Call Of Halo: Modern Reach

While I am by no means a Halo expert*, I do consider myself a Halo fan.  I had been looking forward to Reach since it was announced and it was the only game I’ve bought on launch day all year.

I’m also quite partial to the Call Of Duty games.  As shooters go, Call Of Duty is perhaps the Beatles to Halo’s Rolling Stones.  Or maybe it’s the other way around... fodder for another blog post.  While I certainly respect and enjoy both games, no one can love them both equally, and if I had to choose between the two, I’d pick Halo.

Aesthetically, Reach is one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of visual media I’ve ever consumed.  The rich detail of the environments and the artful, mature cutscenes are Avatar-ishly mind-blowing.  Likewise, the sound design on Reach is jaw-dropping, from the beauty of its musical score to the marvelously-crafted foley cues.  Overall, Reach is a splendidly integrated piece of entertainment, consistent, immersive, emotionally engaging, impeccably detailed, well balanced and paced (although not without a few Halo-esque difficulty spikes / missing checkpoints), and generally a whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Hats off, Bungie.  There need never be another Halo.

All that being said... the Modern Warfare influence is undeniable.  On paper, we all knew this was coming: the loadouts (Sprinting!?  In Halo!?), the multiplayer leveling and upgrades system, the emphasis on teamwork over Rambo-style lone wolf Master Chief tanking, etc.

At least we still get to keep our overshields, plasma grenades and gravity hammers, right? **  Perhaps it’s just fanboy resistance to progress, but I like my Halos to be Halos and my Modern Warfares to be Modern Warfares.  I understand the insecurity that pressures publishers and developers into catering to popular taste, especially on a project with the scope and box office potential of Reach’s magnitude, but... well, a guy can dream.

Personally, the most disappointing should’ve-seen-that-coming Modern Warfare-ism in Halo: Reach is the shift in the game’s overall tone.  Even at its most earnest, previous Halos never forgot who they were: escapist jaunts into a hyper-realistic (physics-wise) sci-fi world that felt limitlessly fantastic.  The tongue never completely left the cheek.  I’ve always seen Halo as the video game equivalent of Starship Troopers.  The spirit of the Halo franchise was one of derivative subject matter, delivered in a self-aware way, drawing upon familiar modern-day conventions for maximum storytelling economy.

While the storylines in Modern Warfare are arguably just as fantastic, the mood is different.  More like the most recent James Bond films.  Modern Warfare is badass in a serious way; Halo was always badass in an over-the-top way.   Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but anyone who has played through the Reach campaign must surely agree that the sense of humor is gone.  Your fellow soldiers are now courageous and respectable where they were once pathetic cowards.  The aliens are a legitimate threat to your home and way of life (see Modern Warfare) and no longer scream “Run away!!” in ridiculous cartoonish voices. Gone is Cortana’s endless string of witty remarks.  Gone are the absurd rhyming couplets of the Gravemind.  In fact, [SPOILER ALERT!] gone are the wacky, loveable zombies altogether.  (Remember when "Halo" meant "half-aliens, half-zombies game"?)

What remains, for better or worse, is a straightforward story of nobility, courage and sacrifice in the face of certain defeat.  Reach might even make you cry.  It’s a repeat of the Star Wars prequel formula -- and the lack of public outcry might just indicate that mainstream audiences are marginally more open to tragic space operas than they were a few years ago when Lucas unveiled his misunderstood prequel triptych masterpiece.

Anyways... only 2.5 more weeks to Black Ops!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

* Although I am one of the best in the world at getting pWn’d by 12-year-olds in any given Halo multiplayer.

** Nerd-out: I love that they brought back the Combat Evolved pistol, and the new Needle Rifle is a splendid all-around with delightful long-range accuracy; but, while assassinations are cool and all, the melee is too weak for my tastes, and IMHO, the DMR is such a woefully over-nerfed Battle Rifle that it just depresses me to use it.

Honey on Pop Vs. Soda (http://popvssoda.com)

I find this study to be completely fascinating.

Sooner or later (but usually during the first week of school), incoming college freshmen always get a big dose of culture shock when they discover that American English-speakers tend to prefer one of three different regional terms for sweetened, carbonated beverages.

This inevitably leads to late night arguments with dorm-mates along the following lines:

KID A: You mean you call it "soda?"  That's, like, so '50s.  [mocking] "Hey, Sally, wanna go over to the fountain for a soda?"
KID B: Dude, that's what it's called.  "Pop" is what sounds dorky.  God, I can hardly even say it with a straight face.  "Soda" is objectively correct, isn't it, Kid C?
KID C: Where ah come frum, we jes say, "Hay, gimme a coke."  And then the waitress says, "What kinda coke you want? We got Root Beer, Sprite, Pepsi..."

