Blog

We all want realism to be a significant feature in any fitting game, don’t we? Call of Duty 4, Killzone 2, Far Cry 2, and Metal Gear Solid 4; each of these games made extensive efforts in the realism department, each was applauded for those efforts, but how far down this path can we possibly go before crossing into hazardous territory? We all love a great shooter and we love how it more or less feels real, but where do we draw the line? When does a game become exceedingly realistic to the point that it is considered unplayable?

In the real world, war is hell. A single well-placed shot will undoubtedly incapacitate, if not kill, any unfortunate individual who happens to stand in its line of attack. Moreover, you don’t have the perks of a virtual world, such as the lovely red tag above an enemy’s head a la Call of Duty, or the steady hands of any Bioshock dweller using an iron-sight. Stress takes over, your hands shake, and friends get lost in the mix of your foes; friendly-fire happens, it hurts, and it kills. Think for a moment, what if the next shooter you bought sacrificed fun in the name of realism?

Far Cry 2 is quite possibly the best exhibit for video game realism since the peak of the new generation. With each mission, you had to find your own transport, and drive yourself to the target. Not only were the roads fortified, but dealing with your objectives was no easy task either. Affix that with single shot kills and no means of health regeneration, and the result is certain to be chaotic. Even on the grand scale, Far Cry 2’s expediency is quite minimal in regard to “the real world”. Regardless of its unbearable storyline, it still shows extensively what the highest point of realism is like in today’s games.

The stakes of a mere video game vary from a shameful splash screen to a few grueling seconds on respawn timer. I’m sure any war veteran would be appreciative of such seconds or defeat screens. Call of Duty 4 amongst other games has included multiplayer modes which disable the precious respawn ability. If this were to be implemented in all available game modes, I’m rather sure there would be a spike in broken televisions and uncontrollable shouting.

Regenerating health is nothing new in games nowadays, and while it’s a step up from the classic health bar system, it would need further refining to be real-world standard. It encourages a sit-and-wait style of gaming, which all but shatters the immersion. However, this “real-world standard” may cross the line in terms of difficulty once again; it’s always nice to know that a few seconds behind cover is all it takes for a second chance. While I don’t deny that this particular aspect is arguable, for the time being, I would opt for the regeneration method.

Soldiers on a battlefield clearly have the slightest idea of how many rounds are left in their clip. Now, with games akin to Crysis and Killzone 2, the near absence of HUD is becoming a popular trend. Some games even offer an option to completely disable any heads-up display features. To be left on your own, no crosshair assistance, no ammunition count; for any novice to this concept, it’s difficult to grasp. While the hardest at core will consider this even in live matches, others wouldn’t dare to brave conflict without the maximum HUD assistance. I’ll agree that this is yet another arguable facet, I do consider it a thrill to switch off the display at times, but I doubt it would fare well with other aspects mentioned above dictating the game as well.

Real life can be stressful, and to put such authentic elements in a video game would be absurd considering games are a common means of stress relief. Games today are as entertaining as ever, but with each release we see more enhancements to realism, and I’m a fan of that, don’t get me wrong. We just need to draw the line, the industry isn’t ready should it be crossed.

With the advent of the latest generation of video game consoles and PCs that are almost infinitely expandable, developers are being pushed to their limit to create the latest and greatest game of all time. There’s no doubt that some developers have been delivering: games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Killzone 2, etc. With games like these nowadays, it’s hard to imagine that there was a time when people were crazy over games like Pong and Pacman.

My worry is that because of such hits, many fun games have been overlooked. Note that I said “fun”, not “quality” or “good”. Games of such epic proportions in today’s world have raised people’s expectations of what a game should be like. When a new first person shooter is released, people start comparing it with other games like Killzone 2. When an open world game is released, it’s immediately compared to GTA 4.

