The Corrente Review Of Games: Volume II, Number 9 (English Edition)
Primary tabs
Masthead
The Corrente Review Of Games is published on the first Saturday of the month.
Posting is done in rotation by the following contributors:
Aeryl, BDBlue and danps.
Please contact any of us with submission ideas or feedback.
- Review: Mass Effect 2 (danps)
I'll just get this out of the way at the top: I didn't like Mass Effect 2 (ME2). I didn't hate it like BDBlue did Dragon Age II, but I just never got caught up in it. I'm more a fantasy than sci/fi guy, so that probably made a difference. Playing an engineer instead of a sorcerer just didn't capture my imagination in the same way. On the other hand, my favorite two games of this generation of consoles are Oblivion and BioShock - the latter of which isn't fantasy OR sci fi. (Note to my colleagues: when the first next gen console rolls out we need to put together a favorites list for PS3/Wii/360).
I guess the lesson is that for a game to really be memorable it either needs to be flawlessly executed in an existing genre or pioneer a new one. ME2 does neither. The biggest drawback for me is the constant drawback of seemingly all Bioware games: WHY CAN'T I GO THERE? It's absolutely insane how their developers don't just constrict the exploring options but actually seem to funnel you down the path of the main quest. I'm not sure you can actually get lost in a BioWare game, and I can't tell you how many times I went traipsing down some interesting looking path only to have it dead end after about 30 seconds.
It did that with Dragon Age as well; BDBlue reported it with DA2. They just don't want you to explore the worlds they create, which is almost incomprehensible to me. Why go to all that trouble to create an entire alternate world and then not let folks discover it? And yet that's what they do.
Another huge complaint - unique to this game as far as I know - is useless farming. Most RPG/quest games let players eventually figure out a way to do what's called farming: engaging in some mindless repetitive task as a way to store up resources for use elsewhere in the game. I'd go so far as to call a system like this an implicit compact between designers and gamers: Do this boring shit over and over again and you'll be able to buy that top of the line armor, learn the toughest spells, etc.
A lot of gamers want to just plunge into the action, but for someone who likes to get as much of the stuff in the game as possible (like me) and who has a high tolerance for monotony (like me), farming is a part of the game. But what you absolutely cannot do is have players engage in that and not have them earn some reward that isn't otherwise available. (Or at least not available without a great deal of luck, Olympic caliber button mashing, etc.)
Guess what ME2 does? It allows you to mine planets for precious metals that can be used to purchase certain upgrades. So far, so good. But as it turns out, and as I learned after a number of wasted hours, and only because I went online to see what shiny object I would be rewarded with in exchange for engaging in that drudgery - sometimes you need a little incentive to keep going - I learned that I already had far more of all the minerals than I would ever be able to use. Couldn't use it for additional upgrades, couldn't sell it, couldn't do anything with it. That, my friends, is awful game design.
As for the story, it's just OK. If you've played Dragon Age the outline will be familiar: Get dropped into a crisis, recruit allies, gain their loyalty, power up, and prepare for the final battle. With lasers instead of broadswords. There's nothing really different in it, nothing compelling. The characters all have thier own stories and backgrounds, but none of it did anything for me. I didn't hate it, it just left me indifferent. The game took a long time to complete because at times it almost felt like a chore. There was no single compelling element that made me want to turn the console on and get going. It was all just kind of blah.
So what was there to like? Well, they kept the menu system familiar. I found their system (which I first encountered in Dragon Age) of bringing up menus with left and right buttons and having to hold them to keep the menus up to be cumbersome and somewhat hard to get used to, but once I got the hang of it, it made sense. Happily, they use much the same system in ME2 so it's easy to get up to speed if you've used it before.
They also changed up the inventory system which I guess I kind of liked. ME2 doesn't have a proper inventory system. You get stuff, and when you get new stuff or upgrade existing stuff it applies to all items across the crew. BioWare doesn't want you messing around with encumbrance, repairs, anything like that. Get stuff, use stuff. On the one hand it's nice, because inventory management definitely takes you away from the action. On the other hand, I kind of like inventory management. I like when a game forces you to make choices, figure out what to keep and what to drop, and shape your gameplay based on that. I like when leaning to do it well lets you carry more stuff, or better stuff, or generally move around in the environment more effectively. It's nice for a game to have skills available that give an advantage to the more patient among us (see: farming).
That said, the message boards I looked at seemed divided on it. Some folks felt a little cheated, some were relieved to have that taken off their plates. But like it or hate it, it's definitely an innovation. Give the designers credit for that.
The one thing that I flat out loved was the customer loyalty program. Turns out if you had the Blood Dragon Armor in Dragon Age - available only to those who bought the game new and redeemed the one-time armor download - ME2 equipped you with a badass set of space armor that has the same design as the Blood Dragon Armor. Is that an unfair cheat to those who shelled out full price on a BioWare product? Yes. Does it discriminate against those who aren't dedicated customers, aren't made of money or don't even know something like that even exists? Yes. I loved it anyway. Gimme the stuff and I'll take it, and the rest of you can fuck off.
Still, that's pretty thin praise overall. I finished the game, which is good (again, see BDBlue last month for how bad a game can be), but the stuff that was the same was the same in the worst way, and the stuff that was new wasn't new in a very exciting way. Bottom line: If you haven't already shelled out the money for it, don't bother. I picked up The Saboteur new for $20 online, and next month I'll tell you if you'd be better off doing that than paying more than that for a used copy (or God forbid $60 for a new one) of ME2.
