G4F has gone audio!!!

I've decided to start a podcast to help with the writing drought that has struck the old blog here. Enjoy the new content, and let me know if this is something you like!  Just click the title link, and you will be redirected to the podcast page. 

~Krimmit

Battlefield 4: Review in Progress

 

 

I was a bit torn about how to write this review, but I’m calling it a review in progress due to the fact that there are many ways that my opinion of this game will change over the course of the next several months, or perhaps even the next year.  Since there will be periodic DLC releases over the next year as well as balance changing multiplayer patches and updates, BF4 will continue to grow and evolve into something that is too unpredictable to define in a traditional review.  Multiplayer games like this one are rarely finished until the next installment comes around, so for now it will be a review in progress.

Also, my opinion of the gameplay may change at some point if I move from one gaming platform to another for this title.  My current opinions of the game come from playing the PC version which is being run on my newly updated computer.  As such, there will be some growing pains as I acclimate to keyboard and mouse controls and manage the limitations of my new hardware.  If I get my hands on a PS4, the odds are in favor of me having a more familiar experience with locked video settings and gamepad controls, but I digress.  On to the review!

The biggest issue I’ve experienced so far is that I have trouble with keyboard based controls.  For some reason, I struggle with memorizing what commands are mapped to which keys even if I have remapped them.  I simply do better with a joystick setup even though the input is much slower and less accurate.  That’s not a fault of the game at all, but it does affect my enjoyment of the experience.  So, commands aside, BF4 keeps things as interesting as the franchise always has.

Sadly BF4’s campaign is the weakest part of the experience.  The story is flat, poorly written, and lacking in continuity although it still warrants a play through for those who may not be familiar with keyboard and mouse controls.  Also worth mentioning is the fact that there are some multiplayer gun unlocks that are only made possible by completing the campaign.  Aside from that, the campaign is just as confusing it is lifeless.  Set pieces fail to distract from the fact that levels are mostly linear with small, sandboxy areas, and enemy and friendly AI is a constant source of frustration. 

Friendly NPCs will frequently get in the way during firefights, and will at times push you from cover if you stand in areas that they have been programmed to occupy.  This is even more apparent during dialogue scenes where NPCs may inadvertently launch you through walls or across sections of the map if you get in their way.  It feels like walking in on a conversation that, despite the fact that you may be mentioned by name, you weren’t invited to.  Or that you are more of a side note in your own story line.  The writers made several attempts at creating emotional ties to the characters, but the setup just isn’t there for us to care about any of the game’s protagonists.  Most of the “surprise” deaths feel trivial, and seem more out of place than anything else. 

BF4 is a bit of a rollercoaster for me in terms of multiplayer performance.  I played a smidge of BF3 on my PC, and I never got used to the controls since I came into the game so late.  By that point, too many players had dominated the scene for so long that getting killed repeatedly upon spawning was too frustrating for such a steep learning curve.  Console versions were ruined by the “rent a server” feature, and the game quickly became more of a frustration than a fun diversion.  BF4 is different so far, and even though I have had my share of low scoring matches where no one seems to know what the meaning of teamwork is, there have been just as many enjoyable ones.

BF4 keeps all of the multiplayer modes from previous entries, and adds some new game types to the mix, and variety is always a good thing.  Most players will gravitate to two or three different modes, and my particular favorites are always standard Conquest, Domination (Infantry Only Conquest) and Rush.  The best thing about this variety is that all of the BF4 maps play differently depending on what game type is selected, and PC/Next gen console versions are really where the maps can be appreciated without being cut down for smaller player counts. 

Levolution is less impressive than I think DICE wanted it to be, but the scripted events do change maps enough to make things play out differently for each team during a given match.  Environmental destruction has been ratcheted up with the new Frostbite 3.0 engine as well, and more on map structures are completely destructible.  It still doesn’t feel as satisfying as leveling an entire map in Bad Company 2, but keep in mind that most of the maps in BF4 are much larger and so are the buildings on each map.  The tech just isn’t there yet to show that level of destruction.  I would say environmental destruction in BF4 sits squarely where it should for now.

Class configurations have been given a fresh overhaul with new weapon and attachment combinations, and with new secondary weapon unlock trees coming into the mix the combination possibilities are greater than ever.  The only negative side to this is that there may be too many options for newcomers to the series.  However, most players will settle into the weapons and classes that they are most familiar with and simply max out the unlock trees for those setups.  BF3 did a good job of opening up weapon customization, but BF4 has really honed it to a science of balances when it comes to configuring weapon accessories.  Some attachments will cancel out the effects of others if you aren’t careful, so it is more important than ever to take your own play style into account when customizing classes. 

Battlepacks also alleviate some of the woes of grinding out upgrades as they become available through ranking and through completing weapon and multiplayer assignments.  Some packs even offer XP bonuses to aid progression for those who find themselves doing poorly on the scoreboard.  What makes things even more interesting is that DICE has reintroduced primary weapons that can be unlocked and equipped to every player class.  The concept was explored in Bad Company 2, but the system is far more extensive in BF4. 

