After stuffing my greedy maw with turkey on Thursday, I had a long holiday weekend to tackle one of the many games I recently bought. After careful consideration, I went with Kane and Lynch: Dead Men.
Like many of you, I was following the hype machine for this game for the last few months and I had really gotten into the idea of playing a "bad guy". I wanted to feel like the main character in Payback. I thought this was the experience I was going to get way back when The Getaway came out, but the exceptional story in that game was marred by the awful gameplay. Unfortunately, Kane & Lynch suffers from the same problems.
The game starts in a fairly promising manner. Nice opening cut-scene followed by a "mission" where you must escape from a deadly police barrage. Things feel frantic and appropriately fast-paced. Then you receive a weapon and things go immediately downhill. This game may have the worst controls/mechanics of any game I have seen this year.
Let's start with the aiming mechanic. At first everything seems fine. The left trigger is used to zoom and the right trigger is used to fire. There is an aiming "dot" when in regular view and a cross hair in zoomed view. This is totally fine control-wise. The problem comes when you start targeting enemies for head shots. Suddenly, you will notice that the bullets spray from your weapon in random directions around the actual targeting reticule, even in zoomed view. I actually had more head shots when I just stuck the reticule near an enemy instead of on one. This is bad. I could go into why this is bad, but if it is not apparent, then you wouldn't understand this blog anyway. I would even accept that regular-view firing was less accurate, but zoomed-view firing should always be spot on. Always. Especially when some of the game's main objectives require precise shooting. Inaccurate targeting using the excuse of "That's how real guns work" is amateurish. What it is really saying is "We are too lazy to balance combat correctly". Moving on.
Next up on the chopping block is the much-debated cover mechanic. The idea behind the cover mechanic is interesting at the very least. Getting the character by the cover object is all you need to do for him to take cover. This is a great idea on paper. It frees up a button for designer's to use for something else and, more importantly, eases gameplay for the player, again, on paper. Actual in-game execution of the mechanic makes you realise that getting into cover becomes a matter of being in a specific zone at the corners of cover objects. These zones are not indicated to the player in any way. Furthermore, when the cover object is taller than the main character and the character aims around the corner, the player is allowed to move his character into a position where he cannot see or hit anything but the wall he is using for cover. "Ally" characters often move in between the player's character and the camera making it impossible to see. These are all horrible for the player and could have been avoided, but there is one thing that is entirely unacceptable and came entirely from the level designers. In several places in the game, the player is allowed to use a cover object only to find that, upon reaching the edge, there is a piece of indestructible debris placed squarely in his line of vision. That is not only an insult to the player, it is disgraceful to game designers.
The squad control was decent. It played almost exactly like Freedom Fighters, so if you liked that, you should like this. I actually found it easier to send my guys in on a suicide mission first, then follow them and clean up the stragglers. The only thing to keep me from doing this on every mission was the health system, which was fairly inventive. Each person in your squad, including the player, can be shot and "killed". At this point, the character will writhe on the ground for a period before expiring. If a teammate can get to the downed character before he expires, he will give the downed character a shot of adrenaline to revive him. It works just like Gears of War, but with a time limit. The interesting twist on this mechanic is that too much adrenaline will kill the character. This means that if a character is downed too soon after being revived, there is no saving him. The only down-side to this mechanic in the game is that there is no indication to the player when it is safe for him to get another shot of adrenaline.
The real disappointment of this game, though, is that the story is excellent and is not supported by the gameplay. If IO Interactive had spent as much time on play-testing as they had on writing the story, this could have been the game of the year.
THINGS TO LEARN FROM KANE AND LYNCH: DEAD MEN
----------------------------------------------------------
1. If you give the player an aiming mechanic, especially a zoomed aim mechanic, make sure he hits what he is aiming for when the cross hairs are dead-set on the target. Otherwise you are robbing the skilled players, and they know it.
2. If you are going to make a game where being accurate with weapons is impossible, do NOT ask the player to be accurate to finish an objective. That is sadistic.
3. Automatic cover may work, but tell the player where the cover spots are. Trying to guess if you are safe in a firefight is not fun.
