ICO and Braid are Boring, Yet They Are Good

Ico was tedious. That's a less harsh way of saying "Ico was boring." I reviewed Ico in 2008, telling imaginary gamers to ignore Ico. All it gave me, I said, was a strong emotional experience which culminated in a perfect moment of crying happiness for the horned boy Ico and his obviously-girl-friend Yorda. Too much of the game was a pain. A strong emotional experience wasn't enough to justify eight hours of life.

But now I partially rescind that conclusion. I now think that fun was never the point of Ico and that condemning it because of its lack of fun is folly. I think the point of Ico was to show the world that a game could elicit a powerful emotional response from a gamer. And, of course, there were other concomitant goals, like: create a sublime, castle environment; make a(nother) game comprised of thought-provoking, brain-working-outing puzzles; throw in monotonous shadow monster battles in order to remind you not to stray too far from your mate; and that's it I think.

Ico reminds me of Ian Bogost's Procedural Rhetoric. Ico makes you suffer Ico's world, and you get cutscene rewards. Seeing all the stuff you do culminate into a non-procedural-rhetorikee cutscene of desperate loyalty and love, seeing what Ico is willing to suffer so a girl can have a chance at life, and seeing the final, beautiful ending sequence that is so incredibly touching that I'm not going to write it, is very much the point of this game.

And being fun is also not the point of Braid either. The point of Braid is to give you an excuse to drink wine while wearing a fez while playing a video game, in front of anti-video game wanks, just to show 'em. Braid's pretentious story-telling and 4th dimension puzzle-solving tools and pretty backgrounds and soothing music are ... nice? Yes! That's the word. They are nice. Except for the pretentious, unaffecting story-telling. (Insert Jonathan Blow sex joke)

One of my legs still stands by my Ico review though. Do NOT play Ico or Braid for enjoyment UNLESS you enjoy puzzles. You don't need to play Ico to see how a video game can make an emotional spark. VIDEO GAMES CAN MAKE YOU CRY (and now you know). Braid has a brilliant ending sequence that is half play, half rewind (essentially a cutscene) that makes you think about good, evil, and desire. But hell. Why care? I certainly didn't go to sleep thinking about it, and you probably didn't either.

So yes, those two are good games.

Attack the green one! ...Wait, which one is the green one?

When I was in first grade I was diagnosed with red/green colorblindness. There's nothing really severe about it, I just occasionally have a hard time differentiating between red and green. OK, so maybe I've been asked about what a certain color is more than I'd care to think about, but apart from that, it's never really affected my life.

The same holds true for video games. In the 20 or so years I've been a gamer, I never had a problem with a game's color pallet. However, that all changed when I played the HD remix version of Super Puzzle Fighter II. I was familiar with the game as it was a staple of arcades and pizza places during my childhood. But when I played this new version I was suddenly put at an extreme disadvantage against my opponents as I could not tell the difference between the red blocks and the green blocks. This problem was never present in previous versions of the game, so it must have been the HD up-scaling that turned an enjoyable game into an unplayable one. It was the first time I ever remember wishing there was a colorblind option in a game.

Well it seems like my wish is starting to come true. I've noticed that more and more games are offering an option to make the color pallet of the game more colorblind friendly. In particular three of the games on my computer come equipped with the option: Peggle, Left 4 Dead, and World of Warcraft.

While I appreciate having the choice in these games the only time I've ever actually needed to check the colorblind box was in Peggle. The color scheme in Peggle was almost impossible for me to comprehend. The green pegs blended in with the orange ones, and it took me forever to find the purple peg amidst all the blue ones. Let me show you what I mean:

Here is a picture from Peggle on normal settings. One who has the proper number of red and green cones in their eyes would probably have no trouble discriminating the differences between peg colors. But here's an approximation of how I see it:

It's the exact same picture run through an image filter designed to simulate a person with Deuteranopia red/green colorblindness, which I believe is the type I have. The filter should work right if you have trouble finding the green pegs among the orange ones. There's a small chance this is the wrong filter, but since both images look identical to me, I'll assume I picked the right one.

As you can see, it makes sense for Peggle to have a colorblind option. Like Puzzle Fighter I have a hard time discerning colors. Adding icons that show what each peg is makes the game exponentially more playable.

