A game derived of questions

So, I just played through Deliver At All Costs and I'm not a fan. But, first, the premise: the game is based in an alternate reality world set in the 50's where the main protagonist is some kind of a genius but is unable to make rent, and so, he becomes a delivery man for We Deliver. Oh, and, the environment is highly destructible.

 

Perhaps not the strangest of premises ... but, I do have a few questions.

 

 

Who is this for?

I would think that the skibidi generation wouldn't be particularly interested in reliving the 50's so this small misstep would probably be enough to swipe left. And then the 50's survivors would all be in their eighties at this stage and I doubt they're still gaming. Especially when they've got important things to do like trying to remember their wives' names.

 

Why is the tone so inconsistent?

Almost everything in this world can be destroyed and demolished - including buildings. This, combined with 'hilarious' ads on the radio gives that aspect of the game a lighthearted tone. Then you have the cutscenes which are played straight. Then you have the UFO's ... and then you have the time travel + macguffin subplot which makes no sense at all. The game starts with almost no fanfare - and plenty of cutscenes. When we finally do get control, it begins with walking around your apartment, getting dressed and reading plans. As introductions go, this is probably the worst. Only my memory of the trailer kept me from quitting right there. Also, whenever you destroy a cash box, the guy shouts out cha-ching! or Dollar Bills! which is jarring, considering the era this is set in.

 

Why does it have no tension?

It's super weird that there was absolutely no penalty for dying, failing a mission, or being arrested by cops. Nothing. Zero. Nada. We didn't lose one peso in any of these exchanges and, outside of a small amount of backtracking, it makes all missions merely a mild inconvenience.

In summary, I think the game did have a kernel of good but far too many strange decisions to actually be deemed good. Now, if I were to design this game, I would

• Change it to a modern setting (for monetary reasons)
• Build the game around showcasing this destruction and keep the filler (i.e. plot) in the background.
• Lose the forced isometric camera and employ a better layout with better navigation markers.
• Make the story (if any) play out in an irreverent tone which could simply be used to facilitate this playground of destruction. To that point, I'd lean on the design choices in Saints Row series as the blueprint. That is, there would be main story missions but plenty of pointless and fun mini games just played out for laughs.
• Focus on delivery as the games' subsystem. It seems strange to say this, but the delivery aspect in this game took kind of a backseat. Yes, you're delivering things but most of those things are ridiculous like e.g. atomic bombs but if you had a more nuanced delivery management system, it would provide greater depth to the game

And that's about it. As it currently stands, this game is heavily flawed and gets lost in the cutscenes. In the end, I was skipping most of them just because they were poorly written, animated and did little for my enjoyment of the game.

Gloom Raider

Apologies for being so late to the party ... but I just played through the rebooted 2013 Tomb Raider and I'm not impressed. Perhaps I'm a little impressed but, overall, I'm not. Let me explain:

Back in 1996 a game company by the name of Core released the titular (puntastic) Tomb Raider which was known more for the ice-cream coned protagonist as it was known for pretty good hand-animated motions for Lara Croft, gameplay and ... wait for it ... raiding of tombs. Most of the actual gameplay focussed around traversing precarious environments, solving puzzles, shooting animals and retrieving treasure and this basic formula held strong for 13 (!) releases/re-releases. Naturally, by the later releases, this formula began to feel a little stale. Personally, I was kind of sick of the game after Tomb Raider 2 but, apparently, this was not the case for many, as could be evidenced by the sheer number of releases.

It was clear that Lara would need to be redesigned for the current market, and so, the reboot was kicked off because, over the course of 17 years of stagnancy, many contenders had proved how climbing, level design and combat could be done better. But first, I will go over what I think were the main guiding principles used when designing this new game:

• Revamp climbing model - like Uncharted
• Revise combat model - like Uncharted
• Focus on movie set pieces - like Uncharted
• Focus on horror elements and gore - because?
• Make tomb raiding just side quests - because?
• Add obligatory collectathons / busy work - like Assassins Creed
• Hunter sense - like Arkham Batman series
  
• Implement a number of characters and MacGuffins - this was a good addition
  
• Multi-use bow mechanic - actually pretty original and well thought out 
• Zelda mechanics i.e. unlock new areas through new mechanics - I enjoyed this
  

