Resident Evil 5 Impressions

The Resident Evil 5 demo, which has hit 4 million download, offers two levels that can be played either by yourself with a friend.

The first level, Public Assembly, takes place at a small part of the village. (You know the trailer that features the guy giving a speech with a megaphone? Yeah, it takes place there.) Chris and Sheva barricade themselves in a small house as they try to pick off some of the mob, but of course, the barricade is eventually torn down. Soon they find themselves coming face to face with a giant, hooded man wielding a huge axe. It's a mini-boss fight that spreads out into the streets containing a few other buildings you can run into and climb the roofs of in order to put some space between you and the axeman. Explosive barrels are littered throughout the area, allowing you to lead him to them and shoot them off. The whole idea is to survive until reinforcements show up. (I don't believe there's a time limit; it just ends once you kill the axeman. At least, that is the impression I was given.)

The second level, something Town...Hell if I remember it's going on 6am...is the neighboring area. Here you can explore a bit as you meet a new enemy type: some flying bug thing. This is also were the co-op shines. When Sheva is tossed over the next building, it's up to Chris to help cover her with the sniper rifle from the other. Once the door on the other building has been opened, the two can proceed onward only to be confronted by another mini-boss, the chainsaw guy. Again, much like the first level, you're confined to a small area with explosive barrels. You can either use to clear out multiple weaker enemies at once or use to knock out some of the mini-boss' health and knock him down to allow you to get some good shots into him before he goes after you again.

The gameplay is good and solid. Besides following Resident Evil 4's over the shoulder camera, the game has also adapted Resident Evil 4's laser pointer, melee moves via button sequences, and inventory style. However, unlike the previous Resident Evil titles (besides Outbreak), the game does not pause itself when accessing the inventory screen. When you go to use a health item or change weapons, you become vulnerable since you are unable to move forcing you to rely on your partner.

Having co-op in a Resident Evil title might seem a bit unorthodox, even with a couple previous games having two characters together, but it actually was executed very well. There are a few parts where you do feel like you can carry your own weight but there's also a few parts where you are completely grateful to have someone by your side. When getting pinned by an enemy, the other player has an option to go and help you by knocking the enemy off of you. If you don't have a real-life friend helping you out, don't worry, you're not at a complete lose. The AI in Sheva (who will be a NPC if you don't have someone else to play her) is fairly smart. She'll gather ammo, give some if you need it, she'll heal you, and she can stand pretty well on her own. However, I do wish that there was some sort of "Give me" command similar to what was seen in Outbreak. I say this because at one point, I found myself mistakenly giving her all my handgun ammo and not having any way to get some of it back because she just wouldn't give it to me. (Greedy bitch...)

The difficult of the game also seems to change depending on if you are playing with someone or playing alone. When Amaterasu and I were playing together, there seemed to be a higher density of enemies, a little less ammo since we both were going through it pretty quickly, and the enemies just felt a bit more aggressive. Yet, when I was playing alone, there seemed to be fewer enemies that, while still aggressive, didn't overpower me like they did when playing with him. Then of course I could be greedy and horde all the ammo and health for myself if I wanted. (Naturally I didn't though because I needed Sheva's support and honestly, giving her some health items to hold isn't a bad idea since she is pretty good at healing you when your health gets low. It frees up some of your inventory space and gives you one less thing to think about.)

The game is naturally good looking but like so many other current games, the areas felt a tiny bit bland since tans and browns were the dominant colors. The environments were detailed though I didn't get a chance to see how the real time effects were since there wasn't much in the environments to see blowing in the wind. The character movements are superb though. The animations between switching weapons on the fly or doing some bad ass looking kick were smooth. There wasn't any choppiness between me changing from a shooting position to a kicking or punching position to knock some enemies away from my partner. The enemies movements were not jumpy either, though I will go to say that the blood and the decomposing effects look like bubbling jelly...