My worry is that people often forget what games are meant to be in the end: fun for the person who’s playing it. Let’s face it, everyone has individual taste. A game that might seem horrendous for one person (eg. Cooking Mama for me) might provide endless amounts of fun for another person (eg. many girls out there). The first thing a casual gamer does when playing a game is determine if they’re having fun playing it. On the other hand, gamers have played so many more games that there are times we forget the simple fact that games are just meant to be fun.

There have been many a time when I’m playing a game and naturally start thinking about stuff like “Hmm, the models in this game look more shoddy than the ones that were in this-other-really-cool-game-I-played-not-too-long-ago.” or “This game is lame because it’s copying a mechanic that was included in this other game”. Gamers will just naturally start comparing certain aspects of one game with a better one, and in the end the game might seem inferior. However, we get so caught up with how the animation in a game is less realistic that we don’t even realise that we’re still having loads of fun playing it.

For example, if a game has cliche dialog and writing, it’s considered annoying. If a game has a stereotypical story or plot, it’s “lame”. If it doesn’t have an epic scale, it’s criticised for having a “limited scope”. Et cetera. You get my point.

There are 2 reason for this problem in my opinion. Firstly, game reviews. In the ages of Super Mario, reviews were never as wide spread or easily available as a few clicks of a mouse. Nowadays, with dozens and dozens of reviews for almost every game, it’s easy to get caught up in the hype. Not to mention that these reviews rely heavily on the subjective experience of the reviewers since they’re ultimately written by other people who will have absolutely no idea if a particular game is fun for YOU. There’ve been times when I just didn’t have any fun with a so-called “5-stars” game purely because they weren’t my type of game (eg. Bioshock, even though I love FPSes in general). Similarly, there’re certain games that I find insanely fun despite it receiving ridiculous scores (eg. plenty of PSP games) and I’m sure almost every other gamer has had similar sentiments as well. The problem with reviews is that many gamers have undoubtedly overlooked plenty of games that might have been insanely fun for them, but because of the negative reviews or just overwhelming hype surrounding other games, they’ve been missed out on those apparently inferior games which would still have entertained them till no end.

Second of all, is simply the overwhelming number of games that are being released today. Decades ago, there were only that many quality games to choose from, for example the SNES had TONS of games released on it, but only that many were worth playing. Fast forward to today and even the more mediocre games still have a certain amount of production quality to them. For example reviews of the game Legendary have been pretty bad across the board, but I’m sure there’re still some people who will love the whole idea and atmosphere of the game, be it because of its gameplay mecahnics or its story.  The thing is that there are so many games released nowadays that only the best will be noticed, while mediocre games that might still be fun for some people will be overlooked for sure. Of course, the wider variety of games is a huge bonus, but it’s just so much more difficult for each individual to find the game he or she will love.

All in all, I have one piece of advice for all gamers when you’re playing any game: just have fun. Stop comparing it to previous games in terms of graphics, gameplay or whatnot. Also, go ahead and try out some games that might receive bad scores from game review sites or magazines, no harm trying anyway. Just ask yourself, “Am I having fun?” If so, just keep playing. If not, pop the disc out and move on to the next game. It’s just that simple.

It being my first piece over here at DarkZero, I kept racking my brains thinking of what a suitable, and yet unique, topic for me to write about would be. And then I realised that my experience with gaming itself is a worthy topic in its own right, simply because I live in Asia.

While I’m definitely relatively younger than most gamers and won’t be familiar with classics like Goldeneye 64 or Star Wars: TIE Fighter, I have been gaming for practically my whole life. However, it has been far from smooth sailing, because being a gamer in an Asian country can actually be quite a hassle a times.

Spoilt Gamers

In my opinion, gamers from places like the UK and the USA (especially) have been spoilt, till the point where they take a lot of things for granted. Since most games are mainly developed there, except for the occasional outstanding Japanese game, many aspects of gaming are catered towards Western gamers.

Problems Playing Online

The biggest example? Game servers. Every single time I refresh my server browser in practically any game, I’ll see dozens, if not hundreds, of USA servers available. Of course, living on the opposite side of the world means it’s impossible for me to play on those servers, seeing as how I’ll definitely have a ridiculously high ping. Of course, the same applies to UK servers as well, though there are probably slightly fewer servers available, but it’s still a substantial amount.

