I've been getting a bit pounded on by people close to me that I've gone to the "Dark Side" and that many people of my faith think of M rated games as "stupid".
While this is the case for most of them IMO, my personal collection don't really into the word "stupid", they are in fact in reality "Mature" in my opinion.
Bad Company 2 with the Vietnam extension might be the most genious game, it makes some good points and is quite entertaining.
Deus Ex is by no in the far reaches of the galaxy stupid, as the game takes brains as well as guts to complete quests and tasks.
Rage, it might not be the most unique game in it's genre, holds some novel ideas on how the weapons, characters, and mechanics function to bring a rarely-seen fluid combat game, it's pure 60 FPS beauty.
Battlefield 3...need I say more? The game is pretty much the pinnacle of war shooters and brings a sense of realism and immersion that would be hard to do in a game lower than M...it's M for a reason.
Binary Domain...again, need I say more? The game while hinges on generic media plots brings an update to what squad shooters have been known for inconsistent graphics and group dynamics. This game brings voice commands, CG-style visuals, and a creepiness to the robots that is almost impossible to pass up.
Resident Evil: Racoon City...This game is not trying to break the mold of co-op shooter games, but rather refine it. Ghost Recon/SOCOM style squad-play with an assortment of zombie-slaying classes and interesting visual and CG dynamics that while still clunky, brings a sense of uniqueness and fun-looking gameplay that games like L4D scratched on the surface.
Killzone 3: Dear goodness...the Darth Nazis are plenty explaining...that and the visuals and gameplay just rocks on what might be the most epic PS3 FPS to date!
Ninja Gaiden III: Love the new realistic take the series has embedded, not as "cartoony" as the last two, the graphics are more vibrant and the replacement of gore from just enemies crying/bleeding to death makes it sound more horrific for me. That and the first-person-like combat of actually feeling like your a ninja cutting people down. That and the assassin's creed looking villain just takes the cake.
Well, I think that's about it for me...don't be a hater.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Defining a medium: J FPS/RPG?
Now recently I have been contemplating the most cliche-d and abundant FPS/RPG genre...post-apocolyptic settings that are based on player choices, heavy-duty enemies, and a bombardment of what is said to be 100s of hours of main and side quests.
Now, many of my friends who are JRPG-ethic gamers find these games quite "meh" as the Japanese and American terminology and usage of the term RPG has blurred into an even deeper divide. That is why I have come to somewhat of a challenge....
How do you make a JRPG/FPS, or what would be defined as a "Final Fantasy Fallout?"
I have had some ideas, which might work to narrow the gap...having japanese style designs to everything instead of stereotypically-bland designs, which some people wouldn't find mutually exclusive. A world more resembling a japanese-style "post-something" world, instead of the "this nuke..bla bla bla" kind of mentallity. That and weapons could be more robustally or creatively defined unlike the "BFG #51" you picked up today.
Of course, the main and side quests would be more definitive as in being more than just "A to B to C to Endgame" and that the character development be more akin to actual tangible characters than some of the characters you find in western ones that are as flat as the side of your wall.
Of course transportation would have to be a prominent factor, but why stick with your "waste-buggy" when you could have a "waste-air-ship"? That and some more prominent options and more robust leveling system than just "BFG #51 has now reached level #51". Not to say you shouldn't be able to level up specific weapons, but the system should be more streamlined at less gun-stressed into thinking you'll have to be with BFG #51 at Level #51 for the next few hours.
Now, I have written stories before, but I find why games like Fallout or others are so hit and miss because of how the stories conflict with the design. The most recent example is that New Vegas had a more potential story but the overall design was boring as all get out compared to the more polished Fallout 3....with RAGE being a more typical game that just focuses totally on design and gun-ethic.
That said, I think the best way to go about it is design the first batch of designs as...I don't know..."Steampunk Valkyria Chronicles" and go on from there, I don't know why...but that's how I picture a basic J-Fallout.
To add onto that, in this economy we could use more defining and engaging games that are meant to both mindblow and simplify the gaming-needs of players who are looking to get a good deal on both story and design.
Also, I feel like the music of such a game should not only be epic, but be a "steady-epic" that defines the lows and highs of the game, not quality-wise...mood-wise lol.
