Red Faction: Guerrilla Preview

Red Faction: Guerilla has options. In fact, options is the name of the game, or at least of the PS3 demo I've been playing for the last few days.

Guerrilla's calling card is "destructibility." And in this aspect, the game truly does separate itself from the sheaf of other third-person shooters. Pounding a mullet through a wall is quite satisfying. As you blast through a wall, shingles or bricks go flying with the impact, revealing rebar support beneath the surface. Even better, enemy EDF soldiers have no place to hide; burst through their cover, and they'll go flying along with everything else. You feel powerful.

Don't like physical labor? Destructible objects are everywhere: one-shot bio-hazard drums, gas-filled towers that explode into green plumes of flame, propane tanks that can be lifted and tossed, and machinery that electrify and then, what else, explode. Additionally, one of the primary weapons are remote mines. Throw a bunch of these out, hit circle to detonate, and they'll blow-up in succession. It brings back fond memories of GoldenEye. These are no measly explosions, either; they're big, colorful, and feature all sorts of heat distortions. Explosions instantly devour buildings and launch nearby enemies into the air. Developer Volition's clearly devoted much effort to the effects, and it shows.As buildings become damaged, they are shaded red in the mini-map in the lower-left corner and a percentage is displayed over them to signify its degree of durability. The lower the percentage, the closer the building is to being fully destroyed, a feat which nets players resistance-moral points. These percentages, such small things, nag at players like dangling carrots, coaxing them to finish buildings off. The reward is moral points and sweet sweet satisfaction. Notch one more on the belt.

On top of destruction, Guerrilla also offers up a decent third-person shooter is also present, featuring, apparently, a couple dozen weapons. Players can jump, run, crouch, "fine aim," and standard to all of the genre now, cling to walls, peek around walls, and roll away from walls: all useful abilities. In the demo, you have access to an assault rifle, remote mines, mallet, pistol, and shotgun, not to mention heavy gun turrets. The game has no lock-on function, but does have a liberal snap-aim. Something of note, the cross-hairs differ per weapon (and also, oddly, are colored to blend with the background), each type representing that weapon's firing-area. Headshots certainly play their part here, but overall, the game does not require precise aiming, asking that players simply mow enemies down. Running and gunning is entirely dependent on the number of enemies around, not unfeasible, but taking cover is advised. Also, the player-character regenerates health liberally.

Vehicles are also available and, more pointedly, prominent. Using vehicles is almost mandatory, and encouraged, because once enemies start swarming around the player in droves, it becomes more and more difficult to fend them off with the ole' lock, stock, and barrel. Running over them is so much easier, and turrets, with an over-heating based ammo system, are far more effective than your standard guns. Best of all is the walker, a bipedal construction mech. Well, more like destruction. Hold down the R2 button, walk through a warehouse, and watch it come tumbling down on you. If blowing up buildings with planned demolition charges is like popping bubble wrap, one, bubble, at, a, time, then crashing through buildings with the walker is like squeezing the living hell out of the whole sheet.

The latter section of the demo is an on-rails shooter wherein you defend the truck from encroaching tanks. It's a good time, particularly when trying to take out passing buildings on the side while still fending off the AI.

If you achieve three kills in quick succession, regardless of means, a running "killing spree" counter will pop up. Another dangling carrot, and an effective one. Once this is on, there's no going back. My best score so far (on foot) is nine. These points add into some greater points purposes, but I don't fully understand it without playing the entire game. A similar destruction points system exists too that, if I'm guessing correctly, results from quickly knocking down a bunch of buildings. These systems are nice additions. They don't interrupt the gameplay really, except by player free-will, and add an additional, self-assumed challenge.

The combat isn't spectacular; rather, it feels a bit muted, distanced, but it is good fun and has its challenges. The controls are a bit strange, though, all three options. Though, by and large, they all perform competently, some vital function is always relegated to the R3 button: fine aim or melee. Why not set these to circle and set the much less often used detonate to R3? Really, in this day and age, I see absolutely no reason players should not have the option of fully customizing their control scheme. Ultimately, I settled on the Alternate 2 option, which assigns L2 to fine aim and R2 to fire.