But what about the other two games I listed? To be honest, I don't find a colorblind mode in either L4D or WoW any more useful than when the mode is turned off. Left 4 Dead is simply too dark and has too much of a stone gray color scheme to pose any color threat. Here's the difference between normal and colorblind modes:

The only real change I can see is the tint of the health bar. Any other silhouettes or set pieces appear to be virtually unchanged. Even if this colorblind mode might be for a different type of colorblindness than what I have, the fact remains that I find this option in Left 4 Dead less necessary than a game like Peggle. The same can be said of World of Warcraft. Each color is vibrant enough, I easily recognize the reds and the greens. The plethora of addons that allow a player to customize their interface also helps in color discriminating.

So why is colorblind mode more important in games like Peggle and Puzzle Figher and less important in L4D and WoW? One idea might be the fact that more emphasis is placed on color in some games than in others. In Peggle, you're supposed to hit every orange peg in order to win, while in Puzzle Fighter, matching colors is vital to defeating your opponent. In L4D, you're not supposed to hit only the green zombies. You're supposed to hit anything that's moving towards you in a menacing manner regardless of color. There is always the possibility that these colorblind modes are not for red/green colorblindness, but I doubt the results will be any different.

Of course, these are only four games I've mentioned so far. There may be a game out there that's not a color-matching casual game that would benefit greatly from a colorblind mode. If you know of one, leave a comment. I think it's great games are now starting to offer these kinds of options. I'd just like to see them implemented in more useful ways.

In other news, my research on cinematics in video games is going quite nicely! In fact, I may even be co-author of a poster exhibiting my research at this year's SIGGRAPH conference! More on this story as it develops.

Finished Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil

I'm not going to review Klonoa 2 (for PS2) because I made a mistake: I didn't free write about it or attempt a first draft after playing it. This mistake I made with COD4 - I waited two months before starting that review. Whoops.

The word on Klonoa 2 though: If you get it on amazon for 12 bucks, it's worth it. It comes off as childish, but not in a bad way. It's short but sweet. The plot doesn't make complete sense, but the characters become endearing. The music is mostly good, and the environments are colorful and sometimes interesting to look at. I recommend it for its solid platforming.

But really, I've got to remember this write-ASAP-after-experiencing-the-experience thing. This "reporting" thing. For reviewing a game is reporting, and notes only help so much. It's best to write down as much about an experience as possible right after experiencing it, when the memory still exists.

Anyways, I'm going to retry Metal Gear Solid in a few days. I'll be sure to review that, and MGS 2 and 3. Than I'm going to play the original Prince of Persia and review that. And then I'm going to write a parody of Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Woo! (That will go on my other blog, which isn't doing so well really.)

The Importance of Immersion in Games

Immersion is not always ideal. Sometimes you want to make an effect that is anti-immersive. Sometimes you want gamers to not feel like the world is believable because that immersion into the game world would get in the way of something happening off screen.

Will Wright uses Guitar Hero as an example. He believes immersion is not a good thing for that game to have because it would distract players from enjoying each others' maladroit plastic guitar heroics.

But of games by which we make virtual things do virtual things in a virtual world, like an avatar in an RPG or units in a strategy game, immersion is typically effective, desirable. A world that seems real leaves a powerful impression on gamers. This is not to say that a game world should mirror the real world to the point where the fun feelings from a game are negated; although there are gamers who connect electrodes to their nipples.

I can't think of anything else to say. Your thoughts?

Review: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (XBOX 360)

Infinity Ward's first game, Call of Duty, was a welcome punch in the face. I still can't believe so many of us dared to enjoy Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, that game released a couple years before CoD. Even lamer, it was one mere level from Medal of Honor: Allied Assault that convinced us our allowance was worth it: the recreation of the Omaha Beach landing, the battle resulting in the deaths of 6,000 U.S. and German troops in Stephen Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. Almost all of Call of Duty was like that level, except better. In CoD your allied NPC soldiers were actually useful (in that they distracted enemy fire). Because of this brilliant game design, the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences gave Call of Duty their Game of the Year award, and the Game Developers Conference gave Infinity Ward their Rookie Studio of the Year Award.

And the Pegasus bridge defense mission, the one where you, an S.A.S. commando, fought off waves of german troops and tanks, with your Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle and the magic, self-loading Flak 88. That still remains the best mission from the Call of Duty series, oh yes.

But now for something truly shocking. Infinity Ward are the 2nd best developers of first-person shooters. "How?" you rhetorically ask. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is how. What makes this disturbing and awesome at the same time are two facts: 1. Infinity Ward are younger than most other AAA FPS developers; and 2. CoD4 gameplay mechanics are barely different from CoD2.

