Killzone 2 & Resistance 2 - A Comparison
Of late, I have been playing through Sony’s well-hyped first person shooter, Killzone 2. I picked it up on release, but I wanted to finish up Valkyria Chronicles and also Biohazard 5 had first priority, so this review is a little late.
So instead of giving a straight forward review, I want to compare it with Resitance 2, its well received PS3 exclusive, FPS bretheren. Both games have been touted as Sony’s answer to the Halo franchise and have been both a commercial and critical successful.
The first thing that grabs you when playing Killzone 2 is that it is very easy on the eye. The level of visual presentation is astounding, and although the game utilizes a relatively dull and sombre pallete, it still sticks out. Resistance 2 is no slouch either. Unlike Killzone, many of Resitance’s levels are set in broad daylight, leading to a completely different experience. It is a very pretty game, but in an altogther different way to Killzone. The level of presentation is extremely high in both cases. Both games are suitably scored, and the voice acting is capable, and at times rather good. Brian Cox as Killzone 2’s head villian Scolar Visari particularly stands out.
I found Killzone 2 to be much more challenging than Resistance 2, though im not sure if that is a sentiment shared by other gamers. However, with the exception of the final boss, it was never frustrating. Speaking of bosses, one thing you will notice when playing through is that there arent many traditional end of level bosses that you would expect to see in such a game. This contributes to a fresher, more realistic and fluid gaming experience. There doesn’t need to be a frighteningly powerful boss waiting around every umpteenth corner. However, it does contribute to the feeling of an ongoing slog through similar levels, with nothing notable to break it up. In comparison, this is one area in which Resitance excels. The bosses are one of the finest aspects of the game, with one of the bosses literally towering over Chicago’s ruined skyline.
As for controls, in Resistance 2 the main character has a certain feeling of weight to his movements, whereas in Killzone, I felt that the movements were far too sensitive. Any sudden movement will make your crosshairs go flying across the screen. It’s difficult to find the words to fully describe it, but it just didn’t feel quite right.
There are a wide range of weapons at your disposal in both games, and for the most part, they are very well balanced. Each firearm will suit one situation better than the next and there is never a shortage of ammo. Set pieces also feature quite heavily in both games, but I think I will give Killzone the nod in this regard. One of the final stages stands out, requiring you to storm up the steps of the Helghast government building. Both games are also very well paced. There are segments where you literally wade through hoardes of enemies, claiming a few metres each push. There are others that encourage you to move at break neck speed, hurtling towards a goal and taking out whatever steps in your path.
One key area where both titles fall short is the story. Firstly, Killzone 2. The story was good enough to keep me interseted, but with the exception of the likeable yet entirely underdeveloped protagonist, Sev, the characters are uninteresting at best, and in some cases outright annoying. Also, the story never really touches upon the fact that you are part of an invading force. You play the role of aggressor. With no pre knowledge of the series backstory, it isnt clear what makes you the good guy. This in itself should have provided an interesting narrative drive, but its never explored. A missed opportunity. In its defense, the game does pull out a pretty decent ending.
Resistance 2 also suffers from a rather forgettable story. However, Nathan Hale does make for a pretty interesting lead and the unravelling story of the Chimeran enemy and their origins is quite interesting, especially if you have played the original. With that said, there are a few lazy and headscratching additions to the narrative, most notably the Daedalus character who seems to come out of nowhere, with a glaring lack of backstory. If you have played the second installment but not the first, you would be forgiven for thinking that he was a character from R1, as the game seems to expect you to know who he is. Overall, I think Resistance has a stronger plot than Killzone 2, though its nothing to write home about. The end sequence is very disapointing, and like most things in the game, comes with virtually no explanation.
Despite the narrative problems, both games boast great settings. Resistance 2 offers a unique mix of 1950s culture and futuristic technologies employed by the Chimera. It’s a brilliant meeting of two worlds. Killzone 2 conjours up a smoky, overcast alien planet inhabitted by human descedants. Its set in the future, but the vast majority of the characters and weaponary seem firmly rooted in the here and now. It provides a very engaging setting.
When it comes to multiplayer, I’m perhaps a little biased. I have spent a fair bit of time playing online on Resistance 2, especially on the co-op campaigns. It offers an all-encompassing and varied multiplayer experience, one that I am still drawn back to almost five months later. On the other hand, I have only played a couple hours of multiplayer on Killzone 2, and it didn’t do it for me. My issues with the controls were magnified ten fold when playing against other gamers and I found myself sitting through loading screens and mid game set-up menus far too often. On the plus side, the levels are impressively varied and expansive. I do intend to put a bit more time into the multiplayer, but it didn’t grab me initially the way that Resitance 2 did.
If pushed to pick a favourite, I would choose Resistance 2 for the above reasons. But,
I think Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 complement each other quite well, and any PS3 owning FPS fan would do well to pick up both. While I’m not convinced that either title warrants picking up a PS3 on its own merit, they do both cement an increasingly impressive catalogue of platform exclusive games for Sony’s machine.