The controls were solid and easy to use once you get the hang of it. You might find yourself accidentally giving away an item when you meant to use it yourself or you might find yourself shooting when you meant to swing the knife or vise versa. But once you do get a hang of things and learn to balance out the items that you need and the items that your partner needs (unless you're playing with a person who I would hope tells you what they need and can think for themselves, if not, get a better friend), you'll do just fine. I personally felt that it was too easy but I'm hoping it is just because this is a demo probably taken from a very early part of the game. I'd like to think that the difficult will be a bit more tense in the final version or later parts of the game. It didn't necessarily take away the fun factor of the game, but when I saw just how easy it was to actually beat each level, I just felt a bit unsatisfied because I was expecting something a bit rougher.

Basically, if you've played any Resident Evil game before, even if it was just Resident Evil 4, you'll have no trouble jumping into this game. Once you get the co-op controls down, you'll do pretty well. Newcomers might have a bit of difficulty at figuring out how to conserve ammo or find alternative ways to dealing with the situations but the game shouldn't make you feel too overwhelmed.

I don't have doubts the final version of the game will be a good. I just hope there's some edgy parts in it when it's done.

Ubisoft: "Girls lead Wii sales!" Gamers: "Is that your excuse?"

As much as we hate stereotypes and being labeled without given a chance to define ourselves, the world continues to just go with the flow. While I typically just roll my eyes at stories like this, this one caught my eyes since it brought up an interesting point. Well, should I say the people commenting on it brought up an interesting point, but first, the story:

It shouldn't be a surprise that there's an increasing amount of females getting interested in game. While sadly, they are more interested in typical "gamer girl" games, it is a fact that cannot be ignored. Ubisoft, the creator's of the Imagine and Ener-G series, has highly taken notice of this.

According to a survey conducted in 2007, 50% of Ubisoft game users were women which then jumped to 57% in 2008. The company also says that their forums of female games has doubled over the past few weeks. Ubisoft has now created a new studio, Tornado Studios, to create games dedicated and aimed directly at girls. They also believe that what is driving Wii sales it the amount of girls, women, and families interested in their games like the Imagine series that now has 16 crappy...I mean...stereotypical...games based on topics girls like such as fashion, interior design, and babysitting. With the Ener-G series having sports, like gymnastics and horse back riding, for girls looking for more sport orientated games.

Ann Hamilton, a senior brand manager with game publisher Ubisoft, states, "These interactive games are great for self-expression and creativity among girls." (If that's so, then where's my Imagine: Game Designer game where I can be creative and make non-****** games and express my disliking for this?) With the article concluding that they are doing best to appeal to the growing female market. (If so, then where's my Assassin's Creed 2?!)

Source: Joystiq

Anyway, the reason why I wanted to bring this up is because Joystiq stated something that got me thinking...They said, "Even so, while we applaud efforts to put controllers -- any controllers -- in the hands of the women, we just wish the industry wouldn't continue to vomit shovelware into the market under the guise of good intentions."

Perhaps they're right. Prince of Persia and Far Cry 2 were the last big-named, "non-girly" game released and that was a few months ago. However, it seems like every time I go into work, there's a new Imagine or Ener-G game for me to put out. Looking at Ubisoft's "Coming Soon" list, I see two fashion-based games and a game based on a TV show...Nothing that sounds remotely interesting to anyone with decent taste in gaming.

Could these companies (there are others focusing on games dedicated to girls or "casual" audiences) be using that statistics as an excuse to half-ass projects and cut costs since these two audiences don't really know what "quality" is? I'm sure they gain enough of a profit from these audiences since, whether you agree with them or not, they do spend a lot of money on them to keep the company going, especially if the company isn't required to pay for a large team to produce crap?

Your thoughts, please. I personally say yes. Those dirty, marking bastards are geniuses!

