online play, and totally customizable rosters.
Let's explore these. As mentioned above, Madden's gameplay has basically remained unchanged in at least five years. While some of the most egregious exploits have been hampered (like taking your defensive linemen really wide pre-snap), it's still way too easy to break the game on both sides of the ball. However, my real beef with the Madden series is the horrifically simplified strategy.
Professional football is an incredibly complicated sport, and a world of almost constant innovation. Sadly, Madden always seems to lag behind the curve when it comes to allowing users to harness their creativity. Yes, there are more pre-snap options than ever before, but the play creator is still primitive. Our hypothetical game would allow you to utilize every formation that's ever been attempted in the NFL (and some that haven't), from the Wing T to the A11.
It goes without saying that we'd also get rid of all the flaws I mentioned above: linemen would intelligently react to their surroundings, double-teaming elite defensive linemen (something that you could also control), picking the right player out when lead blocking, and behaving realistically on screens and draws.
Receivers would be rated (among many other things) on their route-running ability, meaning that sloppy route runners would have a harder time getting open. This would also allow possession receivers to achieve their proper level of importance.
Most of all, speed wouldn't be paramount. Madden 04 illustrated this most of all: Michael Vick was so good that we banned the Falcons from play on my game. While speed is obviously important in the NFL, it's not the only thing that matters. You'd be excused for thinking so if you only played Madden however. Fast receivers get deep, fast backs break long runs, and fast quarterbacks unbalance the game almost comically.
Beyond gameplay, however, there are other ways to improve on the Madden experience. While the Dynasty mode has improved over time, it still doesn't accurately reflect what it takes to run a franchise. The game doesn't include all of the things that can happen to your players and teams, like steroid suspensions, arrests, and even deaths. This is largely because the NFL and NFLPA wouldn't allow such things, but as I said before, our game doesn't have those licenses anyhow, so why worry about what those leagues think?
Madden's online play also remains laughably behind the times. While NCAA just introduced online dynasties this year, Madden basically just allows you to play with your friends. While this is better than nothing, it's almost comically limited. Anything you could do in single player, you can do with as many people as there are teams in my game. Speaking of which, you can create leagues of a wide array of sizes: smaller leagues will concentrate talent more, but also limit the funds that are available to the league as a whole...oh yes, that's another feature. You'll have to worry about the overall health of the league, from negotiating media contracts to making decisions about franchise movement or expansion. You can even start a league in the past and grow it over time. If you keep your league too small, a rival league might even start stealing players away.
Finally, because of course people will want to play with real teams and real players, rosters, teams, and logos will be totally customizable. You could even download them off of XBox Live (or whatever), so when someone creates all the real logos and teams, you can help yourself to their work.
Look, unseating Madden is an almost-impossible proposition, and there's little reason for another company to undertake it: the risks greatly outweigh the rewards. Still, as a football and video game fan, you can't blame me for dreaming...
Years ago, I bought Madden 04. That fact alone made my room the hub for many nights of college fun. That was the first version of Madden I'd owned in years (since the late 90s), and while it certainly gave me plenty of good times, it also featured a slew of design problems that astonishingly still plague the game five years later: spastic offensive line play, shoddy defensive backs, money plays, and who knows how many others.
None of this will stop EA from selling millions of copies: this is precisely the reason that none of those legacy issues will be fixed any time soon. If there's no financial pressure to improve the product (other than updating rosters and tweaking graphics and gameplay), why bother? With EA having the exclusive rights to the NFL for the next few years, little hope exists.
While no one appears likely to attempt to compete with Madden (or NCAA), I'm curious what it would take to draw a significant percentage of Madden's fanbase away. Obviously, not having the rights to real teams or players is a pretty big obstacle to overcome, so the gameplay would have to be substantially better to lure gamers.
I can think of a few features that would sell me on another football game: superior gameplay, superior dynasty options, superior online play, and totally customizable rosters.