The fact that people from different parts of the country use different words does not blow my mind.  What blows my mind is the following map (click to see the full-size version):

 

It raises so many questions.  Why are there pockets of Soda-Sayers in Missouri and Wisconsin?  Why is it that Kentucky is the only place north of the Mason-Dixon line where people refer to a soft drink generically as a "coke"?  How do you explain why certain state lines are so divisive?  (Specifically, California/Oregon and New Mexico/Arizona.)  Why are some states so much more linguistically homogeneous than others?

I am convinced that the keys to truly understanding our nation's history and character lie in the answers to these questions, and I demand that further studies be undertaken.

[Together] Review

My review of the Flash game [Together] was published last week on Greg Costikyan's website, PlayThisThing.com:

http://playthisthing.com/together

Enjoy!

Warriors: Legends Of Troy (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Warriors: Legends Of Troy (Tecmo Koei)

Platform:
PS3 / 360 (I played on 360)

Genre:
Action / Hack-N-Slash

Time Played:
10 minutes

Main Constructs:
Grinding, Button Mashing


One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The high concept. I had the pleasure of talking with the game's lead designer for a bit prior to playing. His concept, as pitched to me, was not only to adapt the Warriors franchise for a Western gamer audience, but also to stay as faithful as possible to Greek mythology (esp. Homer's Iliad) and history (including details like accurate late bronze-age weaponry and armor). In his words, he wanted to create a game that high school teachers might assign to their students. As a stickler for accuracy, I applaud his mentality.


One thing I LIKED about it and why:
Badass combat animations. I suppose I like this for the same reason I like a good battle scene in a film (see Braveheart and Last Of The Mohicans). I enjoy the toy-play aspect of directing sword fight choreography.


One thing I HATED about it and why:
The level design. The demo level was dull and repetitive. Run a little bit, press X a little bit, run some more, press X some more, run some more, etc.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
Not being able to invert the Y-axis controls. Although I did my best to work around it, not implementing this basic feature for the demo made me feel like a discriminated-against minority.

What behaviours the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Kill enemy soldiers. Keep an eye out for special fatalities.


What the main rewards are:
Sense of powerfulness and progress. Badass fatality animations. Immersion.

What I would change about the game:
The demo focused entirely on the game's basic constructs and fighting mechanics. While reasonably cool, these are nothing particularly ground-breaking. I believe that by directing more attention to the world, the story, the main characters, and other narrative elements, Legends of Troy might have appealed to players' imaginations and done a better job of standing out from the crowd.

The most plausible explanation for this problem is that most of the narrative-type stuff, usually understood to mean "cutscenes," isn't finished yet. Nevertheless, I believe there must be a creative solution.

What I learned from playing the game:
Don't bother showing a game at E3 unless it's ready.

Scooby Doo! And The Spooky Swamp (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Scooby-Doo! And The Spooky Swamp (Warner Bros)

Platform:
Wii

Genre:
Platformer / Adventure

Time Played:
10 minutes

Main Constructs:
Platforming, Adventuring/Exploring, Puzzle-Solving, Mystery-Solving, Collecting

One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The handling. Perhaps in part because of a more static camera, the controls felt very responsive and fluid. In other Wii games, I often find myself annoyed when using the nunchuck thumbstick, and controls feel laggy or imprecise. Here, moving the character around felt comfortable rather than frustrating.

One thing I LIKED about it and why:
Interactions with objects in the world. Scooby and Shaggy's animations while interacting with such objects are entertaining. I enjoyed playing around with throwing chickens and watermelons at things.

One thing I HATED about it and why:
Couldn't find anything to hate.


One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
I wish I had known you can swap out characters, as demonstrated in the trailer. Not sure if this feature is implemented in the demo.

What behaviours the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Standard platformer compulsion loops: collect items, solve puzzles, progress through levels, evade or defeat enemies.

What the main rewards are:
Progress through the game. "Clues" which are pieced together to solve the overall mystery. Food for Scooby and Shaggy. Lots of fun character animation flourish rewards.


What I would change about the game:
Design-wise, the game is what it is: low-stress, cheeky, cute and clever, with a wide cross-demographic appeal. WB should make more of an effort to promote this game and its predecessor, in terms of overall promotional volume, the intended target audience, and the way the game is presented to that audience. At present, it seems relegated to the "kids' games" commodity pool. I think many people my age and older would not hesitate to buy it if they knew it existed and was worthwhile. It appeals to the same sensibility as the Lego series, which (as far as I know) is well regarded among my peer group.

What I learned from playing the game:
The games at E3 with the longest lines aren't necessarily the best ones; also, it is possible to program a Wii game that makes good use of the thumbstick.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (Ubisoft)

Platform:
PS3 / 360 (I played on a PS3)

Genre:
Not sure anymore (see "HATED" section)

Time Played:
20 minutes (2 matches)

Main Constructs:
Hide & Seek, Tag, Obstacle Course, Load-Outs

One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The theme and world. Technically, it's the same as AC2, although the city of Rome is a new map layout (using familiar assets), and there are new character models to control.

