The injunction on the cabin crew strike has been lifted. A victory for common sense, at least, even if it does allow a ruinous strike to go ahead.
What gets me about the whole affair is Unite’s extraordinary justification for strike action. They claim it is a fight to maintain a good level of service on BA flights. Far from being a self-interested squabble over pay and conditions, this is, in fact, about the passengers!
That argument might have held water in the days when BA was a nationalized monopoly. Nowadays we are spoiled for choice with airlines. If BA’s service is so compromised by the changes to working practises, customers will go to other carriers; a process that has been accelerated by this strike action! The point is, it is ultimately for managers, not unions, to decide on what business strategy to follow.
So what exactly can Willie Walsh do about the union? There are few legal options open to him. Legal strike action is protected by the law, so he can’t sack the staff, or even bring in temporary replacements (blackleg labour). He could choose to derecognize Unite; essentially severing all relations and negotiations, although that would hardly achieve anything constructive. The more clandestine option would be to quietly replace the unionized labour force, which is exactly what is happening if the Union is to be believed. Such action would expensively backfire at an employment tribunal, if proven.
Hopefully something sensible will happen, but what are the chances of that?
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Assassin's Creed II: Battle of Forli (PS3 (Tested), Xbox 360).
Lets face it, as far as locations are concerned, Forli was Assassin’s Creed II’s least inspiring! Dwarfed by the size and majesty of Florence and Venice, it was a squalid little town surrounded by mud huts and ugly peasants! So the decision to set the first piece of downloadable content here is a little perplexing. Battle of Forli sees Ezio enlist the aid of Caterina Sforza to defend his piece of Eden from the Templars. Things quickly go tits-up, and it’s up to Ezio to sort everything out with his unique repertoire of murder and more murder! Thus begins a brand new adventure that reinvigorates Assassin’s Creed II after months of gathering dust!
At least that’d be the case if Forli included anything worthy of note. The new sequence consists of the usual fare; escorting allies from A to B, finding targets using eagle vision, assassinating named antagonists, and so on. The single addition is the ability to play about in Da Vinci’s flying machine, launched from the lighthouse at the north-east of the map. This is purely a cosmetic aside that doesn’t affect the plot. The early missions have a heavy emphasis on large running battles. But as Eurogamer pointed out in their review, these are devoid of challenge and simply showcase how ludicrously overpowered Ezio is in combat.
So in terms of gameplay Forli doesn’t stray from what came before. There’s nothing wrong with that of course, Assassin’s Creed II’s gameplay won great accolades after all. But as you’ve already explored Forli extensively during numerous side missions you will have seen it all before. The expansion doesn’t open any new areas apart from some dreary countryside in the north-west. In absence of additional side-quests or mission types you can’t escape the notion that we’re shelling out money to play the same bits all over again.
Plenty of criticism surrounds this downloadable trilogy, most of it to the effect that Ubisoft is cynically forcing game owners to pay extra for the entire story. If Forli is anything to go by, the opposite is true. Without ruining anything, the episode has only tangential relevance to that of the main game and could easily be missed without great disadvantage (unless you’re desperate to know the origin of Ezio’s facial fluff). It also has no closure, ending on a cliffhanger to be resolved in the next (paid) episode. Clocking in at around one hour it isn’t even the longest sequence in the game, and certainly isn’t the most fun!
Assassin’s Creed II was a great game, and I can think of worse ways to spend £3.19 than to purchase more of it. But really, if we’re expected to pay for downloadable content it needs add something worthwhile, be it new locations, story arcs, or (more dubiously) gear. Battle of Forli has none of those things. It takes you to locations already explored, introduces characters already met, and presents challenges already completed.
In summary, don’t bother.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Review: Borderlands (PS3 (Tested), Xbox 360, PC)
I haven’t tried either of the expansion packs yet. Its not that I dislike DLC, I just don’t know if I like Borderlands enough to invest more money in it. Frankly, I don’t know why I shouldn’t like Borderlands. It boasts elements from rpgs (good), fps (good) and sci-fi (ambiguous). It also gave me a reason to bring the Playstation in range of the wireless internet. Sadly there is an awful lot to dislike about Borderlands, and people need to consider carefully whether they are willing to forgive slack story and some dreary gameplay for the sake of a good multiplayer experience.
Thematically, Borderlands is a rather sterile union of the Fallout universe and Joss Whedon’s Firefly. You are one of four mercenaries who travel to desert planet Pandora in search of ‘the Vault’; a giant survival shelter built by vault-tec... wait, that’s the other one. This Vault is a fabled treasure trove of vague description. And, er, that’s it. As settings go Pandora is pretty staid, full of stereotypical backwater hicks constantly spouting humour akin to an episode of Chucklevision. The game introduces characters and bosses with tiresome bombast and puerility (three balls you say? How interesting). Honestly, it makes you wonder if the average gamer really is a late twenty-something. Or perhaps I’m just an elitist old fart.
Even if the story were gold-plated Frank Herbert though, it is still too disjointed to make sense. Some exposition is presented via audio clips mid-mission, but far too much of it is presented in lengthy textual descriptions at the start and end of quests. As a result, you can easily miss important bits, especially online when quests are often handed in by your team mates .
Of course, the story is only there to string the various quests between the beginning and end of the game, and to its credit, the gameplay is mostly delivers. It reminds me of Blizzard’s original Diablo. You spend most of your time running around the landscape murdering the local wildlife (along with various bandits), gaining XP and picking up randomly generated loot . This is an FPS of course, so rather than clicking away repeatedly you’ll be holding down L2 to line up the sights, and R2 to empty your gun into any given monstrosity. In line with every FPS in the last decade, you also have regenerating shields and grenades to play with. Each class also has a unique action skill which is activated by pressing L1. These range incredibly useful (deploying an auto-turret for extra firepower), Not very useful (Becoming invisible and running around for some reason, then doing some AOE damage) to the odd (Getting angry and punching everyone like its 11:30 on a Saturday night).
Character progression is what you’d expect. A skill point is earned each time you level up, which you spend on one of your character’s 21 skills. These include standard fare such as improving health, and increasing damage dealt with certain weapons, to more indie renditions like the the ability to regenerate ammunition, or heal team mates by shooting them.