Let's explore these. As mentioned above, Madden's gameplay has basically remained unchanged in at least five years. While some of the most egregious exploits have been hampered (like taking your defensive linemen really wide pre-snap), it's still way too easy to break the game on both sides of the ball. However, my real beef with the Madden series is the horrifically simplified strategy.
Professional football is an incredibly complicated sport, and a world of almost constant innovation. Sadly, Madden always seems to lag behind the curve when it comes to allowing users to harness their creativity. Yes, there are more pre-snap options than ever before, but the play creator is still primitive. Our hypothetical game would allow you to utilize every formation that's ever been attempted in the NFL (and some that haven't), from the Wing T to the A11.
It goes without saying that we'd also get rid of all the flaws I mentioned above: linemen would intelligently react to their surroundings, double-teaming elite defensive linemen (something that you could also control), picking the right player out when lead blocking, and behaving realistically on screens and draws.
Receivers would be rated (among many other things) on their route-running ability, meaning that sloppy route runners would have a harder time getting open. This would also allow possession receivers to achieve their proper level of importance.
Most of all, speed wouldn't be paramount. Madden 04 illustrated this most of all: Michael Vick was so good that we banned the Falcons from play on my game. While speed is obviously important in the NFL, it's not the only thing that matters. You'd be excused for thinking so if you only played Madden however. Fast receivers get deep, fast backs break long runs, and fast quarterbacks unbalance the game almost comically.
Beyond gameplay, however, there are other ways to improve on the Madden experience. While the Dynasty mode has improved over time, it still doesn't accurately reflect what it takes to run a franchise. The game doesn't include all of the things that can happen to your players and teams, like steroid suspensions, arrests, and even deaths. This is largely because the NFL and NFLPA wouldn't allow such things, but as I said before, our game doesn't have those licenses anyhow, so why worry about what those leagues think?
Madden's online play also remains laughably behind the times. While NCAA just introduced online dynasties this year, Madden basically just allows you to play with your friends. While this is better than nothing, it's almost comically limited. Anything you could do in single player, you can do with as many people as there are teams in my game. Speaking of which, you can create leagues of a wide array of sizes: smaller leagues will concentrate talent more, but also limit the funds that are available to the league as a whole...oh yes, that's another feature. You'll have to worry about the overall health of the league, from negotiating media contracts to making decisions about franchise movement or expansion. You can even start a league in the past and grow it over time. If you keep your league too small, a rival league might even start stealing players away.
Finally, because of course people will want to play with real teams and real players, rosters, teams, and logos will be totally customizable. You could even download them off of XBox Live (or whatever), so when someone creates all the real logos and teams, you can help yourself to their work.
Look, unseating Madden is an almost-impossible proposition, and there's little reason for another company to undertake it: the risks greatly outweigh the rewards. Still, as a football and video game fan, you can't blame me for dreaming...
Going Gently Into That Good Knight - Procede With Caution
No, this is not another Dark Knight post, though I was tempted to follow up with critiques of my own. But seeing as the prior post covered most of my issues with a fabulous movie gone awry, I’ll move on to another Knight that’s near and dear to my heart. More specifically Knights, as in the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series.
There are generally few things I am fanboy-ish about these days. You could potentially argue Spider-Man, but it’s hard when I haven’t purchased a current Spider-Man comic in 3 years. I like Final Fantasy, but I still haven’t beaten XII.
The one clear exception is Star Wars. I haven’t fallen so far as to put on robes and swing around a plastic lightsaber, but I read some of the comics and frequently discuss the movies. I’m counting down until the Force is Unleashed.
If there is any section of the Star Wars universe I have to put my fanboy hat on for, it’s the Knights of the Old Republic series. I played the first game while a senior in college, played the second game soon after and was hooked for life. I have replayed those two games more than any other RPG with the possible exception of ChronoTrigger, surpassing even my Final Fantasy VII fetish. Currently I’m waiting with bated breath for the Sith Lords Restoration project to finish so I can play the sequel as it was intended, while waiting until the next Knights of the Old Republic comic issue is released.