So instead of giving a straight forward review, I want to compare it with Resitance 2, its well received PS3 exclusive, FPS bretheren. Both games have been touted as Sony’s answer to the Halo franchise and have been both a commercial and critical successful.
The first thing that grabs you when playing Killzone 2 is that it is very easy on the eye. The level of visual presentation is astounding, and although the game utilizes a relatively dull and sombre pallete, it still sticks out. Resistance 2 is no slouch either. Unlike Killzone, many of Resitance’s levels are set in broad daylight, leading to a completely different experience. It is a very pretty game, but in an altogther different way to Killzone. The level of presentation is extremely high in both cases. Both games are suitably scored, and the voice acting is capable, and at times rather good. Brian Cox as Killzone 2’s head villian Scolar Visari particularly stands out.
I found Killzone 2 to be much more challenging than Resistance 2, though im not sure if that is a sentiment shared by other gamers. However, with the exception of the final boss, it was never frustrating. Speaking of bosses, one thing you will notice when playing through is that there arent many traditional end of level bosses that you would expect to see in such a game. This contributes to a fresher, more realistic and fluid gaming experience. There doesn’t need to be a frighteningly powerful boss waiting around every umpteenth corner. However, it does contribute to the feeling of an ongoing slog through similar levels, with nothing notable to break it up. In comparison, this is one area in which Resitance excels. The bosses are one of the finest aspects of the game, with one of the bosses literally towering over Chicago’s ruined skyline.
As for controls, in Resistance 2 the main character has a certain feeling of weight to his movements, whereas in Killzone, I felt that the movements were far too sensitive. Any sudden movement will make your crosshairs go flying across the screen. It’s difficult to find the words to fully describe it, but it just didn’t feel quite right.
There are a wide range of weapons at your disposal in both games, and for the most part, they are very well balanced. Each firearm will suit one situation better than the next and there is never a shortage of ammo. Set pieces also feature quite heavily in both games, but I think I will give Killzone the nod in this regard. One of the final stages stands out, requiring you to storm up the steps of the Helghast government building. Both games are also very well paced. There are segments where you literally wade through hoardes of enemies, claiming a few metres each push. There are others that encourage you to move at break neck speed, hurtling towards a goal and taking out whatever steps in your path.
One key area where both titles fall short is the story. Firstly, Killzone 2. The story was good enough to keep me interseted, but with the exception of the likeable yet entirely underdeveloped protagonist, Sev, the characters are uninteresting at best, and in some cases outright annoying. Also, the story never really touches upon the fact that you are part of an invading force. You play the role of aggressor. With no pre knowledge of the series backstory, it isnt clear what makes you the good guy. This in itself should have provided an interesting narrative drive, but its never explored. A missed opportunity. In its defense, the game does pull out a pretty decent ending.
Resistance 2 also suffers from a rather forgettable story. However, Nathan Hale does make for a pretty interesting lead and the unravelling story of the Chimeran enemy and their origins is quite interesting, especially if you have played the original. With that said, there are a few lazy and headscratching additions to the narrative, most notably the Daedalus character who seems to come out of nowhere, with a glaring lack of backstory. If you have played the second installment but not the first, you would be forgiven for thinking that he was a character from R1, as the game seems to expect you to know who he is. Overall, I think Resistance has a stronger plot than Killzone 2, though its nothing to write home about. The end sequence is very disapointing, and like most things in the game, comes with virtually no explanation.
Despite the narrative problems, both games boast great settings. Resistance 2 offers a unique mix of 1950s culture and futuristic technologies employed by the Chimera. It’s a brilliant meeting of two worlds. Killzone 2 conjours up a smoky, overcast alien planet inhabitted by human descedants. Its set in the future, but the vast majority of the characters and weaponary seem firmly rooted in the here and now. It provides a very engaging setting.
When it comes to multiplayer, I’m perhaps a little biased. I have spent a fair bit of time playing online on Resistance 2, especially on the co-op campaigns. It offers an all-encompassing and varied multiplayer experience, one that I am still drawn back to almost five months later. On the other hand, I have only played a couple hours of multiplayer on Killzone 2, and it didn’t do it for me. My issues with the controls were magnified ten fold when playing against other gamers and I found myself sitting through loading screens and mid game set-up menus far too often. On the plus side, the levels are impressively varied and expansive. I do intend to put a bit more time into the multiplayer, but it didn’t grab me initially the way that Resitance 2 did.
If pushed to pick a favourite, I would choose Resistance 2 for the above reasons. But,
I think Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 complement each other quite well, and any PS3 owning FPS fan would do well to pick up both. While I’m not convinced that either title warrants picking up a PS3 on its own merit, they do both cement an increasingly impressive catalogue of platform exclusive games for Sony’s machine.
Great Video Game Openings
A great video game opening can stay with you for as long as any ending will. Having more games than I have time for, the intro and/or opening level can dictate how long I will play the game, and in some cases, whether I will continue playing it.
Here is a look at some of the finest examples of video game openings. Openings, including intro movies and/or the initial stage of gameplay, that have come to define the very game, and most importantly and made me want to play on.
