Dragon Age 2: A sequel?

BY JYGGALAG


Anyone who knows me will know how much I loved Bioware's dark-fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins and with that in mind, it's probably easy to guess to how much I was looking forward to the follow up. I won't go into too much detail about Origins, given how my contemporary Mr Darko just recently discussed Origins but I will say this: It is without a doubt, one of the best games I have ever played, with only the Metal Gear Solid saga, PokeMon and the Elder Scrolls being above it on my top games list. Now onto to Dragon Age 2.

When the game was first announced way back yonder I quite literally messed myself with excitement. After watching the trailer about a hundred times (and having to change my trousers after each viewing) I had worked myself up into quite the Dragon Age stupor and set about completing the "perfect" save-games I would transfer over to the sequel. However, in the last few months before the games release I became sceptical. I didn't stop to consider that Origins, which took several years to develop, had been released just over a year earlier and now Bioware were throwing a "full-blown" sequel my way. It was then that the promotional stuff started. "Sign up for this and you'll get this", "pre-order before the aforementioned date and you'll get this" and finally "just look at our website and you're eligible for this". EA and Bioware were giving away free in-game items more than a WoW fan faps away at the thought of getting it on with a lusty Night Elf. Why so much free stuff? I began to have doubts and after visiting the forums I saw I wasn't the only one. And now after buying, playing and completing the game myself I can safely say that Dragon Age 2 has been an epic fail on Bioware's part.

First I'll start with the story. Dragon Age 2 casts you in the role of "Hawke" a fully customisable character and a native of Ferelden; the setting of Dragon Age: Origins. Hawke is a refugee fleeing with his/her family to the city of Kirkwall in the Free Marches (a neighbouring country) as he/she escapes the Blight (the big bad threat of Origins). Along with a colourful cast of characters Hawke is determined to make a name for themselves in the city of Kirkwall, rising from refugee into the Champion of Kirkwall; the "single, most important person" in the Dragon Age universe. The story takes you through three acts, all of which are separated by several years and the total course of the game's storyline is ten years. The storyline (whilst not as impressive as Origins) is obviously good; this IS a Bioware game after all. It certainly drew me in and even though there seemed to be an awful lot of ret conning (such as characters that could be killed coming back to life with no explanation) it does a good job of making you want more. The characters are well written and you'll either completely love them, or absolutely despise them depending on how you play the game. This IS intended on Bioware's part so kudos for that. Despite the butchering of one returning character (a certain spirit-possessed mage) I loved them all and I, as with Origins, felt for these characters. But whilst talking about the storyline and characters is all well and good, saying a Bioware game has a good story and likeable characters isn't much of praise for a Bioware game as everyone knows it WILL have good writing.

The game play changes are definitely the one major thing has impacted how the game has been received. Now I played the game on a PS3 and so my experience of combat will undoubtedly be much different than a pc gamer. After all Origins on the PC and Origins on a console felt like completely different games. Combat is more action oriented and very fast-paced. You no longer have to watch your warrior struggle to heave a two-handed weapon, or grow bored as your mage fires their staff in a pew pew fashion. Warriors will now hack-n-slash at your opponents with a violent grace, whilst your mage does all sorts of flashy tricks and twirls when firing their staff. And, as for the Rogue, you can watch and enjoy as your rogue ninja leaps from opponent to opponent, moving in the blink of eye and backstabbing those troublesome hurlocks. As before you have a quick bar to assign spells and talents but on the console you're limited to six (as before). This won't really hinder you much as a Warrior or Rogue, but as a mage being limited to only six spells can be annoying. Of course you do have the radial menu to access even more spells and talents from, but if you're anything like me and you get really into your combat, pausing in the middle of it can be irritating. If you're playing it on Nightmare difficulty however then that radial menu will be your best friend... trust me.

You couldn't do that in Origins

Rather than an approval metre your companions instead have a Friendship and Rivalry metre. If you work to your companions Friendship (by doing things THEY want) then you'll get a nice party bonus once it’s maxed out. Working towards Rivalry will mean that your companion gets a personal bonus so they can prove they're better than you and they might just tell you to piss off if you try and give them a nice gift.

These are just a few of the changes made in Dragon Age 2 and they're all well and good but compared to the problems of DA2, these nice new features are sadly overlooked. Firstly Dragon Age 2 is a game that you can tell is rushed. Areas are recycled to hell. I have never seen recycled areas so much in a game (and this is coming from a guy who explored EVERY cave and fort in Oblivion). After the first Act I was absolutely sick of seeing the same bloody cave over and over again and I almost cried knowing more was to come. I don't know if its laziness on the devs part of if it's because the game was so rushed. But given the fact that not only were these recycled areas, but the majority of them were bugged, I think it’s safe to say it was the latter. I actually doubt if this game was even properly tested. Speaking of bugs, Dragon Age 2 is crawling with them. There are bugs that prevent completing certain quests, falling through walls and even a particularly annoying bug that lowers the speed and strength of your character to a game breaking level. The latter bug has been patched but the fact it was even there in the first place (it's a pretty major bug) says a lot.

As a frequenter of the forums I know that there are A LOT of people that wanted this game to be good and I know a lot of people have convinced themselves it is good. Newcomers to the series will probably like it, if they're into role-playing games. But with DA2, it's clear that EA didn't want just the role-playing crowd to get involved. The streamlined, more action-oriented nature of game is obviously an attempt to pull in other types of gamers (such as the COD crowd). But trying to appeal to those types of gamers through a role-playing game is a bad choice. It has resulted in a game that has isolated most of the Origins fans and the fact the game is rushed and bugged has put off a lot of the would-be new fans.

