I've just finished playing through God of War 2 on the PS2, which exceeds even its illustrious predecessor in quality. I've been thinking what makes this series special - there are a number of features that mark it out from the crowd, but the single overriding impulse I get from playing the game is an overwhelming sense of the development team's ambition - it literally pulls out all the stops to amaze the player.
Those of us who are lifelong gamers recognize that as we age and mature the sense of wonder that accompanies a great game becomes rarer - not because great games are less common but because age seems to raise the benchmark for what constitutes an outstanding experience. While the median quality of games has risen out of all recognition when compared to my childhood, it seems that the dizzy heights of gaming nirvana arrive less often. God of War 2 is one of those rare peaks that makes me remember what I really love about gaming. The technical feats are obvious to anyone that plays the game, particularly when mindful of the PS2s limitations. But it's far more than that.
Firstly, I'm an absolute sucker for a revenge tale, and Kratos's journey is the very epitome of vengeance. Secondly, the mythological setting hits all the right notes from my childhood - Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans and all that good stuff. The base mythology is tremendously close to everyone in the West even if our direct knowledge of it is limited. The artists and level designers working on this series are incredibly gifted at evoking a sense of grandeur - there are few games that manage to top the sense of sheer magnitude of the world, even thought the game itself is not a free form explorable world and is very narrowly defined. Yet the game never misses an opportunity to inspire awe - the level set in and around Atlas the Titan, the opening battle against the Colossus of Rhodes (has there ever been a more action packed opening level in a game?).
The game mechanics almost become secondary to the story and the world, but they are no less polished. While not quite as hardcore as Ninja Gaiden, the gameplay is in the same mould. And the non-controlled camera must be one of the most successfully implemented in the history of 3D gaming, it literally never gets it wrong despite being entirely out of the player's control.
With the third game in the series a no brainer (and quite clearly set up from the ending of GoW2), I think any sequel would be the game that forces me to break the bank for a PS3.
Thursday 17 May 2007
Sunday 6 May 2007
"Gaming corrupts our disposition and teaches us a habit of hostility against all mankind"
I'm feeling quotatious today, what can I say?
There's been disgracefully little time for gaming, recently. It's a poor show, frankly. Her Majesty would not approve, if she knew what gaming was. Which raises the question, if Her Majesty was a gamer, what sort of games would she indulge in? A recent visit to the former Royal Yacht Britannia revealed a love of card games, so there's a hint - I think the Queen would be partial to all sorts of casual games. She's probably got a DS, come to think of it.
One important reason for a lack of gaming recently is the untimely demise of my second Xbox 360 - this one was a replacement for my launch day purchase which shuffled off its mortal coil within one solitary week of the day I excitedly brought it home. I've owned four Microsoft consoles - two original Xboxes, and two 360s. 3 out of 4 have died unnatural deaths. Now, that's as anecdotal as evidence can get, but still. Bill G, if you chance across this post, please go to Peter Moore's office and give him a clunk over the head from me.
All this would make the most recent games I've spent any time on the following:
There's been disgracefully little time for gaming, recently. It's a poor show, frankly. Her Majesty would not approve, if she knew what gaming was. Which raises the question, if Her Majesty was a gamer, what sort of games would she indulge in? A recent visit to the former Royal Yacht Britannia revealed a love of card games, so there's a hint - I think the Queen would be partial to all sorts of casual games. She's probably got a DS, come to think of it.
One important reason for a lack of gaming recently is the untimely demise of my second Xbox 360 - this one was a replacement for my launch day purchase which shuffled off its mortal coil within one solitary week of the day I excitedly brought it home. I've owned four Microsoft consoles - two original Xboxes, and two 360s. 3 out of 4 have died unnatural deaths. Now, that's as anecdotal as evidence can get, but still. Bill G, if you chance across this post, please go to Peter Moore's office and give him a clunk over the head from me.
All this would make the most recent games I've spent any time on the following:
- C&C3. Great, vintage, micromanagers-not-welcome-here RTS goodness. For the love of God, bring back faux-Holywood cutscenes. There's tons of cool actors out there looking for work, and I want to see them in my games. EA is on the case, but what about the rest of you? Money, schmoney, get on it!