The other side of progression is loot. The game boasts “bazillions of guns”, although these really boil down to eight different types, pimped out with numerous combinations of stats, scopes, elemental effects and so on. Aside from guns, you also customise your character with different shields, grenade augmentations and more. When it gets down to it, there is a good deal of character customization to be had, and very little of it feels cosmetic. None of it is permanent either. You can purchase a skill reset at any of the new-U stations, which double as the game’s checkpoints, so you never get stuck with a poor combination of skills or equipment.
Multiplayer is the mainstay of Borderlands, and to their credit 2K have created one of the most engaging co-op multiplayer games on console to date. So long as you’re hooked up to the internet you can jump straight into any of the public games. If you prefer to be in the driving seat, you can start your own game with other players reliably joining in. You also have the option of setting up an invitation game, restricted to your PSN friend list, or else opt for two player split-screen . The ability to communicate and plan tactics adds a nice layer of complexity to the game, although from my own experience, online parties aren’t paticularly hampered by the lack of communication due to the simplicity of the quests. Yes, pretty much every mission is a variation of “go here and fetch/kill everything”, and are, for the most part, helpfully waypointed on the map. At time of writing I’m still not sure if this is to the game’s credit or not.
If there’s one constant issue with anonymous parties its loot assignment. Apart from the quest rewards, loot isn’t instanced or reserved for specific players. So, In spite of the loading screen pleas to share and share alike, loot grabbing is an absolute free-for-all. Players will frequently pick up everything they can before anyone else gets a look in. This is pain in the backside, especially when upgrading your equipment is so fundamental to character progression.
If you’d rather go it alone, you can play the game game in single player, in much the same way you can eat stale bread for lunch instead of a cheese and pickle sandwich. On your todd, the game is a lobotomised version of itself. Quests which could be comfortably played through on multiplayer suddenly become painful and annoying. The lack of a second or third gun to manage the mobs makes you keenly aware of your magazine capacity and action skill cooldown bar, even with the scaling difficulty. When you get killed, the “fight for your life” section, which allowed players to revive you before you died, becomes little more than a taunt. The constant respawning, and sitting behind cover while your action skill cools down makes the action slow, flow-breaking and not as much fun as online.
Even online however, the game isn’t going to appeal to everyone. Borderlands is an MMO-style grind-box. Go raiding, get the loot, get the XP, level up and do it all over again on the next raid! Even the story admits as much. Yes children, forget your wishy-washy cures for cancer or quest to save the universe. We’re out searching for t3h Phat l00t.
Frustratingly for a multiplayer game, many of Borderlands most glaring flaws are due to its multiplayer component. Some are probably unavoidable; you can log into a game advertising a climactic boss mission only to find it completed and wiped out of your character’s log! Another game resulted in my log being flooded with quests from areas I hadn’t unlocked, full exposition I didn’t want to know about. Perplexingly for a party-based game, There is no way to filter characters based on class or level! As a result, you can find parties unbalanced by characters several levels higher than everyone else, or on the other side, games getting flooded by low level characters incapable of contributing to the fray.
Visually, the game is a rather gritty art-style a few shades away from being cel-shaded. It lends itself to the pseudo cartoonish feel of the action. The PS3 version had noticeable texture pop-in, with textures failing to load at the beginning of a new area. The sound and voice work isn’t anything to write home about, but it does the job for the most part.
The problem with Borderlands is that it’s inconsistent. As a multiplayer experience it is reliant on the unknown quantity of the internet. On a good day with a competent party, with decent loot drops, you’ll be playing for hours at a time. On a bad day, with a party full of imbeciles getting killed every few minutes, your patience wears thin in no time at all. I definitely prefer playing in an intimate circle of friends, preferably using VOIP, or via split screen. But you can essentially forget the single player.
Verdict:If you can’t or won’t do multiplayer, there’s nothing in Borderlands for you. Otherwise, a solid enough game if you’re willing to forgive some inconsistency. Worth a go!
Thematically, Borderlands is a rather sterile union of the Fallout universe and Joss Whedon’s Firefly. You are one of four mercenaries who travel to desert planet Pandora in search of ‘the Vault’; a giant survival shelter built by vault-tec... wait, that’s the other one. This Vault is a fabled treasure trove of vague description. And, er, that’s it. As settings go Pandora is pretty staid, full of stereotypical backwater hicks constantly spouting humour akin to an episode of Chucklevision. The game introduces characters and bosses with tiresome bombast and puerility (three balls you say? How interesting). Honestly, it makes you wonder if the average gamer really is a late twenty-something. Or perhaps I’m just an elitist old fart.
Even if the story were gold-plated Frank Herbert though, it is still too disjointed to make sense. Some exposition is presented via audio clips mid-mission, but far too much of it is presented in lengthy textual descriptions at the start and end of quests. As a result, you can easily miss important bits, especially online when quests are often handed in by your team mates .
Of course, the story is only there to string the various quests between the beginning and end of the game, and to its credit, the gameplay is mostly delivers. It reminds me of Blizzard’s original Diablo. You spend most of your time running around the landscape murdering the local wildlife (along with various bandits), gaining XP and picking up randomly generated loot . This is an FPS of course, so rather than clicking away repeatedly you’ll be holding down L2 to line up the sights, and R2 to empty your gun into any given monstrosity. In line with every FPS in the last decade, you also have regenerating shields and grenades to play with. Each class also has a unique action skill which is activated by pressing L1. These range incredibly useful (deploying an auto-turret for extra firepower), Not very useful (Becoming invisible and running around for some reason, then doing some AOE damage) to the odd (Getting angry and punching everyone like its 11:30 on a Saturday night).
Character progression is what you’d expect. A skill point is earned each time you level up, which you spend on one of your character’s 21 skills. These include standard fare such as improving health, and increasing damage dealt with certain weapons, to more indie renditions like the the ability to regenerate ammunition, or heal team mates by shooting them.
The other side of progression is loot. The game boasts “bazillions of guns”, although these really boil down to eight different types, pimped out with numerous combinations of stats, scopes, elemental effects and so on. Aside from guns, you also customise your character with different shields, grenade augmentations and more. When it gets down to it, there is a good deal of character customization to be had, and very little of it feels cosmetic. None of it is permanent either. You can purchase a skill reset at any of the new-U stations, which double as the game’s checkpoints, so you never get stuck with a poor combination of skills or equipment.