The Economy Sucks- But Games are Amazing

At the risk of sounding like I'm ripping off Sessler's Soapbox, I decided to post this anyway. It's a topic that I had been thinking about myself recently and after watching his soapbox, I was inspired a bit. (Plus I feel he left some good tips out.) Anyway...It shouldn't be a shocker to anyone that the economy is crappy right now. Company after company is talking about lay offs or closing down. The price of everyday products seems to keep rising and the dollar still isn't getting us much. So here's a couple tips that I think will help gamers out during a time in their lives where maybe there's other more important things to put money towards other than games.

Be Picky

There's plenty of games to look forward to this year. (Killzone 2, Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 5, No More Heroes 2, Mad World, Halo Wars, F.E.A.R 2, Guitar Hero: Metallica, the possibility of Heavy Rain, etc...) Some of these games do come out fairly close together, possibly without a pay check between them. As badly as you might want them all, if you cannot afford them, don't get them! Instead, be picky about your choices.

Begin with making a list of all the games you want this year and their estimated times for release. Then, take sometime to think about how many games you can afford during a certain amount of time. (Maybe one a week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? Whatever.) Once you know what your limit is, decide what games from the list you absolutely must have. If you're having trouble deciding, answer the following questions to help you make your decision:

* How much will I be playing this game?
* What about it, other than what it is, makes me feel the need to have it?
* What's its replay value like?
* If it has online multiplayer, how much will I use it? Will friends have this game?

Eventually you should be able to narrow down your choices so you end up spending money on the games you need to have compared to spending money on a mixture of need to have and "just wanted" games. If you have two or more need to have games coming out close together, think about whether you can afford to get them both without setting you back on money for something you truly need to have. (For example, if you have two games you really want coming out in a span of two weeks but have no games coming out for months after that, you'll probably be ok buying both.)

For the games you'd just like to have, either rent them to satisfy yourself, wait until you can afford them, or just wait for the price to drop. After all, if you wanted this long for it to come out, surely you can wait another month or two to keep a few extra bucks in your wallet.

Collector's Editions...Really?

For some of us, we're fascinated by bonus things. May it be a special DVD with "behind the scenes" footage, an art book, maybe a figure, or who knows what else...But we always manage to drop another $10, $20, and sometimes even $30 more to have the "Collector's Edition" just for the goodies or for the sake of saying, "Yeah, look at what I have and you don't." But maybe not it isn't the wisest choice to spend the extra money on every Collector's Edition for every game we buy.

If a Collector's edition is offered, take a serious look at its price and what extra bonuses it has to offer. Chances are you're probably going to want to pass on a Collector's Edition if its $20 more but only offers one thing (like part of the soundtrack or a DVD) compared to one that might offer a few things or one really cool thing (like an art book or nice figure). If the edition doesn't really offer anything spectacular, then you might want to pass it all together.

Investments

If you haven't already, now might be a good time to look into a rental service such as GameFly or maybe something a bit local. You might need to pay a month fee but the fees are low compared to the price of games these days. (A $10 or $15 fee to rent however many games you want in a month is a much better deal than spending $60 on one game a month, especially if you might not even like the game.) Also, some of these services do tend to let you buy games from them at lower prices than a new game costs.

Something like GameTap or Steam might be another thing to look into if you have a fairly good computer. While they might not always have the most recent released games, but they might help to keep your gaming needs satisfied at reasonable costs.

Another option would be to look into a MMO to help eat up sometime. You don't necessarily need to play WoW but looking into an already existing, possibly free MMO, might not be a very bad idea. Some free MMOs do offer premium packages for subscribers which allow more options, items, or areas to people willing to pay a couple bucks. While others have special armor, weapons, or other in-game items via small microtransactions to help spice up the game after awhile.

Then, of course, pick games that you'll know you'll get plenty of game time from. Perhaps it comes in the form of solid multiplayer or a nice, long single player.

Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's?

When it comes to video game controversy, we typically hear about how Little Jimmy shot someone by acting out a scene he saw in a game. Though once in awhile something comes up that really makes you scratch your head because you're not sure if the person's arguement is legitimate or if they're just closed minded.