Final Fantasy VIII (1999) – FF8 ranks as one of my all time favourite games, and the opening sequence is a large part of the reason why. A breathtaking visual achievement for its time, with a stunning orchestral score, it can still give you goose bumps. Opening on a tranquil beach and racing to a dark, rocky plain where the protagonist of the game, Squall is fighting his arch nemesis and fellow student Seifer, it sets the tone for a remarkable game. Watching it on Youtube makes me want to drop everything and play it again. For the fifth time!
God of War I and II (2005 & 2007) – Couldn’t really decide which one to include here, so I went with them both. God of War opens with a dejected Kratos throwing himself to his death, but it’s the opening level that warrants merit, culminating in an all time great boss fight against a massive three headed Hydra. Part two manages to match this, showing Kratos’ fall from grace and a first stage capped off with a showdown with the Colossus of Rhodes, that is even bigger than and equally as impressive as the three headed Hydra. Can’t wait to see what part 3 has in store for us.
Killzone 2 (2009) – The game that got me thinking about compiling this list. I have just finished the opening stage, and although I’m not so sure about the way the game handles, I can’t deny that it is perhaps the most visually impressive game I have ever played. It’s short but dramatic opening movie and introduction into the gameplay deserves a place on this list. The bald, pale head of Visari, the leader of the Helghast emerging from the pitch black snarling and a group of soldiers seemingly freefalling into the middle of a dank, grey war zone. I hope it plays as good as it looks.
Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) – “War has changed” and so begins MGS4. A convoy of soldiers roll along a dusty desert road, eventually winding up in the middle of a battle. And from there, you are seamlessly thrown right into the action. There is no obvious jump between cut scene and gameplay, something that all games should try to emulate. Looking like something out of Black Hawk Down and beautifully scored, Konami got this just right.
Metal Gear Solid 2 (2001) – You guessed it, I like MGS. MGS2, though probably my least favourite of the series, does however boast arguably the best intro of the series. A prelude to the game’s main focus, set two years before the main events of the game, it features Solid Snake infiltrating a tanker in a sodden New York City and taking on a group of terrorists single handed. Most importantly, it gave fans the chance to play as Snake, although only briefly, before the game shifted focus to Raiden.
Resident Evil (1997) – “We don’t know where Barry is”. So bad its good. Presented in true B-movie fashion, the live action intro movie is a sight to behold, in stark contrast to the more serious approach of the games that would follow. Alpha team are searching for the lost members of Bravo team in the middle of the night. There is spooky mist, plenty of gore, zombie dogs, dodgy acting, an abandoned mansion and Wesker’s hair. Please watch it on Youtube, even if only for Wesker. He is the one who looks like Vanilla Ice.
Final Fantasy VII (1997) – Another entry from the FF series. From its iconic music, to the gripping opening bombing mission, FFVII has you gripped from the outset. We are briefly introduced to Aeris selling flowers in the Midgar urban sprawl and then cut to Cloud on the outset of his adventure, one that you will want to experience over and over again.
Fallout 3 (2008) – As I have written previously, I wasn’t bowled over by my short experience of this game. However, the beginning segment is as impressive as it is ambitious. Beginning from your birth, and spanning your childhood and eventual escape from Vault 101 as a young adult, the introductory segment allows you to dictate your attributes and character type through your character’s actions growing up. It’s a very unique take on a game opening.
Far Cry 2 (2008) – The intro shows off everything great about Far Cry 2, whilst hiding the issues that hounded it. Arriving in the fictional African territory of Leboa-Sako, you are treated to an open-topped taxi drive and a low-down on recent events by the talkative driver. The scenery is beautiful, and just like your character, you are afforded the chance to sit back and enjoy it. The stop at a military check point is suitably tense and you really get the feeling that you are being immersed into this fictional war zone. Then things turn ugly with a bout of Malaria.
Honourable Mention –
Dead Space – What just came out of the ceiling??!!
Call of Duty 4 – Looks like the opening to a movie.
Resident Evil 4 – A great protracted intro, culminating in the most unfriendly of welcomes from the locals. Set to the sounds of rusty chainsaws.
No More Heroes – Breaks the fourth wall, and perfectly sets up what’s to come.
Here is a look at some of the finest examples of video game openings. Openings, including intro movies and/or the initial stage of gameplay, that have come to define the very game, and most importantly and made me want to play on.
Final Fantasy VIII (1999) – FF8 ranks as one of my all time favourite games, and the opening sequence is a large part of the reason why. A breathtaking visual achievement for its time, with a stunning orchestral score, it can still give you goose bumps. Opening on a tranquil beach and racing to a dark, rocky plain where the protagonist of the game, Squall is fighting his arch nemesis and fellow student Seifer, it sets the tone for a remarkable game. Watching it on Youtube makes me want to drop everything and play it again. For the fifth time!
God of War I and II (2005 & 2007) – Couldn’t really decide which one to include here, so I went with them both. God of War opens with a dejected Kratos throwing himself to his death, but it’s the opening level that warrants merit, culminating in an all time great boss fight against a massive three headed Hydra. Part two manages to match this, showing Kratos’ fall from grace and a first stage capped off with a showdown with the Colossus of Rhodes, that is even bigger than and equally as impressive as the three headed Hydra. Can’t wait to see what part 3 has in store for us.