One thing I LIKED about it and why:
The new gate feature. When you run through certain "gates" while being pursued, they slam shut behind you, impeding your pursuer's progress. That's cool, I guess.

One thing I HATED about it and why:
Strait-jacket-like gameplay constraints. They've taken away what was the most unique and fun part of Assassin's Creed: the sandbox. The game actively discourages exploration and role-playing according to the player's unique approach to the game and preferred play style. The only real choice happens during the load-out selection screen; after that, the player must kill the target and evade the pursuer. That's it.

There's only ever one and exactly one person in the game the player is allowed to kill: the target. If you should be fortunate enough to encounter another human player who is neither your target nor your pursuer, you may not interact. There is no fighting, only assassinations. There is no option to stand and fight the person trying to kill you.

The designers have transformed an exciting, complex world of emergent gameplay into a dull, monotonous session of one-on-one tag. I suspect the developers did not actually play either of the first two games, because they have obviously missed the point entirely.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
The lock-on feature. It has been nerfed to the point of uselessness. In fact, it's worse than useless -- it does more harm than good. The original system of identifying targets and locking onto them wasn't broken. Now it is.

What behaviors the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Do exactly what you are told and you will be rewarded every two or three minutes with a few hundred points.

What the main rewards are:
Points, tallied at end of match. Fatality animations when you kill your target. Relief after successfully evading a pursuer.

What I would change about the game:
If the publisher insists on incorporating multiplayer into the Assassin's Creed franchise (not advisable, in my opinion), but doesn't want to fund a full-fledged MMO, there are several possible ways of going about it:

- Players race to assassinate a shared target or set of targets. Players can thwart each other in various ways, such as fighting one another, setting traps, stealing from each other, hiring guards / prostitutes / thieves to serve as distractions, killing NPC team-members, etc.
- Capture The Flag
- Juggernaut
- Classic Deathmatch
- Motocross-Style Obstacle Course / Collection Racing
- Demolition
- King Of The Hill
- Any of the many other multiplayer constructs designers have used over the years.

Whoever decided that this particular framework for the multiplayer version of Assassin's Creed was the best possible option should definitely be sacked.

What I learned from playing the game:
Never get your hopes up for an E3 demo. Don't stand in an hour-plus line for a game unless you have a reliable tip-off that it's awesome.

Letter to the Governor re: DMV

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger:

I recently had to go to my local DMV office, in person, to renew my vehicle registration.

It bears noting that the only reason I had to actually go to the office was because the DMV failed to send me my registration renewal notice, which contains the renewal identification number (RIN) necessary to renew a registration over the phone or online.  Luckily, I caught the mistake, but unfortunately I didn't catch it soon enough to afford me the luxury of making an appointment in advance.

Almost everything about my visit to the DMV was lame:

1) The building is ugly.  It obviously needs a complete makeover.  It has needed one since 1984.

2) It was super crowded, even though it was 10:00am on a weekday.  I barely found a spot in the parking lot.

3) I had to wait in line for over an hour just to get a number.

4) I had to wait again for my number to be called, after I had just waited!

5) The screen that displays what number was most recently called was on the fritz.

6) The woman who helped me was very nice.  But the actual "registration renewal" process took less than two minutes!  I handed her a check and she printed and handed me the new registration.  Two hours in line for a two minute transaction.

I am writing to ask you (or whoever's in charge): WHY DOES THE DMV SUCK SO BAD?  Do you make it miserable on purpose?  What could that purpose possibly be?  Are you not aware of how terrible it is?  Are you somehow shielded from the experience because you have an assistant who waits in line at the DMV for you?  It seems to me that no sensible person in a leadership position (such as yours) would look at the current state of the DMV and say, "Yep, this is fine.  Nothing needs to change here.  This is exactly the way it should be."

Now that you are aware of the situation, here are a few of my suggestions on how to improve it:

1) Make it possible for people to renew their registration online even if they didn't get the stupid renewal notice in the mail.

2) Double the number of DMV offices and employees.  At least do it for Los Angeles, please.  If that doesn't help, triple it.  The democrats will love it because you'll be "creating jobs."  Raise the tax on gasoline by 1/10th of a cent per gallon to pay for it.  People will thank you for rounding all of the gas prices up to the nearest cent.

3) Create some kind of "express line" system so that the wait time has some relationship to the complexity of the appointment.

4) Hire some fancy-schmancy consulting firm to take a hard look at the whole operation, and then do whatever they say.

Finally (and probably the best solution):

5) PRIVATIZE THE DMV - The profit motive provides an incentive for businesses to minimize costs and strive for good customer serivice.  Although this doesn't explain why the lines are always so long at the bank, they're still better than the DMV.

Frankly, I see no good reason why the DMV couldn't be privatized.  I know you'll agree with me that it's a brilliant idea.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours,

Matt Duffy
California Motorist