Of course, the "boss battles" most be quite articulate and well-defined in the sense that I don't want to see that wannabe R2-D2 thing having some wierd cutscene just to explode cheesily in a wannabe camera-shot. That should be only for boss fights, and still specific to how you take-down stuff.
The game must still feel like you're using both sides of your brain, unlike some games that only include the technical or creative side of the brain.
bla bla bla....I think I've said everything that makes sense to people at this point, hope to make more posts soon.
That's it for now...thanks for reading!
Now, many of my friends who are JRPG-ethic gamers find these games quite "meh" as the Japanese and American terminology and usage of the term RPG has blurred into an even deeper divide. That is why I have come to somewhat of a challenge....
How do you make a JRPG/FPS, or what would be defined as a "Final Fantasy Fallout?"
I have had some ideas, which might work to narrow the gap...having japanese style designs to everything instead of stereotypically-bland designs, which some people wouldn't find mutually exclusive. A world more resembling a japanese-style "post-something" world, instead of the "this nuke..bla bla bla" kind of mentallity. That and weapons could be more robustally or creatively defined unlike the "BFG #51" you picked up today.
Of course, the main and side quests would be more definitive as in being more than just "A to B to C to Endgame" and that the character development be more akin to actual tangible characters than some of the characters you find in western ones that are as flat as the side of your wall.
Of course transportation would have to be a prominent factor, but why stick with your "waste-buggy" when you could have a "waste-air-ship"? That and some more prominent options and more robust leveling system than just "BFG #51 has now reached level #51". Not to say you shouldn't be able to level up specific weapons, but the system should be more streamlined at less gun-stressed into thinking you'll have to be with BFG #51 at Level #51 for the next few hours.
Now, I have written stories before, but I find why games like Fallout or others are so hit and miss because of how the stories conflict with the design. The most recent example is that New Vegas had a more potential story but the overall design was boring as all get out compared to the more polished Fallout 3....with RAGE being a more typical game that just focuses totally on design and gun-ethic.
That said, I think the best way to go about it is design the first batch of designs as...I don't know..."Steampunk Valkyria Chronicles" and go on from there, I don't know why...but that's how I picture a basic J-Fallout.
To add onto that, in this economy we could use more defining and engaging games that are meant to both mindblow and simplify the gaming-needs of players who are looking to get a good deal on both story and design.
Also, I feel like the music of such a game should not only be epic, but be a "steady-epic" that defines the lows and highs of the game, not quality-wise...mood-wise lol.
Of course, the "boss battles" most be quite articulate and well-defined in the sense that I don't want to see that wannabe R2-D2 thing having some wierd cutscene just to explode cheesily in a wannabe camera-shot. That should be only for boss fights, and still specific to how you take-down stuff.
The game must still feel like you're using both sides of your brain, unlike some games that only include the technical or creative side of the brain.
bla bla bla....I think I've said everything that makes sense to people at this point, hope to make more posts soon.
That's it for now...thanks for reading!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Apollo: Dead Space + Apollo 13 + Aliens + Metro + Moon
Apollo (hopefully not the real name of the game) is a few concepts I was brainstorming about kind of meshed together into one engaging game.
Apollo starts off when small chunks of the moon break off and end up crashing with Earth, causing havoc in several large cities. Even though the space program was formally post-poned, an "Apollo" spacecraft with numerous new technologies and equipment is sent to the moon to investigate the mystery behind these moon particles. The spacecraft successfully makes it near enough to the Moon before being bombarding by more total-damaging bits that cause the spacecraft to fail and crash on the moon. Your character is the only survivor.
Little does your character know that gargoyle like aliens have been causing the havoc by making nests of their young. The gargoyle aren't too happy when you stumble upon one of their breeding pits and wish to kill you onsight. With only a zappper rifle and a day's full of oxygen in your high-tech new spacesuit, your character is pretty much determined to rid the moon of this infestation before midnight.
Luckily your spacecraft had stored a space-assault-buggy to hose down some of the aliens, that and a motion tracker for when you have to go deeper into the moon to fight some pesky digger-pits.
