Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

Recently I purchased a new game, Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. (HAWX) (HAWX stands for High Altitude Warfare eXperimental squadron). I had heard about it before it's release and the only real thing that interested me then was the fact that the game developers chose to use real satellite images as the basis for the in game landscapes. They took the satellite images and added in the 3-D element of terrain and buildings. This gives this game a very realistic feel. I didn't look too much more into it then because for the most part I'm not interested in flight simulator games. My biggest gripe with flight sims is that they make the most mundane elements of flying the focus of the game. Landings, take-offs, etc are not why I play flight games. I think the last flight game I actually enjoyed was the old Sega game After Burner II, which I used to play at the youth center on the military base I lived on at the time. At least now I don't have to save up my quarters to play the games.

One night some friends and I just finished playing some video games together (probably Halo 3) when we decided to all download and try out the HAWX demo. I was very pleasantly surprised. HAWX is in no way a flight simulator, despite the excellent graphics in the game. This is 100% a fighter arcade game. No more practicing landings where precision control is required. This game just throws you into the middle of a dogfight and goes until all the enemies are killed. You get virtually unlimited ammunition and a wide range of aircraft to pilot. The game gives you the option of playing the campaign in multiplayer cooperative mode. Unlike other games where playing co-op makes the game easier (because you have more help on your side) HAWX developers scaled up the number of enemies you have to stave off when you add more teammates to the battle. This can be quite unnerving when you're playing missions where the objective is to protect a valuable target from enemy fire.

After playing the demo we all went out the next day and picked of the full version of this game. HAWX developers did a great job with the landscapes in the game. Having visited some of the cities in the game, I was able to find key landmarks and even follow the roads to a friend's parent's house (Sorry Nate, I crashed into your parent's house). The game took out the the realism that makes flight simulators so boring, in my opinion, but left in all the aspects of flying a jet fighter that any little boy wants to experience.


This game lets you fly everything from the A6 Intruder to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (note: the F-35B is the actual fighter depicted in the game, with the vertical landing engine visible) They even threw in the YF-12 (SR-71 Blackbird). Even though the YF-12 isn't a fighter plane, they made it handle like one. I remember going to the Air Force museum as a kid and seeing this plane on display and imagining what it'd be like to fly that fast. Those type of imaginings are what I think spurred developers to include this plane.

The multiplayer versus mode of the game can be a bit unnerving at first. Instead of flying against the artificial intelligence pilots in the game, you're flying against other gamers. The reaction time has to be quick, but the thrill of lining up a shot and blowing the other guy's plane to smithereens exceeds anything felt when I watched Top Gun the first time.

Overall, HAWX is a great game that will provide many hours of enjoyment. The game could use a bit more flexibility in the multiplayer setup, such as implementing a party system where players can join a game together, but what it does provide is sufficient. This is a game I recommend to anyone who can still connect with their inner child and enjoy the thrill of flying big, fast airplanes.

NXE - New Xbox Experience

So, a while back I signed up to be an early participant in the New Xbox Experience (that's Microsoft's way of making you feel special when you find bugs in their software). The Xbox is getting a new operating system interface rolled out via Xbox Live tomorrow and I was fortunate enough to be able to get an early look at it. One of the biggest changes, which I'm not going to go much into, is the addition of avatars. Basically, Microsoft saw that tons of families with kids were flocking to the Nintendo Wii and it's feature, the 'Wii Mii' and Microsoft wanted a piece of that action. Really though, the new Xbox avatar is nothing more than a customizable character you get to have on your Xbox Dashboard that stands around striking poses. You can even snap a picture of your avatar to use as your gamer picture.

From a users standpoint, all this is is a new paintjob on the same old car. Sure it ran great, but I guess Microsoft just felt a little too much rust was showing and they needed to touch it up. Nothing much changed in how the Xbox OS works. You still get the same information, just presented in a newer, flashier way. Here's how the new profile page looks when you go into it. Now instead of having to click on My Games, you get a page for each of the games you've played that you can scroll through.