4. Do NOT encourage the player to shoot from cover and then block his view with an indestructible object. (I can't even believe this has to be said...)
5. Being able to help characters "return to life" is cool. It is a proven mechanic at this point and shows promise for many fun variations.
6. Games can have stories that are just as enthralling as any big-budget Hollywood film. (The story may even keep the most jaded of players playing through to the end.)
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Earth Defense Force 2017
What can be said about Earth Defense Force 2017?
It's player animations are lousy. The control layout could be better (you actually have to press the "back" button to enter vehicles). The vehicles are so hard to control that you actually get killed quicker when using them. The frame rate regularly drops to a crawl. There are particle effects that fill the screen so much you can't see your enemies. Often times, every enemy on the screen is using the exact same model and animations, at the exact same time. All the buildings in the city can be blown up, but everything only takes one hit and then breaks apart and falls through the world without collision. There is absolutely NO online play. Some of the weapons you get are literally useless and seem to only be there for a joke at the player's expense.
One more thing, it is one of my favorite games ever.
Remember Smash T.V.? As a player, you ran around in an arena, killing hordes of enemies and grabbing prizes. Simple concept, great game.
Now take Smash T.V. and make it fully 3D. Replace the arenas with cities and the enemies with giant bugs and robots. You now have EDF 2017.
EDF is part of the Simple 2000 Series of games. As such, it is a budget title and available for $40 on the 360. That alone makes me happy, as I am having a hard time paying 60 bucks for a new game, but that's a different topic.
Imagine you have a limited amount of time to make a game. Let's say, I don't know, 9 months. What would you cut and what would you keep? Would you attempt to make a visually stunning game lacking in gameplay? Perhaps you would make a game with less features or levels than you would like? There are lots of possibilities, but I think most designers would agree that the best way to do things is to make a game that is fun and fill in as much of the rest as you can.
Sandlot has developed a game here that has all the things that are fun about video games and very few things that are not. Here is a list:
Things Kept (FUN)
--------------------
1. All buildings can be blown up - in one hit.
2. There are hundreds of weapons to acquire.
3. There are HUGE effects when killing a large enemy.
4. Enemy bodies go flying or explode when killed.
5. Ammo for all weapons is limitless (except on a few rare occasions).
6. There are hundreds of enemies on screen at one time.
7. There is a squad of teammates that do not need direction.
8. There is no damage from destroyed geometry.
9. There is no damage from dead enemies.
10. There is no damage from explosions resulting from a defeated enemy.
11. There is no damage from falling.
12. The environments are not incredibly detailed, only functionally detailed.
13. There is no penalty for destroying geometry in the world.
14. There is no penalty for killing your teammates.
15. Teammates never hit the player.
This list could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
The gameplay is also simple: Clear every level of enemies to proceed to the next level. In between levels, the player has the option to change weapons. You can carry any two weapons you want into each level, with advantages and disadvantages for each map. You fight a host of enemies that include ants, spiders, giant robots, UFOs, Godzilla-like dinosaurs, and a giant walking fortress reminiscent of an AT-AT. That's pretty much all there is. It doesn't sound like much, but it's one of those great games that should not be missed.
I think the most impressive thing about this game is that it seems to do what almost every game development team I have been on has wanted to do. They took a great mechanic (killing massive amounts of enemies without environmental interference), set it in an appropriate setting (large outdoor areas with lots of destructible eye-candy), and let the game speak for itself. It's nice to know that this can ACTUALLY be done.
THINGS TO LEARN FROM EARTH DEFENSE FORCE 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Great gameplay is the most important thing when trying to make a game fun. Period.
2. Amazing graphics, while extremely nice, are not necessary for a great game. This may upset some artists to hear this, but this IS a design blog.
3. It is NOT necessary to adhere to lots of realistic consequences when making a game. It may actually make the game better if you do NOT.
4. Low budget does not mean low quality. This, in itself, is another example of how great gameplay design still shines even without the huge budgets some of us have become accustomed to.