So naturally when I heard rumors of a BioWare/LucasArts collaboration, I started to get excited. Could my beloved Knights series be returning for a long-awaited third installment? The answer was no; instead it was going to be a MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game for those who don’t speak dork). That whooshing sound you just heard was the air rushing out of my balloon.
Now I know what you’re saying; if you love Knights so much how can you not be excited? Fanboys take anything, right? It may not be a true sequel, but it’s still a Knights game. And given the large fan base, this game could be an immense success.
All true in theory; but then to quote Homer Simpson: “In theory communism works, in theory.”
The problem that many people seem to miss is that MMORPG does not equal "single player RPG experience with more people." Actually I take that back; MMORPG does not equal standard American RPGs. The trademark of the MMORPG is the level grind; you have to wander around doing middling tasks for small experience bonuses in order to build your character into something worthwhile. This is something that can often be found in Japanese single player RPGs but less so in Western ones. And if you played one of the three more recent BioWare big ones, Knights, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, grind was never something that should have entered your mind. It’s a good place to start on why I’m fearful of this adventure into the online world and much better sounding than “I have to play this game with people” who generally tend to be MOA: Massive Online Assholes.
Grind is essential to MMORPGs. It's what keeps you coming back for more. It can take different forms; the basic killing of things in games like World of Warcraft, or working for cash in something like Second Life. Whatever form it takes, all MMORPGs have it and it is slow, arduous work. But part of what makes Knights and other Bioware games fun was that it was possible to become strong without grinding. Sure there were still leveling tricks you could use, but in the end it wasn’t necessary. Level smart and you’d kick ass.
But if the grind is necessary, you run the risk of taking the game away from what makes it popular. That can be fine, change isn’t always bad after all, but if you lose what makes the game fun in the process, the game sucks.
For example, the Sims and the Sims 2 have been two of the best selling PC games of all time. Yet, Sims Online was a failure (in fact EA just shut it down August 1st). This seems impossible; it has the elements that Second Life would incorporate and turn into a success. Ultimately, the problem with the game however was that people who played The Sims found an inferior experience to the one they had with their single player game. The most important element that makes The Sims fun was removed for the online version: control. The Sims games give you ultimate control over everything in your sims’ existence. In the Sims Online you had to get a job, interact and function in a Sims world with people other than yourself. If I wanted that, I could walk outside anytime for free. In essence, you were paying 20 bucks a month to play a limited version of real life! So after a few months, most people said no thanks.
A Knights RPG likely wouldn’t be doomed to the same failure because the Star Wars fan base is more diehard than the Sims one, which features many “casual gamers." Plus, I can't levitate things with my mind in real life (yet). However I can see one very big problem on the horizon. That’s brutal issue that one has with any Star Wars MMORPG; what is to be done with Jedi?
The Knights games are good. Real good. But let’s be honest; what part of the game does everyone hate? The first section. In Knights of the Old Republic you were a lowly soldier until you got off Taris. The game doesn’t pick up until you become a Jedi, naturally. I mean it’s called Knights of the Old Republic. The Sith Lords tried to give you Jedi powers from jump, but sans lightsaber it does not feel complete.
My point? No one plays Knights of the Old Republic to be a scoundrel. You might have some crazed fanboys wanting to be Mandalorian, but no one wants to be a Republic Soldier or Sith cannon fodder. Carth Onasi or Darth Revan? Please. The choice is obvious.
But an MMORPG’s strength should be diversity. If everyone is the same two classes it sucks. That means BioWare/LucasArts will have to nerf the Jedi’s abilities. Except that also means the whole reason you play as a Jedi is removed.