There are a few interface changes that are marked improvements as well as a few that are easily a step in the wrong direction. One of the new changes I like is the way it presents achievements for each game. Before, you had to click on an achievement to get a good description of what it was, but now the display shows the description at the top as you scroll through them.

A stunning oversight in my mind is how they handled the background for the new interface. Before, we were able to download themes for our Xbox blades. This allowed users to customize the look and feel of their Xbox interface. A lot of users paid good money for themes they liked. With the new interface, Microsoft has gone and covered up half the screen so you can't see the theme image at all.

Selecting your theme

How the theme looks when applied

What would have been nice is if Microsoft had allowed users to make the background of the interface transparent or not there at all. This would allow people to still enjoy the themes they paid money for. If they can't do that, I at least hope Microsoft lets people download new, updated themes free of charge--themes that work on the New Xbox Experience.

One new feature that Microsoft is releasing along with the NXE is a new application that allows Xbox users to view Netflix streaming videos over their Xbox 360. While I can understand the marketing strategy to pair it with the NXE, I'm pretty sure the Netflix application (that's all it really is, an downloaded application) would have worked on the old dashboard interface just fine.

The only real sad part about the Netflix app is that Sony, Microsoft's arch nemesis in the video game market and owner of Columbia Pictures, has somehow managed to stop Netflix from allowing Xbox users to view their videos. Hopefully something can be worked out to allow the whole Netflix media library to be available to Xbox 360 users.

Another (cool?) feature that Microsoft added in this update is the ability for gamers to install their games to their Xbox 360 hard drives. This means that for those 15 hours gaming binges that your DVD drive in your 360 won't have to be constantly spinning your disc. Instead, after installing your game to your hard drive, the disc drive will only spin at first to make sure you have the game in the drive (their attempt at anti-piracy).

It took me only 15 minutes to copy my Gears of War 2 game to my 360's hard drive. The game takes up almost 7 GB of hard drive space. As I only have the old 20 GB hard drive, I'll have to upgrade if I want to copy any other games to my hard drive. It doesn't really make much of a difference in gameplay time, but I'm sure this is just Microsoft's attempt to throw money at the problems they've been having with the Xbox DVD drives malfunctioning and destroying game discs. The idea is just to reduce the wear and tear on the drive over time. Maybe it'll work for them.

Overall, I think the biggest improvement in the new interface has to be in the speed in which things load. Navigating through the old dashboard architecture was a real pain in the neck for some people because they weren't used to waiting so long (really, it was only a couple of milliseconds...but to some gamers, that's an eternity). The new interface is significantly faster at loading, especially when in a game. They found a way to make it faster and even provide a little more content available to the users than before.

Now, back to playing Gears of War 2...

Gears of War 2

Friday after work I picked up Gears of War 2 for the Xbox 360. I enjoyed the first Gears of War game mainly for it's single player campaign. The multiplayer portion of the game was plagued with connectivity problems when played online as well as glitches in how the weapons worked. After playing through the campaign of Gears 2 and some multiplayer matches, I was very pleased with my purchase and look forward to many hours of enjoyment. To appease those gamers who want a score applied to this review, I'd have to give it a 9 out of 10.

Campaign
Just as in the original Gears of War, the campaign is available both in single player and cooperative modes. I played the campaign in single player mode for Act 1 and cooperative mode for Acts 2-5. The campaign is a bit longer in the sequel than in Gears 1. It took me roughly 14 hours to complete the game on Hardcore difficulty. The storyline is just as riveting in Gears 2 as it was in the original. The story focuses on the COG's efforts to destroy the Locust infestation as well as helping your squad mate, Dom, find his wife who was separated from him when the Locusts first attacked.
In the original game, one of your squad mates, Anthony Carmine, got killed in a rather inopportune way--getting sniped in the head while his gun was jammed. In Gears 2 you get to have Anthony's brother, Ben Carmine join your squad. The dialogue indicates Ben is just as green as his brother was, yet in actual gameplay Carmine is one really brave soldier, always rushing into enemy forces with just his sniper rifle in hand and coming out unscathed. I don't doubt we'll see another of the four Carmine brothers in Gears 3.
Gears of War 2 didn't let up when it comes to showing blood and gore. The original Gears of War was probably the bloodiest game I'd ever played. Gears 2 easily out does that. In fact, Gears 2 has probably the bloodiest and most gory scene I've ever seen in a video game or movie. Warning: very bloody.