It's player animations are lousy. The control layout could be better (you actually have to press the "back" button to enter vehicles). The vehicles are so hard to control that you actually get killed quicker when using them. The frame rate regularly drops to a crawl. There are particle effects that fill the screen so much you can't see your enemies. Often times, every enemy on the screen is using the exact same model and animations, at the exact same time. All the buildings in the city can be blown up, but everything only takes one hit and then breaks apart and falls through the world without collision. There is absolutely NO online play. Some of the weapons you get are literally useless and seem to only be there for a joke at the player's expense.
One more thing, it is one of my favorite games ever.
Remember Smash T.V.? As a player, you ran around in an arena, killing hordes of enemies and grabbing prizes. Simple concept, great game.
Now take Smash T.V. and make it fully 3D. Replace the arenas with cities and the enemies with giant bugs and robots. You now have EDF 2017.
EDF is part of the Simple 2000 Series of games. As such, it is a budget title and available for $40 on the 360. That alone makes me happy, as I am having a hard time paying 60 bucks for a new game, but that's a different topic.
Imagine you have a limited amount of time to make a game. Let's say, I don't know, 9 months. What would you cut and what would you keep? Would you attempt to make a visually stunning game lacking in gameplay? Perhaps you would make a game with less features or levels than you would like? There are lots of possibilities, but I think most designers would agree that the best way to do things is to make a game that is fun and fill in as much of the rest as you can.
Sandlot has developed a game here that has all the things that are fun about video games and very few things that are not. Here is a list:
Things Kept (FUN)
--------------------
1. All buildings can be blown up - in one hit.
2. There are hundreds of weapons to acquire.
3. There are HUGE effects when killing a large enemy.
4. Enemy bodies go flying or explode when killed.
5. Ammo for all weapons is limitless (except on a few rare occasions).
6. There are hundreds of enemies on screen at one time.
7. There is a squad of teammates that do not need direction.
8. There is no damage from destroyed geometry.
9. There is no damage from dead enemies.
10. There is no damage from explosions resulting from a defeated enemy.
11. There is no damage from falling.
12. The environments are not incredibly detailed, only functionally detailed.
13. There is no penalty for destroying geometry in the world.
14. There is no penalty for killing your teammates.
15. Teammates never hit the player.
This list could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
The gameplay is also simple: Clear every level of enemies to proceed to the next level. In between levels, the player has the option to change weapons. You can carry any two weapons you want into each level, with advantages and disadvantages for each map. You fight a host of enemies that include ants, spiders, giant robots, UFOs, Godzilla-like dinosaurs, and a giant walking fortress reminiscent of an AT-AT. That's pretty much all there is. It doesn't sound like much, but it's one of those great games that should not be missed.
I think the most impressive thing about this game is that it seems to do what almost every game development team I have been on has wanted to do. They took a great mechanic (killing massive amounts of enemies without environmental interference), set it in an appropriate setting (large outdoor areas with lots of destructible eye-candy), and let the game speak for itself. It's nice to know that this can ACTUALLY be done.
THINGS TO LEARN FROM EARTH DEFENSE FORCE 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Great gameplay is the most important thing when trying to make a game fun. Period.
2. Amazing graphics, while extremely nice, are not necessary for a great game. This may upset some artists to hear this, but this IS a design blog.
3. It is NOT necessary to adhere to lots of realistic consequences when making a game. It may actually make the game better if you do NOT.
4. Low budget does not mean low quality. This, in itself, is another example of how great gameplay design still shines even without the huge budgets some of us have become accustomed to.
Friday, November 9, 2007
GameStop Gripes
I know its trendy to trash GameStop if you are in the industry. I was going to steer clear of this topic, but I feel as though I should say something. So here goes...
Let's start with the experience I have at my local GameStop whenever I go in, which is admittedly less these days. I will often go in on a Thursday or Friday and ask the clerk, "What new releases do you guys have?" The clerk will then flip the page of the Maxim he is reading behind the counter and flippantly respond, "Check the shelves." Often times without even looking up from his magazine. This is not only rude, it is unprofessional. Knowing what games they have in stock and what games have recently been released are two of these people's major responsibilities. If a man came into an emergency room, suffering from anaphylactic shock, and asked for epinephrine, the attending nurse would not make him search through the medicine storage closet himself. This is obviously an extreme comparison considering you will not DIE if you are not able to find the game you are looking for (in most cases), but you get the point.
