Pacific City Approves Bond, Will Put More Agents On The Streets

While his answers in no way were prompted by my piece about the potential (and disappointments) of Crackdown, Realtime Worlds producer Phil Wilson did a Q & A yesterday with Eurogamer. Despite being far too tight lipped for my tastes, he did give us a few glimmers of hope in a form I hadn't predicted.

Repairmanjack: What are the chances of having a patch that resets the bosses? I'm having to create new gamertags or delete the game from the hard drive to replay it and Time Trials don't really make up for this.

Phil Wilson: Ah crap, I can only apologise for this cock-up on behalf of persons that shall remain nameless. You wouldn't believe what happened here even if I told you but suffice to say that we will have a 'reset gangs' option in the free DLC (in place of the current crimes on/off toggle - and it's quite possible that you heard it here first!) So while I'm spilling beans, there's also another great mode that I'm pretty sure is also kinda what you're asking for but a whole lot more - so I hope that goes some way towards compensation. Our bad!

...

Polar: Are there any plans to implement competitive multiplayer play in the future? Can you let you let us know anything exclusively exciting around the up and coming downloadable content?

Phil Wilson: Sadly I can't say much about the DLC but I will say that we've got some competitive (and one co-operative... if you chose to play it that way) game modes that we're already having a great time playing. Longer term it would be good to offer multiplayer to more than two players in the Crackdown Universe - the prospect of mass co-op is definitely an exciting one.

Kudos are in order, especially if this is all free / very cheap. The whole process of releasing a game, patching it within the first week, and then unloading overpriced content that should have been in the game from day one is a troubling trend. Keep it free, Crackdown, or else we won't even buy Crackdown 2 for the Halo 4 (or Halo Wars) beta.


Oh, who am I kidding, or course we will.

Lovin' from the Onion

The Onion, America's Finest News Source, just weighed in on the videogame violence debate in their brilliant series of Colbert-esque self-satirizing political cartoons.

Thankfully there are some people who know a thing or two about games who work for influential, widely read publications. Keep up the good fight Onion.

Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned From Old School NES Games

In the grand tradition of "Everything I Needed to Know" lists, here is my contribution:


1.It takes determination and a strong will to accomplish your goals. {Ninja Gaiden}

2.Even a seemingly linear path in life will reveal many alternate routes upon further exploration. {Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, and 3}

3.It is very important to be able to see things from another perspective. {Metal Storm}

4.Cooperation and teamwork are necessary to avoid frustration and dead-ends. {Double Dragon, Bubble Bobble, Contra}

5.You must remain vigilant in order to avoid a sudden demise. {Paperboy, Castlevania, really almost every NES game}

6.Violence only gets you in trouble. {Metal Gear}

7.It’s easy to fall into in a routine pattern if you do not observe your own behaviors and actions. {Magmax, which featured two levels repeated ad infinitum}

8.The bigger they are, the harder they fall. {Godzilla}

9.Sometimes the experience we will have with a person, situation, or product is clearly advertised or broadcasted, but we will only notice this message if we are observant. (Marble Madness, Maniac Mansion)

10.It’s best to get off of a sinking ship (or a collapsing building). {Rampage}

11.Experience is valuable, but you need maturity as well. {Final Fantasy}

12.Adaptation is the key to overcoming obstacles. {Mega Man}

13.You will have to overcome your shadow before you can triumph. {Zelda II, Super Dodgeball}

14.If all else fails, use fire. {Zelda II}

15.The world is vast, and exploring it is very rewarding {Blaster Master, Faxanadu, Final Fantasy, etc.}

Software Slump

We've all seen it happen before; a magnificent game comes out of nowhere, holds our game systems hostage, and after the requisite 2 year wait, the sequel feels flat and uninspired. The most obvious and glaring example of this, oddly enough, it is a truly beloved game. You all know it, even Bungie's said it. Halo 2.

Bungie engineer Chris Butcher was blunter in his assessment. "We had about four to five weeks to polish Halo at the end...[but] we had none of that for Halo 2," he told [British game magazine Edge]. "We miscalculated, we screwed up, we came down to the wire and we just lost all of that. So Halo 2 is far less than it could and should be in many ways because of that. It kills me to think of it."