Dragon Age 2 has received extremely good reviews. OPM gave the game 9/10, PC Gamer gave it 94%, Official Xbox Magazine gave it 9/10 and GamePro gave it 4 out 5 stars. I can see why the game has been given such reviews but I just can't agree with it. It's clear that Bioware decided they wanted to change Dragon Age and reboot the franchise before it had even started. After all just look on the back of the case and it proudly displays one review quote that states "a great entry point to the series." If Bioware isn't making it obvious that they want to change Dragon Age then my arse can play the 1812 Overture.

I suppose my opinion of Dragon Age 2 is biased really. I absolutely loved the first one and with Dragon Age 2 I was expecting something akin to Origins. Many fellow enthusiasts have told me that I shouldn't look at Dragon Age 2 as an "Origins 2" but instead look at it as just a new game in the franchise. But I shouldn't have to do that should I? If you have to look at a game differently in order to enjoy it, then surely that says something about them game, and not those who play it? It's like saying if I look at dog turd like its chocolate I'd probably enjoy it... But sadly I couldn't see the chocolate.

Jyggalag

Dragon Age: Origins- Giving the word 'breastplate' a new meaning.

Dragon Age: Origins is another of the games that I got for my birthday. If you’ve read a few of the posts on this blog then you’ve probably realised that I don’t exactly jump on the new releases and give them a ‘first look’ or anything like that. Because of the usual factors (money, time and obsession) I don’t get through all the new titles when they are first released. I tend to only buy a brand new game if it’s something I’ve really been looking forward to or if it’s a game with heavy online-based play, because I’m a goon and play in teams on CoD (Go Clan NEIN!!) I’d like to say that’s about as sad as I could go in this post, but I am discussing Dragon Age: Origins so it’s probably only going to get worse from here. If you’re opposed to a bit of nerdiness then I suggest you turn away before it begins. We’re talking elf sex, more dialogue than an ITV costume drama and a lot of large, identical, aubergine shaped breasticles on both young and old women (sadly not on the men.)

Ok… I’ll give you a moment to try and shake off the aubergine comment… let’s go…

I was looking forward to Dragon Age before its release, but the fact that I knew very little about the actual gameplay and story made other titles come first. This can’t have just been me- the game places you in a world where there are strong political views and racial and class divides that you have no idea about until you’re part way into the game. I played as a City Elf which meant that I began my story (or Origin if you will) in an Alienage, which is where all the city elves were. I had an arranged marriage and was due to meet and wed my betrothed on the same day. I know, I know… pretty heavy for an opening.

Every time you engage in conversation with a character, you have a choice of things to say. There is usually a range of choices which take you down different paths. These usually include a diplomatic choice, a heartless choice and a heroic/considerate choice. More options include persuasion, intimidation or lying, but basically you can be mean, funny, nice or boring. For example: “What’s for breakfast today Darko?”

1. Whatever I give you, you SLAG!
2. A fine selection of homemade jams and a choice of fresh baked bread.
3. Because of the war we have to ration the goods. Every person gets a cheese string each and a can of Relentless.
4. (Persuade) How about you share your breakfast with me?
5. (Intimidate) How about you share your breakfast with me or I’ll stand on your face?
6. (Persuade) (Lie) The cupboards are bare.

How you respond will affect the outcome of the conversation and will also affect how your teammates relate to you. For example when I decided to help some starving people get a good deal on their car ins… I mean food… one of the women in my party liked me -5!! What a cow… Don’t worry though readers, she got what was coming to her: I seduced her, dumped her and killed her mum… take that Morrigan you heartless tart!



Don't get excited, everyone's rudey bits are covered.



These relationships do make a difference to the game and the fact that you actually have choices with real consequences is very refreshing. I may have talked a bit before about empty, meaningless choices in games, but if I haven’t then rest assured, me no likey. If you choose to kill rather than befriend certain people then you will have a smaller team when facing the final battle or if you make certain controversial choices your teammates may leave your party forever or attack you. Maintaining a positive relationship with your team also opens up minor perks such as higher strength or hit points, which is always nice. All in all, very choicey, but no real impending doom for a newbie (Unless you’re Jyggalag and will absolutely die if you don’t get it 100% perfect on your first playthrough). There are also other perks to maintaining a positive relationship with certain members of your party- you can do them. I can assure you right now that there is nothing to get overly excited about. You get someone to like you a bit and depending on how much of a hussy they are you will either get to bed them or enter a relationship with them (and eventually bed them.)

Combat is quite repetitive and consists of pressing X, followed by a variety of R1+square, triangle or circle. There is a radial menu where you can choose from all of your skills, but generally you pick your best skills and assign them for easy access. The combat’s saving grace is the levelling up system. You can choose your type of weapon or magic, equipment, skills and attributes which means you can play through as the same class and race, but still have quite a different experience, if that’s your kind of thing…



This is about as blatantly obvious the titillation gets...
Too bad for the pre-pubescant pervs- its an 18+ game



On to the main event. The main thing to harp on about here is the huge… HUGE story to be found in Dragon Age: Origins. There are very few cutscenes, so most of the story is delivered through conversations which means many more of those lovely choices and consequences. This is either what makes the game so amazing that you can’t stop your lower lip hitting the floor or what makes the game so boring you want to pull off your that same lip just so you have something to throw at the screen. Fortunately for me I loved the conversations and the revelations that came with them, but over time I became very aware that I was basically spending 75% of my time on the game getting talked at by a huge fleshy pair of aubergines badly hidden under useless skimpy “armour”.  

I find it hard to do this game justice, because of just how unusual it is. If you’re an RPG-hater then you should probably stay away (unless you really really like boobs), but other than that I think this game has to be played to appreciate. It doesn’t really match any description I can give it so I’ll just say that it has a little bit of everything. It’s definitely worth a go and even if you don’t love it, you’ll at least find it interesting for a while.