Red Faction: Guerrilla offers choices to players, so many choices. Blow up a building or tear it down. Do neither. Kill people. Pass them by. Go for killing sprees. Kill them with vehicles. Kill them with guns. Getting a picture? I will say that in combat, all of these options mesh together fairly well, as I used whatever means most handy to take people or buildings out. But the game's options feel too disparate. As a player, I don't know what the game is asking of me. What does it want me to do? And I think the answer is this: whatever you want.

Well, that's actually a more difficult question than it seems. Because, if I just want to win the mission, I can jack a vehicle, drive right by the AI, jack the walker, and talk it to the truck. Simple, and really not much trouble. But it's too easy. Challenge is fun. And so if I want to have fun, ignoring the mission is the best course of action. I am referring to the demo mission alone, of course; I'm sure the whole game with its hundreds of missions offers many more challenging goals.

But to squeeze the most fun out of the demo that I could, I started making challenges for myself. This, ultimately, is where I feel Guerrilla will offer its choicest meat. I gave myself a sprint challenge: get to the walker and bring it to the truck as fast as you can. It was fun; my record so far is 1:51:39. I also tried taking down every building without the use of the walker; I never beat that one. How about get the highest killing spree you can? The game opened up for me once I gave myself these challenges, and I began to appreciate its potential. But I fear that with its abundance of options, everything comes off as a bit diluted. The key to the game's structure is not only showing players that they can go crazy in whatever ways they want, but also offering them reasons to do all of the things it offers. And I think the game admirably tries to do so with its myriad of points systems and overall story goals. Whether or not it succeeds we'll have to wait for the full game to find out.

The last point I want to mention is the game's being in third-person. Volition argues that the reason for this decision is so players can see more of their surroundings and have a better view of the destruction they cause. I'm not entirely sold on the idea. I think third-person does do both of these things. But I also think the game feels dulled from the perspective, and could have had a considerably more visceral impact from first person. Based my experience with the demo, I also think the game could have benefited from a slower pace and from tighter, more directed gameplay. Everything happens so quickly, and I think the game would be stronger and carry more weight if the pace were more deliberate.

Red Faction: Guerrilla is a fun game. I've played the demo many, many times now, an obvious testament to my enjoyment. I think Guerrilla is one of those games that will become more and more fun the longer you play it and the deeper you delve into its story and scenarios. I look forward to playing through the whole thing.

Images from Gamespy.

Dead Space, Extraction, and the Value of Movement

Hey everyone! Long time, no see. I'm working on graduating this May and, somewhat unfortunately, have chosen to devote my time to things other than writing articles. That is not to say, however, that I've forgone my game playing, research and design. I am now the proud owner of a PlayStation 3 and am every so slowly working my way through Grand Theft Auto IV (finally). I've also been playing through Burnout Paradise, Flower, and MadWorld, not to mention keeping up with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I'm making some pretty intensive analyses of above games and, in the not to distant future, will have posts here discussing them. I'm also working on a two very interesting discussions of Team Ico's Shadow of the Colossus. On top of playing video games, I am a firm believer in research of video games and game design theory. Naturally, I extensively read articles all over the Internet, but I am also quite enjoying Jesse Schell's The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, lots of wisdom.