Entirely separate weapon categories can now be equipped to any class once they have been unlocked.  They must first be unlocked by accumulating a specific score for the root classes they are linked to, but after that point further unlocks can be attained for the new weapon trees independently from the original classes.  Carbines, for example, can be unlocked by accumulating a specific score in the engineer class which will thereby unlock that weapon tree to be unlocked for any of the other classes.  It’s a huge step toward opening up some of the benefits of other classes that was lacking from BF3.  For example, the recon class can now be used as a run and gun class that also has the ability to set motion sensors and remote spawn points for example.  And the support class can be used as a mid to long range marksman unit with the ability to restock fellow soldiers from safe distances outside the main fray.  The possibilities are exciting and quite interesting.

Unfortunately, there are still some things to be ironed out within the Battlfield franchise and the most inconvenient and cumbersome element of the game is its dependence on EA’s battlelog companion application.  Battlelog was manageable for BF3, but with so many possible configurations and new statistical data tied to BF4, the user interface has become more cluttered and confusing than ever.  Stat tracking is often delayed, and will sometimes take hours to update with weapon or accessory unlocks that were earned during matches which negates the convenience of configuring before launching multiplayer sessions. 

Furthermore, configuring and saving a class setup often fails to change in game load outs thereby forcing players to rely on in game tools anyway.  Other functions such as server browsing and social media options work well enough, but there are too many layers to filter through in order to complete the most meaningful tasks efficiently.  Long story short, Battlelog is more of a hindrance than a help, and it’s confusing that EA still insists upon attaching the application to all of its online shooters.  It will be interesting to see if Titanfall will employ the system in the future as well.

Another bane to BF4 multiplayer that has persisted from BF3 is the game’s overly obtrusive graphical overlay.  There is often too much information on the screen to decipher what is going on during more intense gameplay.  Objective identifiers are bold, and lack transparency, and friend or foe designators continue to be ineffective.  Enemy soldiers are easily mistaken for friendlies as the gamer tags of your teammates show up from behind walls, and other visual data makes it difficult to see distant enemies.  A simple fix would be to allow players to adjust UI element opacity in the game menus as other titles have done, but no such option exists. 

Bloom and motion blur seem to have been toned down in multiplayer, but it would be nice to have the option to reduce bloom the same way you can lower motion blur.  Too many bright objects on the screen at one time only add to the confusion of combat.  In game menus are easy to navigate, and it’s apparent that DICE has developed a simple and effective interface to tweak standard settings.  The standard battle map is largely unchanged from previous franchise installments, but squad spawning has been tweaked in an interesting way.  Rather than show a third person view of what your squad mates are facing, you are given a first person helmet cam like view of the action.  The issue with this, however, is that it can make spawning more treacherous than before as you may be dropping right into the view of flanking enemies without any defense or warning. 

The system isn’t broken, but it does make team communication more important.  Team speak is available through the game’s own chat system, however most of the players I have come across still rely on text communication which is fine.  The only issue is that I often focus on what’s in the middle of the screen rather than the top left which is where the text scrolls through. 

Commander mode is something that I haven’t played around with yet, and I expect that it could open up a ton of different play opportunities for those who are capable of frenetic multitasking.  The concept itself is great, and I’m glad they have brought it back.  Sadly, I haven’t seen it utilized to its full potential, and I’m not sure I would be good in the role myself.  It is an interesting feature that definitely warrants further exploration.

You may be exhausted by this point by how long this review is running, but Battlefield games are surprisingly despite their mainstream popularity.  There are many facets to what makes a successful entry into this particular franchise, and the most important thing is that the core concepts of past iterations shine through while other additions are made.  BF4 is more than a polished re skin of its most recent predecessor, and that’s what makes each new installment worthwhile.  Everything still lives and breathes Battlefield, but there’s enough newness to keep everyone happy.

For now, BF4 is still new to me, and it will take some time to really dig into the multiplayer.  I’ve put just over ten hours into the game, and perhaps several more hours will build my skills to the point where I can more fully enjoy playing as I did back in the Bad Company 2 days.  Perhaps it will take a jump to a next generation console version before I can really feel the joy that is Battlefield.  For now, I’m cautiously enthusiastic about the game, and I like what I have seen thus far.  Only time will tell if DICE can maintain balance without making a mess of things as I feel they did too many times with BF3.  In the meantime, I will be making many more visits to the battlefield.

As always, stay frosty!

~Krimmit

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Last of Us: A Discussion In Progress (Part 1)

There are few games that I follow as closely through their development as The Last of Us.  I've always enjoyed Naughty Dog games ever since the old Crash Bandicoot days on the original Playstation, and the Uncharted Trilogy remains my favorite franchise for the current console generation.  It's something about the way that Naughty Dog writes their characters, and their dialogue that makes things more relateable than other studios' games.  Their characters aren't just plot vehicles, they feel like real people.  They communicate with each other like real people would, and without the usual bravado that most video game heroes succumb to.

