Some epic conquest match!

Yesterday I slid Battlefield 3 into my PS3 for perhaps the second time in over a month, as I wanted some frantic online FPS action. I was all set to join a Team Deathmatch and let the bullets fly. Instead, at the last second, I decided that I would let the machine decide which type of match I'll enter. At first it put me in a Rush match. It went horribly bad, my team (and I include myself) was absolutely incapable of defending a single objective for more than half a minute. After the game, I quit and decided to retry the "random" thing on the menu (I confess, I've never liked Rush, I like the idea but I really suck at it). This time it chose Conquest on Golf of Oman with 300% tickets. I was in for something big.

The match itself was pretty damn long, nearly an hour. I had one of my best games in my short BF3 career (103 hours long). I finished 46-19, leading my team in points, shooting down 3 manned helicopters with a tank (one was on the ground), destroying at least 7 or 8 manned tanks, capturing 10 or more flags, nailing 3 killstreak bonuses ribbons, unlocking a MBT medal (worth 10k points) and a combat efficiency medal (for killstreaks, my fourth, also worth 10k points). And it was double XP week for Premium members, so I gained nearly 80 000 points in a single match!

Even with one of my best games ever on BF3, I only finished 3rd and we lost. Two guys on the other team were extremely good, one of them finished with a 64-10 and over 21k points before bonuses. Anyway, it was fun, I hadn't played that epic of a match in a looong time. I used to play Conquest a lot, recording more than a few great matches with great K/D ratio (along the lines of 32-10, 23-2, 28-6, 17-1 and somewhere around 20 1st place ribbons). But lately I've been more focused on TDM, having a lot of fun, but I was not as dominant with guns only (I think I only ever had one 1st place ribbon in over a hundred TDMs). Indeed, my K/D ratio had dropped from 2.2 when I hit level 45 (Colonel) and now it's 1.9.

It was nice to see I could still put up a good fight in Battlefield 3. :)

Sometimes I shouldn't listen to myself.

When Mass Effect 3 came out earlier this year, I kept telling myself that I wouldn't try it. After a few days, when the first reviews and players' reactions came around criticizing the game's ending like it ruined their lives and ran away laughing, I thought : "Oh well I wasn't going to play it anyway, so I don't care". And that might look like a very strange behavior, especially since I really enjoyed Mass Effect 2, awarding it close to a 9.5 out of 10. But I guess something about the end of the game really bugged to the point that I didn't want to play the third installment. And, to be extremely honest, I have no freaking clue what it is.

Now I'm glad I bought it. Very glad, I should say. It is turning out to be a very, very enjoyable game. I like how the story is developing and how unpredictable it is turning out to be. After 13 hours I feel like it might be a bit too long if I choose to do all the Side quests. I'm a big side quests fan, usually, but for this game I'm not so sure I want to... The quests are usually quite long and complicated, which is a good thing for the most part, but sometimes the whole thing can get heavy and wee bit tedious.

But overall, I must say I'm quite glad I trusted the clerk at Microplay, who assured me it was a fantastic game if you don't mind the ending. Now that there's a patch out which "fixed" the controversial ending, I might not even be aware that there was a "bad" ending in the first place.

I'm usually quite on the "trust your instincts and nothing else" guy, but this time I've been proven wrong. And it's a good thing.

The downfall of Resident Evil

I first discovered the Resident Evil franchise in the late 90's, when my older brother was playing through I think what was Resident Evil 2 or Nemesis (RE3). While I only watched and never played those games (they were my brother's), I eventually bought two of them for the GameCube : The Resident Evil remake and Resident Evil 0. I found both games to be very enjoyable, especially for their exquisite pacing. I've always enjoyed games with slow, thoughtful exploration, the fact that everything you find might and probably will help you survive.

Then came Resident Evil 4 which is, I think, one of the most important games (along with Uncharted, Halo, and Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare) of the last decade (2000-2009). That game was and still is a masterpiece in every sense of the word. I played through it 4 or 5 times and I never got bored of it. It's simply stunning. There's a perfect balance between each and every aspect of the game. Sure, it basically introduced the 3rd-person over-the-shoulder camera angle which became the norm in the following years, creating a more action-oriented package. But it never - repeat : never - got away from the usual survival factor, the scary sequences/enemies/monsters/bosses, the tense atmosphere, the careful exploration of every corner and cupboard for herbs and ammo. That game still ranks third on my personal list of the best video games of all-time, just behind Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime and in front of All-Time Greats like Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007 and Fallout 3 (that should tell you a lot).