Killzone 2 (2009) – The game that got me thinking about compiling this list. I have just finished the opening stage, and although I’m not so sure about the way the game handles, I can’t deny that it is perhaps the most visually impressive game I have ever played. It’s short but dramatic opening movie and introduction into the gameplay deserves a place on this list. The bald, pale head of Visari, the leader of the Helghast emerging from the pitch black snarling and a group of soldiers seemingly freefalling into the middle of a dank, grey war zone. I hope it plays as good as it looks.
Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) – “War has changed” and so begins MGS4. A convoy of soldiers roll along a dusty desert road, eventually winding up in the middle of a battle. And from there, you are seamlessly thrown right into the action. There is no obvious jump between cut scene and gameplay, something that all games should try to emulate. Looking like something out of Black Hawk Down and beautifully scored, Konami got this just right.
Metal Gear Solid 2 (2001) – You guessed it, I like MGS. MGS2, though probably my least favourite of the series, does however boast arguably the best intro of the series. A prelude to the game’s main focus, set two years before the main events of the game, it features Solid Snake infiltrating a tanker in a sodden New York City and taking on a group of terrorists single handed. Most importantly, it gave fans the chance to play as Snake, although only briefly, before the game shifted focus to Raiden.
Resident Evil (1997) – “We don’t know where Barry is”. So bad its good. Presented in true B-movie fashion, the live action intro movie is a sight to behold, in stark contrast to the more serious approach of the games that would follow. Alpha team are searching for the lost members of Bravo team in the middle of the night. There is spooky mist, plenty of gore, zombie dogs, dodgy acting, an abandoned mansion and Wesker’s hair. Please watch it on Youtube, even if only for Wesker. He is the one who looks like Vanilla Ice.
Final Fantasy VII (1997) – Another entry from the FF series. From its iconic music, to the gripping opening bombing mission, FFVII has you gripped from the outset. We are briefly introduced to Aeris selling flowers in the Midgar urban sprawl and then cut to Cloud on the outset of his adventure, one that you will want to experience over and over again.
Fallout 3 (2008) – As I have written previously, I wasn’t bowled over by my short experience of this game. However, the beginning segment is as impressive as it is ambitious. Beginning from your birth, and spanning your childhood and eventual escape from Vault 101 as a young adult, the introductory segment allows you to dictate your attributes and character type through your character’s actions growing up. It’s a very unique take on a game opening.
Far Cry 2 (2008) – The intro shows off everything great about Far Cry 2, whilst hiding the issues that hounded it. Arriving in the fictional African territory of Leboa-Sako, you are treated to an open-topped taxi drive and a low-down on recent events by the talkative driver. The scenery is beautiful, and just like your character, you are afforded the chance to sit back and enjoy it. The stop at a military check point is suitably tense and you really get the feeling that you are being immersed into this fictional war zone. Then things turn ugly with a bout of Malaria.
Honourable Mention –
Dead Space – What just came out of the ceiling??!!
Call of Duty 4 – Looks like the opening to a movie.
Resident Evil 4 – A great protracted intro, culminating in the most unfriendly of welcomes from the locals. Set to the sounds of rusty chainsaws.
No More Heroes – Breaks the fourth wall, and perfectly sets up what’s to come.
Sony Charging Publishers For Free PSN Downloads
It has been reported on a number of different websites that Sony has been, and still is charging publishers to put their free content downloads on the Playstation Network.
Basically, publishers are charged $0.16 per gigabyte downloaded for the first 60 days that their product is featured on PSN. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you consider that most demos are around 1GB, and the average download will be accessed in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, then it is clear that is far from an insignificant sum. The details can be found here, at IGN.
The most interesting aspect of this story is that Microsoft and Nintendo do not charge publishers in this way. It’s just Sony.
I realise that this probably isn’t as straight forward as it looks, and that chances are there is more to this story than has been reported. I wouldn’t be surprised if Nintendo and Microsoft are charging publishers in other ways. Also, I can see that PSN does provide a very attractive platform for publishers to promote their product, one that it is reasonable to expect payment for. It would be quite understandable if Microsoft and Nintendo were doing the same thing. But they aren’t. How can Sony expect to sell more PS3s and increase the platform's profile when they are making PSN so unattractive to publishers, particularly in comparison to Xbox Live.
It has been well publicised that Sony is struggling to get the same kind of market share that it enjoyed with the PS2. The PS3 is an expensive choice when compared to the Xbox360, for both hardware and software, and Sony has come under fire for its hitherto iron stead stance that it will not lower the price of the PS3, though whispers are abound that a price slash is imminent.
You would think that Sony would try to give itself any viable advantage over its stiff competition, so as to bolster sales. Yet charging publishers in this way would seem to run counter to this, with the PS3 owner ultimately suffering. We are more likely to have to pay for our downloadable content, and in the case of free content, are increasingly unlikely to get exclusives, and will get things later than Xbox 360.