Let's get back on track, here. Following the clerk's annoying incompetence, I usually DO go and check the shelves myself. Unfortunately, most of the time, I only find used games and empty boxes used to promote a game that can be pre-ordered. What really bugs me about this is that they are often in the section marked new releases. I don't think I need to spell out the discrepancy here.
After a few minutes of wandering around and looking at the shelves in a vain attempt to determine whether or not the game I'm looking for is actually out and/or available I give up and just ask the clerk directly. 90% of the time they do not have the game I am looking for because it has been sold out or I did not pre-order it. This is annoying, but also expected, seeing as almost all "blockbuster" games have to be pre-ordered to ensure that you get a copy of them. If you DON'T pre-order them you will surely have to wait for the second shipment to come in for you to get your hands on a copy. GameStop is even nice enough to tell you the "in-stock" status of other retailers carrying the game and they CERTAINLY know the most about games and game sales being the foremost game retailer. RIGHT?
Well, let's look at a recent experience I had when buying Bioshock. I did not pre-order Bioshock. I never pre-order games. I suppose I'm just old-fashioned (i.e. lazy). So on the day that Bioshock was released I prepared myself and headed to GameStop. I asked the clerk if they had any copies. The clerk asked me if I pre-ordered. I said NO. He said NO. I then asked when they would be getting more copies in. He told me that there would be another shipment in a MONTH, and that I could pay for a copy now so I was assured to get one when the next shipment came in. He also went on to tell me that NO STORE IN THE AREA had any copies, so giving him my money now and waiting for a month was the quickest way to get one. I didn't give him my money, mainly because I'm a tightwad.
I then headed over to the Best Buy down the street. I figured I would see if they were getting a shipment sooner than GameStop, seeing as the clerk at GameStop had already informed me that no stores in the area had a copy. I walked in the front door and I was immediately met by a worker that asked if they could help me with something. I told him I was looking for a copy of Bioshock for the 360. "Sure thing," he told me, and took me over to a register. He asked the clerk at the register to get me a copy of Bioshock, after which, the clerk reached under the counter into a box FULL OF COPIES and pulled one out for me. I paid and walked out in stunned silence (after someone scribbled some unreadable symbol on my receipt).
What did I learn from this? The employees of GameStop are not only rude, unprofessional, know-it-alls, but they are also blatant liars. The claims they made as to the availability of a certain product were bald-faced lies. That is upsetting, but this practice of theirs isn't the most disturbing conduct of GameStop. Which brings me to the ultimate point of my rant.
When you go into a GameStop, the employees do not wish to talk to you. Unless it is to give their opinion on one game or another. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am not disputing that point. It is when statements are made by the clerks as to the reason the in-game art is a certain way, the controls are mapped as they are, or any other part of the development process that I believe that they are over-stepping their bounds. Not to sound "uppity", but these people are not in the video game industry, they are in the retail industry. I can respect their opinions as gamers, but I cannot respect the fact that they recommend games to customers based on their "vast knowledge" of the industry. Especially since the games they recommend are often more expensive or "available for pre-order". Earth Defense Force 2017 was a great game for the 360, but it was a budget title. As such you never heard a GameStop employee mutter word one about it. Even though I SHOULD have heard about it when I asked "What new releases do you guys have?"
At any rate, I have gone on long enough. I guess my point is this: Don't let people tell you what you should or shouldn't like in a game. Every gamer has their own tastes, and that is a really cool thing. Also, don't get bullied into thinking you have no options for what you like, because we game developers are out here busting our butts to make gamers happy. In the end, if the gamers are happy, we are happy.