When I first heard that ND was making a survival adventure game, I was more than a little surprised that their next game was taking such a serious tone.  The Uncharted series has its dark moments, but nothing like what they were promising with The Last of Us.  To be honest, I wasn't even sure they could pull it off.  Nathan Drake was always capable of showing a dynamic range of emotions, but in the end he relied on his own humor to stave off the horrors of his own deplorable deeds.  Everything I read about The Last of Us before its release indicated that the campaign is filled with heavy, emotionally raw subject material.  Naughty Dog had crossed over into the darker side of story driven gameplay.

My sources weren't wrong.  The Last of Us is a pretty grim game so far, and though I haven't finished the campaign yet, it's pretty clear that things aren't getting sunnier any time soon.  It's interesting to see how much this game really contrasts with what Naughty Dog did with the Uncharted games.  Nathan Drake's exploits were always these grand, sweeping adventures that find their grounding loosely tied to real world mysteries and mythologies.  Furthermore, Drake is larger than life in his own right as a character.  He can do it all.  He's acrobatic, charming, intelligent, and he's merciless as he fights his enemies and the environment. 

By comparison, The Last of Us paints a much more relateable picture.  It's true that the post-apocalyptic world that the main characters Joel and Ellie must navigate through is well traveled territory, but it feels much more like something we can imagine ourselves living in.  The landscape is harsh and unforgiving, and traversal is more realistic.  There aren't any convenient hand holds for scaling buildings, and many of the obstacles are either man made or they are a result of the world's natural state of decay.  It's brutal, but it probably hits the mark better than most zombie survival games have to date. 

Then there's the character interaction.  TLOU doesn't offer much in the way of humor, which is a pretty big change for the developer.  The story this game is trying to tell isn't some light hearted tale of companionship and compassion.  TLOU's characters have grown accustomed to the harsh world they live in, and they act in a way that they feel is required to survive.  Joel is ruthless because he has to be, and it's important to understand that he isn't the game's real hero.  I haven't finished the campaign yet, so I don't know if Joel ultimately finds his redemption, but it's clear that he hasn't always been comfortable with the moral ambiguity that the world has forced upon him. 

Ellie, on the other hand, has grown up without ever knowing the world that Joel and the others took for granted.  She's tough, but she has also been sheltered to a certain extent.  In the beginning of the game, she talks about how she had never been outside of a quarantine zone before.  Instead, she grew up in the relatively safe custody of the rebel Fireflys and under the protection of the military.  This innocense is what makes some of the random dialogue so great as Ellie and Joel travel together. 

At one point, Ellie starts making odd sputtering sounds with her lips to which Joel inquires whether she is feeling alright.  She tells him that she never learned how to whistle, and it makes sense.  In a world where everyone is trying so hard to cope with such overbearing hardships, why would anyone take the time to teach a child to whistle?  It's one of the joys that has faded from their world.  It also makes it all the more comical and triumphant when Ellie later masters the trick taking Joel, and us as players off guard during a later sequence.  Little touches like that pull players into the game more than action alone could.  Ellie and Joel may not be as chatty as Drake and his cohorts, but they still come to life just as convincingly. 

I won't go into gameplay elements at this point since I haven't finished the game, but expect to see the second installment of the game discussion once I have.  TLOU is one of those games that you never really want to finish, but once I do, the next installment will be posted.

~Krimmit

Now Playing (On a Console Near Me)

It's been a while since I sat down and dusted off my console backlog, and since 2012 started out with such a flood of games to review for the blog, there are a few that I never really got to dig into.  There are even some that I started, and never got to finish (Gasp!).  So, with a day off on my side, and a little bit of good old determination, I sat down with my neglected binder of Xbox 360 games and dug in for the day.

1) Max Payne 3

This is one of those games that I got as a rental through red box, found out that there was only one disc in the case, couldn't finish the game, then got the full game and never finished.  Poorly punctuated, and grammatically incorrect sentences aside, I put about an hour into the second half once I bought the full version, but I never really went back to it until just recently.  Once I picked it back up, I couldn't stop playing it again.  Max Payne 3 isn't a very long game by single player campaign standards, but it's still longer than most first person shooters and the total run time usually takes around 8 hours.  I haven't finished it yet, but here's what I think so far. 

I remember playing through most of the first game of the series long ago, and at the time it felt pretty game changing.  I understand that the development of the franchise has changed hands since then, but I never got to the second title.  That being said, I haven't been too hung up about any tonal shifts in the game's central plot arc or with the overall tone or style of the story telling.  However, since I started playing this game last year, I have gotten increasingly more annoyed by the cinematic style used between game play sequences.  It borrows pretty heavily from 2004's hit movie Man on Fire with text popping up on the screen periodically for emphasis.  The concept seemed pretty cool for the first couple of hours.  Beyond that, I got pretty burned out, and I'm not one to skip cut scenes so I continue to endure it.