The game also has quite a bit of strong language as well. Epic Games got one thing right though. They knew they were making a game that if it was a movie would easily be rated R, but they put into the game the option to turn off the gore and to filter the strong language. This allows gamers who want to play this game with their family present to tone things down a bit. Overall, I think that decision to include filters will increase sales for the game and allow a lot more people to enjoy it.
There are still small items to pickup throughout the storyline as there were in Gears 1. This time however, they're not just the COG tags of fallen soldiers. This time, they're actually small Collectibles like newspaper clippings or paper reports that give you more information about what's going on and add to the storyline experience.
Just as in Gears 1 there is a slight cliffhanger ending to the storyline. The developers, after all, did plan for this series to be a trilogy. While there is a tremendous victory in the end for the COG forces, the cliffhanger at the end of the game credits makes you question if what happened may or may not have been the best choice for the people of Sera.

Game Settings
A new great feature of cooperative campaign gameplay is that the difficulty settings for the game can be player specific. That means you can have one really skilled player playing on Insane difficulty and another playing on Casual.
Unlike other games where developers overlooked a large demographic, this game actually has a fairly decent set of left-handed control options. The settings allow gamers to have default, legacy, left-handed default, or left-handed legacy thumb stick controls. Another first that I've seen in a video game, is that this game also allows you to have left handed triggers (i.e. left trigger shoots primary weapon). You can also invert either your X or Y-axis (or both). There's even an alternate button control scheme that has the actions for each button in a slightly different layout.
As mentioned earlier there are settings options to turn off the gore and language for gamers that prefer not to have that. For multiplayer games, players have the option of setting their default player model to use, both for COG and Locust forces.


Developers also put in a great information section of the game called the War Journal. Here you can find multiplayer leaderboards, both public and private (friends only). There's also a list of Collectibles showing how many you've found and on which levels you found them. Gears 2 also has probably the best display for in game achievements. It lists each achievement with a description of how to earn it, along with a progress indicator for how close you are to getting it. Even during actual gameplay, a progress notification pops up in the bottom corner of your screen when you do something that brings you closer to getting an achievement. This comes in very handy for those achievement hunters out there trying to get them all.

Multiplayer
The game has a great tutorial mode to familiarize players with the different game modes for Gears of War 2 multiplayer. There are five steps to go through, not hard at all. You even get an achievement for completing the tutorial mode.
There's a new multiplayer mode in Gears 2 that wasn't in the original--Horde. This consists of up to five players playing on the same team against wave after wave of Locust hordes. I had the opportunity to play this mode earlier today with four of my friends starting at wave #1. It goes up to wave #50. Each wave up to #10 has more enemies than the previous that are in turn harder to kill. After Wave #10 you start over again, but this time the enemies get a boost in health and skills. After the next 10 waves, they get another boost and so on.

Even though we played on Casual mode, by the time we hit wave #50 it was incredibly difficult for all of us to survive the whole wave. Just for kicks when we were done we tried wave #50 on Insane mode. We lasted a grand total of 47 seconds before we were all dead.

Mirror's Edge (demo)

I downloaded the demo for a new game coming out, Mirror's Edge. The game is set in some futuristic city where information security is so tight that the really sensitive stuff gets hand delivered. The people delivering the information are runners who run across the city's rooftops jumping from building to building to deliver the packages. Somehow the main character is caught up in something and uses her running skills to find out what and how to get out of it. Pretty simple, straightforward plot design. Actual gameplay though was horrible. I went through the whole demo and was bored out of my mind within two minutes.

All you do is run around and jump over, under, or through things. This game really doesn't qualify to be considered part of the Action genre, as Xbox's site suggests. What it should be classified as is a puzzle game because that's what it feels like. All you do is run around and figure out how to get from point A to point B. I guess the only real upside to this game is it's not 'Rated M for Mature'. I wouldn't have a problem giving a game like this to a 12 year old to play, as opposed to something like Gears of War 2 (which I'm going out today to pick up most likely).