Why do we love the Knights series? Because on the Star Forge, legions of Dark Jedi fall before the awesome powers of Darth Revan. Whether you are cutting through them, blowing them away with force lighting or some combination of the two, you are still in awe of the character’s power. The ultimate feeling of charging up the skywalk in Onderon in the Sith Lords blowing back a whole army with Force Wave; that is the fun of Knights. You just aren’t a Jedi, you are the Jedi.
In an MMORPG you will not only be simply a Jedi, but Jedis themselves will be weakened. They have to be; otherwise it will suck to play as any other class. Maybe BioWare differentiates the Jedi classes, giving bonuses and weaknesses to each; but that would likely only matter on lower levels. Unless you are going to bar Jedi Guardians from upper level powers (like Force Lightning) eventually enough people will get leveled high enough that they’ll blow though everything anyway.
The Knights MMORPG will have success, especially early on because the ability to break your Jedi abilities out in a virtual world to show how incredibly awesome you’d be at slaughtering younglings will be too tempting for many to pass up. Even I admit the fact that BioWare's track record tempts me to potentially give it a try if/when it is released. Done right, a Star Wars MMORPG could be incredible. Even if the window for success is tiny, I give Bioware the best shot of any non-Blizzard entity of pulling it off.
But my expectations are tempered and my enthusiasm less than it should be. I wanted Knights of the Old Republic III. I’ve longed for a good single player RPG experience that completes arguably the second best Star Wars storyline ever made- that includes the prequel trilogy. I wanted to be able to take it to the True Sith with incredible force powers, feeling at least in game form that I was the most powerful Jedi ever, without having to spend 100 hours of my life to do it.
Sadly, at least for now, my dream will have to wait.
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Dark Knight - What Could Have Been
First things first. The Dark Knight is good. Worth seeing. Probably one of the best movies that will come out in 2008. But it's not great, and it's certainly not perfect, and the problem with the movie is that Christopher Nolan had so many great resources at his disposal, and was so close to a truly epic film, that to come up short feels much more disappointing than when a typical movie is ok.
Batman Begins remains my favorite superhero movie, and there are two simple reasons for this. First, Christian Bale is awesome (seriously, he manages to turn Equilibrium from a movie that I would have laughed at to an actually underrated movie). Second, he's given a more complex and interesting character to work with than anyone has before. Batman has always been one of the darker superheroes out there (especially when you look at the other characters created around the same time), and Batman Begins really gives you the sense that Bruce Wayne is tormented by his past and uncertain of his future. Sure, some people might think a full hour of backstory is excessive, but it beats Spiderman's annoying habit of retelling Uncle Ben's death differently each movie so the current bad guy seems like the culprit. In any case, Batman Begins is basically perfect, except for Katie Holmes having all the charisma of a spork, and it ends with the perfect teaser for the next film.
Well, here we are, and while I'm sure that the success of The Dark Knight will ensure a lucrative third movie for all parties, I'm not sure that I'll be so anxious to see it. Why? Read on.
As mentioned above, Nolan largely wasted two excellent performances from Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Ledger's gotten a ton of praise for his work, and justifiably so. His version of the Joker is a magnitude of brightness past Jack Nicholson's (though in large part because this version of the series is far darker), and watching that psychosis manifest itself in various subtle ways is a true delight. For me, the greatest moment of the movie is when Ledger spots Rachel Dawes (thankfully played by Maggie Gyllenhall, who if not a stunning beauty is at least capable of acting) after breaking into the Harvey Dent fundraiser. He proceeds to slick his hair back, sashay across the dance floor, and leer at Dawes with a horrific combination of lust, need, and insanity. Ledger's ability will be sorely missed, and he does much to salvage the movie.
Eckhart, who was excellent in Thank You For Smoking, hasn't received the same level of hype, but his job as Harvey Dent is almost as good. He plays off of Bale quite well, and you see in him at best a thinly veiled desire to take down not only organized crime in Gotham but end the reign of vigilante justice that Batman has created.
With all of this at his disposal, plus the already acknowledged ability of Bale to personify Batman, where did Nolan go wrong?