Rockstar always does a really great job with dialogue though, so even though the narration is riddled with cliche, and many of the game's central characters have as much depth as the plastic disk the game is written on, It makes things extremely entertaining for a late 1980s action flick fan like me.  That's pretty much what this game is though.  It's exactly like a dark, convoluted tribute to the great action flicks of years gone by. 

The violence of this game can also be jarring at times, but then again shooting people in narrow corridors in the seedy underbelly of Brazil should make players uncomfortable.  There is no glorification of violence to be found here even though gore is abundant.  Furthermore, Max is never glorified for his actions in any way.  For most of the game so far, Max is nothing more than a fall guy for some of the campaign's more nefarious characters.  He drinks, he pops pills, he smokes, and he's basically the most miserable thug you could imagine.  Whether or not he finds his redemption has yet to be seen, but whether or not he deserves it is the grander question.

2) Driver: San Francisco

I know my fellow blog founder reviewed this game a while back, but I never bothered to touch this game until the other day, and I'm still pretty glad I did so far.  I feel like I've been playing nothing but shooters lately, and a little change of pace was just what the doctor ordered.  I haven't played a Driver game since the days of the original Playstation, and I felt that Stuntman for the PS2 didn't really hit all the free roaming notes that I expected it to.  Hence, I had little interest in the franchise up until this point.  But there it was, sitting in that binder sleeve just staring at me. 

Driver: SF is another game with a relatively short run time for a free roaming game.  The main campaign missions take around 10 hours to complete, and I think I must have put in around three or four hours so far.  The mission types stay true to what I remember from the good old Driver days, with a little bit of the stunt work from Stuntman mixed in for flavor.  Still, SF puts a new spin on things by introducing the "Shift" mechanic, whereby the main protagonist can take control of other driver's bodies, and drive any car he wants. 

The ability is introduced by one of the most convoluted and highly improbable plot deliveries imaginable, but who cares?  Shifting opens up a whole new level of player strategy that keeps things entertaining even though some of the game objectives start to become repetitive.  It's plain to see that Driver: SF isn't too interested in taking itself seriously either.  After I had completed a few of the main story missions, I was treated to a little "Previously on Driver: San Francisco" vignette that recapped several of the main plot points so far.  It was pretty great, and also pretty cheesy.

If Max Payne 3 is the equivalent of a 1980s action movie, then Driver: SF is best summarized as a 1980s buddy cop show with an emphasis on driving.  It's kind of like Smokey and the Bandit, but you're the cop....and you are in a coma....but you are solving crimes in your mind.  Yeah...it sounds stupid, but the game is really quite fun, and the visual fidelity is pretty awesome for a free roaming car game.  Car models all look true to their real life counterparts, and every vehicle drives differently. 

I also like the fact that you can purchase different vehicles with in game currency.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the fact that you can jump into any vehicle, but you sometimes bounce back to a default ride for specific city events.  I haven't finished the game yet, but the story seems good enough to carry things through to the end. 

As things slow down for the summer release season, it looks like I will still have plenty of blog fodder to chug through in my backlog.  There are a couple of action RPGs that I have been too intimidated to touch yet, but they will most likely take a pretty good chunk of time, and they will keep me busy enough to prevent me from spending all of my money before the new consoles launch in the winter.  Until then.

Stay Frosty!

~Krimmit

Most Anticipated Titles (Summer 2013)

Summer time is a notoriously slow season for quality video game releases.  There are some inevitable summer sleepers that risk the peril of skating below game of the year radar, but some gems garner enough attention to be memorable and wildly successful.  It makes sense from a marketing standpoint.  Game developers operate under the assumption that a majority of their customers still fall somewhere between the 12 to 18 year old range that still relies on their parents to buy games for them.  With this sort of business model, the winter holiday season is the best time to market and release games. 

As an adult gamer, I don't really care when a game comes out, but this particular practice does tend to make it more difficult to catch those hidden gems when they hit the market unless I'm really paying attention.  Digital distributors like Steam have alleviated this issue somewhat by offering sales during off seasons, but I digress.  This isn't a long winded rant about business strategy.  I neither have the knowledge required to speculate the marketing practices of major video game publishers, nor do I have the desire to research and quote credible sources in order to form an argument on the subject.  Instead, let's stick with what I do know.

There are two games that I'm really looking forward to this summer.  They are total must haves for me, and the fact that they are wildly anticipated summer games is saying something about off season releases.  It might be somewhat telling that the games I'm about to discuss are both survival based games, but in many ways they couldn't be more different.  One is a story based game with an interesting focus on character development, splashed with some crafting and environmental puzzle solving.  The other is an open world survival game with a strong influence on player agency and environmental awareness.  Still haven't figured out what they may be?  Wonder no more!

The Last of Us

There are very few development studios that I admire more than Naughty Dog Studios.  Ever since they broke out onto the market with Crash Bandicoot, and the Jak and Daxter trilogy, I have been hooked on anything they put out.  The Uncharted trilogy remains my favorite current generation franchise even though I thought the third installment fell a little flat, and it felt a little self important.  Still, Naughty Dog is constantly setting the standard for developers who strive to build cinematic, story driven games. 