Then came Resident Evil 5, which was a decent game, but it barely ever got a little scary. The only thing that got on my nerves the whole game were the Lickers B (Beta) and the giant insect things near the end (although there were only 4 or 5 of them). And the only reason was because they were so powerful and resistant to damage, not exactly "frightening". The inventory management was very crappy, the enemies mostly generic and the settings not exactly memorable. And Chris lost a lot of respect as a protagonist with his huge bulging arms and the infamous "boulder punching" sequence. To me, it felt as if the developers thought Resident Evil 4 was successful only because it was more "action-oriented", so they decided to aim for that. And I think it just lost the beautiful balance RE4 had established. Again, it wasn't a bad game at all - it was actually pretty good - but it felt like a step down from RE4.

Earlier this year was released Operation Raccoon City which was, for me, an insult to the Resident Evil franchise. Sure, it's a coop 3rd-person-shooter action spin-off, not a canon entry, but it clearly showed which way Capcom was heading.

Then I finally tried the Resident Evil 6 demo. I know you don't judge a game by its demo, because it IS just a demo, but this was something else. My older brother, who played all home-console Resident Evil games (except ORC this year) since the very beginning, told it best. His first words (in french, of course) were "This isn't Resident Evil" and then "Resident Evil 5 was good, but this is just wack".

Like any well-informed buyer, I read reviews and watched gameplay vids on the Internet to get a better idea. I was very, very disappointed with what I saw. It doesn't even look like Resident Evil any more. It actually made me sad. At the very least it seems like Leon's campaign is decent, but the other "campaigns" all look mediocre, if not plain bad. I might very well give it a chance for old times' sake, but this doesn't look promising at all.

Sure, it's Capcom's franchise and they do whatever the hell they want. And they will sell a lot because of the name only. But I know I'm not alone thinking "Well, here's another historic franchise ruined by modernity".

Sequels, hype and disappointment

In exactly 5 days*, Gearbox Software's Borderlands 2 will be released, and masses of gamers will flock game shops and websites to get their hands on a copy. In a way, I'll be one of them, since I've pre-ordered it back in June, when Canadian electronic store Future Shop had a E3 sale (4 E3-showcased games for the price of 3). However, as much hype as I have for Borderlands 2 - and I have a lot, since I love Borderlands so much it has a spot deeper in my gamer heart than any game this generation, even better ones - I couldn't help but think about the other over-hyped sequels of the past few years and get worried a bit.

Why? Because developers know sequels usually have a lot to live up to, and often try very hard (too hard?) to live up to their expectations and, even worse, gamers' expectations. And even when the critics applaud the sequel, giving it the same grade - or better - than the prequel, I usually find the original better.

The usual route for a sequel is "Bigger is better" where more explosions/guns/missions/treachery/quests/bigger boss fights/maps/powers/monsters/characters/fights/etc. means the game will likely be better. It is clearly not that simple.

Take, for example, inFamous, the 2009 PS3-exclusive open-world title where you play Cole McGrath, riddled with electric superpowers and has to choose whether he'll be good or evil towards citizens of Empire City while completing his missions. When inFamous 2 hit in 2011, with huge bosses, more powers, allies with other types of power (Ice & Fire), more varied enemies and less repetitive missions, most people thought it was a LOT better than the original. I didn't. Of course it had objectively more to offer, but more isn't necessarily better. I felt somewhat connected to the dark, unenthusiastic Cole of the first game, clearly not happy with the situation he was stuck in. The enemy, Kesler, was also a lot more interesting than "The Beast".

The same thing could be said of a lot of sequels. Only this generation, I thought Modern Warfare was vastly superior to both its sequels and Assassin's Creed II a lot better than Brotherhood (haven't tried Revelations). I also liked Arkham Asylum more than Arkham City (although City is objectively a superior game that I loved), enjoyed LittleBigPlanet more than LBP2 (still excellent though), Bioshock more than Bioshock 2 (superb as well), etc. And in some cases the sequel impossibly proved equal to the original, as we have seen with Portal 2 or Super Mario Galaxy 2. But in most cases, the original retains the new-IP "naïve" and "true" feeling of the game.

Why? I think it's because the first game usually has a LOT less expectations, and developers work almost without pressure (from the publisher, from the fans, from the critics and journalists, etc.) and put together a product closer to what they actually wanted to make. It will sound clichéd, but the original game seemingly comes from the heart and not the brain. Whereas there's too much "brain" in the sequels, and the final product often looks like an uneven mix of players' expectations and media pressure.

And I'm pretty sure that, in some cases, the sequel wasn't planned when the first game hit the shelves. And it shows. A lot more than what the developers were probably hoping. It seems like many of them decided to make a second game just because the first one worked, and not because the story or universe was meant to be continued or otherwise exploited.

*NOTE : This was actually written - almost all of it - 5 days before BL2 came out. It has been out for a week, I've played it for a few hours and really enjoyed it. More on that soon!