Multiplayer is the mainstay of Borderlands, and to their credit 2K have created one of the most engaging co-op multiplayer games on console to date. So long as you’re hooked up to the internet you can jump straight into any of the public games. If you prefer to be in the driving seat, you can start your own game with other players reliably joining in. You also have the option of setting up an invitation game, restricted to your PSN friend list, or else opt for two player split-screen . The ability to communicate and plan tactics adds a nice layer of complexity to the game, although from my own experience, online parties aren’t paticularly hampered by the lack of communication due to the simplicity of the quests. Yes, pretty much every mission is a variation of “go here and fetch/kill everything”, and are, for the most part, helpfully waypointed on the map. At time of writing I’m still not sure if this is to the game’s credit or not.
If there’s one constant issue with anonymous parties its loot assignment. Apart from the quest rewards, loot isn’t instanced or reserved for specific players. So, In spite of the loading screen pleas to share and share alike, loot grabbing is an absolute free-for-all. Players will frequently pick up everything they can before anyone else gets a look in. This is pain in the backside, especially when upgrading your equipment is so fundamental to character progression.
If you’d rather go it alone, you can play the game game in single player, in much the same way you can eat stale bread for lunch instead of a cheese and pickle sandwich. On your todd, the game is a lobotomised version of itself. Quests which could be comfortably played through on multiplayer suddenly become painful and annoying. The lack of a second or third gun to manage the mobs makes you keenly aware of your magazine capacity and action skill cooldown bar, even with the scaling difficulty. When you get killed, the “fight for your life” section, which allowed players to revive you before you died, becomes little more than a taunt. The constant respawning, and sitting behind cover while your action skill cools down makes the action slow, flow-breaking and not as much fun as online.
Even online however, the game isn’t going to appeal to everyone. Borderlands is an MMO-style grind-box. Go raiding, get the loot, get the XP, level up and do it all over again on the next raid! Even the story admits as much. Yes children, forget your wishy-washy cures for cancer or quest to save the universe. We’re out searching for t3h Phat l00t.
Frustratingly for a multiplayer game, many of Borderlands most glaring flaws are due to its multiplayer component. Some are probably unavoidable; you can log into a game advertising a climactic boss mission only to find it completed and wiped out of your character’s log! Another game resulted in my log being flooded with quests from areas I hadn’t unlocked, full exposition I didn’t want to know about. Perplexingly for a party-based game, There is no way to filter characters based on class or level! As a result, you can find parties unbalanced by characters several levels higher than everyone else, or on the other side, games getting flooded by low level characters incapable of contributing to the fray.
Visually, the game is a rather gritty art-style a few shades away from being cel-shaded. It lends itself to the pseudo cartoonish feel of the action. The PS3 version had noticeable texture pop-in, with textures failing to load at the beginning of a new area. The sound and voice work isn’t anything to write home about, but it does the job for the most part.
The problem with Borderlands is that it’s inconsistent. As a multiplayer experience it is reliant on the unknown quantity of the internet. On a good day with a competent party, with decent loot drops, you’ll be playing for hours at a time. On a bad day, with a party full of imbeciles getting killed every few minutes, your patience wears thin in no time at all. I definitely prefer playing in an intimate circle of friends, preferably using VOIP, or via split screen. But you can essentially forget the single player.
Verdict:If you can’t or won’t do multiplayer, there’s nothing in Borderlands for you. Otherwise, a solid enough game if you’re willing to forgive some inconsistency. Worth a go!
Friday, 29 January 2010
Clearing House: Farcry 2
I have finally finished Farcry 2. That isn’t anything special, but it was one of a large pile of uncompleted games sitting on my shelf looking guiltily at me. Seemed as good a choice as any to make a start on.
I bought it last year second-hand along with Condemned 2. Condemned 2 I finished in about three evenings (after dark, naturally). Farcry, I’ve been playing on and off since then. Rather ironic that a game costing under £8 has given me such a good replay value. Mind you, that was because I got so bored that I couldn’t stand playing for more than an hour at a time.
Don’t get me wrong, the setting and story are very compelling, and were principally what kept me coming back time after time. My Bayonetta defence opined that games need to address controversial themes, and I can’t think of a more apt example than war crimes, whatever the bleeding-hearts might think about it.
The problem with Farcry 2 is that half your time is spent slogging from one end of the map to the other, all the while being assaulted at every checkpoint by guards, or getting run over by jeeps and cars. Missions frequently divert you all the way across the map, and save points are so infrequent that you’re often forced to start any given slog all over again if you die. All the missions are essentially identical to one another; go here and kill him / destroy that, or go and be a good Samaritan in return for malaria pills (disease being the only thing Crytek could think of as a motivation for doing the right thing). Oh, and the map was a pain in the arse too; filling half your screen and unequipping your weapons. I was holding out for a decent endgame, and I guess it met my expectation. All things considered though, I’m glad to be done with it.
Nice knowing you Farcry 2!
I bought it last year second-hand along with Condemned 2. Condemned 2 I finished in about three evenings (after dark, naturally). Farcry, I’ve been playing on and off since then. Rather ironic that a game costing under £8 has given me such a good replay value. Mind you, that was because I got so bored that I couldn’t stand playing for more than an hour at a time.
Don’t get me wrong, the setting and story are very compelling, and were principally what kept me coming back time after time. My Bayonetta defence opined that games need to address controversial themes, and I can’t think of a more apt example than war crimes, whatever the bleeding-hearts might think about it.
The problem with Farcry 2 is that half your time is spent slogging from one end of the map to the other, all the while being assaulted at every checkpoint by guards, or getting run over by jeeps and cars. Missions frequently divert you all the way across the map, and save points are so infrequent that you’re often forced to start any given slog all over again if you die. All the missions are essentially identical to one another; go here and kill him / destroy that, or go and be a good Samaritan in return for malaria pills (disease being the only thing Crytek could think of as a motivation for doing the right thing). Oh, and the map was a pain in the arse too; filling half your screen and unequipping your weapons. I was holding out for a decent endgame, and I guess it met my expectation. All things considered though, I’m glad to be done with it.
Nice knowing you Farcry 2!