Uncharted gave gamers a protagonist who could form meaningful relationships with other characters, and an even more meaningful relationship with the environment around him.  Sure, the combat is rather basic given the window dressing, and some people complain that the gameplay itself does little to advance the standard of interactivity, but few can pull off a spectacle like Naughty Dog can. 

So what is it about The Last of Us that warrants so much excitement?  Well, it's a number of things really.  After watching several of the available gameplay videos that have been circulating over the past year or more, TLOU shows incredible promise as a heavily story based companion game with a focus on strategic inventory management and adaptive combat.  What this means is that Naughty Dog has maintained its focus on building compelling characters and dialogue interactions, but they are building a more complex combat system which should set this game apart from the Uncharted games. 

Game footage shows the main characters searching through post apocalyptic city ruins for supplies, and fighting through more believable enemy scenarios than those found in previous Naughty Dog games.  The developers have stated that TLOU is a survival adventure game first and a shooting game a distant second, so that in itself is pretty interesting from my viewpoint. 

Another compelling aspect of this game is that combat really feels like something dangerous that should be avoided if possible.  Enemy encounters hold a weight that most games fail to capture outside of titles like Dead Space and the original Resident Evil installments.  Human enemies react dynamically to your actions, and encounters really seem to play out in a way that feels organic rather than scripted.  There are infected humans who act much like zombies, but different infected types require different tactical approaches to be dispatched or avoided. 

All in all, The Last of Us looks like a survival story with interesting survival based gameplay.  It isn't your own story, but the character development should be strong enough that it will leave players wanting more.  I do have some concerns over the game however.  With any story driven game, my immediate concern I have is that there may only be so many ways that a given encounter can play out.  With the Uncharted games, enemies would move around combat areas in a way that was challenging, but combat was predictable. 

One minute, you would be prowling through a corridor area that is largely devoid of obstacles, and the next moment you are standing in a room with fallen stones and waist high walls that are perfect for cover.  It's fair to say these areas are built as scripted combat arenas.  Enemy spawn points were fairly obvious as well.  What remains to be seen is whether or not enemy areas will be as identifiable in TLOU. 

Furthermore, does the game take cues from other games like Dishonored in that many combat opportunities could be avoided all together in favor of a more stealthy approach?  One of the game footage sequences showed the main character dispatching several bandit type enemies by using the environment and his inventory to his advantage, but could the encounter have been circumvented entirely if he had been stealthy enough to pull it off?  Furthermore, if one of the bandits were left alive to escape, would that have consequences after the encounter?  Would he and his comrades come for revenge? 

Perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis on what could  be possible with a game like this when the confirmed gameplay elements are exciting enough on their own.  It's never good to set your expectations too high when they are bound to be unsatisfied with the final product.  That being said, The Last of Us still looks like a pretty amazing game that releases on 6/13.

DayZ Standalone

The DayZ mod for Bohemia Interactive's Arma 2 game and expansions has been something of a phenomenon in the PC gaming world for the past two years.  The mod started off as a shaky, unstable mess in which players were thrown into a barren, post apocalyptic world swarming with erratic, shambling zombies.  There were no instructions, no missions, and no objectives.  Your goal was only to survive.  Danger came in the form of starvation, exposure, zombie attacks, and interference from other players who inhabited the world. 

Then, the community embraced the game with such enthusiasm that it soon evolved into an Internet sensation.  Mods of the mod surfaced as user support increased and different game modes emerged.  Soon, you could find Dayz servers featuring different maps and weapons.  There has always been a lot of love for DayZ, and it showed as sales for Arma 2 skyrocketed on Steam. 

All of these things made the inevitable announcement that DayZ creator Dean "Rocket" Hall was building a standalone version of the beloved mod for PC and possibly for console systems in the future more intriguing.  Hall promises that the standalone game will feature even more survival systems than the mod, and since it won't be encumbered by some of the limitations of Bohemia's own Arma 2 game, there is much more potential to what the developers can accomplish. 

I've played my share of the original mod and its variants, and the only disappointing thing about them is that PVP, looting, and survival is about all you can do.  Sure, it's fun to group up with a squad and raid NPC encampments in DayZ: Origins, but aside from that, what is there to do beyond that?  At least Dean Hall has promised that there will be a great deal more lore and back story to the new DayZ universe, and that players will really be able to take ownership of the world in a way that hasn't been possible within the mod. 

Furthermore, Hall has stated that there is a bigger push for realism in the standalone game in reference to having a number of visual cues that are typically found in shooters being removed entirely.  For example, the standard HUD will be less invasive, or it may be removed completely meaning that there will be no more health or ammo counters to aid players in game.  The developers seem to be aiming for more of a simulation effect in this regard. 

The draw for me is that DayZ has the potential to be the kind of game that lets players write their own stories, and create their own missions.  There isn't a scripted scene to be found anywhere that forces you to enjoy the game the way developers want you to.  Also, there isn't any sort of finite quality to DayZ.  The game has no ending, and if you die, you just start over again. 