As I said before, there are most likely more details to this story that haven’t surfaced, but on face value it seems a very questionable policy. I hope Sony have a rethink, as I really enjoy playing the PS3 and would like to see it achieve the same kind of success as its well loved predecessors. But with bad PR like this increasingly coming to light, it may prove to be an up hill struggle.
Basically, publishers are charged $0.16 per gigabyte downloaded for the first 60 days that their product is featured on PSN. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you consider that most demos are around 1GB, and the average download will be accessed in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, then it is clear that is far from an insignificant sum. The details can be found here, at IGN.
The most interesting aspect of this story is that Microsoft and Nintendo do not charge publishers in this way. It’s just Sony.
I realise that this probably isn’t as straight forward as it looks, and that chances are there is more to this story than has been reported. I wouldn’t be surprised if Nintendo and Microsoft are charging publishers in other ways. Also, I can see that PSN does provide a very attractive platform for publishers to promote their product, one that it is reasonable to expect payment for. It would be quite understandable if Microsoft and Nintendo were doing the same thing. But they aren’t. How can Sony expect to sell more PS3s and increase the platform's profile when they are making PSN so unattractive to publishers, particularly in comparison to Xbox Live.
It has been well publicised that Sony is struggling to get the same kind of market share that it enjoyed with the PS2. The PS3 is an expensive choice when compared to the Xbox360, for both hardware and software, and Sony has come under fire for its hitherto iron stead stance that it will not lower the price of the PS3, though whispers are abound that a price slash is imminent.
You would think that Sony would try to give itself any viable advantage over its stiff competition, so as to bolster sales. Yet charging publishers in this way would seem to run counter to this, with the PS3 owner ultimately suffering. We are more likely to have to pay for our downloadable content, and in the case of free content, are increasingly unlikely to get exclusives, and will get things later than Xbox 360.
As I said before, there are most likely more details to this story that haven’t surfaced, but on face value it seems a very questionable policy. I hope Sony have a rethink, as I really enjoy playing the PS3 and would like to see it achieve the same kind of success as its well loved predecessors. But with bad PR like this increasingly coming to light, it may prove to be an up hill struggle.
Resident Evil/Biohazard 5 Review
Resident Evil 5 has finally arrived on the PS3 and Xbox 360. It’s somewhat different to its lauded predecessors, but it’s still unmistakably a Resident Evil game.
Anyone who has played Resident Evil 4 will feel instantly at home here. From the controls to the enemies, there are many similarities, and that’s no bad thing. The Majini are the African equivalent of the Spanish Ganados from RE4, there are treasures strewn across the levels and you will of course spend plenty of time looking for keys and medals.
The characters are suitably over the top. Irving was an interesting sub-villain, and Wesker is still my favourite character of the series. A super powered ultra villain, who is completely incompetent when it comes to finishing anything he starts. And his accent is amazing! Excella, Wesker’s female side-kick, feels very much tacked on and a bit of a waste.
Like RE4 before it, there is a continued move toward action heavy gameplay. However, whereas RE4 still contained some of the puzzle elements from the previous games, RE5 has all but abandoned them in favour of non-stop, edge of your seat action. And it does it exceedingly well. For the most part, the enemies provide a real challenge and you feel like you are wading through endless and unforgiving hordes of the damned. But, as you progress through the game, I found myself craving balance, a break from the non stop carnage. Where is a statue puzzle when you need one?!
The slow movement and gunplay is of course still present. I’m not entirely against this, as it preserves the sense of helplessness and fear and lets you know that you are still playing a RE game. However, if the series continues its progression into the Gears of War mould, there will come a point when a rethink of the controls will be necessary. Not being able to run and gun will no longer be a realistic option and the slow, slow aiming is already beyond frustrating, especially when fighting nimble enemies like infected dogs.
One of the main selling points of the latest instalment is the introduction of a partner, Sheva, who remains by your side throughout. Sheva is an interesting character, and a welcome addition to the chronicles of RE. She is also very useful as an inventory dump, a marked improvement over previous instalments. However, I’m far from sold on the teamwork aspect of the game. None of the sequences that required two characters working in tandem really stuck out. I think the game would have been just as enjoyable with Sheva as merely a supporting character, part of the narrative, but removed from the actual gameplay. At times, I found myself shouting aloud at Sheva, as she used one of my precious first aid sprays at an inopportune time, stood between me and an enemy when I was trying to aim, or walked at ridiculous right angles as I waited for her to help out with a switch. I understand her inclusion from a multiplayer standpoint, as it adds a great deal of replay value. But in the single player campaign, I would have been just as happy without Sheva. She can hold her own in a fight, but I’m not sure of what exactly she brings to the single player experience.