Butcher was even critical of Halo 2's multiplayer element. "Even the multiplayer experience for Halo 2 is a pale shadow of what it could and should have been if we had gotten the timing of our schedule right," he said "I ****ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it."

So what happened? How could a game that had (save a few last weeks) all the time in the world and an incredible base to build from turn out to be so uneven? Halo: CE was the Xbox. There is a real chance that the system might have failed if not for Halo: CE. So what happened?

Halo 2 is the highest profile example of the sophomore slump in videogames, something I've decided to call the software slump. But now that I've got a cute little moniker for this phenomenon, I'm obligated to explain it. Damn.

Crackdown inspired this post, along with the above quotes. Crackdown is incredibly fun to play around with, but at times it feels like some things were left out. Some are basic features that have been left out, possibly due to technical concerns (split screen deathmatch and coop), and others are finer elements of story and depth (more collectible weapons / cars / gear). What I see when I look at Crackdown is a game that should have a tremendous sequel, and that has a lot to do with the fact that it was lacking in the ways I described.

Halo: CE had none of these problems; the game was fully featured and the plot was fairly inventive. It played perfectly, and had very solid balance both in single player difficulty and in multiplayer -- well, you've played it. It was a great game in its own right, so how did the sequel go so wrong?

Don't misunderstand me, I enjoy Halo 2, and still play occasionally. But now that both Halos are 'last-gen,' I don't feel the overwhelming need to play the newer game over the older, and so I find myself suggesting Halo: CE at least as often as Halo 2, especially if we're going to play coop. Halo 2 missed the mark

• On plot - With the mostly horrible Arbiter sections and the ending


• On weapon balance - gimping the shotgun, plasma and magnum pistols, adding the tracking feature to the rockets while removing the fuel rod from the Banshee and slowing down the Wraith, and (though it's my favorite thing in the game) adding the unstoppable energy sword


• On the campaign - by changing the nature of the game and making Legendary difficulty unsatisfying and aggravating in coop, rather than the joy it was in the first game

They added some nice features too. Though I complain about the sword, like I said, I love it so hard, and having it available to the enemy in Halo: CE but not to the player seemed very unfair. Same thing for the Wraith tank, and while I'm on that point, vehicles should be destructible as they are in Halo 2. Dual wielding was overdue and pulled off well.

I think the trouble was that the team got wrapped up in all the new features they were adding to the game and missed the bigger picture. Often times these new features only served to throw off the balance in matches. I think that the story in the game was beyond salvation, but multiplayer was not. Halo 2 multiplayer was fun, but always seemed a bit too chaotic, and never approached the ballet-like matches I remember from Halo: CE. Furthermore the removal of the health gauge in addition to the shield was a terrible decision. Having two levels of life, one that dynamically recharges and the other that could only be revived by a power-up, makes for more strategic matches. Would I assault a superior foe with my spawn guns if I knew I could knock his health down halfway and I could keep him from reaching the health kit on my next life? Do I pick up the health and expose myself to potential ambush? With the addition of so many new weapons to Halo 2, most of which are not expressly superior to any others, there is little interest in setting traps or stalking a player - simply blast away at the next body you see.

Maybe these aren't the problems that Chris Butcher of Bungie was referring to above. Maybe I haven't even noticed what he things makes Halo 2 unplayable. However, these are the problems I see, and they came about because Bungie put too much into features at the cost of the balance and playability of the game.

Crackdown is at the other end of this spectrum. The basic structure of the game is fantastic, but it is almost criminally lacking in features. Split-screen coop is mandatory, period. Even minigames in split-screen, like the already included rooftop races, or see who can throw a body the farthest or juggle it the longest with rockets, or who can kill the most civilians or gang members in a time limit or with a single life. The game also begs for deathmatch, with a redesign in the aiming system (and the ability to hit something you're not locked on to).

A plot, even something as cliche-ridden and bland as Saint's Row would be greatly welcomed, and the fact that you're cloned every time you die could actually be used to write a Phillip K Dick-esque story around. The game bursts with potential. Bosses could use giant mechs, or use similar superhuman powers to the main character, or even use parts of the environment to attack you.