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Is Bayonetta Sexist? An open response.
I’m writing this in belated response to Patrick’s post on the subject earlier this month. Originally I had intended to ignore the issue, but I would be remiss if I stood idle while a respected friend channels Mary Whitehouse.
Patrick’s article hinges on two points. Firstly, that Bayonetta is a negative portrayal of women, and that the game is sexist. Secondly, that this is dangerous to gaming’s overall reputation as it reinforces long held stereotypes about gamers being sexually repressed losers. The first point I understand, but disagree with. The second is just nonsense on stilts!
Like him, I haven’t played the full game, mainly because Dragon Age has stolen all my spare time. However, I have played the demo and feel that it is a fair representation of the game’s themes. That being the case, the game is a cavalcade of hyper-sexualized imagery. Bayonetta herself is a schoolmarm-slash-dominatrix, with moves repeatedly making reference to "punishment" female orgasm. The protagonist’s clothes fly off during finishing moves, and she comes butterflies after landing a jump. Is that a sexist portrayal?
No, because the game has three things mitigating that charge; appropriate context, restraint (believe it or not), and artistic merit. The first is easy enough to divine. Bayonetta is a lead character in a genre dominated by men. She carries off her repertoire with as much flair and panache as Dante, Kratos, or other Dante. Her function, crucially, does not include standing around looking pretty while the men do the talking. The sexual imagery is always in the context of Bayonetta’s power; an assertion of her primacy of place, never a means of diminishing it.
But is the game just hiding behind a “women on top” motif to make inappropriate use sexual imagery? Well, I don’t think so. Apart from anything else, the imagery isn’t that gratuitous. Everything within the game is so stylised that it can’t be mistaken for anything other than it's own fiction. The clothes-off refrains always cover the modesty; similar to calendar girls, minus the tea cosy. This isn’t porn! If anything, Bayonetta is the gaming equivalent of a burlesque dance. The men are ogling, certainly. They are enjoying brandy and cigars, dreaming dreams of the nymph-like figure on stage. But dreams are where it stops. They don’t get to touch. They don’t get to see everything, and what they do see is always on the performer’s terms!
That sex can be a means of female empowerment rather exploitation is something that has been debated since the 1960’s, and I’m certainly not qualified to comment. But in terms of Bayonetta, was there any need for all the controversy in the first place? After all, the game could have dropped the dominatrix stuff, featured a woman in corduroy slacks and baggy sweater (or even a Burka), re-jigged the graphics and remained technically identical. But then, why should it? I’ll be the first to cheer when games drop their obsession for ultra attractive characters. I want Uncharted 3 to feature a raddled, obese Nathan Drake who regenerates health by smoking fags and scoffing fish suppers! I’d pay good money if the next Dragon Age featured a hideous old crone with one eye and a pot-belly as the party mage. But If these things are to come about, let them be driven by a desire to experiment, not a need to shy away from controversy.
For all the lads-mag connotations now associated with this sentiment, I believe in the artistic celebration of the female form. Aside from religion and phallic inadequacy, the love of beautiful women (and men) has been the greatest driving force in art throughout history! Overall merit aside, I believe that Bayonetta is entirely in keeping with this tradition. And why shouldn’t games explore sexual themes? The rating system is in place, so its not like we need to think of the children anymore.
Maybe it is the case that Sega are cynically exploiting a demand for video-game pocket-mining. But whatever their intention, gaming does explore these themes if it is to develop in any meaningful way. And Bayonetta does this, being one of the few titles to make use sex in such a frank way. This is miles from Rapelay, and even the uncanny valley sex scenes from Mass Effect and Dragon Age. If this was a film or a book, there would be no question as to whether the material constitutes art.
Which brings us to the more contentious point. Because Patrick, what I really don’t understand is this need for arbitrary acceptance; that gaming needs its Citizen Kane (another thing I’ve never experienced) before it gets moved up to the big table and is allowed to talk with the grown ups. I wasn’t aware that the written word went through a vetting procedure! That gaming needs to be on its best behaviour until some arbiter of judgment deigns to yea or nay the medium is utterly ludicrous! This view of culture is that of an an out of touch critic; one who bewails box office triumphs and raves about plays performed to empty theatres! Such people will never, ever be happy with gaming whatever its merits. There is no point looking to them for cultural legitimacy.
If you want acceptance, you need only look to the masses. Some old farts may hold to the notion that games are for children, but the economics tell a different story. People spent more money games than on films in 2009! The Wii’s prodigious success has taken the world by storm, bringing the console back to the sitting room. Those adult games which cause all the media fuss; Fallout 3, GTA IV and the like? Selling in record numbers! If gaming wasn’t already a popular pass time, it would not be dealing in this sort of currency.
As for that stereotypical gamer image, well, what can I say? I have a good degree, you have a better one. I go to the gym (on occasion), you do huge amounts of karate. I make friends almost everywhere I go, you’re a kind hearted bloke for whom nobody has a bad word to say! We also play video games.
Why should either of us be concerned about hypothetical people masturbating over a game neither of us has played?
Patrick’s article hinges on two points. Firstly, that Bayonetta is a negative portrayal of women, and that the game is sexist. Secondly, that this is dangerous to gaming’s overall reputation as it reinforces long held stereotypes about gamers being sexually repressed losers. The first point I understand, but disagree with. The second is just nonsense on stilts!
Like him, I haven’t played the full game, mainly because Dragon Age has stolen all my spare time. However, I have played the demo and feel that it is a fair representation of the game’s themes. That being the case, the game is a cavalcade of hyper-sexualized imagery. Bayonetta herself is a schoolmarm-slash-dominatrix, with moves repeatedly making reference to "punishment" female orgasm. The protagonist’s clothes fly off during finishing moves, and she comes butterflies after landing a jump. Is that a sexist portrayal?
No, because the game has three things mitigating that charge; appropriate context, restraint (believe it or not), and artistic merit. The first is easy enough to divine. Bayonetta is a lead character in a genre dominated by men. She carries off her repertoire with as much flair and panache as Dante, Kratos, or other Dante. Her function, crucially, does not include standing around looking pretty while the men do the talking. The sexual imagery is always in the context of Bayonetta’s power; an assertion of her primacy of place, never a means of diminishing it.