- LOTRO. WoW in Tolkien clothing, and I mean that as a compliment. In Turbine's position, I'd have done the exact same thing.
- Crackdown. Crackdown is an absolutely fabulous game - I'm a total sucker for anything remotely resembling 'freeform' gameplay. My gamer tag carries a dark secret - I actually purchased Superman Returns on the 360 - but this is as nothing compared to the lamentable fact that I actually enjoyed it.
I have no idea what design principles they were aiming for in the making of crackdown, but two things stand out for me. The most immediately obvious is the progression of the character, which adds a Diablo-esque pavlovian reward feel to the whole thing. But more importantly, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that the core mechanics are absolutely razor sharp. The acid test as far as this genre is concerned is this - if you shrunk the game world to the size of a city block, would it still offer much fun? I can't think of a game in the 'free-form' genre that GTA3 reinvigorated (what was the first, I wonder - what came before 'Midwinter'?) that does this quite as well as Crackdown. You could play in a very small area in Crackdown, and still have masses of fun, and that's indicative of the quality of the core mechanics - the combat, the physics and the general 'feel' of the game. GTA3 or it's sequels cannot boast the same thing.
Compare and contrast Crackdown with Superman Returns. Now, granted, the developers are tremendously constrained by the license. Superman is a little bit like the Genie from Aladdin - 'infinite cosmic power' but absolutely sod all freedom to use it. If Molyneux got the Supes license, he'd soon have him sprouting horns and surrounded with flies, levelling buildings and vapourising the good citizens of Metropolis with his laser vision. Which makes for a better sounding game, frankly.
But licence restrictions aside, Superman Returns is cursed by plain old poor design. The usual litany of complaints are there if you're being fussy - the combat is pretty ropey, the graphics, while impressive enough, don't quite stack up with most other next-gen titles (although there are, I'm sure, compelling technical reasons for this in terms of what's being shown on screen). But the number one complaint has to be the complete undercutting of the entire point of a free-roaming action game by compelling the player to partake in constant 'city-saving' activity, othwise it's game over. That is one of the worst design decisions I've seen, frankly, and whoever thought it was a good idea was clearly not thinking straight at the time.
People can forgive a lack of content or ropey graphics, if you provide them the tools to make their own fun. If you give them Superman, a massive city to play in, and put some half decent game mechanics in there, you're not going to set the specialist press on fire, but by and large most people who buy the game are going to be reasonably happy. But by enforcing regular bouts of 'city saving', you are effectively turning what is already a marginal experience into a chore, and removing the one true redeeming aspect of the game - it's sense of freedom.
"We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate"
It's just passed election time here in Scotland, and it has been a pretty noteworthy affair all round. Confusing ballot papers, inefficient machine counting, disruption at a number of polling booths, and the end result of Scotland not electing a Labour government for the first time in half a century.
Scotland is a politically interesting country. Like many places, the great fault line of Scottish politics is nationalism, but we're at least fortunate in that our breed of nationalism is benign. But what really makes Scotland interesting, in my view, is that it's a country where the vast majority of people could in some measure be described as politically 'cautious' in a way that might lead you to expect large numbers of Conservative party votes. Where religion exists in Scotland (rapidly retreating under the relentless onward march of secularism - a religion in its own right), it's politically conservative - we're a nation of Calvinists. Scots would tend to hold views on immigration and criminal justice that would naturally place them to the right of the political spectrum.
And yet, Scotland is also the birthplace of the Labour party and the centre of lively left wing political radicalism, and for fifty years was the unassailable fortress from which Labour sought to rule the rest of the UK.
Part of the reason for this dichotomy is the position and perception of the Conservative party here in Scotland, as well as the composition of the nationalist movement itself. The Tories, of course, are strongly identified here in Scotland with 'Englishness', which places them at a distinct disadvantage. A Scottish Tory walks the ever difficult high-wire of attempting to maintain a 'Scottish' appearance while distancing themselves from the inevitably Eton/Oxbridge educated leader down south.
The second challenge a Tory faces is the almost fanatical levels of hatred levelled at Margaret Thatcher, which have been seared into the Scottish political conciousness. Because of the real or imagined (I make no attempt to judge either way) catastrophies Thatcher heaped upon Scotland, she is probably the most polarising figure in modern Scottish history. Imagine the hatred your liberal friends pretend to have for George W. Bush - now multiply that a hundred fold, and you can begin to imagine how hated Thatcher is in parts of Scotland, particularly the west coast and former industrial heartlands.