The eventual question I'm pushing towards is - Will a game with tremendous potential, but lacking in features and depth(Crackdown) spawn a better sequel that a game that achieves everything it set out to do right out of the gate(Halo: CE)? A lot depends on the development team, but sometimes it takes drastic changes in focus to make a sequel work for a great game.

The series that jumps to mind as the perfect example of a team trying to make a sequel to a great game, once meeting with success, once with failure, is the trio of GoldenEye 007 / Perfect Dark / Perfect Dark Zero. GoldenEye and Perfect Dark were both smash successes, and PD:Z was sloppy at best. I had tremendous expectations for the PDZ, as PD is in my top 5 games of all time, but besides next-gen graphics the game had little going for it.

I believe that Perfect Dark was able to capitalize on GoldenEye's success without succumbing to software slump because they found features that gamers wanted and needed and implemented them without destroying the balance in the original game. I think losing the Bond license might have been the best thing that happened to PD, since it forced Rare to think of how to pull gamers in without the heavyweight tie-in. This change in focus brought enough freshness to the title to keep us happy without changing the basic feel of the game. This is where Halo 2 stumbled - they lost the feel of the original in pursuit of adding new features and items to the game.

I guess in a few years, we'll know if Crackdown 2 winds up better than Halo 2. I wouldn't hold my breath, since most developers either don't think like me, or find it too hard to code some of the ideas I've laid forth for the game. Still, it's interesting to see that success can sometimes come from mediocrity, and that brilliant success can sometimes lead to lackluster production. Hopefully this won't afflict some of the top tier games right now that are clearly going to get sequels, (Gears of War, Zelda, Resistance) but if it got hold of Halo: CE, then what game is truly safe?

Reviewing Reviews

Destructoid has been running a series this week on game reviews, focusing on how inflated (and therefore meaningless) they've become. You can find part 1 here and part 2 here.

Seeing these, and the direct vitriol heaped upon the concept of the academic rating model, has left me to ponder my rating system. When I created it, what I liked was the idea that I could recognize a game for significant contributions to the field by the inclusion of extra credit points in my model. I still like this idea, but in the face of the Destructoid Review Manifesto, how can I go forward in good conscience?

I had pondered another idea which included dollar amounts as the rating system. The more dollars a game got in a review, the more you'd be willing to pay to own it. The real trouble we face (as outlined in part 2) is that numerical systems cannot really capture the quality of a game, but we all crave a way to quantify games. The exact same problem exists in the realm of film criticism, with either 4 or 5 star systems. What if a film had great acting and plot, but suffered from poor production values and lighting? Or was gorgeous, but featured actors chewing scenery and a story that goes nowhere? Or, and here we reach the most valid parallel to gaming, what if a movie is "fun" to watch, despite lacking redeeming value or making any serious contribution to the genre or art form?

This is the point I think Rev. Anthony missed in his articles thus far. But no movie if free of flaws, nor is any game, no matter how good. Something like Gears of War is rated so highly because it achieved the two major things that ALL games strive towards.

• Does the game significantly improve, contribute to, or innovate within, the genre?


• Is the game truly and enduringly fun?

If the answer to both of these is yes, barring glaring errors, then that game has earned 5 star status, in my book. Now, when a game achieves both of those things and looks better than any game we've ever seen, I see no reason to rate that game lower than 9 out of 10. Shoe had is right in his EGM review of Gears:

You can always find reasons not to give a game a review score of 10. Control issues (Gears of War has that). A.I. problems (that, too). Bad dialogue or storytelling (yes on both). Linear levels, online lag, limited modes (yup, yup, and yup). But as I was playing through the game, I found one consistently good feature: It was constantly impressing the hell out of me.

I can go on and on, but you really need to play this visual and visceral masterpiece for yourself. When you do, you'll find plenty of minor problems, just like I did...but you can always find reasons not to give a game a 10.

And while I was playing Gears of War, all I kept running into was reasons to give it a 10.

When they give out the Nobel Prize, no one ever accuses the men and women who won of not doing enough. No one ever said "yes, while proving theory A, Dr. X has answered a question that has vexed scientists for decades -- but did he immediately post all of his notes online so that we could properly collaborate on his ideas? Did Dr. X make sure his documentation was of the highest visual standard? Was the report, and the earlier abstract as readable as it could have been? No, Dr. X did none of these things, and should have only been given a 6 by the Nobel committee."