The full level of customization that this game will allow has yet to be seen, but it seems that the Alpha build will be available for purchase some time in June 2013.  I for one can't wait to jump in.  Dean Hall may have some lofty expectations for the game's final product, but then again it's nice to see a developer show such enthusiasm for a product.

Though past summer release seasons have proven to be barren wastelands of mediocre release titles, this June seems to be a fairly promising month.  Things will naturally slow down quite a bit for current generation consoles with the Playstation 4 and Xbox One coming out this winter, but it's nice to see that at least the PS3 lineup is getting some love before its successor launches.  Both of these games have generated so much buzz that it seems likely they will both sell well, and they are certainly must haves for me. 

As always, stay frosty!

~Krimmit

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (6 months in)

This time of year, I typically do some sort of Call of Duty article on the blog, and with teaser trailers already surfacing for 2013's holiday release it seemed fitting to look back and examine my experience with Black Ops 2.  I chose not to do a review when the game released, and I'm not going to do an in depth comparison with any past COD titles like I did for Modern Warfare 3 here.  Instead, I will look at the best and the worst of my experiences with Blops 2.  The highs and the lows if you will.

In no way do I consider myself a hard core Call of Duty Fan, or a COD "fanboy" for lack of a better word.  Instead, I like to say that COD is often my go to game due to the fact that it is so accessible to such a wide range of players.  There have been nights where I have mulled over my gaming choices for several minutes only to settle on a few quick rounds of Blops 2 multiplayer due to the fact that I don't have to coordinate any parties with known teammates, or deal with complex strategies in order to enjoy myself.  COD's largest appeal for me is that it makes it so easy to jump into a game that I barely ever think about it beforehand, and I don't mind playing with unknowns.

It's not exactly mindless fun, but it takes less preparation than say Battlefield 3 would.  When I play a game like Battlefield, I commit to a plan before even putting the disk into my console.  I know what weapons I want to rank up, and I know what game modes I want to play.  If it doesn't go well, the whole thing is a wash.  Such is not the case with Call of Duty.  I can mix and mince my play styles and class setups however I want, and I usually end up with a mostly positive experience every time.  Sometimes Battlefield offers more satisfaction, and a good night playing DayZ on my PC with my friends can provide me with battle stories for weeks, but no game fills that middle ground better than COD.

These days, I find myself rotating between MW3 and Blops 2 on a somewhat regular basis for a few different reasons.  I'm not going to go into length to compare the two games, but things really took an upswing for MW3 once they ironed out some of the spawn and lag issues just before the launch of Blops 2.  The game became playable very quickly, and I saw my game improve immediately as a result.  Blops 2 on the other hand has a LOT of ground to make up in this department. 

Incremental patches have resolved some of the weapon balancing issues that the game originally suffered from, but different game modes still present issues with random spawn generation and perceived lag continues to plague the PS3 version that I own.  The recent patch on 4/30/13 seems to have made things somewhat better, but I can't tell if it's just in my head or not yet. 

I will most likely touch on some more of the bad later, but let's move on to some of the good for now.  My favorite thing about Blops 2 continues to be the "Pick Ten" class building system.  The concepts employed in this inventory system aren't revolutionary, but they are easily the best thing to happen to a COD game in a good long while.  The fact that there are only 10 available slots helps to limit the amount of exploitation that opportunistic gamers resort to while striking a good balance of power versus utility. 

I had always felt that MW3's class system was too bloated with complicated perk and attachment combinations to be efficient.  With "Pick Ten", I immediately know the limits of what can and can't be combined.  Furthermore, the in-game interface is visually simple enough to be used easily.  I haven't used the online menu system to track stats and customize classes yet, but I'm sure the same could be said of the interface found there. 

That being said, some of my most enjoyable moments with the game come from when I am simply running around like an idiot, trying out new weapon and perk combinations.  In many ways, I take my performance too seriously with this game, which is frustrating, but the most fun is to be had when I simply let go an enjoy the ridiculousness of it all.  My favorite part of the grind is when you reach the next prestige rank and are forced to use preset classes.  In those moments, I can throw myself into matches with such abandon that I don't really care what my K/D is, as long as I get some points to rank up later on.

Then, there's the unnecessary rage.  COD has always been effective at soliciting over the top frustration from me from time to time.  I've had my share of "WTF?!?!?!?!?!" moments, and I almost always blame the game for whatever hardship I may be facing.  It's usually the standard, "How did that guy hit me?" or "There's no way that should have happened?" response.  Most of the time, these occurences can be attributed to my own error, but sometimes the game seems legitimately unbalanced even without lag.

As I mentioned above, there are still some glaring issues with lag in Blops 2, but some of the one on one decisioning seems built into the game itself.  Don't get me wrong, I know when I'm playing poorly on a good connection, but at times it seems like I have dominant matches that will be followed up by abysmal ones with the same group of players in the lobby.  Perhaps its the way that COD represents server ping in the stats menu, but it seems like most player's connections seem to be misrepresented. 