In contrast to Singapore, it’s a pain to search for game servers that give me a reasonable enough ping. And it’s not just small games that have insufficient Asian servers, I’m talking about the major, so called Triple-A titles that don’t have enough Asian servers as well. When Left 4 Dead was first released last year, I almost always had to host games locally just so that I could play without any latency. But then again, my computer itself then proceeds to lag because I’m hosting the game. It wasn’t until roughly a month later that a group of Singaporeans managed to sponsor a couple of servers for us to play properly. However, the demand for local servers was so high that they were almost always full as well and I had a hard time trying to play online.

For Team Fortress 2, I can count the number of servers available on 2 hands. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? I can count the number of servers available on just 1 hand.

This problem isn’t just present in Singapore. For example if you went over to Game Tracker and searched for Call Of Duty: World at War servers:

In comparison:

Not to mention Japan and Korea are probably the two Asian countries with the most active gaming communities. Oh and at the time of this writing, only 1 out of the 8 Chinese servers have 29/38 people playing, the other 7 are completely empty.

Thus, you can see how frustrating it is for us to come online and see people discussing about how great the multiplayer aspect of a certain game is, yet we’re simply unable to enjoy them in the same way.

I Need Instant Respawn

Of course, the lack of servers also mean we have very few custom servers as well. For example I’m a guy who hates respawn time. I know, I know, it’s there to balance the game. But growing up on Quake 3 has spoilt me into demanding instant respawn in all FPSes I play. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of people out there who have the same preference as me, yet I could only find a single server for both TF2 and COD4 which had instant respawn rates. Of course, it’s not only instant respawn, different people definitely have different preferences as to how they want the server to be set up. But here in Singapore, we don’t have much of a choice.

This is the reason why bots have been my constant companion in many FPSes over the years. For example I’ve been playing Quake 3 for quite some time now, and I’ve only ever managed to play with bots. In the many years thus far, I’ve never ever been able to play with someone else online without being on a level playing field with them. All because of my latency. For some reason, as games die out many of them will still have a strong following in the USA and in Western countries. Thus, all my favourite games will only have servers in the USA, which makes it impossible for me to play online.

This problem isn’t just limited to PC gaming. Of all the people I know who own PS3s and Xbox 360s, I don’t know a single person who plays online. Why? Simply because there aren’t enough servers and players.

It might seem like I’m making a big deal out of the fact that we have very few servers, but it’s actually a pretty big problem for us. However, that’s not the only problem.

Asians are… shy?

When Left 4 Dead first game out, I actually went out to buy a proper headset microphone, thinking that I’d need it to play the game properly with others. However, I soon found out I might as well not have a microphone. For some strange reason, no one uses a microphone here, even for games that really require teamwork (ie. L4D, TF2). I once joined an Australian L4D server just for kicks, and though it was completely unplayable with such high latency, it was insanely fun because everyone was using their mics. However, it seems like it simply isn’t as popular to communicate with people online among us Asians, for reasons I simply cannot fathom.

So… what’s the gaming scene in Asia like?

Even though Asia has a whopping 4 billion people, the gaming culture here just isn’t as strong. I personally put it down to the fact that games are mainly developed in the Western world, thus most aspects of gaming will be catered to you guys. However, there are certain perks that are definitely unique to Asian gamers, which I’ll cover in another blog post. So stick around for Part 2 of this series of articles.

So, Fable II has been out for about two-and-a-half months now, and Lionhead have just dropped the first piece of Downloadable Content, which takes the form of a whole new island. It’ll set you back 800 MS Points (£6.80), but is it worth your virtual bucks? Read on to find out…

Upon entering Albion after downloading the DLC you’ll see a new Quest appearing on your Quest Log. You’ll find the shy and awkward inventor Gordon awaiting you alongside his home-made submarine at the Bowerstone Docks. After enticing you with a few gifts (which are actually available free to anyone with the game) he’ll take you to Knothole Island itself.