But is the game just hiding behind a “women on top” motif to make inappropriate use sexual imagery? Well, I don’t think so. Apart from anything else, the imagery isn’t that gratuitous. Everything within the game is so stylised that it can’t be mistaken for anything other than it's own fiction. The clothes-off refrains always cover the modesty; similar to calendar girls, minus the tea cosy. This isn’t porn! If anything, Bayonetta is the gaming equivalent of a burlesque dance. The men are ogling, certainly. They are enjoying brandy and cigars, dreaming dreams of the nymph-like figure on stage. But dreams are where it stops. They don’t get to touch. They don’t get to see everything, and what they do see is always on the performer’s terms!
That sex can be a means of female empowerment rather exploitation is something that has been debated since the 1960’s, and I’m certainly not qualified to comment. But in terms of Bayonetta, was there any need for all the controversy in the first place? After all, the game could have dropped the dominatrix stuff, featured a woman in corduroy slacks and baggy sweater (or even a Burka), re-jigged the graphics and remained technically identical. But then, why should it? I’ll be the first to cheer when games drop their obsession for ultra attractive characters. I want Uncharted 3 to feature a raddled, obese Nathan Drake who regenerates health by smoking fags and scoffing fish suppers! I’d pay good money if the next Dragon Age featured a hideous old crone with one eye and a pot-belly as the party mage. But If these things are to come about, let them be driven by a desire to experiment, not a need to shy away from controversy.
For all the lads-mag connotations now associated with this sentiment, I believe in the artistic celebration of the female form. Aside from religion and phallic inadequacy, the love of beautiful women (and men) has been the greatest driving force in art throughout history! Overall merit aside, I believe that Bayonetta is entirely in keeping with this tradition. And why shouldn’t games explore sexual themes? The rating system is in place, so its not like we need to think of the children anymore.
Maybe it is the case that Sega are cynically exploiting a demand for video-game pocket-mining. But whatever their intention, gaming does explore these themes if it is to develop in any meaningful way. And Bayonetta does this, being one of the few titles to make use sex in such a frank way. This is miles from Rapelay, and even the uncanny valley sex scenes from Mass Effect and Dragon Age. If this was a film or a book, there would be no question as to whether the material constitutes art.
Which brings us to the more contentious point. Because Patrick, what I really don’t understand is this need for arbitrary acceptance; that gaming needs its Citizen Kane (another thing I’ve never experienced) before it gets moved up to the big table and is allowed to talk with the grown ups. I wasn’t aware that the written word went through a vetting procedure! That gaming needs to be on its best behaviour until some arbiter of judgment deigns to yea or nay the medium is utterly ludicrous! This view of culture is that of an an out of touch critic; one who bewails box office triumphs and raves about plays performed to empty theatres! Such people will never, ever be happy with gaming whatever its merits. There is no point looking to them for cultural legitimacy.
If you want acceptance, you need only look to the masses. Some old farts may hold to the notion that games are for children, but the economics tell a different story. People spent more money games than on films in 2009! The Wii’s prodigious success has taken the world by storm, bringing the console back to the sitting room. Those adult games which cause all the media fuss; Fallout 3, GTA IV and the like? Selling in record numbers! If gaming wasn’t already a popular pass time, it would not be dealing in this sort of currency.
As for that stereotypical gamer image, well, what can I say? I have a good degree, you have a better one. I go to the gym (on occasion), you do huge amounts of karate. I make friends almost everywhere I go, you’re a kind hearted bloke for whom nobody has a bad word to say! We also play video games.
Why should either of us be concerned about hypothetical people masturbating over a game neither of us has played?
Friday, 15 January 2010
Value for Money?
Why reviewing based on cost isn’t all it’s cracked up to be
RamRaider posted a debate some time ago on the issue of pricing, alongside some top names in British video game journalism. In summary, he believes that reviewers should take into account costs before giving their support to a game. You can read the contributions here
It was certainly a useful debate to have. Present economic woes mean that people are tightening their belts and trying to squeeze every penny. However, its one thing to rag on Rock Band. Quite another to look at the feisability of applying a value for money-driven approach to reviewing.
I should say that I agreed with Rammy’s stance 100% up until about two days ago. Games reviews are consumer advice after all, and therefore the pricing should be core to any assessment of the worth of a game, in theory. In practice, such a system would be difficult and expensive, while being even more open to abuse than what we've got at the moment.
Lets follow a fictitious gaming website called Cymrogamer. Cymrogamer has a policy of administering scores based on whether a game’s content is worth the cost.
One day the editor receives his review copies of Halo-Zone IV. Immediately the reviewer comes to the editor with a problem. Because the game hasn’t retailed yet there’s no price to work with.
“Shall I wait until release then?”
“No, no, that’ll be far too late.” replies the editor. “We’ll just assume a value of £40. That’s what most games retail at.”
The reviewer has a hard time imagining this, because the game is free and he’s getting paid to play it, but he runs with the concept. He likes Halo-Zone IV, reckons it’s a good solid shoot em up. However, it doesn’t really add anything new to the table, and after all Halo-Zone III, last year’s big relase is now available at around £10. Therefore, the game gets a 5/10 on the imaginary scale of numbers, and the review goes live three days before release.
The next day The editor wakes up to a stack of angry emails. Cymrogamer forums are full of comments arguing about the review score. Most of the posts argue ‘I’ll pay £40 and you’re a fag,’ or something to that effect. A call comes through from Halo-Zone IV’s publisher. It seems the game is planned to retail at £30, not £40, and the publisher demands a re-review. The editor decides that discretion is better part of valour, and instructs his reviewer take another look.
“Won’t that make us look like we’re being influenced?” asks the indignant reviewer.
The editor is deaf to his complaints, and the reviewer replaces his free copy of Halo-Zone into his free X-Station 360. He decides, on balance, that the game is now worth a 7/10 on the value-for-money-O-matic.
The following day, the Editor wakes up to an even larger stack of angry emails accusing Cymrogamer of caving in under pressure from the publisher. The forums are ablaze with accusations of cowardice and homosexuality.
“But that’s what happened.” points out the reviewer.
“Yes, but we don’t want people to think that! Anyway, I’ve had another email. There are apparently Ebay traders selling the game at under twenty pounds.”