Perhaps I'm a little nostalgic but it gets tiresome when every rickety railing/roof top gives way every time you climb on it. When Uncharted 1 did it for the first time it was fresh - but not by the time they reheated this same mechanic 8 years later. But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing - set pieces can be fun if performed well but where I draw the line is when they relegate tomb raiding to merely side quests. The main gameplay loop should always be centered around raiding tombs and avoiding booby traps. It seems quite insulting that you could complete the game without even raiding one tomb. This seems like a major sleight to anyone who enjoyed the original series. If, I had to assign a name which accurately describes this reboot, I'd assign it - you guessed it - Gloom Raider. Throughout most of the game it's windy/raining and then the first thing we're introduced to is a set piece around getting away from a cannibal who has an incredibly impressive collection of skulls and body parts (which is a running theme throughout this game.)

 

 

The main story revolves around an aggressive weather-protected island which also, seemingly has an unlimited supply of human bodies to sacrifice. Based upon the 'freshness' of the body parts and bloody swamps, I would hazard a guess that perhaps a thousand people are sacrificed across the island each day for these environments to be viable - or that the game director doesn't understand the concept of self-control. Almost every space you crawl through has perhaps a collection of at least ten human remains every few feet. Perhaps it's just my brain getting in the way of things but it just confused me why/how these bodies would be in places where very few humans would ever want to traverse. It's like some kind of demented Martha Stewart was brought in to zhuzh every cavern. Also, the hunter sense really detracted from the game, in my opinion. Its main benefit was for finding hidden trinkets/actionable items which meant (at least for me) pressing it every few seconds - just to avoid missing something - and destroying any immersion in the process.

But back to the side-quested tombs - perhaps the most underwhelming part of the game. Each tomb has been broken down into basically just a physics/navigation puzzle - and we never see the prize (a la Pulp Fiction) - nor does this tomb have any impact on the overall game. It's as if the game director said 'Fine! Here's your goddamn tombs, you ingrate. You happy now? Now, can I get back to adding an inordinately-large number of mutilated torsos on this island?' And I may be right. Because more care and thought was put into merely finding a chest out in the open than was ever shown to any of the prizes in the puzzle tombs.

 

 

But, having said all that, it's not a bad game - far from it; it's just not a Tomb Raider game. I played over 15 hours and got through ~95% of everything which could be got - but also enjoyed most of my time while doing so. I did initially find the combat quite limiting (until you get the necessary brawler perks) but it was satisfying to work my way through contributing my thousand to their daily sacrifices. Despite all the combat, the best parts of the games were spent when working through the puzzles and not sitting through unnecessary murder porn. Overall, I can't fault their change of tack - I'm just disappointed they weren't able to retain more of what originally made their games so popular

Hardy Har Har

The latest Magnum Opus from Rockstar: Red Dead Redemption 2 (The redemptioning) has just been released ... and I'm not impressed. Yes, it's large; yes, it's pretty; but from all I've seen it looks to be just one giant slog.

I had that same experience with Shadow of Mordor and, coincidentally, the initial RDR. At the point where we've played the full range of mini-games is the point where the game should end - except they do not. Nothing is gained by drawing out your game time by a factor of 2,3 ... or even 10 in RDR2's case. The reason I no longer play Assassin's Creed games is simply because I don't enjoy the grind. I enjoyed the first game ... but subsequent sequels just doubled down on bloat and collect-a-thons and a completely nonsensical story-line.

For all the reverie directed toward RDR2's polish, I can still say that the gameplay remains steadfastly last-gen. Let me say that again: the fundamental game remains exactly the same. There are exactly zero advancements to this new sequel and exactly zero challenge to the dumb-as-something-really-quite-dumb adversaries. The way Rockstar ramps up the difficulty is simply to throw a bunch more goons in your direction. You don't even need to take cover as you have insta-heal items and insta-fill dead-eye meter potions. For those of you unfamiliar, Dead-eye is a cheat-mode built into the game. When initiated it puts everything in slow-motion while you paint multiple targets with red crosses before you mow them down with zero challenge.

But the fans of this series would say that 'It's about the story' and, apparently, this may be its only saving grace. In the classic world of sequels this one unsurprisingly turns out to be a prequel, with the main story arc focussing on the origin for one of the core characters from the first RDR. But that isn't a good enough reason to play through. The problem lies in the need to have an open world but also have a tightly-governed story. I think Shadow of Mordor did a far better job of building an organic story with its Nemesis system which chronicled the rise-and-fall of your adversaries as you either killed their leaders or were killed in the process. The problem with RDR2 is that for its story missions there is only one way it can play out. You will end in a 'try again' screen if you deviate even slightly from what the story scripted. It reminds me of those canned FMV games where there is only one path through it. Yes, you may have a little more freedom now but it does still boil down to the same thing.