I should have known things might get a bit ridiculous when Batman suddenly needs to fly into Hong Kong in order to bring back some Chinese national who hid all the Mob's money. This scene, which was apparently dropped from the script for Mission Impossible: 4, featured two bits of utter implausibility. First, the idea that in a post-9/11 world a plane could fly right into the middle of downtown Hong Kong without being detected, and second that a phone in the lobby of a skyscraper could emit a strong enough sonic ping to create a completely accurate view of the layout of the 90th (or so) floor, complete with locations for all the guards. This bit of utter nonsense would sadly rear its head again later in the movie.
Fortunately, most of the first two hours of the film is nearly flawless, though Bale seems like more of a bystander. This deserves a mention: the film seems to be more about Ledger and Eckhart battling each other, one as the seeker of order and the other reveling in chaos. Batman seems like an ancillary thought: theoretically at odds with the Joker and allied with Dent, but hoping to be no longer needed. While this might make a certain kind of sense, it means that Bale, who made the first movie so compelling, is absent for large portions of the film.
But finally, we get to the point where Batman has to choose between saving Dent and saving Dawes, and while it's ambiguous as to which he intended to save, Dent is the one who survives, although with half of his face burnt off (giving us Two-Face). It's at this point the movie goes to hell. The Joker creates an elaborate and thoroughly unbelievable Prisoner's Dilemma, Two-Face becomes a laughable villain, who seems mostly interested in frightening little kids, and Batman turns everyone in Gotham's phone into a sonar device (again, never mind how this is possible) so that he can have a perfect view of everything that's going on in the city.
It's in introducing a second villain (Two-Face), while the first one remains at large, where the Dark Knight shows it suffers from Spiderman 3 Syndrome. With two villains, at least one will get the short end of the stick, in this case Two-Face, who basically gets to shoot one or two people before "dying" (we'll see if he stays dead). Tack on an incredibly patronizing and weak voiceover at the end explaining that Batman had to take the rap for Dent's death because it was the only way we could have sprinkles on our cupcakes, and you had a movie that was so much less than it could have been.
You had all the ingredients for an epic film: three great actors, a great director, and a truly legendary performance from Ledger. Too bad someone forgot how to read the recipe.
Batman Begins remains my favorite superhero movie, and there are two simple reasons for this. First, Christian Bale is awesome (seriously, he manages to turn Equilibrium from a movie that I would have laughed at to an actually underrated movie). Second, he's given a more complex and interesting character to work with than anyone has before. Batman has always been one of the darker superheroes out there (especially when you look at the other characters created around the same time), and Batman Begins really gives you the sense that Bruce Wayne is tormented by his past and uncertain of his future. Sure, some people might think a full hour of backstory is excessive, but it beats Spiderman's annoying habit of retelling Uncle Ben's death differently each movie so the current bad guy seems like the culprit. In any case, Batman Begins is basically perfect, except for Katie Holmes having all the charisma of a spork, and it ends with the perfect teaser for the next film.
Well, here we are, and while I'm sure that the success of The Dark Knight will ensure a lucrative third movie for all parties, I'm not sure that I'll be so anxious to see it. Why? Read on.
As mentioned above, Nolan largely wasted two excellent performances from Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Ledger's gotten a ton of praise for his work, and justifiably so. His version of the Joker is a magnitude of brightness past Jack Nicholson's (though in large part because this version of the series is far darker), and watching that psychosis manifest itself in various subtle ways is a true delight. For me, the greatest moment of the movie is when Ledger spots Rachel Dawes (thankfully played by Maggie Gyllenhall, who if not a stunning beauty is at least capable of acting) after breaking into the Harvey Dent fundraiser. He proceeds to slick his hair back, sashay across the dance floor, and leer at Dawes with a horrific combination of lust, need, and insanity. Ledger's ability will be sorely missed, and he does much to salvage the movie.