There you’ll meet the self-centred and self-appointed Chieftain who ends up roping you into sorting out the Island’s problems. The Knothole tribe used to have control over the weather through the use of some magical totems, but this allowed them to become lazy and complacent. The tribe’s elders decided to seal the totems away in three dangerous shrines so that their warriors would be tested to retrieve them each year, and thus stay strong.

Unfortunately, the tribe no longer has anyone left who is adventurous enough to face the trials in each cave, and Knothole Island is stuck in an eternal winter. Of course, it falls to you, the Hero, to save the people, whilst the Chieftain tries to take the credit. Sadly, although this Quest is split into three parts, it’s the only actual proper quest that the DLC contains.

Combat on Knothole Island is the same as the main game, and battling through the Ice, Sun and Storm shrines you’ll see all the same Hobbes, Balverines and Hollow Men that you fought in the main game. This DLC does introduce some new Shadow creatures that actually do manage to be more interesting to fight than the usual enemies.

It would be a stretch to say that these shrines contain puzzles, as apart from a couple of hideously easy expression statues, you’ll be seeing a lot of irritating flit switches. If you remember these devices from the main game, these are the orbs that must be hit by either melee, ranged or magic attacks depending on their colour. The flit switches found in Knothole Island leave little margin for failure, so there will be much trial and error trying to activate long sequences of them within the allotted time. These parts of the game end up feeling like glorified QTE’s, and it’s disappointing that they appear to be all that Lionhead could think of.

If you go directly through this main quest, it will literally only take you an hour or two to complete, and you must leave the area and return to prompt the next section of the quest to begin, something that is never made clear. The changing weather really does change the aesthetic style and layout of the island greatly, and it’s good to see little touches like the villagers changing their clothing appropriately.

Without following the ‘golden trail’ though, Knothole Island can be quite frustrating to navigate. This is something that is compounded by that fact that there is no map of the area available on the pause screen. The quest also ends with the typical moral choice, but it’s one of such shallow depth, and with such disproportionate rewards, that you won’t even need to think about it.

Besides the main quest, there are two other activities that this DLC offers. Finding the ten books that chronicle the history of Knothole Island is fairly straightforward, with only one being in a less-than-obvious place. The more interesting diversion is the mysterious Box of Secrets shop, which is staffed by the lovely Jessica (who wouldn’t marry me despite my concerted efforts at wooing her.)

Unlike an ordinary store, all items in the Box of Secrets are a mystery until purchased. And they can’t be bought with Gold, they must be traded for with items that can’t be found on Knothole Island. If you’ve already completed the game then you may have a few of them already, but searching around to find two puny carrots, or a pot of Purple Regal Dye is actually quite enjoyable.

None of the items will be that useful to someone who has completed the main game, but the chance to dress up in an Elvis-style outfit (complete with wig), and wield Hal’s Rifle (a carbon copy of the Assault Rifle from Halo) will be irresistible for some.

The shops of Knothole island actually include a whole range of potions, hairstyles, augments and clothing that cannot be found elsewhere. There’s even a suit of armour that has to be found piece by piece, and although it doesn’t protect you whatsoever, at least it alters appearance depending on your moral standing.

There are potions to make you fatter or thinner, taller or shorter that come in handy. And seemingly determined to remove any possible consequence for any actions in Fable II whatsoever, Lionhead now even allow you to buy potions that remove those ‘permanent’ scars you may have gained from battle, and you can purchase an augment remover that allows you to separate those augments that you ‘irreversibly’ attached to weapons…

Ultimately, if you’ve exhausted all the content on Fable II’s disc and still want more, then you’ll benefit from this DLC, but otherwise you’d be better off spending your 800 points on one of the many excellent Live Arcade games out there.

