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...
Sunday, August 3, 2008
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