Let's start with the experience I have at my local GameStop whenever I go in, which is admittedly less these days. I will often go in on a Thursday or Friday and ask the clerk, "What new releases do you guys have?" The clerk will then flip the page of the Maxim he is reading behind the counter and flippantly respond, "Check the shelves." Often times without even looking up from his magazine. This is not only rude, it is unprofessional. Knowing what games they have in stock and what games have recently been released are two of these people's major responsibilities. If a man came into an emergency room, suffering from anaphylactic shock, and asked for epinephrine, the attending nurse would not make him search through the medicine storage closet himself. This is obviously an extreme comparison considering you will not DIE if you are not able to find the game you are looking for (in most cases), but you get the point.
Let's get back on track, here. Following the clerk's annoying incompetence, I usually DO go and check the shelves myself. Unfortunately, most of the time, I only find used games and empty boxes used to promote a game that can be pre-ordered. What really bugs me about this is that they are often in the section marked new releases. I don't think I need to spell out the discrepancy here.
After a few minutes of wandering around and looking at the shelves in a vain attempt to determine whether or not the game I'm looking for is actually out and/or available I give up and just ask the clerk directly. 90% of the time they do not have the game I am looking for because it has been sold out or I did not pre-order it. This is annoying, but also expected, seeing as almost all "blockbuster" games have to be pre-ordered to ensure that you get a copy of them. If you DON'T pre-order them you will surely have to wait for the second shipment to come in for you to get your hands on a copy. GameStop is even nice enough to tell you the "in-stock" status of other retailers carrying the game and they CERTAINLY know the most about games and game sales being the foremost game retailer. RIGHT?
Well, let's look at a recent experience I had when buying Bioshock. I did not pre-order Bioshock. I never pre-order games. I suppose I'm just old-fashioned (i.e. lazy). So on the day that Bioshock was released I prepared myself and headed to GameStop. I asked the clerk if they had any copies. The clerk asked me if I pre-ordered. I said NO. He said NO. I then asked when they would be getting more copies in. He told me that there would be another shipment in a MONTH, and that I could pay for a copy now so I was assured to get one when the next shipment came in. He also went on to tell me that NO STORE IN THE AREA had any copies, so giving him my money now and waiting for a month was the quickest way to get one. I didn't give him my money, mainly because I'm a tightwad.
I then headed over to the Best Buy down the street. I figured I would see if they were getting a shipment sooner than GameStop, seeing as the clerk at GameStop had already informed me that no stores in the area had a copy. I walked in the front door and I was immediately met by a worker that asked if they could help me with something. I told him I was looking for a copy of Bioshock for the 360. "Sure thing," he told me, and took me over to a register. He asked the clerk at the register to get me a copy of Bioshock, after which, the clerk reached under the counter into a box FULL OF COPIES and pulled one out for me. I paid and walked out in stunned silence (after someone scribbled some unreadable symbol on my receipt).
What did I learn from this? The employees of GameStop are not only rude, unprofessional, know-it-alls, but they are also blatant liars. The claims they made as to the availability of a certain product were bald-faced lies. That is upsetting, but this practice of theirs isn't the most disturbing conduct of GameStop. Which brings me to the ultimate point of my rant.
When you go into a GameStop, the employees do not wish to talk to you. Unless it is to give their opinion on one game or another. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am not disputing that point. It is when statements are made by the clerks as to the reason the in-game art is a certain way, the controls are mapped as they are, or any other part of the development process that I believe that they are over-stepping their bounds. Not to sound "uppity", but these people are not in the video game industry, they are in the retail industry. I can respect their opinions as gamers, but I cannot respect the fact that they recommend games to customers based on their "vast knowledge" of the industry. Especially since the games they recommend are often more expensive or "available for pre-order". Earth Defense Force 2017 was a great game for the 360, but it was a budget title. As such you never heard a GameStop employee mutter word one about it. Even though I SHOULD have heard about it when I asked "What new releases do you guys have?"
At any rate, I have gone on long enough. I guess my point is this: Don't let people tell you what you should or shouldn't like in a game. Every gamer has their own tastes, and that is a really cool thing. Also, don't get bullied into thinking you have no options for what you like, because we game developers are out here busting our butts to make gamers happy. In the end, if the gamers are happy, we are happy.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Clive Barker's Jericho
Remember Clive Barker's Undying? That game was great. Dripping with atmosphere, sufficiently twisted story, and a truly interesting take on the FPS genre.