The game ends with you taking care of the alien infestation, and another spacecraft comes to rescue you, little did you know that the moon particles that hit earth were "portable breeding pits" in disguise. Earth is gonna have a fun time...
Apollo starts off when small chunks of the moon break off and end up crashing with Earth, causing havoc in several large cities. Even though the space program was formally post-poned, an "Apollo" spacecraft with numerous new technologies and equipment is sent to the moon to investigate the mystery behind these moon particles. The spacecraft successfully makes it near enough to the Moon before being bombarding by more total-damaging bits that cause the spacecraft to fail and crash on the moon. Your character is the only survivor.
Little does your character know that gargoyle like aliens have been causing the havoc by making nests of their young. The gargoyle aren't too happy when you stumble upon one of their breeding pits and wish to kill you onsight. With only a zappper rifle and a day's full of oxygen in your high-tech new spacesuit, your character is pretty much determined to rid the moon of this infestation before midnight.
Luckily your spacecraft had stored a space-assault-buggy to hose down some of the aliens, that and a motion tracker for when you have to go deeper into the moon to fight some pesky digger-pits.
The game ends with you taking care of the alien infestation, and another spacecraft comes to rescue you, little did you know that the moon particles that hit earth were "portable breeding pits" in disguise. Earth is gonna have a fun time...
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Shooters and Cliches: Are Mech(a) Games Shooters?
After watching the trailer for the new Steel Battalion, I couldn't help but notice the strange use of pseudo-WWII clothing for the tankers in control of the mechs. This strange mix prompted me to write this article that people have already predetermined their opinion on, are Mech games shooters?
Or come to think of it, are Mech games even considered real games to most sites? It's people like Gametrailers and IGN that almost every single japanese or western made mech game, that in their reviews are tossed aside as either trashy or just not fun. Me and some of my friends beg to differ that mech games (even the cheesy generic gundam ones) can be plenty fun if you like blowing stuff up with cool-looking vehicles. Is it just me or do people at IGN and Gametrailers just don't understand the general authestic that mech games bring?
How does making mech games cool any different from people wanting to play Darth Vader in a Star Wars game? I also think I went on a side-rant here....
Getting back to the topic at hand, I can see why people don't tend to call mech games straight out shooters, even though most of the games are about shooting and blowing up enemies. I know that you could kind of call Mech games a "popular niche" due to their widespread yet generic treatment. Gundam, Macross, Evangelion, and other Japanese titles show that people love a good mech story, and while most of these plots are psycho-pilot driven with horrendously driven counter-and-co cliches, getting into a mech and feeling like God is nowhere close to being overrated to the people who enjoy a good nuke-down.
And that's probably why determining the real genre for Mech games, besides just calling them mech games is somewhat of a draw. Mech games are technically a type of shooter called shoot-em-ups, due to the fact that unlike shooters that you only kill dozens of people, Mech games are all-out slay-fests that by the end of the game...you've probably depopulated a good chunk of the world (lol). That's the thing though, even though you're "the good guy", you're pretty much have created all-out and gun-ho genocide against the waves of almost endless enemies. That and while the stories set you up as being "a tactical asset", there's nothing really tactical of desolating a whole vicinity of cities or otherwise.
Probably the only real difference between mech games is how fast your mechs go, and how god-like your weapons are. Take it from me that games that feature Wing Zero from Gundam Wing, that using a special weapon from that thing could end a good string of bad guys (or in the show a whole freaking space colony). While the games talk about morals, there's nothing really moral about using a super-vehicle to blow up entire regions of the world. You can't really feel sorry for the good guys or bad guys if the only thing you both do is kill everything and anything you see lol. That and mostly all the characters are crazy or psychopathic. If the term for it is PTSD, then these guys have it "over 9000"!
I mean, the only real games known to be "typical shooters" and a bit over-the-top are Call of Duty, Id games, and Bioshock...but are they really comparable to the insanity and downright surreality of Mech games....No. And that's probably another reason why people might find appealing, is the insanity of the characters, dialogue, and situations that are a type of cheese you can't get anywhere else. Probably why IGN and GT hate the games, it's not their favorite kind of cheese.