Eckhart, who was excellent in Thank You For Smoking, hasn't received the same level of hype, but his job as Harvey Dent is almost as good. He plays off of Bale quite well, and you see in him at best a thinly veiled desire to take down not only organized crime in Gotham but end the reign of vigilante justice that Batman has created.
With all of this at his disposal, plus the already acknowledged ability of Bale to personify Batman, where did Nolan go wrong?
I should have known things might get a bit ridiculous when Batman suddenly needs to fly into Hong Kong in order to bring back some Chinese national who hid all the Mob's money. This scene, which was apparently dropped from the script for Mission Impossible: 4, featured two bits of utter implausibility. First, the idea that in a post-9/11 world a plane could fly right into the middle of downtown Hong Kong without being detected, and second that a phone in the lobby of a skyscraper could emit a strong enough sonic ping to create a completely accurate view of the layout of the 90th (or so) floor, complete with locations for all the guards. This bit of utter nonsense would sadly rear its head again later in the movie.
Fortunately, most of the first two hours of the film is nearly flawless, though Bale seems like more of a bystander. This deserves a mention: the film seems to be more about Ledger and Eckhart battling each other, one as the seeker of order and the other reveling in chaos. Batman seems like an ancillary thought: theoretically at odds with the Joker and allied with Dent, but hoping to be no longer needed. While this might make a certain kind of sense, it means that Bale, who made the first movie so compelling, is absent for large portions of the film.
But finally, we get to the point where Batman has to choose between saving Dent and saving Dawes, and while it's ambiguous as to which he intended to save, Dent is the one who survives, although with half of his face burnt off (giving us Two-Face). It's at this point the movie goes to hell. The Joker creates an elaborate and thoroughly unbelievable Prisoner's Dilemma, Two-Face becomes a laughable villain, who seems mostly interested in frightening little kids, and Batman turns everyone in Gotham's phone into a sonar device (again, never mind how this is possible) so that he can have a perfect view of everything that's going on in the city.
It's in introducing a second villain (Two-Face), while the first one remains at large, where the Dark Knight shows it suffers from Spiderman 3 Syndrome. With two villains, at least one will get the short end of the stick, in this case Two-Face, who basically gets to shoot one or two people before "dying" (we'll see if he stays dead). Tack on an incredibly patronizing and weak voiceover at the end explaining that Batman had to take the rap for Dent's death because it was the only way we could have sprinkles on our cupcakes, and you had a movie that was so much less than it could have been.
You had all the ingredients for an epic film: three great actors, a great director, and a truly legendary performance from Ledger. Too bad someone forgot how to read the recipe.
Escape Velocity - Sequel Badly Needed
Here on EISIR, I'm never afraid to tell it like it is. Often, a franchise needs to go off into the woods and die (that would be you, Halo). Occasionally though, a good game never gets the proper treatment it deserves. Maybe it's because it was too innovative, came out on the wrong (or dying) console, or just for some reason never caught the fancy of anyone. Yet in a world where we can get another Call of Duty game (the WWII ones, not the pretty awesome modern day one), why can't some developer pick up a truly interesting IP and run with it?
Escape Velocity is one of those games. Initially released by Ambrosia Software for the Mac (yes, yes, I know) back in 1992, it put you in the role of a prospective starship captain adrift in a decent sized portion of the galaxy. You bought your first ship with whatever meager funds you'd scraped together in your life pre-space, and set out to find adventure, treasure, and that mythic planet of the enormous-breasted space whores. You played from a top-down, 2D view, and I've basically described the entire game. Sure, there was some background story about a war between the central governing systems and the outer rebellious ones, but I never much bothered with that. Instead, what appealed so much about the game was the true sandbox nature of it. Want to spend your time lugging freight between two distant systems, just to eek out a 2-credit profit per trip? Go for it (see, it would be perfect for those grind-loving WoW players)! Want to fly off into asteroid fields and fight pirates? Why not?