“But that doesn’t make any sense, the game isn’t out until tomorrow! Who posted the listings? How many copies are available at that price?”
“Never you mind that!” Shrieks the pug-faced editor, “A policy is a policy. Just you get to re-reviewing that bloody game.”
So off trots the increasingly disgruntled reviewer.
“Bah give it a nine.” He muses “That’s the number next to ten. Perhaps now everyone will shut up about this bland, horrible game!”
The morning of release day, the penny drops. Halo-Zone IV has sold in record numbers off the back of largely positive reviews. The game has been flying off shelves at the low low price of £49.99. The editor and reviewer are ashen-faced. Neither dares check the forums.
“Shall I...” Starts the reviewer.
But then comes a knock at the door. The post has arrived with the review copies of Current Warfare II.
Now, I appreciate that it would be difficult to conceal a retail price, much less change it at such short notice. But it highlights the problems you’d face by making pricing a cornerstone of review policy. Price naturally fluctuates, so it would make monthly (at least) re-reviews pretty much mandatory. To top that off, the shenanigans that companies could try, for example, fake ebay listings, manipulation of their own in-house stores, or even deliberately driving down the retail price in order to fabricate a positive review. The main problem though is that reviews, as a form of advertising, directly influence the success of a game, and therefore influence the medium to long-term price. A good review, and a game stays at retail for a long time. A bad review can be a one-way trip to the bargain bin.
The crux of the argument in favour of price-led reviews is that people are happy to spend a money on a bad game, so long as it isn’t a lot. For myself, I’m not sure that there is a gaming equivalent to the penny-dreadful. But really, the consumer base within gaming is now so diverse that any blanket judgment on value for money is largely irrelevant.
There are some exceptions. Certain recent games have held above average price tags, and this should be pointed out to the reader. Two recent examples are Tony Hawk’s Ride, and We Sing. But at the end of the day, these games were bad because they didn’t work, not because they were over-priced. The expense was just an exacerbation of that fact.
As a rule though, reviewers need to avoid making sweeping generalities about something so subjective as “value for money” on behalf of the consumer. A review, neutral to price, can distinguish whether a game is any good. The consumer, armed with that knowledge, can make an informed choice what to spend their money on.
Because at the end of the day, it is their money.
RamRaider posted a debate some time ago on the issue of pricing, alongside some top names in British video game journalism. In summary, he believes that reviewers should take into account costs before giving their support to a game. You can read the contributions here
It was certainly a useful debate to have. Present economic woes mean that people are tightening their belts and trying to squeeze every penny. However, its one thing to rag on Rock Band. Quite another to look at the feisability of applying a value for money-driven approach to reviewing.
I should say that I agreed with Rammy’s stance 100% up until about two days ago. Games reviews are consumer advice after all, and therefore the pricing should be core to any assessment of the worth of a game, in theory. In practice, such a system would be difficult and expensive, while being even more open to abuse than what we've got at the moment.
Lets follow a fictitious gaming website called Cymrogamer. Cymrogamer has a policy of administering scores based on whether a game’s content is worth the cost.
One day the editor receives his review copies of Halo-Zone IV. Immediately the reviewer comes to the editor with a problem. Because the game hasn’t retailed yet there’s no price to work with.
“Shall I wait until release then?”
“No, no, that’ll be far too late.” replies the editor. “We’ll just assume a value of £40. That’s what most games retail at.”
The reviewer has a hard time imagining this, because the game is free and he’s getting paid to play it, but he runs with the concept. He likes Halo-Zone IV, reckons it’s a good solid shoot em up. However, it doesn’t really add anything new to the table, and after all Halo-Zone III, last year’s big relase is now available at around £10. Therefore, the game gets a 5/10 on the imaginary scale of numbers, and the review goes live three days before release.
The next day The editor wakes up to a stack of angry emails. Cymrogamer forums are full of comments arguing about the review score. Most of the posts argue ‘I’ll pay £40 and you’re a fag,’ or something to that effect. A call comes through from Halo-Zone IV’s publisher. It seems the game is planned to retail at £30, not £40, and the publisher demands a re-review. The editor decides that discretion is better part of valour, and instructs his reviewer take another look.
“Won’t that make us look like we’re being influenced?” asks the indignant reviewer.
The editor is deaf to his complaints, and the reviewer replaces his free copy of Halo-Zone into his free X-Station 360. He decides, on balance, that the game is now worth a 7/10 on the value-for-money-O-matic.
The following day, the Editor wakes up to an even larger stack of angry emails accusing Cymrogamer of caving in under pressure from the publisher. The forums are ablaze with accusations of cowardice and homosexuality.
“But that’s what happened.” points out the reviewer.
“Yes, but we don’t want people to think that! Anyway, I’ve had another email. There are apparently Ebay traders selling the game at under twenty pounds.”
“But that doesn’t make any sense, the game isn’t out until tomorrow! Who posted the listings? How many copies are available at that price?”
“Never you mind that!” Shrieks the pug-faced editor, “A policy is a policy. Just you get to re-reviewing that bloody game.”
So off trots the increasingly disgruntled reviewer.
“Bah give it a nine.” He muses “That’s the number next to ten. Perhaps now everyone will shut up about this bland, horrible game!”
The morning of release day, the penny drops. Halo-Zone IV has sold in record numbers off the back of largely positive reviews. The game has been flying off shelves at the low low price of £49.99. The editor and reviewer are ashen-faced. Neither dares check the forums.
“Shall I...” Starts the reviewer.
But then comes a knock at the door. The post has arrived with the review copies of Current Warfare II.
Now, I appreciate that it would be difficult to conceal a retail price, much less change it at such short notice. But it highlights the problems you’d face by making pricing a cornerstone of review policy. Price naturally fluctuates, so it would make monthly (at least) re-reviews pretty much mandatory. To top that off, the shenanigans that companies could try, for example, fake ebay listings, manipulation of their own in-house stores, or even deliberately driving down the retail price in order to fabricate a positive review. The main problem though is that reviews, as a form of advertising, directly influence the success of a game, and therefore influence the medium to long-term price. A good review, and a game stays at retail for a long time. A bad review can be a one-way trip to the bargain bin.