DannyDarko

White Knight Chronicles

The single player experience of a multiplayer-intended gameby Jyggalag

Thanks to the brilliant piece of video gaming artwork that is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 my opinion of online gaming has certainly changed over the past year or so. My first experience with online gaming was on UT (Unreal Tournament) on the PC and as we all know most online PC gamers are complete and utter wankers whose greatest pleasure is to rip into new gamers so they don't have to feel bad about their tiny shlongs. Okay, I made a penis joke thus proving the immaturity of my comment but I am sure there are many who agree with me... maybe. With COD:MOD2 whilst there was an entire single player game to complete with storyline and missions the main attraction to the game was its multiplayer aspect (which I would happily call flawless). I didn't play the multiplayer at first, I stuck to the singleplayer asect of the game, but once I did go multiplayer well... I couldn't go back. Killing AI is nowhere near as fun as killing and teabagging that fourteen-year-old player whose been quickscoping you for most of the match.
I have a friend who dislikes online gaming. He buys games for the singleplayer aspect believing that multiplayer games sacrifice storyline and in-depth gaming. I was once inclined to agree with him but now I'm not so sure. To try and get a good feel of singleplayer gaming in a multiplayer-intended game I'm going to talk about a game I have played both offline and online. The game was developed by Level 5 (the makers of the Dark Cloud and Rogue Galaxy) and is called White Knight Chronicles. Now I'm guessing very few have heard of White Knight Chronicles. Firstly its a ps3 exclusive so that already put it into quite a small group when compared with other console exclusives and secondly... its far from brilliant.

White Knight Chronicles main attraction is clearly is multiplayer part. And the multiplayer in the game is pretty damn good. The missions are imaginative and challenging and is something akin to Monster Hunter, which in my opinion was a good game. However the game required A LOT of grinding and in most modern RPGs there's no need to grind at all. It's an outdated aspect, just like the turn-based combat we had in Final Fantasy VII. But I digress. This is about the singleplayer game and not the multiplayer.


What's interesting to say about WKC is that before you start the game you create your character (known as The Avatar in the online community) and this is the character you play as during the online game but he/she is also there during the singleplayer game. Any items, equipment and experience you gain from one game is kept whilst you're in the other so if you played online and maxed out your character then you'll be maxed out in the singleplayer. This however is game breaking and certain missions are only available depending on how far into the story you are. The story of White Knight Chronicles begins in the Kingdom of Balandor where an envoy from the neighboring kingdom (which was previously at war with Balandor) arrives in the capital complete with a fancy parade and riding what appears to be a giant white camel.

A young wine-clerk named Leonard (with the worst ponytail in the history of all ponytails), his new colleague (that's your Avatar) and his childhood friend Yulie all get caught up in a crazy adventure whilst they deliver a big cart of wine for a fancy do up at the palace. It's during this party that an organisation known as "The Magi" attack, killing the king and kidnapping the princess. I know what you're thinking: "this isn't exactly original", but JRPGs don't aim for originality these days. Leonard somehow makes a pact with a giant medieval mech known as the White Knight (yes that's THE White Knight of White Knight Chronicles) and sets off to rescue the princess with the help of a strange man named Eldore. WKC has all the elements of a typical JRPG. You have your rag-tag group of misfits in the forms of Yulie the pan-faced, Leonard the Gary Sue (who is about as lovable as a soggy fart and spends most of his time calling bad guys "bastards"), Eldore the bearded who practically screams "I will turn evil" (but he doesn't), Kara the inevitable-betrayer, Caesar the skirt-chasing dickhead and finally Daniel my doppelganger who neither speakers nor is spoken to during the entire course of the storyline. But he's always there, looking handsome to boot.

The storyline to the singleplayer game is shit (trust me, that's an appropriate term) and is simply used as a precursor to the online game. The voice acting is either terrible or good, nothing brilliant. This saddens me somewhat because such well-known (and very talented) voice actors such as Nolan North, Crispin Freeman and Kari Wahlgren all voice major characters. The character designs are also on opposite ends of the scale, either being great or shite. There are two characters who really stood out to me. The first was a spirit named Phantom that Leonard has to fight when forging the pact with The White Knight. Phantom looks very cool and speaks with a Shakespearean eloquence rarely found in video games. The second one was one of the "early villains" named Belcitane. Aside from sporting a kick-arse red coat and hairdo he also has an impressive vocabulary. Up until Belcitane I'd never even heard the word pestiferous before! The environments are nice to look at (not a patch on Pulse from Final Fantasy XIII though) and the combat and levelling up systems are simple yet allow a lot of room for customisation. But it doesn't seem worth it when the game takes only around fifteen hours to complete (including watching all cut scenes). It all plays out like fanfiction. Characters seem to suddenly remember things in order to cover up a plot hole, romance blooms from quite literally nothing and some of the writing is so bad its unreal. It leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. From the looks of things it seems that after designing most of the game one of the devs at Level 5 suddenly remembered that a singleplayer game needed to be added as well and so they rushed something together and this did not work in their favour.

Famitsu only gave WKC a 29/40 and Eurogamer gave the game (shockingly) 8/10, which is surprising to say the least but of course they reviewed the multiplayer aspect too. Without the multiplayer I doubt WKC would have enjoyed the success it has because as a singleplayer game it is incredibly weak. You can't get the best armour or weapons without doing certain online quests and the Georama system (players of Dark Cloud will be familiar with this) is pretty dull unless you've reached a certain GR (Guild Rank) level. And unless you're spending lots of time online your GR level is destined to stay low... so very very low. Yet somehow the game has convinced me not to sell it or trade it and it is still a part of my diminishing collection, so maybe there it's doing something right after all?