Dead Space

I've never been one for the horror genre. I think it must have something to do with watching Friday the 13th when I was about 3 years old. I don't mind compelling stories or even suspenseful ones, but I really can't stand the ones that just try and shock you by throwing blood and gore at you over and over. When I heard about Dead Space before it was released, I was mildly excited to play it. Maybe this would be different. Maybe game developers would figure a way to use today's technology to actually tell a compelling horror story.

Well, the release date came and went. I didn't buy the game, mostly due to being enthralled in other games such as Call of Duty 4, Castle Crashers and Portal. Then one of my friends went out and rented it. I waited to see what he said about the game. Needless to say, this massive oversight by the game developers burst my hope bubble and removed any decent expectations I might have had for the game. In my opinion, if developers can't get the basic mechanics of a game right, why should I think they got anything else right?

The final nail in the coffin for my hopes for this game came when I saw what popular game reviewer Ben Croshaw had to say about the game. Instead of rewriting his review, I'll just let you watch it yourself. Warning - it does contain strong language.

Call of Duty 5 - World At War (beta)

About a week ago the Call of Duty 5 beta went live. As a software developer I find it very difficult to actually call this a beta release. There were promotions from just about every gaming website and magazine that exists. Millions of gamers got a hold of their own personal beta code. Some got more than just one (personally, I got about seven). Those who got extra just shared them with their friends. There were so many codes given out that anyone who actually wanted one could easily have gotten one. Another reason it isn't a beta is the fact that the game comes out in 3 weeks. I doubt any bugs found in the beta will be fixed in the release version. In reality, this is much more of a release candidate than a beta.

The beta is limited to just the multiplayer aspect of the game and within that it's limited to just 3 maps and it has an experience cap on it. A lot of gamers I talk to think this game was doomed from the start, as it was developed by Treyarch and not Infinity Ward (the developers of Call of Duty 4). The game does use the Call of Duty 4 game engine, so the feel of gameplay is very familiar to CoD4 players. There are some subtle differences, mostly added in to stick to the era of the game (WWII instead of modern times). The problems I found come in how the developers chose to implement these changes.

One of my big complaints is the inherant weakness and accuracy of the weapons. I know the developers were aiming for a more realistic game, but reality generally isn't all that fun. It gets very aggravating to shoot someone with a sniper rifle multiple times and not have a single shot register. Another complaint I have is the graphic detail. In CoD4 the characters were very detailed and you could tell very distinct differences between soldiers on the same team. In the beta, the way the graphics are rendered (darkness level, coloring, etc) make it difficult to tell friend from foe. Players are forced to wait for the name indicator to show up on screen which usually delays them enough to get shot. My other big complain is the level design. The word that comes to mind is cluttered. In CoD4, levels had clear lines of sight and made a larger level seem controllable based on what you could see. In the beta, there is so much junk on the levels that your line of sight generally doesn't extend for more than a few feet in any direction.

Overall the game is only 'ok'. If I had to give it a score, it'd be a 5 or 6 out of 10. I really don't see me purchasing this game. My reason for not getting the game isn't any of the above mentioned reasons. No, it's one that developers need to realize is totally unacceptable. For multiplayer games, the developers had voice actors perform the in-game announcements. Kiefer Sutherland performed the voice for the US Marines team announcer. The first time I played the game I was shocked when the announcer shouted out the F-bomb. "Out-f***ing-standing Marines!" I looked through the menu structure and game options. There's no way to filter out the vulgarity. You can mute the entire announcer voice, but then the players lose the valuable strategic information relayed.

Worthless Review Scores

How many times have you read a game review and seen it given some type of score? Usually these scores are used to convey some actual meaning. When I read the the whole review, I kind of expect the score they gave to be reflected in the review. If I see a low score, I expect the review to be full of complaints about a game. If I see a high score, I expect to read about how great the game is. I really didn't think you could mix that formula up (high score = good review, low score = bad review), but apparently someone did.