Well, I think that's about it to be done, unless you want endless drivel.
Thanks for reading, stay tuned!
Or come to think of it, are Mech games even considered real games to most sites? It's people like Gametrailers and IGN that almost every single japanese or western made mech game, that in their reviews are tossed aside as either trashy or just not fun. Me and some of my friends beg to differ that mech games (even the cheesy generic gundam ones) can be plenty fun if you like blowing stuff up with cool-looking vehicles. Is it just me or do people at IGN and Gametrailers just don't understand the general authestic that mech games bring?
How does making mech games cool any different from people wanting to play Darth Vader in a Star Wars game? I also think I went on a side-rant here....
Getting back to the topic at hand, I can see why people don't tend to call mech games straight out shooters, even though most of the games are about shooting and blowing up enemies. I know that you could kind of call Mech games a "popular niche" due to their widespread yet generic treatment. Gundam, Macross, Evangelion, and other Japanese titles show that people love a good mech story, and while most of these plots are psycho-pilot driven with horrendously driven counter-and-co cliches, getting into a mech and feeling like God is nowhere close to being overrated to the people who enjoy a good nuke-down.
And that's probably why determining the real genre for Mech games, besides just calling them mech games is somewhat of a draw. Mech games are technically a type of shooter called shoot-em-ups, due to the fact that unlike shooters that you only kill dozens of people, Mech games are all-out slay-fests that by the end of the game...you've probably depopulated a good chunk of the world (lol). That's the thing though, even though you're "the good guy", you're pretty much have created all-out and gun-ho genocide against the waves of almost endless enemies. That and while the stories set you up as being "a tactical asset", there's nothing really tactical of desolating a whole vicinity of cities or otherwise.
Probably the only real difference between mech games is how fast your mechs go, and how god-like your weapons are. Take it from me that games that feature Wing Zero from Gundam Wing, that using a special weapon from that thing could end a good string of bad guys (or in the show a whole freaking space colony). While the games talk about morals, there's nothing really moral about using a super-vehicle to blow up entire regions of the world. You can't really feel sorry for the good guys or bad guys if the only thing you both do is kill everything and anything you see lol. That and mostly all the characters are crazy or psychopathic. If the term for it is PTSD, then these guys have it "over 9000"!
I mean, the only real games known to be "typical shooters" and a bit over-the-top are Call of Duty, Id games, and Bioshock...but are they really comparable to the insanity and downright surreality of Mech games....No. And that's probably another reason why people might find appealing, is the insanity of the characters, dialogue, and situations that are a type of cheese you can't get anywhere else. Probably why IGN and GT hate the games, it's not their favorite kind of cheese.
Well, I think that's about it to be done, unless you want endless drivel.
Thanks for reading, stay tuned!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Shooters and Cliches: An Update
Now, It's been awhile since I've done a passionate post on my favorite gaming genre (or has it?), and I think it's time for a good update since quite a bit has changed in the realm of the shooter.
Now, I have played two of the Halo games, but I find it just kind of jarring that after Bungie left Microsoft to make something that isn't Halo...That the supposedly only planned "trilogy" has somehow warranted 3 more games, and a lame remake of the original.
Is Microsoft so bored and so greedy that they have to milk their own best-selling franchise? I hope these two reboots sell horribly.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3...even my clanmates who loved the original MW aren't planning on getting this since the last 3 games were nowhere close to being fun as MW1. That and with stuff like Battlefield 3, why would you want this piece of milking?
Activision in my eyes has shown me that they're more greedy than Microsoft, and from what I played of any of the the Call of Duty games...I'm amazed that even one copy was sold.
Gears of War 3; why did it take this long for Epic Games to make the game actually look good? The other two games looked like a garbage can, and had the textures overall of a garbage can...It shouldn't take the third and maybe FINAL game to actually stop being lazy with the modeling and textures!
That, and we need more anime shooters! I love realistic graphics but, After seeing gameplay of the PS2/PSP versions of Ghost in the Shell...A cel-shaded, vibrant-oozing, third or first person shooter would rock! This and while Valkyria isn't a straight-TPS, it shows that there is a market for more colorful and interesting characters in the shooter-space.