Because it's a video game, it's okay for a creepy old guy to hang out with a bunch of kids

Toy Story 3

Lots of people hate going home to their parents' house. I am not one of them, I quite enjoy going home to see my family. Anyone that knows my mother will realise I have no reason to lie about this because she is 100% computer illiterate. This does have a point... honest. I went home to see my family the other day and did the usual catching up, seeing my younger brothers and sisters, eating all mum's food etc. However, another great thing about going home is rummaging through the game collection when everyone has gone to bed. My little brothers are quite fortunate in two ways: 1. They possess the love for games that I do. 2. They have the brains to ask for games on every gift-worthy occasion. Their game collection has contributed to the broadening of my virtual horizons quite a bit over the past few years. If it wasn't for them I might never have cast my beady eyes over Mini Ninjas, EyePet, The Lego games and ModNation Racers as well as others. This time it was the turn of Toy Story 3 and I have to say, I'm impressed.

The game kind of follows the story of the films.You visit the Sunnyside Daycare, Andy's House, Bonnie's House, The Junkyard and of course Al's Toy Barn. The great thing is that Andy's toys are telling the story in hindsight to Bonnie's toys, so often they embellish what happened and this allows for greater perils and more dramatic sequences which are always ridiculous and mostly great fun. The levels are quite short and the story mode is easily done in 4-8 hours. For me, this is a great thing. Often games are drawn out to lengthen them and give the illusion of more content, but this game delivers quality gameplay and scenery along with a charming and quite funny plot and dialogue.

There are essentially three playable characters: Woody, Jesse and Buzz. Each have their own unique abilities, but the player can switch between them with L1 at any time. Woody can swing from hooks with his pullstring, Jesse can balance on small platforms and Buzz is very strong, enabling him to throw the others across big gaps. The levels consist of different ways of applying these abilities, but it doesn't get tiresome and it never gets too challenging. For a child (it is a kid's game remember) the difficulty has a gradual steady increase, but the collectibles can be quite tricky to find. This adds an extra challenging element for any perfectionists out there, but you also get rewards in the 'Toy Box' mode for collecting certain things.

Finally there is 'Toy Box' mode. The premise behind this is similar to the scenario at the start of the movie: it's an imaginary world where you are the Sherriff of a town. The more quests you complete, the more you unlock. As you progress you will build a barbers, a school and gradually complete the town. I think that this mode is hyped up a bit too much and may just be a place where all the spare ideas from the game were thrown, but it is fun and it held my attention for a good few hours.

This game suggests to me that it is possible for a kid's game to be engaging annd cute without being mind-numbingly dull or flawed. This game has lots of elements such as teamwork, vehicles, puzzles and open world exploration, but all of these come together and actually work (the little cars are a bit annoying, but the horse, dragon and big car are ok). A movie tie-in game that works! Just stop for a second and appreciate that. You might think that Toy Story 3 is a bit childish or basic for you, but even if just to play a movie tie-in game without the gerbil turd disappointment of Avatar, have a go.

Terrible handling- bet the insurance is monstrous

DannyDarko

Now on Twitter!

Yes, I'm now tweeting. I'm still learning so be gentle, but if you're a twitter user please follow me on there twitter@dannydarko1990

I hope I used the right terminology there, but we'll see in due time.

DannyDarko

Nintendo Wii:

I have been in two minds about the intellectual property of Nintendo for quite some time. I hate the way that they sell and resell anything with a moustache and dungarees stuck on it. Mario, Zelda, Pikachu, Kirby, Donkey Kong. Nintendo have more mascots than they know what to do with. This might make you think that there are more original ideas coming out of Nintendo than I let on, but actually the only reason they become famous enough to be mascot potential is because they are used again and again and again and again and again and again. Yes, that was an annoying and badly structured sentence, but that was supposed to represent the annoying and badly structured hierarchy of the Nintendo cast.



Cash-cows beware- Nintendo will milk you dry





Ok... so I didn't start this just to rant about Nintendo. I actually meant to point out a little thing about the Nintendo Wii that I always forget until I actually play it again. It's really fun! It's the only console I have been able to play with my girlfriend, mum, sisters, brothers, in-laws, gaming and non-gaming friends. The point is, the horrible words that seem to occur far too much these days are necessary terms: 'casual gaming'. Although the design behind these games is often unimaginitive and unoriginal, they do sell well and that's part of the reason they continue to be made. Why not make them if its what people want? Why not play them for a few hours with your friends now and again? You can't play Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Bioshock or Dragon Age with your friends. They're all single player and although I can sit and play them in the company of certain friends, there is no way it could be replicated with my little brothers, in-laws, or my girlfriend. It just would not be fun. I'm not going to go on about this any longer because I only wrote this to make one point....

Sociable, family, novelty games may not be the most soul-shaking, emotive and in depth experiences, but they certainly do their job. They entertain almost anyone for a good hour at least. I almost fell into a hardcore gamer snobbery, but thankfully I was brought back from the edge by last night's encounter with Wii Party. Thanks guys. Sorry about the step game...

DannyDarko

As a side note I'd like to add that the encounter with Wii Party was not in fact, last night. It was over a week ago, but because my laptop decided to play silly buggers with my image uploading, I've had to wait and go to the library to post!

Final Fantasy XIII

I heard a lot about this game before I played it. I saw very good previews and lots of material promoting its release, but I didn't buy it when it was first released. I always planned to and I was embarrassingly quoted in the Official Playstation Magazine (OPM) declaring my excitement on Facebook... I can't remember the exact phrasing but it included a reference to me wetting myself. Anyway, I didn't buy it, because I was busy and penniless and there were other games etc. This turned out to be a good thing. I heard so many negative comments about the game that I was quickly beginning to lose interest in the game. I knew that I would get around to it eventually, but the horrible things people had told me about it gave me no reason whatsoever to rush.