The game featured hundreds of star systems, and each one had some combination of planets, moons, and space stations that you could land at in order to trade, pick up missions, or look at all the pretty space ships you couldn't afford yet (only 9000 more cargo runs)! As far as your ship went, you could customize weapons loadouts, navigation/jamming equipment, engines, armor, and shields. However, the coolest function was the ability to disable enemy ships and then board them, often for the purposes of salvage but sometimes with the intent of taking control of the ship. This allowed for some pretty awesome gameplay later on, as you could take over the massive capital ships of either the Confederation or the Rebellion, ships that had some pretty sweet weapons systems, as well as their own sets of smaller fighters that could launch. Once you got one of these bad boys, you could actually attempt to take over entire planets, at which point you set the tax rates and other features of the planet (or moon or station).
In addition, Ambrosia's games supported an almost infinite number of user modifications. You could create new systems, new ships, new factions, or just create a way to give yourself a ton of money. This gave an already deep, replayable game almost infinite potential scope: you could play through other people's darkest fantasies (like that planet of giant breasted space whores someone mentioned before).
EV's setting is one that would no doubt appeal to a great number of gamers: take over your own ship and do whatever the fuck you want with it. Change the top-down view for an in-cockpit one, maybe add a bit more of a story (but allow the player to ignore it if they want), and you've got the makings of a great game. Hell, you could even turn it into an MMO if that's the only way you can convince a studio to get on board (and let's be honest, nerds would love being the captain of their own ship even more than being an elf). Make the new version of Escape Velocity everything Freelancer should have been, and make a shit-ton of money for your trouble.
Escape Velocity is one of those games. Initially released by Ambrosia Software for the Mac (yes, yes, I know) back in 1992, it put you in the role of a prospective starship captain adrift in a decent sized portion of the galaxy. You bought your first ship with whatever meager funds you'd scraped together in your life pre-space, and set out to find adventure, treasure, and that mythic planet of the enormous-breasted space whores. You played from a top-down, 2D view, and I've basically described the entire game. Sure, there was some background story about a war between the central governing systems and the outer rebellious ones, but I never much bothered with that. Instead, what appealed so much about the game was the true sandbox nature of it. Want to spend your time lugging freight between two distant systems, just to eek out a 2-credit profit per trip? Go for it (see, it would be perfect for those grind-loving WoW players)! Want to fly off into asteroid fields and fight pirates? Why not?
The game featured hundreds of star systems, and each one had some combination of planets, moons, and space stations that you could land at in order to trade, pick up missions, or look at all the pretty space ships you couldn't afford yet (only 9000 more cargo runs)! As far as your ship went, you could customize weapons loadouts, navigation/jamming equipment, engines, armor, and shields. However, the coolest function was the ability to disable enemy ships and then board them, often for the purposes of salvage but sometimes with the intent of taking control of the ship. This allowed for some pretty awesome gameplay later on, as you could take over the massive capital ships of either the Confederation or the Rebellion, ships that had some pretty sweet weapons systems, as well as their own sets of smaller fighters that could launch. Once you got one of these bad boys, you could actually attempt to take over entire planets, at which point you set the tax rates and other features of the planet (or moon or station).
In addition, Ambrosia's games supported an almost infinite number of user modifications. You could create new systems, new ships, new factions, or just create a way to give yourself a ton of money. This gave an already deep, replayable game almost infinite potential scope: you could play through other people's darkest fantasies (like that planet of giant breasted space whores someone mentioned before).
EV's setting is one that would no doubt appeal to a great number of gamers: take over your own ship and do whatever the fuck you want with it. Change the top-down view for an in-cockpit one, maybe add a bit more of a story (but allow the player to ignore it if they want), and you've got the makings of a great game. Hell, you could even turn it into an MMO if that's the only way you can convince a studio to get on board (and let's be honest, nerds would love being the captain of their own ship even more than being an elf). Make the new version of Escape Velocity everything Freelancer should have been, and make a shit-ton of money for your trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