Today I stumbled upon an article where MUD creator, Richard Bartle, had shown his disliking for a quest (The Art of Persuasion) in Wrath of the Lich King. I did a bit of research on the quest since I'm too low of a level to do it myself, but apparently the quest is a level 71 chain quest that basically has you abducting someone, holding them prisoner, and then torturing them to gain information.

Bartle states that his issue with the quest is the fact that you have to torture the prisoner. If you want to progress through the chain, you have to do this quest and there were no alternatives to gain information; there wasn't a way to compromise with the prisoner or reach an agreement.

"I'm not at all happy with this," he had stated in his blog. "I thought that surely the quest-giver would step in and stop it at some point? It didn't happen, though. Unless there's some kind of awful consequence further down the line, it would seem that Blizzard's designers are OK with breaking the Geneva convention."

He goes on to explain that he doesn't necessarily mind that a torture quest is in the game, but it is the fact that the designer did not give the player the option to choose between 'good' or 'evil'. He feels that if the designer has pressured a belief on him- that the designer has no problem with torture.

Knowing that this is WoW, I'm assuming that the quest isn't very graphic. Bartle does explain that you're given a 'cow poke-like' item and use it to zap the prisoner until he speaks. While being poked, he might say things like, "Aahhhh! Release me! I am of no use to you. I swear it!", "Stop! I beg you, please stop. Please...", and "Enough! I've told you all that I know. Your continued abuse is senseless". He continues to say that he knows that it is just a game and that you're not really hurting anyone, but it still strikes a nerve. (Which makes me wonder what his views are about the Death Knights since the first hour of gameplay is basically slaughtering a whole village with people running around screaming and begging for mercy.)

But this brings me to the purpose of my post: Where is the line drawn between what might be a logical arguement and what is thinking too deeply into a situation regarding a game?

The concept of being given a choose in a game- especially one where you are the main character - sounds like a relevant arguement. If you do not wish to be so hostile, then shouldn't you be allowed to pick a less aggressive option? Yet, it is just a game. You are truly not harming anything and if you already feel like torture is wrong,chances are you aren't going to do it in real life which makes you question why hitting a button in a game can be seen as being so cruel.

Many games, especially these days, are full of senseless killing yet we're not all cold, blood-thirsty murders from playing them. Games before have also featured torture scenes- like The Darkness where Jackie is tied to a chair and then has a drilled used on him or the Metal Gear Solid series which features multiple torture scenes throughout its life or recently the opening to World at War or the Locus camps in Gears of War 2. Perhaps these scenes aren't seen as being quite as horrible since you're often portrayed as the victim whether than the master mind.

Which brings us back to the idea of what is the developer's right when it comes to creativity with their work and what is crossing a moral line. Many novels and films have featured tortured scenes that were put there by their creator. Regardless if the novel or story is based on a true story or is just the creator trying to express brutality, torture is still a disturbing thing either way. While people might complain about how graphic the scenes might be in a book or in a movie, they typically let them slide; maybe because you are passive during the event by just reading or watching it. Yet with games, you are the one performing the act, which is what the arguement is currently about.

So let me ask you: Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's? What does the developer- or writer - have the right to do since the game is basically their creation? And what right does the player feels he/she should be given if the developer is telling them to portray themselves within the game?

Emotional Environments

(Sorry about the photo quality. I don't have the PC version and I wanted to catch the perfect screenshot to go with my article. So I took a picture of my TV screen. Bear with me.)

Regardless if we like it or not, everything affects one way or another. We see an add for a delicious new burger on TV and all of the sudden we feel hungry. We hear rumors that lice has been spread around school and all of the sudden our heads itch.

Like film writers, authors, and song writers, developers try to find ways to affect our emotions and train of thought with their games. We are beginning to see an increase in 'story driven' games where character development goes beyond just giving a summary on a character's backstory. Developers are starting to explore the concept of making us relate to game character just as people have related to characters in novels or films for years. They try to make use care for the characters and feel what they feel, but our emotions can be messed with without a character even being present.