And that's, really, the problem I have with Rockstar games. Here are the fundamentals of what they prioritise (e.g. GTA 4/5, RDR1/2):

• Realistic reproduction of world locales
• Realistic depiction of characters
• Strongly curated story path
• Realistic side missions
• Realistic/accurate music
• Realistic voice acting 
• Realistic excuses for collecting various items (collect-a-thons)
• Overly-long game time
• Overly-repetitive missions
• Overly-serious tone
• Bringing the movie feel to a game

Note that fun is not on that list. They are more focussed on realism and film-making (yes, really) than actually providing a good experience. In my opinion, the last fun game was Grand Theft Auto Vice City which had the best soundtrack, played up the 80's era and had a bunch of fun lampooning classic movie scenes from that era. There was still a story (with some great actors) but it was overshadowed first-and-foremost by an overall sense of fun. Somewhere along the line the game producers lost sight of why we play games in the first place. At this point Rockstar should just rip the band-aid off and start creating movies because they sure as heck aren't creating games anymore.

More like god of bore

So, the new God of War is out ... and I am pretty disappointed. In the ever-diminishing world of fantasy and deity genocide, old Kratos has now been afflicted with an annoying boy to torment his misadventures - and he has lost his blades of chaos. Let me say that again: HE HAS LOST HIS BLADES OF CHAOS (actually, they come back later ... but you have an axe for most of the game).

Where once we had the beauty of his balletic, timing-based aggressions:

We now get the stilted throw/power-up axe, wait, dodge, throw/power-up axe 

... and we have boy

This annoying little leech sees fit to attach itself every time you climb up anything. What's the matter? Does boy not know how to climb on his own? And worst of all, this boy is your son and he is used as a counter-point to Kratos' violence with words of reason and understanding. To add to this annoyance, this runt has somehow developed smarts and the ability to read rune symbols - so we have an annoying millennial showing up this lumbering neanderthal's shortcomings. In the first game Kratos killed his family - I'm not really sure why he should stop now. Oh, and by the way, Kratos has now moved onto Norse Gods. I guess this was needed considering he had already murdered all the Greek ones.

Now, I am probably the first to acknowledge that the God of War series has become stale. The third was feeling very long-in-the-tooth and was a chore to get through but that doesn't excuse throwing out the baby with the bath water. Fans of the series will be insulted by this Last of Us vs Thor amalgam. Heck, he even grew a beard (although, interestingly, even in the first one they were toying with him having a full beard). Maybe I'm getting into the nostalgic part of my life but it feels like it's only God of War by name. It's a brand new game repackaged with the God of War branding.

In conclusion: I guess if you love having a small boy writhing sensuously over your frame, answering questions about why you kill all those around you and like playing out your lumber-jack fantasies, then this is the game for you. For myself, I don't believe I'll be playing this and, based upon what I have seen on twitch, my opinion will not be changing any time soon. 

Bringing the payne

Ah Max Payne, you are a troublesome mistress, aren't you? You spurn my advances of flowers and prose, while preferring the company of akimbo pistols and high-octane drinks. And all would be fine in this world if this were still the case. For, in your ever Rorschach-morphing desires, you turn to hair clippers, facial hair and South-American settings to satiate your downward-spiralling demise. As pictures are worth a thousand words, turn your eyes towards exhibit A:

'How the mighty have fallen ...

Even if you now have an impressive beard, you have seemingly lost yourself in the process. Prior to your latest adventure, I was looking forward to experiencing your next adventure in cello-themed sufferance and was even going to overlook your derelicte faux pas if your essence remained true - and that was where the problems began. First off, your new adventure only hints at the cello theme and has mostly been replaced by rhythmic sound overlays which, while adding to the tension, do not retain the original tone. You still managed to retain your narration, pessimistic views on life and unfortunate ability to attract enemies with very large guns but, somehow, you lost your way. You lost what was great about the dour-drenched drudgery, dark, rain-saturated and lost slums of New York City streets. Instead you choose to wear shades and a Hawaiian shirt. Yes, you wore a Hawaiian shirt. In public. For shame; for SHAME! I know the original you would have shot anyone daring to wear that shirt in your presence ...