I had heard that the story was ridiculous and unengaging, the characters were stupid and weird (look at what you're buying people, its Square Enix!), the battle system was a step in the wrong direction and most frequently I was told that the game was linear. Obviously all of these points escaped the mind of the OPM reviewer, but how was I to know who to listen to? Usually I find that the reviews I read are accurate, but the previews are extremely unreliable. I don't think that previews are deliberately misleading, but more naively hopeful in regards to a game's potential. One game springs to mind... AVATAR!!! Amazing ideas, amazing previews, amazing story to work from and what did we end up with?! It was like going downstairs on Christmas day, pulling the ribbon from a gigantic, shiny, colourful gift box, opening the box and.... seeing another box, slightly less pristine, more weathered. Inside this one there's another shabby box... Several smaller, dirtier boxes later you end up with a tiny greasy matchbox in your hand.. you clutch it, knowing that this is the last box and your long awaited gift will finally be revealed. You slide back the outer sleeve of the box to reveal.... a little crusty gerbil turd. Introducing Avatar the Game.

Ok. Back to Final Fantasy XIII. The dilemma I had (very lengthily dramatized above) was that the previews had been very flashy and exciting, which is what geared me up for the release. This was all fine, but as soon as I heard negative things about the game from others, I was immediately doubtful. The ugly, dysfunctional, mentally ill ghost of Avatar hung over me as a reminder that I'd been betrayed once before. Long story short, I never got around to buying the game, but someone else did that for me. Thank you Emily. A good 50+ hours of gameplay later, here I am with my verdict.

'Misfits' is putting it gently

It's true, it's true, the first 6-8 hours of the game are prescriptive and you can't choose your team or your direction. This is obviously what caused people to brand the game as linear. It is. If the last Square Enix (previously Squaresoft) game you played was Final Fantasy VII then you won't find a similar open ended, world map experience. You might get a bit of de ja vu including a blonde soldier, a black gunman and a train, but you won't get a world map. The story line is much the same as always, a group of misfits brought together by fate and forced to go on a journey to save the world. However, the fact that 99% of the dialogue in this game is actually dialogue and not a blue text box means that it is possible to follow the cutscenes and conversations without needing laser eye surgery afterwards. The story is confusing and the twists and turns don't always make much sense, but to me that felt like part of the game- your characters had no idea why they were fighting, but they just went with what felt right. When new information was revealed, a new course of action began, which made the sidebars in the story crucial to the main plot. All in all, the story is enough, I think, to get you through to the end.

Next on the agenda is the way this game looks. This part is going to be very short, because frankly, it is immense. The cutscenes are beautiful and dynamic, the locations are varied and colourful, the characters have finally been successfully lip-synced to English dialogue and the monsters and enemies are visible before you enter battle, looking just as exceptional before as they do during battle. I cannot complain about the visuals in this game. Along with the soundtrack, sound effects and dialogue, the flawlessness of the graphics makes this game unbelievably immersive and actually breathtaking. (I know how cliched that sounds, but play the game, go to Pulse and stand on the edge of a cliff- you will be back here commenting on how much you agree.)

Pulse- This doesn't even do it justice

The gameplay, in terms of battles and clearing different areas can be repetetive, but by the time you've spent an hour or so playing, you'll know how you feel about that. I think that because of the new battle system and the ranking system based on time, the pressure to kill quickly and efficiently means you are always thinking and engaged, rather than leaning a lamp on the X button while you make a cup of tea. The linear nature of the game, while being a shock to the system, does fit perfectly with how the story unfolds. Your character has no idea how long they have left before they fail their quest, so it always feels like a race against time. This understandably means that pratting around with sidequests is not high up in the priority list. The treasure hunting and sidequests do open up after the main portion of the game is finished, so any die hard Final Fantasy perfectionists can still master everything (and will have to if they want all the trophies/achievements.)

I feel as though I've been a bit defensive in this post. I love this game and I would recommend that any Final Fantasy fan or avid gamer at least give it a try. I heard many negative opinions about various aspects of the game, but none of them stuck with me after playing it. The most detestable opinion I encountered was that the Leona Lewis song 'My Hands' didn't fit with the feel of the game and its conclusion. I denounce this opinion to the ends of the earth and hold you nay sayers in utter comtempt... you know who you are! I love almost everything about it and my only regret is that I don't have enough time to finish all of the side quests. There is one feature that irritated me beyond belief however... the death of the player character means Game Over, even if the others survive. Oh and another rubbish feature of the game... Sazh.

DannyDarko

Also if you want to check out some of the negative points I talked about... watch the review by Zero Punctuation: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1569-Final-Fantasy-XIII

Digimon World... it's Marmite

By Jyggalag






With my lack of funds preventing me from purchasing the much coveted Dragon Age 2 and PokeMon White, I have instead sought to satisfy myself elsewhere until such a time comes when I can get my greasy mitts on the aforementioned games. Thus came along Digimon World for the PS1 as recommended to me by Mr Darko (I'm sure anyone giving a shit enough to read this knows who he is). Now, he first recommended this game to me when discussing my little nostalgia piece and I argued that the only reason he wanted to play the game again was because of his nostalgic feelings towards it. Yadda yadda. Mr Darko searched the web until he found a cheap copy of the game from a respectable seller and then waited frantically at the letterbox (I'm being quite literal here) until his coveted game arrived. Didn't see much of him for the next few days after that, except for whenever I went to make a cup of tea. Eventually I caved and decided to play the game as well.

Now, we all know what Digimon is. We all watched the cartoon as a kid... well at least most of us did. There was always a big argument at the table during school dinner times as to which was better, PokeMon or Digimon. So even if you didn't watch it because you were "too cool" (but of course back then it WAS cool, so don't try denying it you dirty little liars) or you're a backwards hick raised in the middle of nowhere, you'll certainly know what Digimon is.
My first thoughts of the game were lukewarm, to say the least. I'll admit to being a bit of technology whore and if a game ain't flashy, it rarely impresses me. Now released in 1999 I wasn't expecting anything fancy but to be quite honest, there was a certain charm to it that only Japanese game developers can pull off.