That's my update on life. But I want to talk for a brief period about Dead Space and its upcoming Wii incarnation, Extraction. Check out the trailer:

EA is aiming to label Dead Space: Extraction a "guided first person experience." And though the game is essentially an on-rails shooter, I think EA has a right to posit their games as they please. Anyone seeking to innovate, in whatever manner, deserves gold stars in my book. And, based on what we know, I think they are attempting improvements to the genre. The on-rails shooter has a meaty history, including Time Crisis and House of the Dead. I also think many would agree with me that Killer 7 is an on-rails shooter, and an excellent one at that. Wii particularly has received much favor from the light-gun genre. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles was designed specifically for Wii, but games like Rayman Raving Rabbids, Call of Duty: World at War, and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 feature specific light-gun modes. While these all may be fine and good, it's starting to get a little out of hand , actually. So when yet another on-rails shooter is announced for Wii, it's easy to say "pshaw" and move on with life (with full motion, zing!), Extraction bears a particularly interesting design.

My initial reaction to Dead Space: Extraction was "lame." I'd basically decided that the genre was of diminishing value and that Extraction was likely a cash-in on Wi''s 50 million units. I've since changed my mind, however. And here's why: Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay. Even more specifically, Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay on Wii.

I've played Dead Space, or rather, the first four chapters on hard mode (before my friend returned it to GameFly; I intend to purchase and finish it this summer). My friends and I actually had a blast playing the game. It is highly polished, quite beautiful, and fun. We would watch each other play, with much back-seat gaming, and weigh the pros and cons of the various weapons and upgrade paths. I do not believe the game was particularly scary, except for the fear of dying and having to restart. Fear and vulnerability is something I've been thinking about a bit and will introduce in another post. But Dead Space is an enjoyable game, and at the least very interesting, and is making a marked transition to Wii.

My cause for reconsideration of Dead Space: Extraction was two-fold: the plasma cutter and the value of movement.

The default gun of Dead Space is the plasma cutter. Because of the limb-dismemberment focus in Dead Space, the plasma cutter is truly the ideal weapon for facing the game's necromorphs. The plasma cutter fires a short line of plasma, the rotation of which can be adjusted with the alternate-fire button to be horizontal or vertical. Skillful employment of the plasma cutter comes down to manipulating the reticule's rotation and, obviously, aiming effectively. Do you see where I'm going with this? In Dead Space: Extraction, rotating or tilting the remote on its side rotates the plasma cutter vertically, as well as serves as the alternate-fire button for every other weapon. There is something extremely tactile about this mirroring of in-game action with real-world control.  It's amazing how such a minor change can have such a massively-damaging impact. Expounding the implementation of this control in Extraction is the other key element to fighting: aiming. Aiming via Wii's sensor-bar has proven to be quite effective thus far, and Dead Space: Extraction is likely to follow suit.

This adaptation of control got me to thinking about other potentialities about Extraction, which ultimately led me to an interesting thought: the value of movement. Dead Space is a third-person shooter and, unlike on-rails shooters, allows for full range of movement in the world. As Isaac, players are free to go where they please within the levels. Additionally, unlike Resident Evil 4 and 5, Isaac can move, albeit slowly, while aiming and firing. Let's examine a few basic reasons players move in the game:

1. To advance in the levels.
2. To pick up items.
3. To maneuver around necromorphs.

Obviously, advancing is an important goal, one achieved via movement. Picking up items may seem trivial but,  while playing the game, I found it to be a pointed aspect. Finally, and most importantly, tactically maneuvering around, and often fleeing from, necromorphs is essential to winning battles. There is a fourth reason for movement: exploring the game. The game's setting, the space craft the USG Ishimura, is a beautiful creation. Exploring and taking time to note its craftsmanship is fun in its own right. Therefore, I would indeed say that movement is, in fact, of value in Dead Space. Its omission would likely be a mistake.

However, given these aspects of the game, exploration, puzzle solving, etc., in terms of challenge, Dead Space boils down to a serious of fights with necromorphs. And of the necromorphs, there are only a few, (slight spoilers perhaps) the standard zombies, the babies, the gorillas, the bat-stomachs, and a couple others. Zombies mob Isaac from all angles, and running to a more optimal firing position, so that the zombies group together, is vital. Gorillas need to be dodged, generally with the help of stasis, and backed-around to hit their exposed butts (line gun ftw). The difficulty of these enemies drastically changes with chosen difficulty setting. To kill a basic zombie, the number of shots to the limbs doubles between medium and hard. The need for maneuvering and/or fleeing the enemy, therefore, scales with difficulty. Even so, aside from the aforementioned, killing necromorphs by and large requires little movement. Aim, flip the reticule, and shoot.