Did that last paragraph sound a bit absurd to you? It should, and it's seems to be what Rev. Anthony is calling for. In the article, he comes off as angry, fuming at the game reviewing establishment. He already hit the nail on the head as to the real problem. People need to read the review. If people read the reviews, then they know if they want the game or not. It actually stuns me that Rev. Anthony thinks that we gamers all see a 9, or an 8, and charge off to buy the game the second we're done. Given the hype machines, leaked and released screenshots and videos, and, most importantly, demos, we are the best informer gamers that have ever lived. Do we really even care about reviews when we want to buy a game? I read reviews when I'm on the fence about a game, or when they're so amazing that I need to know what the game is like.

Gears literally moved the entire field of gaming forward, and reinvented 3rd Person Shooters. In my mind, not giving it the highest score available is disrespectful, given how much the game gave us, and will continue to give us as it influences games in the future.

Still, despite the fact that I disagree with his targets, and some of his methodology, I am wholly behind his purpose and message; make reviews more meaningful and accessible to gamers.

So, I'm rolling out a new rating schema, something that gives people a better idea of how much value games have. Dollars still have the same problems as a point system, quantifying without providing a true sense of value. The suggestion made by Rev. Anthony is a good one, of "Buy, Rent, Don't Bother" but quite crude. So, I've made a few adjustments, and here goes. They should all be self explanatory, but I'll put a note on each one.

Ratings:

• Buy The 360 / DS / PS3 / PSP / Wii - The game is so good that if you don't even own the system, you should go buy it now just to play it


• Preorder The Limited Edition - You're going to want all the behind the scenes and extras because you're never letting this game go


• Buy It Now - stop reading, go to the store, and purchase this game (apologies to eBay)


• Get It Used - check out your local Gamespot or EB, or cruise eBay or half to find it


• Rent It - visit your local Blockbuster or Hollywood, or try one of them new-fangled internet services


• Try It Out - download the demo, or head over to a friend's house who has it


• Avoid At All Costs - not even worth experiencing

I'm going to give a second metric as well, to attempt to give an idea of how novel / important the game is.

Legacy:

• Earthshaking


• Influential


• Significant


• Mild


• Negligible

So, hopefully I've given you a bit to chew on, and I'll get to rewriting all my review drafts. Until then.

Review Criteria Adjustment

After looking across several games and beginning reviews on them, I realized that certain elements overlapped between the categories I laid out previously. After much deliberation, I've changed them thusly.

• Presentation - visuals and audio


• Mechanics - gameplay and controls


• Plot - storyline and scripting


• Depth - multiplayer, replay value and length


• Character - innovation, refinement and the intangibles

Thank you for bearing with me, reviews shall be forthcoming.

Review Primer

I suppose before I post a review, I'd like all of you to know how and why I'm reviewing games I do. First things first, until companies send me hardware and software, the games I review will be predicated on those I (and my friends) chose to buy and rent, so the list won't be as expansive as most magazines / websites / TV networks. If people start to give me stuff for free, you'll all be the first to know.



Here are the categories I'll be using:

• Presentation - how does the game look and sound


• Mechanics - how does the game control and how does well the game flow


• Depth - how long can you play this game before you want something else


• Character - how does the game distinguish itself from similar games


• Multiplayer - how does it plays against other people

These are a bit different than you may be used to, and I'm sure some of you might even think that Depth and Multiplayer run together. Character may seem similar as well. Let me make these even clearer.

• Presentation - colors and sounds


• Mechanics - controls and plot


• Depth - replay value and length


• Character - innovation and refinement


• Multiplayer - coop, split screen and online

Now, I've gone back and forth about how to rate this, and I've decided that I'm going to treat these games like school kids. After all, this is a rating system that we've all used for at least a decade of our lives, and we all understand it.