The crux of the argument in favour of price-led reviews is that people are happy to spend a money on a bad game, so long as it isn’t a lot. For myself, I’m not sure that there is a gaming equivalent to the penny-dreadful. But really, the consumer base within gaming is now so diverse that any blanket judgment on value for money is largely irrelevant.
There are some exceptions. Certain recent games have held above average price tags, and this should be pointed out to the reader. Two recent examples are Tony Hawk’s Ride, and We Sing. But at the end of the day, these games were bad because they didn’t work, not because they were over-priced. The expense was just an exacerbation of that fact.
As a rule though, reviewers need to avoid making sweeping generalities about something so subjective as “value for money” on behalf of the consumer. A review, neutral to price, can distinguish whether a game is any good. The consumer, armed with that knowledge, can make an informed choice what to spend their money on.
Because at the end of the day, it is their money.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Review: Assassin's Creed II (PS3, Xbox 360)
(PS3 version tested)
Assassin’s Creed had a lot in common with Eidos Interactive’s Hitman: Codename 47. Both games followed the adventures of hired killers, and both were built around solid concepts let down by terrible implementation. Assassin’s Creed II continues the likeness of the two franchises, proving a sequel in the mould of Hitman II: Silent Assassin; refining the original concept, while improving on gameplay in just about every way.
The sequel picks up where AC left off, following bartender and all round damp squib Desmond Miles’s historical odyssey through the genetic memories of his murderous ancestors. If AC II is worse than the original in any respect, this is it. Desmond was quite a tragic character in AC; an unwilling protagonist essentially forced to play the game in the vain hope he wouldn’t be murdered at the end of it. Now, he is somehow irritatingly whiney and depressingly surly in equal measure. Just as well that your time controlling Desmond is confined to three brief interludes, and just as well that these sections starkly contrast the rest of the game experience.
The majority of the time has you in the shoes of lothario-turned-Assassin Ezio Auditore as he engages on a murderous quest for revenge through renaissance Italy. It’s clear that Ezio is far more relatable a character than Altair, and not just because of his authentic accent (you can opt to hear all the dialogue in Italian, turning the game into an action-adventure-come-linguaphone course). Through the course of the game Ezio’s character grows convincingly, from his beginnings as a womanising teenage thug, to his maturity as a fully fledged assassin. This journey feels less contrived than Altair’s rather hair-shirted quest for redemption, and gives AC II’s story a greater sense of immersion as a result.
The core of AC was sandbox assassination and free running fun through historical cityscapes. That action is faithfully transplanted to Florence and Venice, as well as a couple of smaller towns. Like the cities of the Holy Land, the gorgeous environment engine does the cities justice. Iconic buildings like the Campanile and the Palazzo de Medici are present, with accompanying database entries providing a welcome historical depth to the world.
Getting around the cities is the same as before. Actions are mapped to the face buttons, with the stealthy low profile and dramatic high profile actions differentiated by holding down R1. Movement through the cities is much faster paced than it used to be. You can run full pelt without fear of alerting the guards, and running over the rooftops is rarely hampered thanks to tactical placement of scaffolds and cranes (although the canal network in Venice can present flow-breaking roadblocks at times).
While the core gameplay is the same, virtually everything else has changed. AC was hammered for it’s repetitive missions, dreary investigation sections and poor pacing. AC II’s pace is demonstrated right from the get-go, opening the game with a full-on street brawl. Progression is essentially linear, but the missions are now shorter and more numerous, while being more localized (no more pondering horse journeys from Masayaf) with greater variation in objectives.
The much-maligned investigation sections are gone, replaced with a slew of optional side missions, including checkpoint races, courier missions and paid assassination. In addition there are a huge number of optional fetch quests, which grant money, special equipment and background history amongst other things. You can spend time upgrading your home villa to increase annual income, search for hidden treasure, chase down pickpockets, seek out the lost assassin’s tombs, and more. There really is a huge amount of optional content in the game; optional being the key word. During my first playthrough I ignored all the side quests and never felt like I’d missed anything crucial.
The stealth aspect of the game has received a welcome revision too. Staying in low profile keeps you a blade in the crowd, while high profile actions attract unwanted attention from the guards, as before. Hiding away in haystacks, roof gardens and benches allows you to lose the law, also as before. You can now also hide within crowds of citizens, presenting an alternative to the groups of remote-control scholars of the first game. In addition, you can hire groups of thieves and courtesans to distract guards for a small fee. Another new feature is the notoriety bar. A bit like a fifteenth century ASBO, it fills up as the result of public displays of violence or murder. Gain too much and you become notorious, and with guards attack you on sight. Reducing notoriety is done by ripping down wanted posters (some of which are mysteriously placed on ledges, rooftops, and other unlikely places), bribing heralds, or assassinating witnesses. The system works quite well, providing a reason to be inconspicuous, but not being so punitive that it ruins the fun if you botch an assassination or go on a therapeutic killing spree.
Dealing death is more varied this time around. Through the course of the game new equipment is unlocked, including the double hidden blade, smoke bombs, poison, and other weapons to assist with your numerous murders. Assassination can be done quietly from hiding spots and from under ledges, and can be done with your standard weapons, rather than just the hidden blade.
Combat is much faster paced and more varied thanks to new tools and techniques. Weaponry can be purchased from blacksmiths, and there is a decent choice of swords, hammers and maces, even if it is basically a cosmetic one. There are also numerous ways of quickly dispatching enemies, although the tougher ones will block most of them. In spite of that, success in combat boils down to nailing the timing for the counter-kill and disarm moves with the occasional smoke bomb thrown into the mix. This combination will kill more or less any enemy in one shot. Also, the addition of health kits presents an unneccessary dilution of the combat. By the middle of the game you can carry fifteen of them, and they are instantly effective in combat. The combat is still dramatic and flashy, but as a result of the above, is actually less challenging than it was in the original, which will be an issue for some.
Another irritation is the lack of a level select. In spite of all the missions being self-contained blocks, and in spite of the game including a chronological list of all your completed missions in the pause menu, there is no way to replay them without starting all over again! While I see no reason people wouldn’t want to play it through a second time, the omission is just perplexing.