I do not think this is bad. And, again, maneuvering around enemies is an important part of gameplay. But most of the player's time in combat will be spent shooting, standing still, not running around. This is to the game's benefit. With the camera, and with the the transition between aiming (bringing up your weapon) and moving (putting down the weapon), switching between the two too often would be tiring. I'm not saying that Dead Space is exclusively aiming and shooting, I'm saying that aiming and shooting is what Dead Space does best, and what it primarily features.

Dead Space: Extraction, though potentially perceived as a nerfed rendition of its big brother, is designed specifically to Wii. Wii has less power than the other consoles, it's fact; Dead Space in its original form could not run on Wii. So necessity calls for change, either in the form of significantly reduced polygons and enemies, or, better, via a complete overhaul. Dead Space: Extraction removes free movement (though it will reportedly allow for branching paths). We don't know enough yet to say whether players advance forward automatically point-to-point or move gradually on a line, ala Killer 7, but the limited movement will work well, I believe.

"Strategic Dismemberment" was a tag line for Dead Space, and rightly so, because it is certainly a high-point of gameplay. What EA is doing with Extraction, under the limitations of a less-powerful system, is to highlight the qualities of Dead Space and not offer movement for movement's sake. The phrase "a guided first person experience" is apt. Extraction looks to do offer all of the original's best aspects, and just maybe, improve upon them. From first-person, yes, with limited movement, yes, but Extraction retains what matters most: the challenge of properly dismembering limbs.

As I said before, light gun games are a proven genre; they're fun. Dead Space works so blatantly well as a light gun game, it's amazing nobody thought of it sooner. Dismembering limbs is the new head-shot. And within the confines of the genre, lack of movement loses nothing; indeed, controlled play, limitation of movement and options, may enhance the game. It's like tree sap. 97% of sap is water. By boiling down the sap, we are able to procure the sweetest 3%, the wondrous maple syrup.

Stoked Interview

I've started to do some writing for The Game Reviews, or TGR. My first article is up, an email interview with Peter Anthony Chiodo of Stoked, an Xbox 360 exclusive snowboarding game. The game is looking really great, and Tony provided plenty of good information on the game and its development. Check out the interview at TGR.

The Greatest Decision of Our Generation

Friends, Gamers, Country! We are in the midst of what is perhaps the most important, historic, epic decision of all time. Our forefather, Blizzard Entertainment, is holding a vote. A vote affecting the greatest unit in all of the Starcraft Universe. Yes, I am referring to the Dark Templar. That Protoss unit that so easily turns the tide of battle, that so deftly, annihilates puny Terran and Zerg scum alike. What would Starcraft be without these great heroes?

Fortunately for mankind, Blizzard recognizes the absolute necessity of the Dark Templar to the survival of the human race, placing the fate of the unit in our hands. The Dark Templar returns to Starcraft II, of course, as if anyone would dare deny us our just rewards. But the look of the unit, the unit model, shall we say, is to be determined in a democratic, majority-rules manner.

Blizzard is holding a vote for which Dark Templar model should be used for the multiplayer of Starcraft II. You can see a sketch of both such variants dueling, rendered in field by our very own Sons of the Storm. As a gamer, Blizzard is bestowing upon you the greatest right any could ask. Will you chose the classic single-bladed Dark Templar, the Lenassa, or perhaps the newer Zer'atai, decked in the bones of fallen Zerg and wielding a double-bladed staff? Or even both, functioning via a random spawn of either?

You will need to be a member of the Blizzard community to work, which means you need a functioning CD key of one of their games. First review the choices, then cast your vote. Voting ends February 5th. Be a part of history. Be a hero.