It's time we evolved and expanded the shooter genre...not going back to old trends and make my most favorite genre go sour.
That's about it for me, thanks for reading.
Now, I have played two of the Halo games, but I find it just kind of jarring that after Bungie left Microsoft to make something that isn't Halo...That the supposedly only planned "trilogy" has somehow warranted 3 more games, and a lame remake of the original.
Is Microsoft so bored and so greedy that they have to milk their own best-selling franchise? I hope these two reboots sell horribly.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3...even my clanmates who loved the original MW aren't planning on getting this since the last 3 games were nowhere close to being fun as MW1. That and with stuff like Battlefield 3, why would you want this piece of milking?
Activision in my eyes has shown me that they're more greedy than Microsoft, and from what I played of any of the the Call of Duty games...I'm amazed that even one copy was sold.
Gears of War 3; why did it take this long for Epic Games to make the game actually look good? The other two games looked like a garbage can, and had the textures overall of a garbage can...It shouldn't take the third and maybe FINAL game to actually stop being lazy with the modeling and textures!
That, and we need more anime shooters! I love realistic graphics but, After seeing gameplay of the PS2/PSP versions of Ghost in the Shell...A cel-shaded, vibrant-oozing, third or first person shooter would rock! This and while Valkyria isn't a straight-TPS, it shows that there is a market for more colorful and interesting characters in the shooter-space.
It's time we evolved and expanded the shooter genre...not going back to old trends and make my most favorite genre go sour.
That's about it for me, thanks for reading.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Theatres at War: Asian Conflicts
I was brainstorming last night about World War 3 and Vietnam/1943 Battlefields, and came to the conclusion this afternoon that these three entities could mesh well given proper development. World War 3 has always been the idea behind my flagship series if or when I become the head of my own game studio. World War 3's scale and prowless would be best defined on my "Real-G" engine ideals of promoting realistic graphics that key-movie-like.
Given this thought, most of the best gaming engines have always been pre-development using prototypes, or best yet...Premiere Titles. The frostbite engine used in Battlefield is a beast, but the "shock and awe" known as BC2 and BF3 weren't awesome looking 'til EA-DICE churned out the bugs and optimizations in the previous titles of BC1 and 1943.
This, and knowing full well that with MW3 and BF3, that the pre-modern warfare ideologies have resurfaced, now would be a good time to re-open a can of worms on building the "alpha test" of Real-G on a premire title that spans all the Asian Theatres of War; properly titled after WW3:MC-Theatres at War: Asian Conflicts.
This game is not to be as "big" as WW3, but have enough content based on the historics that the game would feel like "a real game". Numerous maps based on Japan, Korea, and Vietnam...with the idea to make the game play and look realistic enough to be a successful step in Real-G technology.
If AMD is correct that the Xbox 720 will support "Avatar-like graphics", there's nothing more useful than using such tech to bring the wonders of Asia and its environment to life. It's clear that with games like 1943 and BC2 Vietnam, that Asia is a visually-stunning place.
Now, given that this game would try to avoid stiff competition seeing how it's meant to "beta the technology", that I would prefer this premiere title not be on systems/consoles that have already been given the courtesy of having both 1943 and BC2 Vietnam.
This would include Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PC(if 1943 never comes to PC), and the successor to the PS3.
Real-G would "build" all the versions on a single scaler, but after the basic development is done each system will be optimized to use Real-G Alpha to its current potential individually.
If anything, when it comes time to develop WW3:MC, that at least TaW:AC should be a successful title technology-wise.
Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for more ideas/articles!
Given this thought, most of the best gaming engines have always been pre-development using prototypes, or best yet...Premiere Titles. The frostbite engine used in Battlefield is a beast, but the "shock and awe" known as BC2 and BF3 weren't awesome looking 'til EA-DICE churned out the bugs and optimizations in the previous titles of BC1 and 1943.
This, and knowing full well that with MW3 and BF3, that the pre-modern warfare ideologies have resurfaced, now would be a good time to re-open a can of worms on building the "alpha test" of Real-G on a premire title that spans all the Asian Theatres of War; properly titled after WW3:MC-Theatres at War: Asian Conflicts.