Thanks to Thatcher, there is effectively no party of the centre right in Scotland. The Conservatives are a spent force, and thus the electorate have two realistic choices for government in the devolved parliament - the SNP and Labour.
The SNP are an interesting bunch. Formed from the merger of a number of nationalist parties over the years, they are riven at their core by a left/right divide. The only thing that really glues them together is the prospect of an independent Scotland. Which is what makes these times so interesting. With the SNP now the largest party in Holyrood, they are going to be facing some real internal challenges. The fundamentalist wing of the party will not want to budge on a referendum for independence, but with only 47 seats, the SNP will have to negotiate with another major party to form a government. Alex Salmond will have to convince the die hards of his own party to be patient.
The way ahead is deliciously uncertain, for once, in Scottish politics. The SNP, although in the driving seat, would do well to remeber that support for independence in Scotland remains low (remember, we're cautious). The electorate will want to see proof of the SNPs ability to govern the devolved parliament before we countenance independence. But if Alex Salmond can inject some much needed charisma into the normally drab proceedings at Holyrood, and begin to earn the SNP a reputation for competence, then the prospects of an independent Scotland at some point in the future become much greater.
Scotland is a politically interesting country. Like many places, the great fault line of Scottish politics is nationalism, but we're at least fortunate in that our breed of nationalism is benign. But what really makes Scotland interesting, in my view, is that it's a country where the vast majority of people could in some measure be described as politically 'cautious' in a way that might lead you to expect large numbers of Conservative party votes. Where religion exists in Scotland (rapidly retreating under the relentless onward march of secularism - a religion in its own right), it's politically conservative - we're a nation of Calvinists. Scots would tend to hold views on immigration and criminal justice that would naturally place them to the right of the political spectrum.
And yet, Scotland is also the birthplace of the Labour party and the centre of lively left wing political radicalism, and for fifty years was the unassailable fortress from which Labour sought to rule the rest of the UK.
Part of the reason for this dichotomy is the position and perception of the Conservative party here in Scotland, as well as the composition of the nationalist movement itself. The Tories, of course, are strongly identified here in Scotland with 'Englishness', which places them at a distinct disadvantage. A Scottish Tory walks the ever difficult high-wire of attempting to maintain a 'Scottish' appearance while distancing themselves from the inevitably Eton/Oxbridge educated leader down south.
The second challenge a Tory faces is the almost fanatical levels of hatred levelled at Margaret Thatcher, which have been seared into the Scottish political conciousness. Because of the real or imagined (I make no attempt to judge either way) catastrophies Thatcher heaped upon Scotland, she is probably the most polarising figure in modern Scottish history. Imagine the hatred your liberal friends pretend to have for George W. Bush - now multiply that a hundred fold, and you can begin to imagine how hated Thatcher is in parts of Scotland, particularly the west coast and former industrial heartlands.
Thanks to Thatcher, there is effectively no party of the centre right in Scotland. The Conservatives are a spent force, and thus the electorate have two realistic choices for government in the devolved parliament - the SNP and Labour.
The SNP are an interesting bunch. Formed from the merger of a number of nationalist parties over the years, they are riven at their core by a left/right divide. The only thing that really glues them together is the prospect of an independent Scotland. Which is what makes these times so interesting. With the SNP now the largest party in Holyrood, they are going to be facing some real internal challenges. The fundamentalist wing of the party will not want to budge on a referendum for independence, but with only 47 seats, the SNP will have to negotiate with another major party to form a government. Alex Salmond will have to convince the die hards of his own party to be patient.
The way ahead is deliciously uncertain, for once, in Scottish politics. The SNP, although in the driving seat, would do well to remeber that support for independence in Scotland remains low (remember, we're cautious). The electorate will want to see proof of the SNPs ability to govern the devolved parliament before we countenance independence. But if Alex Salmond can inject some much needed charisma into the normally drab proceedings at Holyrood, and begin to earn the SNP a reputation for competence, then the prospects of an independent Scotland at some point in the future become much greater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)