It’s undeniable that Microsoft’s introduction of Achievements into gaming, with the advent of the Xbox 360, has had an impact on the way games are played. So much so that Sony felt they had to respond with the addition of Trophies to some Playstation 3 games, and even some iPhone and PC titles are getting in on the act.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the idea of Achievements, Microsoft have mandated that every Xbox 360 game must include between 5 and 50 different unlockable Achievements that are gained by performing various tasks. As well as providing a permanent public record of your gaming accomplishments, they also reward the player with Gamerpoints, which accumulate in a universal Gamerscore that spans all titles.

There are 1000 points available on each retail boxed game, and 200 points up for grabs on each Xbox Live Arcade game. These points can be split over 5 to 50 individual achievements. (There are exceptions to these rules of course.) It’s up to the developers to decide how these are allocated, and it’s here that that the real potential of this system is either proven or ignored completely.

In the beginning, developers clearly treated achievements as an afterthought. Something that had to be done, a box that had to be ticked. This is how we ended up with titles like Perfect Dark Zero providing such imaginative goals as Play 10 Deathmatches, Play 100 Deathmatches, Play 1000 Deathmatches, Get 10 Kills, Get 100 Kills, Get 1000 Kills etc..

It took a while for game designers to realise that the desire for achievements could directly influence the way that people play games, and sadly it seems that many of them have still not had this epiphany. There is certainly still a place for “Get XX number of kills” and “Complete level X” achievements, as it’s always nice to have something to work towards, and also to get rewarded for natural game progression. But, many companies don’t seem to realise that more originality with creating achievements could bring its own rewards.

The dark side of achievements is when the quest for arbitrary points overrules the actual point of playing games (i.e. fun). Bad games with easily-gained Achievements (Avatar, TMNT and the like) have now been trudged through by thousands more people than they otherwise would. People who could have spent their time actually enjoying playing a much better game instead.

Many titles with online achievements will now provoke players into ‘Achievement Boosting’, with whole games being filled with one team obediently lining up to be shot in the head, like some insane nightmare of a concentration-camp survivor.

I’m not about to moan about how cheating to gain achievements that provide no actual sense of achievement is the most pointless thing since Wii Music (although it is). Gamers are free to waste their time however they want, but when it starts to affect the enjoyment of other players’ gaming experience then there’s something wrong.

The wonderful contrasts to the tedious achievements are those ones that inspire and encourage players to attempt gameplay that they may never have done otherwise. Fable 2’s achievements are a great example of this, as they require the player to perform a wide range of acts from murdering fluffy bunnies, to having a threesome, to becoming a Goth.

As with most things, Valve seem to understand the power of achievements better than most. The Orange Box has a fantastic range of achievements, including my favourite achievement ever, Little Rocket Man, which tasks the player with transporting a Garden Gnome through the entirety of Half Life 2: Episode 2.

These kinds of achievements can serve as suggestions from the games developer that may point out to the player the possibilities of that particular title. Without achievements players may never have self-imposed gameplay restrictions on themselves for the sake of challenge and fun. Playing through the Ravenholm level of Half Life 2 with only the Gravity Gun, playing through the whole of Half Life 2: Episode firing only a single bullet and playing through a campaign of Left 4 Dead without using a health pack are examples of the challenges that achievements can encourage players to attempt.

Achievements can also push people to get more value out of their existing games. I personally know that I never bothered to attempt to play through many games on their hardest difficulty setting in the previous generation, but I have enjoyed challenging myself to Veteran and Insane modes on certain Xbox 360 games. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

Achievements are big business now. Several sites have been set up to solely provide guides and tips on getting achievement points, and there are even services that allow lazy gamers to pay other people to get achievement points for them. Achievements have become so integrated with the idea of gaming in some people’s minds, that the idea of playing a game without them, on the Wii for example, feels empty and pointless.

Achievements give us a goal, but can sometimes make us overlook the importance of the journey. So, what is your opinion on Achievements? A valued component of the evolution of gaming, or a deformed offshoot that should be removed to save us bother?