This game is not to be as "big" as WW3, but have enough content based on the historics that the game would feel like "a real game". Numerous maps based on Japan, Korea, and Vietnam...with the idea to make the game play and look realistic enough to be a successful step in Real-G technology.
If AMD is correct that the Xbox 720 will support "Avatar-like graphics", there's nothing more useful than using such tech to bring the wonders of Asia and its environment to life. It's clear that with games like 1943 and BC2 Vietnam, that Asia is a visually-stunning place.
Now, given that this game would try to avoid stiff competition seeing how it's meant to "beta the technology", that I would prefer this premiere title not be on systems/consoles that have already been given the courtesy of having both 1943 and BC2 Vietnam.
This would include Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PC(if 1943 never comes to PC), and the successor to the PS3.
Real-G would "build" all the versions on a single scaler, but after the basic development is done each system will be optimized to use Real-G Alpha to its current potential individually.
If anything, when it comes time to develop WW3:MC, that at least TaW:AC should be a successful title technology-wise.
Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for more ideas/articles!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Why Gameplay Matters (In Video Games Part 2)
Now, after making a post about why graphics matter, it would be foolery not to make a "part 2" post about why gameplay matters. Now, as I said before in the last rendition, I don't tend to see myself as a graphics whore, but I do love a game with awesome, fluid, and downright addicting gameplay.
Now, the only issue with having good gameplay, is that it's an opinionated term. While most people can agree more commonly what makes a game have beautiful and/or realistic graphics...Gameplay is a much more thorny area.
That is why we have an almost inexhaustable amount of "genres", similar to books, movies, and other forms of entertainment. Some people love RPGs, some people love FPSs, some people like Action/Adventure, but some people don't like all three, if not liking only one of these examples.
My brother and one of my best friends understand why I like shooters and why I find enjoyment in them, but they're not really "big" into them. Kind of like why I understand why they look RPGs, even though I don't play them much since I stink at them.
Also the fact we kind all agree on one thing, RTS games can be kind of boring since one "match" can take several hours, if not days even (it's happened to me I assure you). That and these battles of "brain and chilvary" can exhaust your mind, to the point that those countless moments can end in a very gruesome and aggravating defeat.
Now, while RTS games are the "Niche of the Niche" when it comes to video games, Fighting games are usually seen as "The popular of the popular". It's almost an elementary knowledge that most gamers (if not all) have played and/or enjoyed a good slug-fest on the countless franchises of Fighting games.
Somehow, unlike shooters and RPGs...and especially RTS games that can exhaust you after numerous battles and/or matches, somehow getting "K'Oed" just makes you more motivated to where you have to either win once, or even the amount of winnings so you still feel satisfied.
Well, that's about it for this topic. Thanks for reading.
Now, the only issue with having good gameplay, is that it's an opinionated term. While most people can agree more commonly what makes a game have beautiful and/or realistic graphics...Gameplay is a much more thorny area.
That is why we have an almost inexhaustable amount of "genres", similar to books, movies, and other forms of entertainment. Some people love RPGs, some people love FPSs, some people like Action/Adventure, but some people don't like all three, if not liking only one of these examples.
My brother and one of my best friends understand why I like shooters and why I find enjoyment in them, but they're not really "big" into them. Kind of like why I understand why they look RPGs, even though I don't play them much since I stink at them.
Also the fact we kind all agree on one thing, RTS games can be kind of boring since one "match" can take several hours, if not days even (it's happened to me I assure you). That and these battles of "brain and chilvary" can exhaust your mind, to the point that those countless moments can end in a very gruesome and aggravating defeat.
Now, while RTS games are the "Niche of the Niche" when it comes to video games, Fighting games are usually seen as "The popular of the popular". It's almost an elementary knowledge that most gamers (if not all) have played and/or enjoyed a good slug-fest on the countless franchises of Fighting games.
Somehow, unlike shooters and RPGs...and especially RTS games that can exhaust you after numerous battles and/or matches, somehow getting "K'Oed" just makes you more motivated to where you have to either win once, or even the amount of winnings so you still feel satisfied.
Well, that's about it for this topic. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)