Putting those complaints into perspective, we are talking about minor hickups in an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable game experience. All too often the sequels of popular franchises turn out to be massive let downs, or else uninspired clones with only new levels and cosmetic additions tacked on to differentiate them from their progenitor. Assassin’s Creed II is a shining example of how a sequel should be made; strip out the bad bits, polish the good, and include enough new content for it to stand up on its own merits. Whether or not you enjoyed the first game, Assassin’s Creed II is a worthy investment at full price. When the price inevitably gets reduced it’ll be an absolute steal.
Assassin’s Creed had a lot in common with Eidos Interactive’s Hitman: Codename 47. Both games followed the adventures of hired killers, and both were built around solid concepts let down by terrible implementation. Assassin’s Creed II continues the likeness of the two franchises, proving a sequel in the mould of Hitman II: Silent Assassin; refining the original concept, while improving on gameplay in just about every way.
The sequel picks up where AC left off, following bartender and all round damp squib Desmond Miles’s historical odyssey through the genetic memories of his murderous ancestors. If AC II is worse than the original in any respect, this is it. Desmond was quite a tragic character in AC; an unwilling protagonist essentially forced to play the game in the vain hope he wouldn’t be murdered at the end of it. Now, he is somehow irritatingly whiney and depressingly surly in equal measure. Just as well that your time controlling Desmond is confined to three brief interludes, and just as well that these sections starkly contrast the rest of the game experience.
The majority of the time has you in the shoes of lothario-turned-Assassin Ezio Auditore as he engages on a murderous quest for revenge through renaissance Italy. It’s clear that Ezio is far more relatable a character than Altair, and not just because of his authentic accent (you can opt to hear all the dialogue in Italian, turning the game into an action-adventure-come-linguaphone course). Through the course of the game Ezio’s character grows convincingly, from his beginnings as a womanising teenage thug, to his maturity as a fully fledged assassin. This journey feels less contrived than Altair’s rather hair-shirted quest for redemption, and gives AC II’s story a greater sense of immersion as a result.
The core of AC was sandbox assassination and free running fun through historical cityscapes. That action is faithfully transplanted to Florence and Venice, as well as a couple of smaller towns. Like the cities of the Holy Land, the gorgeous environment engine does the cities justice. Iconic buildings like the Campanile and the Palazzo de Medici are present, with accompanying database entries providing a welcome historical depth to the world.
Getting around the cities is the same as before. Actions are mapped to the face buttons, with the stealthy low profile and dramatic high profile actions differentiated by holding down R1. Movement through the cities is much faster paced than it used to be. You can run full pelt without fear of alerting the guards, and running over the rooftops is rarely hampered thanks to tactical placement of scaffolds and cranes (although the canal network in Venice can present flow-breaking roadblocks at times).
While the core gameplay is the same, virtually everything else has changed. AC was hammered for it’s repetitive missions, dreary investigation sections and poor pacing. AC II’s pace is demonstrated right from the get-go, opening the game with a full-on street brawl. Progression is essentially linear, but the missions are now shorter and more numerous, while being more localized (no more pondering horse journeys from Masayaf) with greater variation in objectives.
The much-maligned investigation sections are gone, replaced with a slew of optional side missions, including checkpoint races, courier missions and paid assassination. In addition there are a huge number of optional fetch quests, which grant money, special equipment and background history amongst other things. You can spend time upgrading your home villa to increase annual income, search for hidden treasure, chase down pickpockets, seek out the lost assassin’s tombs, and more. There really is a huge amount of optional content in the game; optional being the key word. During my first playthrough I ignored all the side quests and never felt like I’d missed anything crucial.
The stealth aspect of the game has received a welcome revision too. Staying in low profile keeps you a blade in the crowd, while high profile actions attract unwanted attention from the guards, as before. Hiding away in haystacks, roof gardens and benches allows you to lose the law, also as before. You can now also hide within crowds of citizens, presenting an alternative to the groups of remote-control scholars of the first game. In addition, you can hire groups of thieves and courtesans to distract guards for a small fee. Another new feature is the notoriety bar. A bit like a fifteenth century ASBO, it fills up as the result of public displays of violence or murder. Gain too much and you become notorious, and with guards attack you on sight. Reducing notoriety is done by ripping down wanted posters (some of which are mysteriously placed on ledges, rooftops, and other unlikely places), bribing heralds, or assassinating witnesses. The system works quite well, providing a reason to be inconspicuous, but not being so punitive that it ruins the fun if you botch an assassination or go on a therapeutic killing spree.
Dealing death is more varied this time around. Through the course of the game new equipment is unlocked, including the double hidden blade, smoke bombs, poison, and other weapons to assist with your numerous murders. Assassination can be done quietly from hiding spots and from under ledges, and can be done with your standard weapons, rather than just the hidden blade.
Combat is much faster paced and more varied thanks to new tools and techniques. Weaponry can be purchased from blacksmiths, and there is a decent choice of swords, hammers and maces, even if it is basically a cosmetic one. There are also numerous ways of quickly dispatching enemies, although the tougher ones will block most of them. In spite of that, success in combat boils down to nailing the timing for the counter-kill and disarm moves with the occasional smoke bomb thrown into the mix. This combination will kill more or less any enemy in one shot. Also, the addition of health kits presents an unneccessary dilution of the combat. By the middle of the game you can carry fifteen of them, and they are instantly effective in combat. The combat is still dramatic and flashy, but as a result of the above, is actually less challenging than it was in the original, which will be an issue for some.
Another irritation is the lack of a level select. In spite of all the missions being self-contained blocks, and in spite of the game including a chronological list of all your completed missions in the pause menu, there is no way to replay them without starting all over again! While I see no reason people wouldn’t want to play it through a second time, the omission is just perplexing.
Putting those complaints into perspective, we are talking about minor hickups in an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable game experience. All too often the sequels of popular franchises turn out to be massive let downs, or else uninspired clones with only new levels and cosmetic additions tacked on to differentiate them from their progenitor. Assassin’s Creed II is a shining example of how a sequel should be made; strip out the bad bits, polish the good, and include enough new content for it to stand up on its own merits. Whether or not you enjoyed the first game, Assassin’s Creed II is a worthy investment at full price. When the price inevitably gets reduced it’ll be an absolute steal.
Verdict:
This game is a priority purchase. Unless you’re opposed to action adventure games in general, Assassin’s Creed II is something you’ll not regret spending your time or money on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)