The most Annoying Things in video games - Part I

I enjoy video games. And if you stumbled upon this blog, you probably do as well. However, as with basically everything in life, there are aspects of gaming that are simply bad or, in this case, "annoying". Why just "annoying"? Because it all comes down to perspective. Something I find deeply frustrating or unfair might very well please another gamer who likes that sort of things. It goes both ways as well. For example, I know many gamers don't like fetch quests found in many RPGs, but I usually don't mind them, especially since most of them are side quests anyways. You get the point. Today we'll talk about difficulty spikes.

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past five years, you've surely heard many gamers complain about the lack of difficulty in today's games. Sure, many games have either 56 checkpoints per chapter, or auto-aim, or in-game guides, or no-death gameplay, or slow-motion shootouts, or lazy A.I., etc. Anything to help the gamer get through the game without any hassle, just entertainment. And, to be honest, it suits many people quite well. I've got some friends who only want to play on easy because they don't wanna be bothered with restarting the same objective all over again, they just wanna be entertained and kill people and think as little as possible. Games are fun, period.

For other, this kind of laziness is basically the fall of mankind. They like it old-school, when games were tough and you had 3 lifes to get through the whole thing, period. They will enjoy Ninja Gaiden and Dark Souls, and will play each and every game on the toughest difficulty setting. They like to be challenged.

Me, I don't mind a challenge from time to time, but I like to play games to have fun and, more importantly, the way they were supposed to be played. In most cases, I will select "Normal" on the difficulty settings the first time I play a game. Sometimes, often for fun because I liked the game the first time around, or for a trophy hunt, I'll select a higher difficulty setting. In other words, I usually don't mind a bit of a challenge.

But there's something that REALLY gets on my nerves when I play a game : difficulty spikes. Obviously no game has even difficulty throughout, that would be boring. But some games go about their business for an hour or two, a few quests including a few fights, maybe a death or two while figuring out an enemy's weakness, but nothing out of the ordinary. Then BAM! you get to fight an enemy, sometimes a boss, who is absurdly stronger than anything you've ever seen. You might die 23 times before you are able to hit him. He has one-hit-kill attacks. You can barely get within 12 feet of his position. You might throw your controller so hard you break your neigbor's car window. And you stop playing the game, eject the disc and return to the shop to yell at the bewildered clerk. I might have exaggerated a wee bit, but you understand what I'm talking about.

Sometimes the enemy (or set piece, puzzle, adversary, race, etc.) makes sense, because you don't have the tools/weapons/skills yet and you've tried to defeat it too soon. Or you just didn't figure out what damages him (that happens a lot). But sometimes it's just too hard, way harder than it ever should be at this stage of the game. Even if it's an game ending boss. Like Crysis' final boss, the gigantic alien mech thingy on the battleship. I played the whole game on the hardest difficulty setting without suffering any major setbacks. A few tough set pieces, sure, but nothing appallingly hard. Then I get to the boss, and I do what I'm supposed to do at the beginning of the fight to make it weaker (those who played the game know). Then I shower him with thousands or bullets/rockets/whatever I have on me. No point, it doesn't affect it one tiny bit. But he can kill me with one attack, even if I'm BEHIND cover. I tried probably 15 times with a few different tactics, even went on www.gamefaqs.com (shame on me, I know, but it's a GREAT website for gaming help). Nothing doing. I still haven't finished the game to this day. And it's a great game.

I know some of you may find that boss easy, or not that hard, but it was the first example that came to mind. I could talk about a boss in Dragon Age II for which I lowered the difficulty TWICE, but still wasn't able to get through half of him and his army. Or that impossible set piece in Uncharted : Drake's Fortune (granted, it was on Crushing difficulty, so I can't complain) that I must have tried 30 times at least. I'm probably forgetting some... You probably all have an anecdote about a game you rage-quitted because of a difficulty spike, and please feel free to share in the comments.

Anyway, that's one of the most annoying things in video games, difficulty spikes.

The joy of having no expectation

I'm the type of gamer - and the type of person in general - who really likes to know what's what. In other words, I'm not a big fan of unexpected moments in my life. When my wife and I are going to rent a movie or go to the theater, I usually go on Rotten Tomatoes and/or Wikipedia to look at various things like critics, movie length, synopsis, etc. When I go to the mall I like to know what stores I'll have to go to, how much time I'll stay there, etc. And, obviously, when I buy a game (I very rarely rent one), I'll watch/read reviews, sometimes forums, consult the trophy/achievement list, ask what the length might be, if there's any bonus if it's bought new, who's the developer, etc. I just like to be safe. What happens then when you throw safety out of the window?