On that note, I still like the fact that console versions of this game give you the ability to search for the best possible server connections in lobby.  Whether or not the search restrictions are as discriminate as advertised is debateable, but the choice is interesting.  Some times I can tell the difference in my match quality.  Other times, I wonder why I bothered switching to "best connection" at all.

Now let's talk about downloadable content.  There aren't too many games that I go "all in" on for DLC, but I chose to buy the season pass for $50 on Playstation Network for this one.  My biggest motivation for this was that I really loved the map updates for the original Blops, and I liked the idea that they had rehashed some of the maps from Treyarch's previous COD titles.  I didn't bother downloading any of the paid content for Modern Warfare 3, and now that I actually enjoy the multiplayer for that game, I'm kind of kicking myself for not doing so.  I wouldn't go back this late in the cycle to buy them now, however.

So far, Blops 2's DLC is somewhat of a mixed bag for me.  Of the four new multiplayer maps, I really only enjoy three of them, and I find the other to be frustratingly cheap as it is riddled with convenient camping spots and choke points.  I don't play zombies, so the rest of the content is really wasted on me, but even if I only get three good maps out of four, I'm ok with it.  None of the maps come close to the variety and quality of those found in Modern Warfare 2, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen again...in any game...ever.  Also, I may be looking back on that game with the rosey colored notalgia specs due to the fact that multiplayer was ruined by hackers long ago, but I can't really say. 

It seems like developers are so caught up with geography with map design lately, that they forget about the fact that the most enjoyable maps allow players to branch out, and try different play styles.  Most of Blops 2's maps are relatively small, with an emphasis on including an equal amount of indoor and outdoor areas for each arena.  There aren't as many long sight lines as there were in Blops maps for long range gunplay, and Treyarch seems to have taken one from Infinity Ward by including verticality in their map design.  The only trouble is that snipers in this game aren't usually pearched in second floor windows.  Instead, they are busy trying to hard scope you from ten feet away in the crowded corridors where the SMG lovers go to play.

Black Ops 2 takes some getting used to.  In fact, out of all of the CODs out there, it took me the longest to adjust to how things work in Blops 2.  The mechanics are the same, but things don't really gel the way they did in past games.  That doesn't make Blops 2 worse than its predecessors, but it does make me wonder why they haven't ironed things out more after six months on store shelves.  I'm sure there will be improvements as the game matures, and those who don't want to shell out the cash for annual installments of COD will be satisfied until Treyarch announces their next title, but it is also entirely possible that connection issues will continue to plague this game indefinitely.

With Call of Duty: Ghosts on the horizon, COD fans will eagerly eat up any news about the next best thing to come this holiday season.  Then, when next gen consoles launch, they will flood the web with hungry cries for bigger and better things.  Hopefully COD will be able to keep up and innovate more.  Treyarch is on the right track, but even they need to ratchet things up a bit for their next installment to keep me interested.  Until then, I'll keep my copy spinning, and keep getting pwned by the lag. 

~Krimmit

DayZ: A Game or a Job?

This isn't one of those articles that goes into depth about how a person who is passionate about video games can make a living by playing them.  Instead, I wanted to discuss the different ways players approach video games in general.  Obviously, video games are built to be interactive entertainment experiences.  The level of player interaction varies in degrees from passive interaction (i.e. playing simple puzzle/physics games in ones spare time on a cell phone) to rigorous consumption in the vein of someone spending hundreds of hours per month digging through in game content. 

Ain't it the truth?

The question is, when does a person cross the line between simply "playing" a game and treating games as another job?  I asked myself this after playing online with a group of friends this past weekend, and I began to wonder what my level of video game commitment stood in relation to those I was playing with.  My overall position has always been that I am a moderate gamer with a relatively high affinity for video games.  This blog would not exist otherwise, but the amount of time and effort that I sink into games really can't hold a candle to some.

For reference, let's look at what events transpired over the weekend that led up to this realization.  As I had mentioned in a previous post, many of my friends are fans of the ARMA 2 mod, and soon to be standalone title, DayZ.  Most people who play are drawn to DayZ because it requires a certain level of devotion and patience to truly enjoy.  The environment is unforgiving, and unknown players are a constant threat.  I personally only play the game in small doses as the experience can sometimes be frustrating if you don't have anyone watching your back.  Gathering loot and weapons can be a tedious process, and losing your inventory to murderous bandits can be disheartening. 

Spawn randomly, my friends.

Still, this past weekend I agreed to play online with some of my local friends who have rented their own DayZ: Origins server.  Origins is an offshoot of the original mod in which players can band together to take on NPC characters guarding some of the more coveted loot and weapon items in the game.  The NPCs are merciless, and it's really quite challenging, but I digress.  Being a newbie to this particular flavor of DayZ, I was subject to the instruction of my peers as I loaded into the game. 

My friends had made an alliance of sorts with some of the regulars on their server in an effort to gather loot and to set up safe zones on the map where they promised not to steal each other's gear.  The point of stockpiling gear in the first place is that assaulting NPC controlled areas takes a certain amount of preparation and planning as the AI enemies are particularly fearsome.  My friends were kind enough to arrange transport for me to one of the safe zones, where I was geared up and briefed on our objectives. 