In terms of longevity, RE5 excels. Aside from the obligatory varying levels of difficulty and trophies, RE4’s Mercenaries game mode makes a welcome return and there is a great deal of fun to had playing co-op. And of course, there are the new game modes to be offered, at a price, in the upcoming downloadable content. I won’t dwell on this too much, as I am reviewing the game as I own it, and it will detract from the review. However, I will say that it’s shocking that Capcom would charge for a game mode that is standard on most other games, so soon after the initial release of the game. It would appear that they intentionally held it back from the get go, simply so they could have an opportunity to charge their customers further. I digress.
RE5 is an interesting game, one that will both excite and frustrate. It looks gorgeous and the gun heavy gameplay is a blast. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and is incredibly fun to play, though after the first third of the game, it does go slightly downhill.
RE5 is a fine addition to a well loved series. A series that is changing, for better or for worse. Just don’t expect another RE4, or even a game to rival it, as you will be setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. Take it for what it is; a flawed, yet exciting, rollercoaster of a game.
A Closer Look - Striking a Balance - Video Game Difficulty
Take a glance at any video game message board, and you will see a plethora of topics along the lines of “xxx is too difficult” or “Why is xxx so easy?”. Video games walk a fine line when it comes to level of difficulty. Make it too easy, and gamers may shun the title. Make it too challenging, and you will alienate the casual gamers, who make up the vast majority of the market.
One argument that has been flogged to death, is that older games are much more challenging than those of today. Of course, this is a massively sweeping statement, but one that many gamers hold true. I have no intention of discussing the validity of that argument here. But, I think the most interesting aspect of such a discussion is the implicit suggestion that more difficult equals better.
When considering this, one must look at different types of difficulty. For example, some games are difficult in a way that make them challenging, and ultimately more rewarding. Whereas some games are difficult in the frustrating sense, leading the gamer to prematurely finish with the game and possibly throw his/her controller at a wall/person/themselves. It’s very important to make this distinction when discussing the relationship between a games level of difficulty, and whether it’s actually any good or not.
One strategy game that I have been playing recently, Valkyria Chronicles (PS3), demonstrates an unusual balance between these two kinds of difficulty. On the one hand, this game really keeps you on your toes, forcing you to think multiple moves ahead, much like a game of chess. You only ever make the same mistake twice, as the game forces you to adjust your strategy accordingly to ensure victory. The result is a real sense of satisfaction when you complete, what can be, very time consuming battles.
However, Valkyria Chronicles also demonstrates some less enviable traits. A couple of the battles that I have experienced so far, have appeared impossible to complete on the first attempt, or without pre-existing knowledge of what to expect. Imagine my frustration, when nearing the end of a battle that had taken me the best part of an hour, without warning an enemy reinforcement arrives that proceeds to kill my main unit in one shot. Cue game over screen. My character was simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suffice to say, I didn’t make that mistake again. Introducing such random elements in a game of strategy, where the whole premise is to keep planning two steps ahead, is a prime example of frustrating, and ill thought out difficulty.
(Just for the record, Valkyria Chronicles is an outstanding game. To put it in very simple terms, the challenging and enjoyable elements far outweigh the unfortunate, frustrating aspects. It’s definitely worth checking out.)
Deciding on a level of difficulty when producing a game must be a thankless task. Hence, it would seem to be in everyone’s best interest to make games with selectable, highly customizable levels of difficulty. The arcade portion of the recently released Street Fighter IV is a great example of this. The player is allowed to choose from numerous levels of difficulty, ranging from easiest to the very hardest. This is an excellent idea in theory, allowing the gamer to customize their experience according to their skill level or what they hope to get from the game. However, in practice, I think Capcom got it wrong. Having played through the game a few times, there seems to be little to no difference between the final boss on easiest or normal settings. This seems to defeat the point of providing such exhaustive levels of difficulty. If you are going to include an easiest option, then make sure it’s easy.
If you mention this on a Street Fighter board, you are likely to be inundated with people moaning about your noob status, and inability to play video games. It’s all well and good having mastered the ins and outs of Street Fighter 4, or any game for that matter, but such gamers are very much in the minority. It’s the casual gamer who dictates whether a game will ultimately be a success or not. And they are likely to be put off by punishing levels of difficulty. Street Fighter 4 is an unusual case, as due to name recognition and a rich history, it is destined for huge success either way. However, I know that I will not be buying any downloadable content or playing the game much again, because I was so put off by the games inconsistent difficulty. And I’m anything but a casual gamer.
When discussing trends in the difficulty of video games, it’s vital to look at the success of the Wii and the rise of the casual gamer. The Wii has been more successful than even the most optimistic of commentator could have predicted, and has put a video game console into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn’t know Solid Snake from Link. It has also led to a rethink in game design and of course levels of difficulty. A casual gamer is much less likely to invest hours in trying to overcome a challenging boss, and I think that’s reflected somewhat in the kind of games we see being released. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the more the video game industry diversifies its product, the more successful it will become.
The perceived difficulty of a video game is always going to be a hot topic. But, when games successfully offer a range of difficulty levels that do cater for all abilities, it can become a relatively mute point. Like most gamers, I want to be challenged by my video games, and to have the ability to vary that challenge as I see fit. But, I don’t want to spend hours scouring through Gamefaqs, holding back the tears, looking for the best way to kill that impossible boss. I want to be pushed, but not too hard.