I love that game.
That brings us to Clive Barker's Jericho. Like most people, I just assumed that a horror FPS with heavy involvement from Barker (even more than Undying) would blow me away again. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The game follows the exploits of the "Jericho Squad", a group of top secret super-soldiers, each with their own unique psychic ability, as they try to stop the coming apocalypse in, of all places, the middle east. Not exactly what I expected from Barker, but interesting none-the-less. You start by playing the team leader in what amounts to an overly-long training level.
The game starts in an open area outside of a temple as you and the Jericho team are slowly herded towards the temple entrance. The setting is interesting and appropriately chaotic. Then you enter the temple...
The first thing I noticed after heading inside was how incredibly dark this game is. So dark, in fact, that I spent a good 10 minutes running into walls and getting turned around, even with my flashlight on.
Like any well-versed gamer, I immediately went to my options menu to adjust the brightness scale. Which brings me to my first major complaint, there should never be a game that is set in primarily dark environments that does not have a brightness adjustment. That is just laziness on the part of the developer. I expect to have some complaints about most games I play, though, so I set my annoyances on the back burner and kept playing.
At the end of the "training" level, the main character dies. This leaves the player with the rest of the squad to control. You can do this by jumping in between the bodies of all the different team members. This, in itself, is a cool idea, but requires solid mechanics and execution. Jericho, unfortunately, has neither.
Each member of the Jericho squad is equipped with a different weapon and psychic power. So when you are switching characters what you are really doing is switching weapons. The major problem with this is that the menu you access to see who you are switching to only has the character's last name.
No weapon list, no psychic ability list, no current health, nothing.
This causes endless problems. I often switch to the wrong character because I can't remember which character has which ability or weapon. The problem is compounded by the fact that some objectives REQUIRE you to use certain characters. On top of all this bouncing around nonsense, there has been several times I jumped into a character only to find I am standing at the wrong end of a Gatling gun or flamethrower, dying less than a second later.
Which segues nicely into character lives. Essentially, every team member has unlimited lives as long as one team member remains alive. All team members can revive other team members, which is nice. What is NOT nice is that the button you use to revive a team member is also the button you use to jump to another character. This results in the player jamming on the button revive the character, most often in the heat of battle, then jumping into that character as soon as he is revived. If you take a moment to consider the fact that the previously-downed character became that way because of his poor position in relation to his enemies you can see where this would be a problem. You essentially revive a character and jump into him with just enough time to see that character killed immediately, often losing the character doing the reviving in the process. That is just incredibly poor design.
Jericho isn't all bad though. The story is actually quite interesting, if you can wade through the gameplay, and the enemies are pretty cool, even though it is near impossible to see their mostly black bodies in the ever-present darkness.
I'm going to finish this game, mostly because I am a huge Clive Barker fan and I want to see how the story plays out. For the rest of you, I suggest skipping Jericho and picking up Undying. You will pay 1/3 as much for it and get 3x the gaming experience.
THINGS TO LEARN FROM CLIVE BARKER'S JERICHO
----------------------------------------------------------
1. If you are going to make a game that is oppressively dark, make sure to add a brightness setting in the game's options.
2. Giving enough info to the player so he can make educated decisions is key. Failure to do so can turn a decent game into a forgettable one.
3. Making a button multi-functional is fine, but not when it causes the player to do actions OTHER than what he is trying to do.
I love that game.
That brings us to Clive Barker's Jericho. Like most people, I just assumed that a horror FPS with heavy involvement from Barker (even more than Undying) would blow me away again. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The game follows the exploits of the "Jericho Squad", a group of top secret super-soldiers, each with their own unique psychic ability, as they try to stop the coming apocalypse in, of all places, the middle east. Not exactly what I expected from Barker, but interesting none-the-less. You start by playing the team leader in what amounts to an overly-long training level.
The game starts in an open area outside of a temple as you and the Jericho team are slowly herded towards the temple entrance. The setting is interesting and appropriately chaotic. Then you enter the temple...