Even though my friends had made a pact with some players on the server, there were still other squads who were only interested in killing our respective squads and stripping our hard earned items from our carcasses.  At the safe zone, we prepared our transport helicopter and set off for the NPC controlled island to collect more high end gear.  This process alone took approximately thirty to fourty minutes.

After our heli was sufficiently stocked, we flew to the island and touched down to begin our work.  After a confrontation with an enemy player that resulted in the death of one of our team members, we were ambushed and massacred by NPCs.  Our pilot escaped and picked us up as we respawned around the map, but we then had to re-kit ourselves by looting our dead bodies.  Then we loaded high end gear from the NPC zone onto the heli to replenish our depleted base supplies.  The entire process from the time of our initial incursion to our return to the base took another forty five minutes to an hour. 

Once the game went into the night cycle, we were ready for our raid on the NPC island once more.  Some of the high level NPCs inland were holding valuable loot items that our team required to build structures capable of increasing our stockpile.  We moved across the island in the cover of darkness picking off guards as we made our way to the Mayor's mansion.  We suffered a few casualties along the way, but ultimately our mission was a success once we assassinated the Mayor and exfiled back to the base island to unload our bounty.  The entire event spanned five to six hours, and continued on long after I had logged off for the night. 

Even though this particular raid was incredibly fun and exciting, it left me wondering just how much time a person would have to sink into the game to do this on a regular basis.  Most of our time had been spent farming resources and loot from the game in order to prepare ourselves sufficiently so that we wouldn't be massacred again.  The next night I logged on, and it was an entirely different story.  My own squad and our allies were simply gathering resources and transporting them from one place to another to build storage houses.  It was a far cry from the excitement and anticipation I had experienced the night before.  It felt more like work, or grinding.

Does anyone miss this.....ever?

That's when it hit me.  Was I really willing to grind it out with this squad night after night like this just so that I could enjoy the few nights that we wouldn't be grinding?  On the one hand, I admire the level of detail and depth that games like DayZ offer.  It's rewarding when a game allows you to take control of your own livelihood in such an involved manner.  On the other hand, nine times out of ten I like to play games as a means to escape the fact that I spend forty plus hours a week at a full time job, and then spend another good portion of my time doing house work.  Sometimes the last thing I want to do is more work whether it be virtual or otherwise. 

I've always been a man of all trades when it comes to video games.  I have never claimed devotion to one particular gaming platform or another, and (perhaps too often) I buy multiple game systems so I can enjoy everything that appeals to me across all platforms.  My attention span for games has somewhat diminished when it comes to video games over the years, and perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that I haven't chosen a single platform to support, but I like to think I'm just a fan of games in general instead of being a specialist.  Perhaps I'm not "hardcore" enough, but I like variety. 

So, what is it that makes the grind more appealing than the occasional, easier to consume action or puzzle games that I normally enjoy?  I should say that I have put hours upon hours into some of my favorite games, but none of those experiences were as involved as this.  The same goes for people who pour time into games like World of Warcraft, or the Everquest games.  For someone like me, the concept can be difficult to understand. 

When I first started playing DayZ, the formula was simple.  You spawn randomly.  You are forced to find weapons and gear that is mostly only obtainable in cities where other players will see and possibly kill you.  You get gear so you can go and raid areas on the map where better gear is spawned.  Then, if you so desire, you terrorize other players with your advanced weaponry, and then repeat.  If you got tired of the game, you could step away for a while, and the formula would still be the same when you picked it back up. 

With the way things have changed, if you are away, you could miss just about everything.  When I spawned in after one day, I would have been stranded on an abandoned island with no transportation had my friends not still been moving their stores around.  That would have been unfortunate.  It would have been the equivalent of waking up one day to find that your house had been moved and your family left you with just enough provisions to survive for one day. 

I don't want this all to come of as me complaining about grinding, or that I'm putting down those who enjoy playing games in this fashion.  In fact, I think it's awesome that video games have evolved to the point that players can enjoy games in pretty much any way they would like.  What's even more compelling is that different types of gamers can find some common ground through games like DayZ. 

However, I still feel that there should be boundaries when it comes to responsible play time.  This may vary from person to person depending on his or her real life responsibilities, but I'm not here to preach about the importance of personal responsibility.  When I refer to DayZ as a "job", it's because it would be easy for a person to sink in as much as thirty plus hours into it per week if not more if he or she were so inclined, and obviously I'm referring to the grinding. 

I can't tell if they are playing Wii, or if this is the
first person view of the family dog who is about
to be beaten?

With that said, looking at how some people play DayZ has made me better understand where my own balance between game time and family time must stand.  The two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive as games can be enjoyed as a family, but there needs to be a healthy mix between quality time and "tube time" spent as a family.  Games will always be a part of my personal time, but I know now that I'm not looking for a second job unless it pays really well.

~Krimmit