Walking the Mirror's Edge

I was a true runner. Leaping across rooftops blind to what's below, vaulting boxes and gaining momentum, running along walls in defiance of gravity. But I had a little help, from Faith. Yes, the concept too, I suppose, but I mean the character. Faith's runner-trained eyes see the world in a different tint, a stage, each pole, plank, and pipe a red-tinted path through the colorless rooftops, a bread crumb trail of maneuver and escape. And then I realized: I wasn't the runner, Faith was. Her innate runner-vision, her bread crumb trail, was my crutch. I was no runner, merely a player. I wanted more control. To truly be a runner, I needed to see this bread crumb trail for myself, not let the eyes of Faith show it for me.

So I went to the options. Runner Vision: Off.

Ah, now I was a true Runner, with a capital R, free from Faith's handicap, who with Runner-tuned eyes perceived a bread crumb trail innately, naturally. In this white canvas of a cityscape, I painted my own path of red; a pole, of course! a plank, aha! Now I was Faith. I was a Runner.

Or this is how it felt at first. Almost immediately, I became lost and confused. My artistic vision, painting my own trail of red through the white canvas? Gone. Perhaps I'd lost my muse. The canvas became an infinite desert. With thoughts of Where am I? Where am I going? And all the while being torn apart by assault rifles and pistols and snipers. Far from being the finely-tuned runner of Faith, I was a frustrated gamer, angry at the game and it's city and it's level design. "Where in the heck am I going?" and "Haven't I been here before?" were frequent utterances.

It occured to me that, maybe, this is how Faith feels. Runner-vision off, I considered myself to be closer to Faith than ever. Playing was fast, nervous, and intense. Sometimes. Other times, playing was annoying and awful. Its all in the job description. I finally realized that the runner-vision is in the game for a reason: the levels weren't designed %100 linear, they've got some freedom to them, options of movement and style.

With runner-vision enabled, the game breaks down to goals: get to the next red-highlighted object. Completing each goal requires two steps from players.
1. Platforming Puzzle. Figure out how to get to the next bread crumb.
2. Platforming Ability. Get to the next bread crumb.

All players need to do is see where they need to go next, deduce how to get there, and finally, accomplish their task of doing so. Repeat.

But with the runner-vision switched off, a third step is added to the list: Figure out where to go. However, as I've just stated, the levels are not linear; they stretch out to multiple directions, buildings, and hallways. Knowing which route to take isn't always clear. If the first step fails, identifying where to go, then the remaining two steps completely break down and the gameplay becomes a mess of confusion, cursing, and, good chances, death.

In an excellent article on Gamasutra, Ian Bogost discusses Mirror's Edge, including its criticisms, innovations, and potential meaning. He states at one point, "Like a photograph that highlights an unexpected object through selective focus, runner vision draws the eye to the detritus that would otherwise seem like visual noise, reattenuating it into signal." And he's absolutely right. The runner-vision, at least for the first playthrough, is almost a necessity. DICE was well aware that gamers would become lost without some sort of guidance.
Personally, I would frequently switch the runner-vision on or off throughout the game depending on my mood and recent streak of either frustration or flow.

I've already discussed Mirror's Edge a couple of other times (Time one. Time two). But now that I've actually played and beaten the game, I can discuss it from a first-hand perspective.

Sometimes, a game is questioned as either being innovative or just plain bad. But when that game garners significant critical discussion amongst the industry's best voices, you know there's more to the game than flaws. Mirror's Edge has received lots of attention over its seemingly opposing priorities, difficulty and flow. On one hand, Mirror's Edge is about experiencing the thrill of parkour. Bogost, in his article, discusses how everyday objects in the world of Mirror's Edge are transformed from their purely functional uses (boxes, forklifts) into means of locomotion. Players get to live in the shoes of a parkourist, trained to see these objects in a new fashion, and likewise, use them in a new fashion.