Recently I read a review of a new game that came out last month, NFL Head Coach 09, from EA Sports. The game focuses less an the actual football games and more on the management and coaching aspects of the sport. On the site Operation Gaming, a site for sports gaming, the score given for this game is a 9 (out of 10, I assume). To me, that's a great score. If a game gets a 9/10 score, I assume it's a great game and worth looking into. When I saw that, I thought I should read the review and see what exactly makes this game great.

Yeah...that was a mistake.

Apparently, the author of that review must think their scores are like golf scores...the lower the better. Here are a few inspiring quotes from that review:

When it comes to football gamers, the vast majority will look at something like NFL Head Coach 09 (NFLHC) and ask one simple question.
“Why?”

The first thing you’ll notice when you hop into a Coach Now game is that the game looks horribly bland compared to Madden NFL 09.

The audio isn’t anything to write home about, with a white noise crowd sound in the background, and your coordinators rattling in your ear. The actual play calls are great to hear, but if I have to hear, “We’ll win this game one inch at a time … one inch at a time,” ONE MORE TIME, I’ll scream.

When you start to game plan for your first opponent, you can start to get confused again.

Sometimes you’ll also end up with goals that aren’t easily understandable.

The running game was a joke, as the CPU could never mount a consistent attack, let alone against another CPU opponent.

In its current state, NFLHC plays a sublime game of football 90 percent of the time. The other 10 percent can be extremely frustrating...

But the real stumbling block for NFL Head Coach 09 so far seems to be the buggy release.

Thankfully, the process of improving your team is far from easy.

Speaking of seeing what’s going on -- if you’re an online gamer, you’ll be sorely disappointed. You only have the Supersim mode available, with no graphics.

There are some notable bugs (some of which will really get to a large percentage of gamers)

and finally...

When you boil it down, though, NFL Head Coach is the best coaching sim on the console market.

(I think it's the ONLY one on the console market)

I don't know about you guys, but after I read that review, I really didn't feel the urge to rush out and buy NFL Head Coach 09. After reading that review, I really had to wonder why EA Sports, a developer known for it's great sports titles, would put out such a low quality product. Maybe it's in some contract they have with the NFL. I have yet to meet another gamer who actually played this game and liked it. Actually, I have yet to meet another gamer who has even played this game.

My advice to you? Read the full review. Don't just go by the score you see. Again, to Terry Crouch, the author of the review, a '10' means it's good and a '1' means it's bad, not the other way around...

Castle Crashers

Recently I found a fun little game on Xbox Live Arcade. Castle Crashers is a nice throwback to the old sidescrolling arcade games I grew up on. While I still haven't beaten the game (I don't play video games that much), I've played enough to know that I like it.

The biggest improvement I see in this arcade game over others is the inclusion of multiplayer functionality both over Xbox Live and on the local console. The game really reminds me of the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game for the Nintendo. Basically, you go through areas swinging your weapons to kill enemies. When they die, they drop gold, food, or other items. The more you kill, the more experience you get.

The graphics on this really don't try too hard to impress you, from a technical standpoint. This isn't trying to be a top of the line processor intensive game. This is a game you just sit back and have some fun with. After all, isn't that the point? There is subtle, crude humor in the game that will surprise you when you see it (funny surprise, not 'OMG, cover the kids eyes' surprise).

Overall I'd have to say I really recommend this game to anyone. This is the game I'll turn on when family comes over so that my brothers (and sister) and I can all play together. The price is pretty steep for an arcade game (1200 MS points = $15.00) but I still think it's worth it. Compared to $60 for a full retail title, this is definitely worth the money.

Grand Theft Auto

First off, let me premise this post by stating that I have not played the game Grand Theft Auto 4 at all. I'm not going to make the mistake of reviewing the game when I haven't taken the time to sit down and play it. Instead, this post is about why I haven't played the game and a review of the other reviews I've seen of the game.