I didn't pay much attention to the game's opening. For some reason a tiny child is dragged into the Digital World. Rather conveniently his mother has "nipped out" and left this small child home alone, so at least she doesn't have to get into a panic about her missing boy. But you know... plot devices and all that. Anyway, all a manner of crazy shit is going off in the Digital World and its up to the small boy to help rebuild and repopulate File City. With the help of a wise old creature named Jijimon the young boy is partnered with his first Digimon (I got Gabumon, which was always my favourite) and sets out on his adventure.

Gabumon: What's not to like?

For an old game, the game world is pretty expansive with dozens of large areas to explore, littered with quests, tasks and monsters to battle. The game is pretty much an RPG, you have to raise and "level up" your Digimon's stats in order to get them to Digivolve and depending on their stats depends on what they Digivolve into. Unlike PokeMon however, the evolution of your monster is much more complex. Whilst the game encompasses all the basic functions of an RPG, it also serves as a sort of... tamagotchi-like game. Your Digimon need to eat and if you train them too much they become exhausted. They need to sleep, they age and even die and if you don't take care of them properly their life expectancy will shorten. They also shite an abhorrent amount (or "go potty" as the game itself puts it). How you take care of your Digimon effects what they Digivolve into. The game tried to reinforce the idea that taking care of your Digimon is the best thing to do... however to get some of the best Digivolutions you have to have certain conditions, and some of the conditions include "care mistakes" where you purposely mistreat your Digimon. So naturally, I wanted these much better Digimon and rather cruelly unfed my partner and let it shite all over the floor to its heart content.

Don't treat your Digimon right and you'll end up with this turd-eating beauty

Now, for a game that is obviously trying to tell kids to take care of animals, this sends a somewhat mixed message. Each Digimon has a Happiness and Discipline bar and depending on your actions these change. After my Digimon had taken the last dump it needed to be unhappy enough to Digivolve I actually began to feel awful. I just looked at the Happiness bar (which now had a little red angry face next to it) and was half expecting some Digi-equivalent of the RSPCA to turn up and take my Digimon from me. But they didn't.

After a few more hours of playing and finally getting my Digimon to reach Ultimate Form, much to the contradiction of Mr Darko, I had become completely obsessed. I must have only explored three or four areas and I was determined to see more. I'd recruited several Digimon to work in File City and my Digimon was at last was happy with me. Everything was going great and I could see why Mr Darko had waited so eagerly for this game. But then the worst happened. My Digimon died. He had reached the grand old age of 20 (in-game 20 days, which is only a few hours in real time). After moving some dirt from a tunnel for some giant furry testicle with a horn on its head my Andromon just laid on the floor and died. I was gutted. I'd worked the little sod from when he was just a rookie into the big, metal monster he was then and he just died... just like that. But apparently 20 is a good age for your first Digimon so at least I could take comfort in that.

Now, Digimon world only sold around 250,000 copies in Japan which isn't great (at least by today's standards) and the game was only ever given an average rating by most critics. Apparently it's a game for certain types of people. If you loved the Digimon cartoon then Digimon World is just for you, if not, then you'll hate it. The game's greatest strength is probably its greatest weakness. It is such a deep game, but that's the problem. Unless you're following a guide you won't know what the hell you're doing. Now I'm one for exploration and to learn by yourself, but some people don't like that. Some people just want to know what to do straight away. That's why games like Call of Duty are so popular. You shoot people. That's all there is to it and its such a great and fun game.

Digimon World is game that requires a lot of effort and is probably why it never really took off in the first place. Sure there are plenty of people who love the game and Digimon World has become very popular amongst file sharing. It's pretty much the only reason anyone downloads a PS1 emulator these days. But that is where it ends. The Digital World isn't big enough to impress anymore.

Pokemon White

Yes. Another post about Pokemon. I decided two days was long enough to wait after release and bought Pokemon White. Every one of the Pokemon games has had more than one version and each time one has been much more successful than the other for some reason or another. This time it is White that wins. Not sure why, but it sold 13000 more copies than Black. Maybe because the black pokemon on the front looks stronger (it's a dual type dragon/skinhead by the look of it.) Anyway, the figures are in and in one day 1.08million copies sold altogether in the US, which I think we can all agree is crazy!! Enough said about numbers... let's get to my reaction!

Very wary of the changes to the look and the new pokemon, I prepared myself to be disappointed, but I couldn't help but hope my gut feeling was right. I might be alone on this but when I played Pokemon Blue when I was 8 I couldn't stop playing. My friend Paul and I would sit together in his garden, playing side by side (when we played at home we organised specific checkpoints which we'd reach in preparation for the next session.) The feeling of wonder and total absorption in the game is something I haven't felt since then. I didn't think I could recapture that kind of immersion without revisiting old titles like Pokemon Blue, Monster Rancher or Digimon World (All adventures with Paul!)

Well, I didn't look quite this bad... but very close

What am I banging on about? My point is that this is the feeling I'm getting with Gamefreaks newest offering! I actually caught everything I saw because it was cute or interesting or looked strong. Knowing nothing about the new world and the new monsters makes me as inexperienced and full of wonder as the 8 year old me obsessively raising my Pidgey on my original Gameboy back on Paul's garden swing.