Games will be graded on a 0 to 100 point scale, with each category worth 20 points. A is 100 to 95, A- is 94 to 90. The B+, B and B- range is 89 to 80, C+, C and C- is 79 to 70. D+, D and D- is 69 to 60. Below 60 is a failing grade. But I cannot express this enough, there will be extra credit. Each category has the potential for an additional 5 extra credit points, and from time to time, extra curricular achievements may be rewarded handsomely. I can guarantee that I will be rewarding at least one A+

So, be prepared readers; there will be reviews of whatever games I can get my hands on, and the good news for you is that I just doubled my "new/next-gen" console ownership.

Happy gaming.

Manifesto II

We the people of the Four Player Split Screen Nation, in order to form a more cooperative union, establish justice, insure domestic, international, and interstellar tranquility, provide for the commonly experienced defense of space stations, nuclear facilities, real and fictional cities, and presidents, prime ministers and damsels in distress, promote the general gaming welfare, and secure the blessings of co-operative play to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Four Player Split Screen Nation.

~~~

Last post, we declared out independence, and demanded the full and equal treatment of Four Player Split Screen as multiplayer canon. When co-operative play is left out of a game, or when the options for said mode are lacking, multiplayer can suffer just as much as if it were missing FPSS. Co-op and FPSS go hand in hand, as both are design choices that allow us, the gamers, get the most out of the games we buy.

Last time I mentioned GoldenEye 007 as the first great FPSS, and as a gaming touchstone. You all already know what game I'm giving kudos to for Co-op. It's the game that sold a thousand systems (probably a million or two, actually), Halo: Combat Evolved. There are faults to be sure: repetitive level design, the uselessness of the assault rifle (no wonder humanity is getting it's ass kicked, with a gun like that as standard issue) and the occasional punishing segment on Legendary. But Halo: CE still shines, and I still play through the co-op to this day. I'd never play the campaign on my own, but it's still a blast to flank an Elite while he's busy shooting at your friend, stick him, and laugh maniacally when he explodes in a blue flash. Or when your friend gets position on a Hunter who is charging at you and drops him with a sniper rifle. Or running over grunts in the Warthog while your partner guns down a Banshee.

Clearly, I could go on for quite some time.

Boosting for co-op is going to be the second part of the FPSS agenda. The union of Four Player Split Screen and Fully Supported Co-op is the sweet spot for gamers. FPSS is going to give you hard, punishing reviews of multiplayer support in games. Online play, control, graphics, game design and balance; these will all be rated too, in order to give you the fullest sense of how this game works -- in your living room surrounded with friends, with just one buddy ready to help you save the world, and when you want to take on the best that the 'tubes' have to offer. FPSS will feature bouts of nostalgia as well, rating the best multiplayer games of the past and recent present.

Until we talk next, keep on fragging.

Four Player Split Screen Mainfesto I

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for four people to dissolve, chainsaw, or rocket one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the Over Shield and the Quad Damage powerup, and the separate and equal four quadrants of a screen to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the decapitation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of ending each other's supply of lives. — That to secure these rights, games were created for Men (and Women), deriving their just powers from the consent of the gamers, — That whenever any Form of Display becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Games, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Carnage and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Gaming Customs long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Developers and games, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Gamers; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Development. The history of the present State of Multiplayer is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these Gamers. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

~~~

Games are at a crossroads. Next-gen and New-gen, PS3 and Xbox 360, Epic hardcore masterpieces and ten hour digests. But of all the things that disturb me in the industry and in the products, the one that bothers me most is that studios view four player split screen in the same light they view Jack Thompson. Developers are doing everything they can to bury it alive.

We all remember the thrill of GoldenEye 007, and it's sales records demonstrate the necessity of kick-ass multiplayer gameplay. This game released on the N64, a vastly inferior console to the PS1, and it sold 8 million copies, just short of the 8.6 of FF VII.

With the growth of online gaming, consoles are trying to take a page from the PC book and limit the number of players on a system to one. There's no excuse for this. Consoles are in the living room, and have been a gathering point for gamers for (hardware) generations. There is no excuse for just allowing one, or even just two people to play on a system at a time.

The primary objective of this blog is to act as a check and balance of multiplayer politics. I'm going to shine the harsh light of justice on those that are lacking, and let you know what sort of game you're really getting for your money.

The Four Player Declaration has been signed.