We want the moon on a stick, and that's why difficulty levels will always be a hot topic.
One argument that has been flogged to death, is that older games are much more challenging than those of today. Of course, this is a massively sweeping statement, but one that many gamers hold true. I have no intention of discussing the validity of that argument here. But, I think the most interesting aspect of such a discussion is the implicit suggestion that more difficult equals better.
When considering this, one must look at different types of difficulty. For example, some games are difficult in a way that make them challenging, and ultimately more rewarding. Whereas some games are difficult in the frustrating sense, leading the gamer to prematurely finish with the game and possibly throw his/her controller at a wall/person/themselves. It’s very important to make this distinction when discussing the relationship between a games level of difficulty, and whether it’s actually any good or not.
One strategy game that I have been playing recently, Valkyria Chronicles (PS3), demonstrates an unusual balance between these two kinds of difficulty. On the one hand, this game really keeps you on your toes, forcing you to think multiple moves ahead, much like a game of chess. You only ever make the same mistake twice, as the game forces you to adjust your strategy accordingly to ensure victory. The result is a real sense of satisfaction when you complete, what can be, very time consuming battles.
However, Valkyria Chronicles also demonstrates some less enviable traits. A couple of the battles that I have experienced so far, have appeared impossible to complete on the first attempt, or without pre-existing knowledge of what to expect. Imagine my frustration, when nearing the end of a battle that had taken me the best part of an hour, without warning an enemy reinforcement arrives that proceeds to kill my main unit in one shot. Cue game over screen. My character was simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suffice to say, I didn’t make that mistake again. Introducing such random elements in a game of strategy, where the whole premise is to keep planning two steps ahead, is a prime example of frustrating, and ill thought out difficulty.
(Just for the record, Valkyria Chronicles is an outstanding game. To put it in very simple terms, the challenging and enjoyable elements far outweigh the unfortunate, frustrating aspects. It’s definitely worth checking out.)
Deciding on a level of difficulty when producing a game must be a thankless task. Hence, it would seem to be in everyone’s best interest to make games with selectable, highly customizable levels of difficulty. The arcade portion of the recently released Street Fighter IV is a great example of this. The player is allowed to choose from numerous levels of difficulty, ranging from easiest to the very hardest. This is an excellent idea in theory, allowing the gamer to customize their experience according to their skill level or what they hope to get from the game. However, in practice, I think Capcom got it wrong. Having played through the game a few times, there seems to be little to no difference between the final boss on easiest or normal settings. This seems to defeat the point of providing such exhaustive levels of difficulty. If you are going to include an easiest option, then make sure it’s easy.
If you mention this on a Street Fighter board, you are likely to be inundated with people moaning about your noob status, and inability to play video games. It’s all well and good having mastered the ins and outs of Street Fighter 4, or any game for that matter, but such gamers are very much in the minority. It’s the casual gamer who dictates whether a game will ultimately be a success or not. And they are likely to be put off by punishing levels of difficulty. Street Fighter 4 is an unusual case, as due to name recognition and a rich history, it is destined for huge success either way. However, I know that I will not be buying any downloadable content or playing the game much again, because I was so put off by the games inconsistent difficulty. And I’m anything but a casual gamer.
When discussing trends in the difficulty of video games, it’s vital to look at the success of the Wii and the rise of the casual gamer. The Wii has been more successful than even the most optimistic of commentator could have predicted, and has put a video game console into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn’t know Solid Snake from Link. It has also led to a rethink in game design and of course levels of difficulty. A casual gamer is much less likely to invest hours in trying to overcome a challenging boss, and I think that’s reflected somewhat in the kind of games we see being released. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the more the video game industry diversifies its product, the more successful it will become.
The perceived difficulty of a video game is always going to be a hot topic. But, when games successfully offer a range of difficulty levels that do cater for all abilities, it can become a relatively mute point. Like most gamers, I want to be challenged by my video games, and to have the ability to vary that challenge as I see fit. But, I don’t want to spend hours scouring through Gamefaqs, holding back the tears, looking for the best way to kill that impossible boss. I want to be pushed, but not too hard.
We want the moon on a stick, and that's why difficulty levels will always be a hot topic.
The 100 Best Games To Play Today - Edge
Really interesting article currently viewable at edge-online, to be featured in their upcoming 200th edition. It counts down the top 100 best games to play today. I highly recommend taking the time to give it a read.
Its a nice approach, listing the most playable games as of today, as opposed to the best games of all time. I think most gamers have a title or two that they have a soft spot for, one that brings back childhood memories or what have you. But in reality, if you play those games again now, they just don't stand up all that well. This list conveniently removes the need to make allowances for rose-tinted glasses.
There are many games on the list that I have played and greatly enjoyed, but there are others that I am far less familiar with. For one reason or another I have never played Shadow of the Colossus and Ico (number 68 and 54) both for the PS2. This list has reminded me of these two titles that passed me by at the time of release, but now I think I would savour playing. I was straight onto ebay after seeing them!