I imagine that this game might appeal to newcomers a lot more than the previous versions have, but for me it's all about the nostalgia. The pixellated close up of your pokemon's rear is quite dissapointing and I feel like the pace of battles is a little slower than I would have liked, but overall I can't really complain. There are plenty of new pokemon to get to grips with and the story is much more engaging (so far.) The Team Rocket/Magma/Aqua/Galactic equivalent- Team Plasma- seem to be less of a joke and the issue of animal rights has finally been brought up like the giant Donphan in the room! (Looks like an elephant.. No? Give me a break, I'm tired)

Ok so they LOOK ridiculous

I do apologize for raving on about it like a giddy 8 year old, but honestly, that's how the game makes me feel. It's horrifying to write that because it makes me sound like a grade A loser and general freak, but I can't help being taken back to my first encounter with the pokemon games when I play Pokemon White. I do take comfort in the fact that at least one person will share this feeling of childish joy with me and refrain from discretely deleting me from Facebook. Thanks Neil.

And in case you were wondering... Snivy

DannyDarko

The Evolution of Pokemon: 1996-2011

Pokemon appeared on the scene in the 90s and became a global phenomenon. There was a T.V series, a trading card game, a bunch of toys and teddies and about four hundred thousand movies (Who gives a film the subtitle "The First Movie"?!) I'm sure every 90s kid must remember the Pokemon card ban at schools, the illegal trading in the playground and the ultimate confiscation of your shiny Gyrados. Bad times... Anyways... Moving on. You could get just about anything with a Pokemon theme, but it all began with a game- well, two games actually: Pokemon Red and Pokemon Green on the original Gameboy.

Told you you could get a Pokemon
 version of just about anything...

Released in 1996 in Japan, the games were very successful and a third version, Pokemon Blue was released. In Japan, these three versions sold a total of 10.23million copies. Since the release of these three games, they have been sold across the world as well as the following versions: Yellow, Gold, Silver, Crystal, Sapphire, Ruby, Emerald, Fire Red, Leaf Green, Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, HeartGold, SoulSilver, with Black and White due for release this March. There have also been a series of spin off games, but I will stick to the main series for the purposes of this post. Put simply... There are a tonne of Pokemon games and their popularity doesn't seem to be shrinking!

 There were originally 151 Pokemon and I often hear people say how they wish no more had been created because it just got silly or too complicated. There are 649 Pokemon now which means that for an avid player such as me there are almost limitless possibilities in terms of squad combinations and replayability. This is the big selling point- the fact that you can restart these games so many times and experience them in a different way depending on the Pokemon you choose and the way you raise them. BUT... every version so far has had the same storyline and driving plot: a simple country boy happens to obtain a Pokemon via someone's generosity and decided he/she wants to fight and win the 8 Gym badges required and challenge the Pokemon League. Along the way you always somehow become an inspiration to others and general legend. So if I've paid £25-35 every few years to play basically a newer-looking version of the same story, why I am ok with it? Am I even ok with it? I'm not really sure. 

Pokemon SoulSilver



Pokemon Silver



There has to be a reason that there have been two sets of remakes in this series. People obviously want to play these games again and again. This would be a brilliant business boost for any company, but the fact that Nintendo sells these games means it's just another day at the office- slap some better graphics on it and send it out the door, they'll lap it up!

Too cynical?... Ok..

While the basic story stays the same, certain elements are changed with each new offering. New features have included: a visible Exp. bar, improved sprites and animations, new stats, new moves, new types, new pokemon, new evolutions, new items, new environments, double and triple battles and obviously better graphics. It's a difficult thing to actually name what feels wrong about this series and its returning story, but if the basic premise of the game did change, would it even be the same game? As one of the GameFreak team said in an interview with Nintendo Magazine, you wouldn't remove dribbling and allow travelling in basketball in order to make it more fun, because that would suck.


The different sprites of the player. They look different, but they all share
 a love of hats- except number three. He's rocking an 80s headband thing...


There are plenty of opportunities to experience the Pokemon world from a different angle with a different gameplay mechanic and story; Pokemon Stadium, Pokemon Pinball, Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Snap!, Pokemon Ranger. So with so many choices and such an in depth development of each of these branches, what could anyone have to possibly complain about? You know what you are buying if you purchase one of these games, so obviously people aren't rushing out to buy Black and White hoping for a totally new game that they don't recognise. By the look of things this time, however, that might be just what they get. This change seems to me to be the biggest so far, with 156 new Pokemon and no inclusion of the familiar ones until the Elite Four is beaten.

Easy now...

In the end it seems that the Pokemon games have evolved much like creatures in the natural world have- very subtle but crucial changes that creep towards the perfect construct. There always seems to be a way to improve them, but you never know it without hindsight and you never feel like it was missing in the first place, until it was there.

DannyDarko

Nostalgia: A good or bad thing?

A look at remakes, sequels and reinventions
By Jyggalag

Now I don’t know about some of you, but I certainly remember my first gaming experience. It was on the megadrive and it was one of those very popular and very common vehicle games where you took control of some type of flying vehicle and went through various top-to-bottom scrolling levels whilst shooting the crap out of everything that moved. You know the sort of games that you can get now on mobile phones. I’ve got one such game on my current phone, which might as well be a brick that needs charging every now and then. I think the only reason I still play the game on my phone is because I remember the similar games I used to play and enjoy when I was younger. Still, it’s weird to think how the once pinnacle of gaming technology is now replicated on small hand-held devices, which aren’t even supposed to be used as gaming platforms to begin with. But I digress.

It’s this nostalgia that I think is really important in modern gaming. I doubt I’m the only one, but whenever I play a game I’m always comparing it to something I’ve already played and how it reminds me of this and that. Developers are also well aware of this sense of nostalgia, which is probably why there has been an increase in game remakes over the years.