I recently went to the local game store where I bought, for 15 dollars, two relatively old PS3 games I knew very little about. In fact I had never read a review nor watched a gameplay video for either game. And I don't think I've ever done that this gen, except perhaps for PSN titles, which were very cheap or even free. Anyways, those games were X-Men Origins : Wolverine and Wolfenstein. In fact I knew so little about the games it so happened that both were made by Raven Software and published by Activision. Not unlike, ironically, one of my favorite "non-mainstream" games this gen : Singularity.

Let's start with Wolfenstein, which I finished, in approximately 7 hours, earlier this week. For the first half I really enjoyed it, thought it was great... but the pleasure didn't last and I somewhat had to convince myself I should finish it. The story was uninteresting because of the way it was presented, the characters were bland and had horrible voice acting (Why would Germans speak english to each other with a German accent? Why not simply speak German with subtitles?), but at least the gameplay was sharp. The powers your character could use weren't balanced at all, but they made some sense and at least one of them was pretty fun to use. The boss fights were OK for the most part, except for one near the end which was completely pointless and boring. Overall the gameplay and original guns saved the game, and I daresay it was a good game. Especially since I didn't except anything from this game, nothing at all.

Now, as for X-Men, it's another thing completely. I have to say I haven't finished it yet, but so far I would say it's probably the best "Beat'em up" or  "GoW-clone" I've played since... well probably the first God of War. The fact that I've always liked X-Men and especially the character of Wolverine (not original, I know) helped somewhat, but the game itself is VERY entertaining. Sure it's a bloodbath, but somehow that negative side got drowned (no pun intended) by the pure joy brought by the awesome gameplay. The "Lunge" game mechanic by itself is worth the 5$ I've paid for the game. And now I feel sad I didn't pay more for the game, or even bought it new, to encourage Raven for making such a great game. It's not over yet, but so far it's a LOT more than I ever expected.

On that note, my PS+ subscription gave me the opportunity to get Gotham City Impostors for free. That's another game I feel ashamed not paying for. Since it's easily worth the 15$ it's asking for. Or it would, if the matchmaking wasn't so broken. But when it works, it's FPS-multiplayer fun very few games could match.

I'm glad I tried those three games without thinking about what they were or how they were rated by anyone. I might do that more often now. I WILL do that more often, even if I sometimes am disappointed by the result.

Thoughts on a Journey

 A quick glance around Internet or, if you’re kicking it old school like I am sometimes and head out to the store to grab a gaming magazine, you will have noticed that game reviews, by « journalists » or by « normal » gamers, are wildly different from one another. Sure, this last sentence could be a statement made by good old Captain Obvious, but let me explain myself.

Not every gamer is looking for the same thing when he/she plays a game. Of course, most of us are just looking to have fun and/or kill some time. After all, video games are an entertainment medium like TV shows or movies at the theater. However, when you play enough games, you start to look beyond the whole « entertainment » value of a game, which never entirely disappears, but seems to take a back seat to something else.

That’s when you might start looking for a game that will test some skills in a very specific way, like Real-Time Strategy if you’re the armchair general type, online shooters if you’re the competitive soldier with an all-world K/D ratio, deep Role-Playing games if you’re a  mad completionist, Puzzle games if you want to work your brains out, Racing games if you think you’re the second coming of Ayrton Senna, Fighting games for the combo-loving, leaderboard-topping digital master etc.

Or you might be looking for a specific trait in a game. An intense atmosphere like in Bioshock or most Resident Evil games ? Non-stop action à la Call of Duty ? Emotional attachment as in Ico or Enslaved ? Infinite replayability as in LittleBigPlanet ? Nostalgia in Sonic Generations ? The feeling of freedom of GTA IV ? Hollywood script and action like in Uncharted 2 ? Exquisite graphics like in The Witcher II : Assassins of Kings ? The list goes on.

When I bought, then played, PSN-exclusive Journey, one word came to mind. Experience. Journey is unique, like nothing I’ve ever played before or will ever play again. I don’t think we’ll see a Journey-clone like we see gazillions or GTA-clones and CoD-clones. You play through the whole game, likely in a single sitting since it’s pretty short, without hearing or reading a single word. The objective, seen through a gamer’s eye, is to reach the summit of a omnipresent mountain, although it’s hard to pinpoint the exact motivation to do so. You encounter allies and enemies, but not in the usual « video game » sense. And the artistic design is unreal, the places you get to visit - be it desert, cave, snowy moutain - are all a sight to behold. You get the feeling you’re living a unique experience, and that’s what makes the game superb, borderline legendary.

It’s a game I can’t rate properly because most of the usual criterias I use to rate a game (gameplay, storyline, presentation, etc.) don’t really matter. It can’t be compared with « mainstream » games that I usually play and rate, like Portal 2, Skyrim, DiRT 3, Battlefield 3, etc. It certainly wouldn’t get lower than a 9, and probably much higher if I looked at which games got a 9 this generation.

Anyway, it is a great game that you just have to experience, not play.