Have a look through, and hopefully like me, you will see something that will spark your interest.
Its a nice approach, listing the most playable games as of today, as opposed to the best games of all time. I think most gamers have a title or two that they have a soft spot for, one that brings back childhood memories or what have you. But in reality, if you play those games again now, they just don't stand up all that well. This list conveniently removes the need to make allowances for rose-tinted glasses.
There are many games on the list that I have played and greatly enjoyed, but there are others that I am far less familiar with. For one reason or another I have never played Shadow of the Colossus and Ico (number 68 and 54) both for the PS2. This list has reminded me of these two titles that passed me by at the time of release, but now I think I would savour playing. I was straight onto ebay after seeing them!
Have a look through, and hopefully like me, you will see something that will spark your interest.
A Beer Too Many - Xbox 360
It’s quite common the morning after the night before to find yourself wondering what exactly you did last night, between all those beers. Some people wake up minus something; some cash, a phone, or a friend (!), and it takes a few minutes to place exactly what happened. Some wake up with something extra, an ill advised purchase, a traffic cone or that girl from the bar last night. You should be so lucky.
Saturday morning, I woke up with an Xbox 360. Not literally of course, that would be odd. Anyway, I guess that’s what happens when you go drinking in Akihabara!
My beer fuelled purchase wasn’t entirely out of the blue, as I have been deliberating for sometime as to whether to pick one up or not. However, I wasn’t planning on adding to my console collection right now. But the price was right (Lost Planet bundle, with a 20GB HD, used, but as new - 18,000 yen) and it just felt like it was the right thing to do.
Now there is even less space under our TV. Luckily, my fiancée has a good sense of humour about theses kind of things.
My Hand Doesn't Work Anymore - Guitar Hero On Tour
I love the electronics shop Sofmap. Especially the multi floored video game store in Akihabara. I’m in there at least once a week, as you are always guaranteed to find some sort of bargain.
Aside from my personal favourite, the used games floor, Sofmap always has low price deals on a small selection of new games. These games tend to rotate week in week out, so you are never quite sure what will be on offer. In the past I have picked up new bargains like Nights (Wii) and Seaman 2 (PS2) for only ¥990, and No More Heroes (Wii) and Mirrors Edge (PS3) for only ¥1990.
Last week, I was greeted by the sight of a large pile of Guitar Hero On Tour for the DS when I wandered into Sofmap. The game comes boxed with an adapter that brings the Guitar Hero experience to the portable crowd, and it was going for only ¥990! Of course, I couldn’t resist.
The game in itself is fine, and it makes a valiant effort to port GH to the DS. But unless you have the fingers of a young child, or an extremely high tolerance for pain, you’re not going to be playing for anymore than 10 minutes at a time.
I played a 3 song session last night. Besides that fact that, due to the close proximity of the buttons, I was constantly and inadvertently mashing 2 buttons at a time, I also ended up with pins and needles and a little finger that seemed to be trying to vacate the rest of my hand.
I guess there was a reason why Sofmap had a big pile of them on the bargain table after all.
Aside from my personal favourite, the used games floor, Sofmap always has low price deals on a small selection of new games. These games tend to rotate week in week out, so you are never quite sure what will be on offer. In the past I have picked up new bargains like Nights (Wii) and Seaman 2 (PS2) for only ¥990, and No More Heroes (Wii) and Mirrors Edge (PS3) for only ¥1990.
Last week, I was greeted by the sight of a large pile of Guitar Hero On Tour for the DS when I wandered into Sofmap. The game comes boxed with an adapter that brings the Guitar Hero experience to the portable crowd, and it was going for only ¥990! Of course, I couldn’t resist.
The game in itself is fine, and it makes a valiant effort to port GH to the DS. But unless you have the fingers of a young child, or an extremely high tolerance for pain, you’re not going to be playing for anymore than 10 minutes at a time.
I played a 3 song session last night. Besides that fact that, due to the close proximity of the buttons, I was constantly and inadvertently mashing 2 buttons at a time, I also ended up with pins and needles and a little finger that seemed to be trying to vacate the rest of my hand.
I guess there was a reason why Sofmap had a big pile of them on the bargain table after all.
Metal Gear Solid 4 Trophies?
Will it ever happen?
If this is anything to go by, then maybe we are in luck. (linked from kotaku.com).
Seems like it would be a great idea, though the MGS series hasn't always followed conventional wisdom. The emblems awarded at the end of the game, according to your achievements throughout, would be an obvious choice for transferring to trophies. Though I am sure if Konami decide to go the trophy route, they would take the time to do it properly and add further challenges.
Fingers crossed Konami will give us yet another reason to return to MGS4.
If this is anything to go by, then maybe we are in luck. (linked from kotaku.com).
Seems like it would be a great idea, though the MGS series hasn't always followed conventional wisdom. The emblems awarded at the end of the game, according to your achievements throughout, would be an obvious choice for transferring to trophies. Though I am sure if Konami decide to go the trophy route, they would take the time to do it properly and add further challenges.
Fingers crossed Konami will give us yet another reason to return to MGS4.
| Home |