Like film remakes, these have not always gone down well. One only has to look at the piss-poor attempt to remake Space Invaders to see how badly remakes can be done. Some of these remakes however have been received well, Tomb Raider: Anniversary and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes being two prime examples. The games were praised by critics and they introduced many new fans to both series’. But for some traditionalists (like myself) something about them wasn’t quite right. Now don’t get me wrong, it was nice playing the first game again with visual improvement. In the Twin Snakes Snake actually had eyes instead of lines and in Anniversary I could happily oggle at Lara’s perfectly rounded assets because I no longer had to question if it was weird to perve on a woman with triangular tits. But still, something about them both didn’t sit quite well with me. I think it was because, to me, the first Metal Gear Solid and the first Tomb Raider were such perfect games. I wasted away hours of my life sat at the tv screen playing them over and over again. And then these remakes came along, as if stating that the first games weren’t good enough and they needed improvement. Perhaps I thought it was insulting. That something I felt was perfect others were saying needed changing and making better. In truth though I think my xenophobia attributed to my disliking on Anniversary. After all, it wasn’t a British company that was now at Lara’s helm, but an American one.

One of the first games I purchased for my PS3 was Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. I am an absolute Metal Gear fanboy and this game was a must-have for me. During the fourth chapter of MGS4 you (as Old Snake) return to Shadow Moses Island (the setting of the first game) now on the verge of sinking because of global warming and the base that you used to spend hours trying to infiltrate stealthily is now derelict and abandoned. For me, this was far more exciting than playing The Twin Snakes ever was. In the remake I’m just playing the game again and any nostalgic feelings I may have are virtually unnoticeable. But with MGS4, I was revisiting the old game, rather than simply replaying it. The character was older, I was older and things had changed. During this chapter there are chances to show “flashbacks” if the player presses a certain button at a certain time. When viewing these flashbacks and traversing through the abandoned Shadow Moses facility I didn’t remember my more recent play through of The Twin Snakes. Instead I remember being nine years old (yes I was that young, but that’s a WHOLE other issue) and playing the original game for the first time. This is true video game nostalgia and I think more developers would be wise to follow in Kojima’s footsteps and incorporate similar themes in their games.

Another game I want to discuss is Final Fantasy XIII. Now this game has been praised by numerous critics receiving awards of 9/10, 39/40 and 10/10 by Official Playstation Magazine (UK), Famitsu and GamesRadar respectively. However many fans of the old games criticized the game quite heavily and I myself will admit to being sceptical about it. All I heard from other fans was that it no longer felt like a Final Fantasy game and that there had been too many changes. I was told the game felt linear, the AI of the new battle system took away player freedom and there weren’t even any blue text boxes! Not only that, the trailer for the game had proven quite controversial amongst fans. I didn’t like it. For me, the music of Final Fantasy was always a mix of opera, melodies and various heavy rock and experimental metal tracks. Instead we were presented with a western song sung by a western pop star whose voice often drowned out what the characters were saying in the trailer. It just didn’t feel right to me. It wasn’t Final Fantasy. A close friend of mine however loved the trailer and thought that the Leona Lewis song was just right. And he has been a Final Fantasy fan just as long as I have. Combining all this, I was put off from buying the game and avoided FFXIII with earnest. It wasn’t until recently that I discovered it was truly a good game and that despite the changes, it was still Final Fantasy at the core and it has so far proven to be just as much of an emotional rollercoaster as the previous games. My love and nostalgic feelings for what (I thought) made a true Final Fantasy game caused me to miss out.

Our nostalgic feelings for the good games of old may be the only reason that those games are considered good. If we went back to an old game and started playing it again now, would it still be as good? Now, whenever I go back to an old game I still find it fun. I recently cracked out my copy of Tales of Symphonia for the Nintendo Gamecube. The last time I played this game I was fifteen and had an unhealthy obsession with anime and JRPGs. I’m now more inclined to western, “grown-up” RPGs such as The Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age but I still found myself enjoying ToS. The humour was immature, the storyline not all that original and even though there was character development it was far from brilliant, with almost all of them fitting the JRPG stereotype. But I still loved it and I can safely say that Tales of Symphonia is still my favourite game. However, despite the gaming industry only just finding its feet, Tales of Symphonia is still a fairly recent game and if we’re talking nostalgia for the old classics we’ll have to go back further.

We haven’t had an official “Golden Age” of gaming yet. There seems to have been one for almost everything else. Detective Fiction, Hollywood, Comics, Cartoons and even Porn! To me the “Golden Age” of gaming is before my time. Arcade games like Pacman, Space Invaders and Grand Prix were what “set the standard”. Everyone knows what Pacman and Space Invaders are and I can guarantee (go out and ask if you don’t believe me) almost everyone will describe them as “classics”. Some might say the same of Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario, but seen as how those game franchises are still going strong I’m not going to talk about them. Plus those two games bring up the whole issue of “selling-out” which isn’t what I’m discussing here.

Looking back at Pacman and Space Invaders with a modern viewpoint, what was so special about them really? A gluttonous, fat, yellow ball that spent its entire life (which varied depending on monetary issues) gobbling up pixilated dots and “ghosts”. And Space Invaders was nothing but “pew pew” shooting of weird-shaped, extra-terrestrial invaders. But you can still find them in arcades to this day, and they still bring in players. Also original arcade machines for these games sell for thousands over the internet. I still can have hours of fun playing Space Invaders and Pac Man and so do many others. But is it because the games are genuinely good or is it because these games are “classics” and there’s this collective nostalgia associated with them? Do we convince ourselves that they’re good because of their status as “classics”? You see it all the time with films and books. The Catcher in the Rye is considered a classic (despite controversy, which in truth it’s not even bad) and I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve read or heard it described as brilliant. Yet I found it incredibly boring.

What I’m trying to say is that perhaps nostalgia isn’t always a good thing. In sequels for example I believe it works well (as in MGS4) and fuels enjoyment of the player experience. But it can also ruin a player’s experience and leave their opinion rather skewed. Try to think of it as a big cake. It’s nice to have a little piece, but too much is bad for you.

But of course, the cake is a lie...

Jyggalag