But across the spectrum from the flow of parkour is the game's difficulty. It is commonly believed that too much challenge equals stunted flow. Which in turn equals no fun. The particular problem of Mirror's Edge, most critics have argued, stems from its level design. Quite simply, the level design doesn't jive with the intended flow of movement. Rather, the level design jars with players' abilities, most often derived from its frequent death traps, either in pitfalls or stubborn swat teams. I cannot argue with the dieing part. I died probably over a hundred times over the course of the game. Jump to pipe, miss, die. Respawn. Jump to pipe, miss, die.

The general consensus on failing goes like this: players are willing to accept failing if they feel said failing is their own fault, not the game's. But if players feel their failing is entirely the fault of the game or the control (ala Ghosts and Goblins), then they cry foul and enlist the game disk for skeet-shooting. So which is Mirror's Edge? Really, the game is a conundrum. Mirror's Edge is intentionally difficult, to be certain. But all of the platforming sections are eventually beatable. But, in the last couple of chapters, you will need to need to engage in combat with the swat teams, and whether or not they are unfairly difficult may be a matter of opinion (for my part, they are). Bogost proposes a different take on the concept of challenge and the design of Mirror's Edge.

Bogost writes:

Unlike Assassin's Creed, which adapts the fluidity of parkour by making movement consistently easy, Mirror's Edge adapts that fluidity by making it hard. But what initially seems like a punitive design gaffe actually carries a crucial payload: requiring the player to reattempt sets of runs insures that the final, successful one will be completed all in one go.

He makes an intriguing argument. As I read it, Bogost is saying, in a way, that players build-up to flow. Eventually, you do complete that perfect run, partially thanks to the large distance between check points. But until that moment, the gameplay amounts to what is less so trial-and-error and more so just plain error. Bogost goes on to argue that the extreme difficulty of Mega Man functions differently, but I mostly disagree with this assertion. It's fascinating that Mirror's Edge gets so much flak for being unnecessarily difficult when Mega Man 9, which functions in exactly the same manner, is at times lauded for its difficulty. Likely, this is due to the fact that Mega Man is a long established franchise, one that comes with expectations of grueling difficulty, whereas Mirror's Edge, a modern mainstream game, has expectations of being easy as compared to its contemporaries. Oppositely, the new Prince of Persia, which more or less eliminates death altogether, also is criticized, except for completely opposite reasons. One statement that can be made at least is that difficulty in games is receiving plenty of attention these days, which hopefully means new developments and innovations in its design moving forward.


I think the criticism most people harbor for Mirror's Edge comes from their confusion about its goal. Mirror's Edge presents itself as a mechanism of flow, but the difficulty often conflicts with this proposition. Everytime you die in Mirror's Edge, all immersion is lost. As pointed out above, it isn't until you make that one perfect run does flow finally kick in. I would agree with Bogost, as he concludes his article: the key to enjoying Mirror's Edge is suspending expectations. The game presents something different. It asks players to be patient as they explore the intracacies of their ability. It offers to players the feeling of being a parkourist. But, to get there, players must suffer and learn as one.

Achievement Unlocked

John, head of game development for Armor Games has created a truly spectacular Flash game: Achievement Unlocked. The game tries to be pointless, but ultimately fails. Or does it? You see, Achievement Unlocked is a fun, addictive game. I beat it twice, almost. So maybe I was wrong. Because the game proves full well that unlocking achievements is addictive as all get out.

Source: Kotaku [via n0wak]

Trackmania History

To celebrate the 5th anniversary of Trackmania, Nadeo has released a video covering the history of the series. And considering the series has a very convoluted history,if you were every confused about the order in which games were released, or what the difference is between Nations and Forevor, I would definitely encourage you to check out the video.



Source: GameTrailers

Trine

Have I mentioned I love side-scrollers? I love side-scrollers.


Developed by Frozenbyte, for PC and PSN.
Source: GameTrailers
Official Site