- danps's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
The Last Remnant
I still haven't got all my thoughts together yet on this game, and I must truly be a sadist, because regardless of how much I despise, I continue to play it.
There are some good things about it, it's a turn based RPG, so it's friendly enough for people like me, and I haven't found many of those since I upgraded to the 360. Instead of controlling a party, you control separate battle units, which grow in number as you level up. Your units heal at the end of every combat, so you only have to maintain HP during combat. The storyline is simple to follow along with, and while I can understand the desire for sandbox games, this one keeps you on tight rails, which is a lot less daunting.
The battle scenes have incredible graphics, and it's rated M so there's all kinds of cuss words.
But to be honest, that's about it. I got the game by trading in some older ones at the local exchange. And it didn't reveal the depths of its suckitude until after the 7 day trial period, else I would have traded it again.
As I said, you control units, not a party. A unit can hold up to 5 people. But you don't control the individual actions of all five people, instead you choose a command, out of five options given to you, and your unit expends action points carrying out your command. And that's where it starts to suck. Though you are allowed a preview of which moves your unit will perform, based on your selection, but that's it, you cannot change it. You also cannot jumble magical and combat attacks in the same turn this way. A limited option allowing you to do both appears from time to time.
You also accumulate action points throughout the battle, but it does you no good to hoard them to deliver a powerful attack later, because if you don't spend them, new options with higher attack opportunities don't appear.
Then, there is healing. It is not always one of your five options. Plus there are 2 healing options(when it gives them to you) to heal only, putting all members of your unit without healing abilities on standby, or heal+attack, allowing those members to attack instead. There is no difference in the action points required to perform the move, so which would you rather choose? Well you don't always get to choose, because it doesn't give you ANY healing options, or it only gives you one option. Also, even though your units start each combat with full HP, it almost always offers you the chance to heal your units, during the first combat turn. I've never seen a game so counter-intuitive when it comes to healing.
Also, if your unit defeats the enemy unit its facing, and members of you unit still have moves remaining, you lose those moves. Since the combat system is based on unit positioning, and your unit has to be "deadlocked" with an enemy unit to engage, I can forgive it, but it does seem only fair that if your unit is deadlocked again in the same turn, your remaining units get to continue the attack.
Then there is your critical attack that your main characters gets. I've found no rhyme or reason as to how this ability accumulates, as there is no meter for it. I have noticed the opportunity pops up when your health starts to get low(not always though), and its frequently offered on a turn with healing options available as well, and you quickly learn to take advantage of those healing chances offered. And you don't maintain the critical attack if you choose to heal instead. The next turn, the chance is gone.
There are sidequests and guild tasks available, but you have to be careful. Some quests, when you accept them, immediately transports you to location of the quest. Others don't. And you cannot determine which is which, until you accept the quests. Thankfully, it allows you to save everywhere but in combat, but this is still frustrating.
I've never in my life played a game that actually seemed designed to suck, but I have to say, I have serious suspicions about The Last Remnant.
Have you played Valkyria?
It might restore your faith in turn based RPGs. Definitely a lost classic.
I believe Valkyria is a PS3 exclusive
which is too bad because it's one of the best turn-based RPG's out there. They should port it over to the XBOX so more people can appreciate it.
No I haven't
And I haven't lost faith with turn based RPGs, I definitely want to play more of them. I just can't wrap my head around the bad designing that was put into this game.
Who wants to play a game where you have no control over whether you live or die?
And it also has that farming problem. You accumulate all kinds of "components" you can either sell or use to modify your weapons, and after a few quests, you accumulate a LOT. But then you don't know which is which, sellable or customizable. And it lumps them into the same menu together when you go to sell.
Just hard to play all the way around.
Sounds like my experience with the demo
I always wonder if a demo gives you a good idea of the game and it appears ME2 did for me. What you describe is pretty much how I felt about the demo. And it's funny because I also had the same thought about not liking the space/laser setting all that much and preferring fantasy, but then I remembered how much I love the Fallout games so it isn't just that. I think it's the combination of elements you describe.
I haven't really been playing much new. I started Uncharted 2 (it's new to me, if not to every other PS3 owner on the planet). I can see why people love the game, but it's not really my thing. It's not bad, it's just not necessarily my gaming style.
L.A. Noire
It really is the revolution it's advertised to be. I was blown away when i first put it on and the feeling of mild amazement hasn't ceased.
This is a game where the cut scenes and the gameplay are exactly the same. It really is just one notch below watching a CGI movie and being in control. And it's not like any other game i've ever played, to the point where even though i love it, i don't always feel like sitting down with it when i'm in the mood to game.
There's still plenty of shoot-em-up and driving like an asshole (though you get docked for damaging the car, city property and running over innocent bystanders is frowned upon by your superiors) all over an intricately modeled pre-freeway LA. But that's where the similarities with other games ends. You spend a lot of time walking slowly around a crime scene or a home looking for clues - which you're alerted to by a touch of controller vibration, but not all clues are useful. There's also a lot of time spent talking to people, and your success is based on whether you questioned them correctly. Or, more accurately, if you chose truth, doubt, or lie correctly.
One thing i've learned is to never turn off the game in the middle of a case. It's impossible to come back to it and get the feel back.
I really can't recommend the game highly enough, partly because it's so well executed and partly because it probably suggests the future of video games. I know that i'll have a hard time going back to crudely animated, unresponsive faces after watching jawlines move and eyes dart.
I shall pick it up
Care to do a review next month? Send me an email to dan (at) pruningshears.us if you're interested.
I can and will
I'll send the finished to the email.