Whenever new games come out I have to make the decision as to whether or not I'm going to purchase the game. I consider myself an avid gamer with a wide range of gaming tastes. Different factors affect my decision, such as reviews I read, friends' recommendations, trailers I watch, game rating, and game genre. I try to pick games that I can play anytime, whether my family is in the room or not. With that said, GTA4 failed to meet that criteria and thus, I did not purchase the game. While I'm sure GTA 4 is a well designed game with many of the criteria met that I discussed in previous posts as to what makes a good game, the content of the game itself didn't meet my own personal standard. I didn't make the decision because of what some crazed lunatic said on national television. I made the decision on what I feel is best for me and my family.

Many in the media try to lay the blame for societal problems at the feet of video game developers. If there's a school shooting, many jump to the conclusion that a video game caused it. The morality of video games keeps coming up in the media with each successive game release. [link] Government legislative bodies keep trying to pass legislation to restrict the distribution of these games and almost every time the laws get shot down as unconstitutional. [link] The funniest part about all this is that the games in question all have content less controversial than most prime time network television shows, yet no one is making a fuss over that.

To be blunt, many out there need to sit down and take a chill pill. Stop trying to legislate the gaming industry. Let the free market do that for you, the way it did with the movie industry. Nobody is yelling about passing laws to prevent kids from buying R-Rated movies because retailers already enforce that policy. Most retailers are moving in that direction with M-rated video games as well. The media are also incorrectly assuming that because GTA 4 is so successful that it must mean lots of kids are playing it. What they fail to realize is that the average age of video game players today is somewhere around thirty years old. GTA 4 is a game that is actually appealing to many adults. I just did a check of my Xbox Live friends list and noticed that almost every single adult on that list has played GTA 4, yet when I checked those who I know are minors, all but one or two has NOT played the game. This tells me that for the most part the ratings system is working. Adults are buying and playing the M-rated games and kids are not. Those few kids that are playing the M-rated games are likely getting their parents to buy it for them. That's not a problem for the government, retailers or gaming industry to concern itself over. If parents want to let their children play M-rated games, that's their decision. No laws should be passed to prevent that.

Overall, I think GTA 4 is probably a very well made game. Due to the content I chose not to purchase the game. The media and government need to keep their noses out of individual citizens' decisions to purchase games when it's fully within their rights to do so. While I may not choose to play this game, I can only look forward to other games that do meet my criteria which will be of similar quality as Grand Theft Auto 4.

What makes a good game? (Part 4)

I've hit a few points of what I consider key components of a good video game in recent posts. The is the last post on the topic. While I consider these required for a game to be good, that doesn't mean the game won't be successful or profitable. These are mainly just characteristics of games that I've noticed have stuck around longer than others, games that people tend to play more often than others. The last component I feel needs to be included for a game to be good is realism.

---

Part 4

---

Realism isn't that the game reflects real life physics, but that would be nice. When I talk of game realism I mean that the game reacts the way you would expect it to. If a FPS game is going to put in a sniper rifle alongside a battle rifle, the sniper better have a much longer range than the battle rifle. If a rocket launcher is present, it better cause a lot of damage. With newer games, developers are even able to implement destructible environment. This means if I shoot a bridge with a rocket, the bridge better collapse.

Game developers need to first and foremost establish a law of physics for their games. Once that law has been established, they need to abide by it. One of the first things players will do when they get a game (besides playing through the storyline) is to test the limits of the game's physics. If a game reacts the way players expect it to, within whatever rules of the game exist, players will be able to enjoy the game more. If unexpected results happen, the game becomes to unpredictable and therefore un-enjoyable.

What makes a good game? (Part 3)

For online games this part is probably the most important part a game studio has to worry about getting right. Multiplayer functionality can easily make or break a game. The game may have a great storyline, but if the multiplayer aspect isn't there, a lot of incentive to pick up the game and play it goes out the window after the initial play through.

---

Part 3

---

There are two basic types of multiplayer functionality. There is player vs player (PvP) or player vs machine (PvM). While not totally necessary to have both aspects in a game, having both does increase the quality of the game, so long as they're done right.