The first thing I noticed after heading inside was how incredibly dark this game is. So dark, in fact, that I spent a good 10 minutes running into walls and getting turned around, even with my flashlight on.
Like any well-versed gamer, I immediately went to my options menu to adjust the brightness scale. Which brings me to my first major complaint, there should never be a game that is set in primarily dark environments that does not have a brightness adjustment. That is just laziness on the part of the developer. I expect to have some complaints about most games I play, though, so I set my annoyances on the back burner and kept playing.
At the end of the "training" level, the main character dies. This leaves the player with the rest of the squad to control. You can do this by jumping in between the bodies of all the different team members. This, in itself, is a cool idea, but requires solid mechanics and execution. Jericho, unfortunately, has neither.
Each member of the Jericho squad is equipped with a different weapon and psychic power. So when you are switching characters what you are really doing is switching weapons. The major problem with this is that the menu you access to see who you are switching to only has the character's last name.
No weapon list, no psychic ability list, no current health, nothing.
This causes endless problems. I often switch to the wrong character because I can't remember which character has which ability or weapon. The problem is compounded by the fact that some objectives REQUIRE you to use certain characters. On top of all this bouncing around nonsense, there has been several times I jumped into a character only to find I am standing at the wrong end of a Gatling gun or flamethrower, dying less than a second later.
Which segues nicely into character lives. Essentially, every team member has unlimited lives as long as one team member remains alive. All team members can revive other team members, which is nice. What is NOT nice is that the button you use to revive a team member is also the button you use to jump to another character. This results in the player jamming on the button revive the character, most often in the heat of battle, then jumping into that character as soon as he is revived. If you take a moment to consider the fact that the previously-downed character became that way because of his poor position in relation to his enemies you can see where this would be a problem. You essentially revive a character and jump into him with just enough time to see that character killed immediately, often losing the character doing the reviving in the process. That is just incredibly poor design.
Jericho isn't all bad though. The story is actually quite interesting, if you can wade through the gameplay, and the enemies are pretty cool, even though it is near impossible to see their mostly black bodies in the ever-present darkness.
I'm going to finish this game, mostly because I am a huge Clive Barker fan and I want to see how the story plays out. For the rest of you, I suggest skipping Jericho and picking up Undying. You will pay 1/3 as much for it and get 3x the gaming experience.
THINGS TO LEARN FROM CLIVE BARKER'S JERICHO
----------------------------------------------------------
1. If you are going to make a game that is oppressively dark, make sure to add a brightness setting in the game's options.
2. Giving enough info to the player so he can make educated decisions is key. Failure to do so can turn a decent game into a forgettable one.
3. Making a button multi-functional is fine, but not when it causes the player to do actions OTHER than what he is trying to do.
Introductions...
Hello People, thanks for stopping by.
This is your host, Chris Kagel.
Host of what, you ask? Let me explain.
I am a video game designer. I have worked at many different studios in many different design capacities for many years. Many, many, many. The realization recently dawned on me that at the ripe old age of 30, I have still never made the game I really want to make.
Don't get me wrong, I am fiercely proud of the titles I have made (well, most of them...), but I still want that one game. The one game I can look at as my masterpiece. The one that defines me as a designer.
In an effort to help other designers (and keep myself focused), I have decided to start a design blog. You should expect it to consist of the usual blog fare: reviews, rants, etc. It will also chronicle the steps I take, triumphant and otherwise, towards making what I consider to be the Ultimate Game.
Enjoy,
chris
This is your host, Chris Kagel.
Host of what, you ask? Let me explain.
I am a video game designer. I have worked at many different studios in many different design capacities for many years. Many, many, many. The realization recently dawned on me that at the ripe old age of 30, I have still never made the game I really want to make.
Don't get me wrong, I am fiercely proud of the titles I have made (well, most of them...), but I still want that one game. The one game I can look at as my masterpiece. The one that defines me as a designer.
In an effort to help other designers (and keep myself focused), I have decided to start a design blog. You should expect it to consist of the usual blog fare: reviews, rants, etc. It will also chronicle the steps I take, triumphant and otherwise, towards making what I consider to be the Ultimate Game.
Enjoy,
chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)