Anyway, your abilities to dole out justice still works well but the level of luck/repetition required to head-shot 15 enemies within a 5-second akimbo dive would, even for you, border on the nigh impossible. Fortunately you are not unfamiliar with the Groundhog Day effect and so can repeat (ad infinitum) the present scenario until the roll of the dice finally falls in your favour. It kind of sullies the experience when it is not your dexterity that determines your ability to survive (or find cover) but, rather, the variability of the sniper-honed AI to miss and for you to dive while managing to avoid colliding against the various household furniture which quickly cease your slow-motion balletic movements.

And so, in conclusion, I did still enjoy your experience but was disappointed by a greater desire to relish in gore and violence rather than simply dole out large doses of justice while continuing to defy the odds. Yes, I know your past experiences were dour and far from flowers and bunny rabbits, but I still wanted to retain some of 'the purity' of your original adventures while possibly enhancing the bullet time of your past. Also, you lost the John Woo slow-mo ballet-like reload animation that I enjoyed so much in your second adventure. What happened? Did you throw yourself down one-too-many stairs, perchance? You might want to see a chiro about that ...

Better paint, same vehicle

I have pretty much been a life-long gamer from my early childhood. The games that I grew up with couldn't rely on fancy graphics to translate their fun to the end gamer - they had to rely on solid game mechanics and a desire to entertain. I defy anyone to say that the concept of space invaders isn't solid. The fact that only one bullet can be fired while on the screen is a master stroke.

Rather, than spew out a slurry of multi-coloured projectiles at your adversaries, you need to line up and predict the flight of your enemy to allow your shot to hit at the point where your enemy will be, rather than where it is at this moment. You also have four barriers which deteriorate with your shots or your enemies, giving a diminishing strategic advantage for the short while that barrier exists. Some of the game mechanics were 'environmental' though. One quirk was that as you reduced their armada the game would run quicker. This in turn ramped up the tension as the remaining alien ships hurtled dangerously towards you. With those few game mechanics, the game became a must-play. Also, it was pretty much the only game of that style at the time.

Turning to modern day games, maybe I'm a grizzled old gamer, but I'm not inspired by a large number of blockbuster games. If you were to strip out all the fancy graphics and set pieces, what would you be left with? What indeed. I think if you squint hard enough, you'll see that Gears of War is, at its most basic, really just space invaders. Sure, you're moving from cover-to-cover while chainsawing the horde, but if you really look, you'll see that you're just a green block shooting at an invader while sneaking out from behind a non-deteriorating barrier, oh and you're spraying bullets as well, hoping that one of them goes in the direction of your adversary. At its most basic, the gameplay mechanics are flawed. So let's do a break-down of the basic features for both games:

Feature	Gears of War	Space Invaders
Cutting edge graphics (for the time)	Yes	Yes
Strategic single fire	No*	Yes
Increasing difficulty based on number of enemies left	Maybe	Yes
Deteriorating cover	Sometimes	Yes
Enemies move	Sometimes	Yes
Game of skill	Sometimes	Yes
One shot death / kill	Sometimes	Yes
Ability to complete level without being shot	If you're lucky	Yes
Melee combat	Yes	No
Awkward dialog	Yes	No
Awkward 'bromance'	Yes	No

*except sniper rifle, but then, you don't need to lead the target, so no.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh about Gears, it is fun, but its core gameplay isn't. It's fun despite the basic concept of a skill-based game being broken. Space Invaders either lucked out or had a different agenda when it was created. It reinforces the need to destroy the invaders within an immediately visible time frame (avoiding them flying into you). It's harrowing to know you have to 'lead' the shot to shoot that final ship as it steadily moves towards you. It's that tension that Gears misses out on. If there was more emphasis on accurate shots and having cover that would always only handle a certain amount of shots before destroying, the game would basically be fixed. Without it, you can go for a coffee and basically be safe. Well, that is until they decide to come up and say hello to your chainsaw. - YAWN - 

Gears is for those that like pizza (who doesn't?) and don't care if they put on a few pounds while eating it. Space Invaders is like a good sandwich. It still fills you up but, you don't pay for it later in the gym. It has everything you need and nothing more. You play gears for the spectacle, for the action, but not for the game. I'm not sure whether that is a good thing.

Note: Gears isn't the only guilty party, but simply an example of modern gaming.