In PvM multiplayer, players work together against the game itself. This is usually done in a cooperative version of game's single player campaign or done in role playing games. The benefit of this is that players are able to work with their friends towards the common goal. Some people don't enjoy the competitive nature of PvP games and are much more drawn to PvM multiplayer. PvM multiplayer also allows game developers to add in more storyline content that can only be accessed via PvM play, thus encouraging players to enjoy that aspect of the game.

In PvP multiplayer games, players are pitted against each other. This is very common in first person shooters (FPS) and fighting games. In fact, some FPS games are strictly PvP with no single player or PvM to speak of (Shadowrun). PvP multiplayer is probably the most important aspect of a game that developers need to get right. If the interface is awkward or ineffective, players just won't use it. With different broadband internet speeds between players, the game needs to take that into account and adjust for it. If done incorrectly the game can be filled with lag and the overall experience for players is worsened. To date, probably the most successful and efficient PvP multiplayer game on the market has to be Halo 3. The party system implemented along with their matchmaking system to pit similarly skilled players against each other has yet to be equaled by other game developers.

For a game to be considered a good game, I feel it needs to implement some form of multiplayer functionality. Whether it be PvM or PvP or both, something needs to be there. Games that don't put in some form of multiplayer support tend to start collecting dust after the initial glow wears off. Granted, just having it there doesn't make the game successful. Poorly implemented multiplayer can also kill a game's success.

What makes a good game? (Part 2)

This is part two of a recent blog post I started about characteristics of a good video game. My last post was about the storyline. While storyline is vital in making a good game that will be enjoyed by many, other characteristics are just as important.

---

Part 2

---

Replay Ability
A lot of game studios out there are very capable of making good games. Unfortunately, many of them don't due to one key characteristic they leave out or overlook -- replay ability. I've played a lot of games that were awesome the first time through, but after I finished it I never went back to that game because it had no appeal any more.

Role playing games (RPG) are most susceptible to this problem over other genres of games. Due to technology limitations, many RPG's are limited in the options they can present to a player. Even complex games like Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect limit players to two basic endings, good or evil. Choices players make throughout the game seem to influence you one way or the other, but ultimately the story conclusion is based off which side of the good-evil line you're left standing on at the end of the game. Once you've played both to both endings the game has little left to offer the players.

One feature I'd like to see put into new RPG games is where the choices you make open or close different options for the player later in the game. Most RPG's allow players to take it slow and play out almost every single story arc in the game the first time through. Instead I'd like to see multiple possible story arcs that are only accessible through subtle character choices within the game.

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 Review

I don't know what it is about Tom Clancy games, but they never really seem to live up to their hype. I'm personally a big fan of Tom Clancy novels, but really, he needs to pick a different game studio for his games because Ubisoft just seems to mess them up.

First off, I never really played the first Rainbow Six Vegas game, so I wasn't familiar with the storyline. When I put in Rainbow Six Vegas 2, I expected to somehow be brought up to speed on what was going on. I had no clue who the character is or what I was doing. The game didn't do much to enlighten me either. The single player campaign jumps straight into a tactical assault with little to no background information. That was the first clue I had that this wasn't going to be a good experience.

The next thing I did when starting the game was pause and try to setup my control scheme. I've played plenty of shooters and role playing games. Some games are really good at giving players customizable control schemes (Halo 3) and some are just horrible at it (Star Wars Republic Commandos). This game fell somewhere in the middle, closer to the horrible end. You think game studios would come up with some standard for control schemes for genres of games. Personally I feel all shooter games should have the same options available. That would eliminate control schemes from being a deterrent for some gamers. Even better would be if the console manufacturer would implement a set of standard schemes that players could set globally and have all their games pull from those settings.

RBSV2 does have some interesting features, such as the ability to use your Xbox Live vision camera to scan in your face and put that on your character. The game also gives immense customization options for how your character looks, what clothes and equipment they have available, and what weapons they carry. As good as those things are, they really don't make up for the lack of storytelling and the inept control schemes available. Overall I give this game a 5/10 score and will be placing my copy up on eBay very soon (Link to Auction (ends 4/11/08)).