The environments we are in can have just as strong emotional impacts on us as a well spoken speech or a tear-jerker song. Just how many times do we wake up on cold, rainy days feeling groggy and unwilling to get out of bed? How many times have we felt strange bursts of happiness or excitement on the first warm, sunny day after a long winter? How many times have we felt scared or uneasy when walking through a graveyard? While we can't feel the warmth of the sun on our skins when the sun is shining nor can we have that full unearthy experience when running through a demon-filled graveyard in a game, environments can still have an impact.

Sometime ago I talked about how I felt peaceful when playing Oblivion. The music was calming and soothing and then was amplified with the natural sounds of crickets, the wind blowing, and water splashing up on the shore as I stood beside the bay. The game was simply beautiful, too, creating a magical feeling as if you were in a wonderland were stress and fear did not exist. I often found myself taking sometime to just ride my horse through the forest after a hard day just to settle myself down.

Recently, I've been playing Bethesda's newest game, Fallout 3. Without looking at my screen, I could feel the same feeling. After all much like Oblivion, Fallout 3 does have a nice soundtrack and wind sound effects, but then I begin to play and mood shifts...I look around and all I see is a barren wasteland filled with shattered homes, broken hopes, and lost souls. I begin to feel very strange, almost as if a sense of depression washes over me.

The idea of a once lush land and thriving civilizations being destroyed and then seeing the aftermath is disturbing to an extent. You have to look at it from a different point of view though; I suppose to feel this way, you need to look at each building as more than just a location to explore. You need to look at it in the sense that it once was a house that held a family that was just like us. (What if it were your home? What would you do if the world you knew vanished before you, leaving you with nothing but dirt and sand?) Then the addition of ghouls adds on to the concept a bit more; hearing about how they were normal people who now suffer because of what has been done. I'll run into travelers or people wearing clothing and using weaponry from scraps they manage to gather. Or I'll meet people who long not for fancy jewels or money, but instead, want basic necessities like clean water and food. It's very surreal and immersive.

I believe that the atmospheres and environments are being overlooked by developers. They tend to see level design as just what fills in the middle part between Spot A and Spot B. They focus on designing something that will keep the player's attention until the end and seem to worry more about how it looks whether than what it looks like.

Allow me to explain my statement: A game's graphics are fairly important. While it can be argued of just how important they are, you don't need to be a scientist to know that people want to play a game that looks good. They want details and effects; they will stop to see how it looks to determine if it is a good or not but they do not pay much attention to what it is. When it comes to trying to stir an emotion within the player, developers use their characters and stories, which is good and all- we need more of it - but I think there also needs to be a balance with the environment as well.

Take the first Gears of War for example. It was a beautiful game but I personally didn't feel Cliffy's full concept of 'beautify in destruction' with the whole city being demolished by the Locus. While the levels were nicely designed, never once did I really stop in the game and think, "My god...This use to be city...This use to be where people lived simply lives wand wanted peace but now look it..." I didn't necessarily get that feeling of departure from 'my post-war' life through Marcus to my 'in-war' life that I was playing as Marcus through.

Gears of War 2 did a slightly better job at by focusing on the idea of 'humanity's last stand' with Jacinto being the last safe haven for human life. This idea is explored a bit more with the character's commenting on their past lives or how the cities use to be before the Locus began destroying them. It was a nice little add on that helped to tie everything emotionally together. The more I played the game, the more I felt the need to protect Jacinto at all costs and the more dedicated I began to feel thus allowing me to somewhat get into the game more.

I'd like to see more developers doing this. I'd like to see them explore the idea of emotions not just coming from character reactions or from twists in the story. With gaming still growing and developers still exploring new approaches to tell their stories, I have no doubt that one day we will see more games with emotional environments.