The Singleplayer:

World War II offers plenty of intense, cinematic gaming experiences, but the horrible, most unfortunate thing about WWII is that it has been milked to death. That is probably why Infinity Ward decided to make a game loosely based on Operation Enduring Iraqi Freedom Liberty & Justice 4 Apple Pie Umm Good. And what a good decision. Modern warfare has a tendency to look way cooler than ancient warfare; and consequently, Call of Duty 4 is the coolest first person shooter ever made. It's a spectacle squared. Some call it military porn; it's hot despite lacking romance.

It's so hot, putting on your night vision in the game. In fact, it's so hot taking off your night vision in the game. You feel like a big, bad, third-world liberating, WMD-finding mofo, with your state-of-the-art gadgets and your bad ass allies in their wittle Marine Corps helmets and that baseball cap Gaz the S.A.S. commando wears that has the U.K. flag on it. And the Gillie suit missions are so cool, sneaking around alongside your older, more mature S.A.S. captain, doing every crazy thing he says, deadly assassins disguised as shrubbery. It's so cool and hot, when you first meet your S.A.S. commando pals, they dressed in their lovely gas masks that make them look like unusually large insects with machine guns and British Isles accents.

And the level design. If you've never played Call of Duty 2 or any of the Call of Dutys that came later, here is their typical level design. In each mission, you proceed from point A to point B to win. The levels are linear, and sometimes there is a countdown. As you proceed toward point B, you activate checkpoint triggers, each showing something like "Checkpoint Reached"; the latest checkpoint you reach is where you get to respawn when you die. Because enemies usually respawn, you advance by killing enough enemies and, when it's clear enough, dashing to the next cover closer to the finish. You repeat this process till you win. On paper it's monotonous, but the levels are varied and cool-looking and cool-sounding enough that it's not; at least, not in CoD4.

Call of Duty 4 on Regular difficulty plays differently from Call of Duty 4 on Veteran difficulty. This is potential replay value. Regular difficulty makes Call of Duty 4 an interactive movie you can play and view with your visiting friends. Veteran difficulty makes every decision count and kills you often. It turns COD4 into a puzzle game, one where your skills with the gun matter. Auto-aim arguably makes Veteran on the consoles less frustrating than Veteran on the auto-aim-less PC. (In one mission, enemy infantry pinned me down. I was prone in the grass and couldn't see my enemies through the blades. I used auto-aim to clear away my enemies.)

If you only want to play the campaign once, try this: the missions you MUST play on Veteran are the ghillie suit missions - "All Ghillied Up" and "One Shot, One Kill" - and the mission after the credits - "Mile High Club." The mission you SHOULD NOT play on Veteran is: "Charlie Don't Surf." The mission I tepidly encourage you not to play on Veteran is "Heat." "No Fighting in the War Room" on Veteran can be managed with minimal frustration if you restart the level from the main menu, as this gives you an M4 with an optical sight and a grenade launcher (and this mission has a countdown - if you're too slow, checkpoint triggers won't activate). You should play all the other missions on veteran. This, I believe, is a good balance between depression and fun. Playing it all first on Regular isn't bad though; it will let you better understand the environments, making your deaths less common.

The other great thing about CoD4's campaign is the writing. Even though the marines forget to swear, the lines and voice actors give the characters enough personality that I wish the game were longer than eight hours. Unfortunately, the plot isn't as good as the rest of the writing. The ending feels like a mess (realistic ending? arguably - but realism isn't the goal anyway). The writing has way more wit than humor, which works well. The soldiers speak clearly and are all about business, communicating as appropriately as militarily possible. Call of Duty 4 might be the best recruitment tool ever made.

Yet, it's arguably the opposite. Call of Duty 4 is one of the most anti-war war games I have ever played. Really bad things happen to its heroes. One squad of marines die because they decided to rescue a downed chopper pilot. And your S.A.S. officer, Captain Price, is no Mother Teresa to his PoWs.

It's one thing to fight in Arab streets against Arab muslims, but it's another thing to name a level "Shock and Awe" and make it a combined arms assault on Baghdad where something really horrible happens to the innocent and the honorable.

And everytime you die, you are shown quotes like these:

"War is delightful to those who haven't experienced it."

-Erasmus.

"The press is our chief ideological weapon."

-Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke.

"Teamwork is essential. It gives them other people to shoot at."

-Unknown

Multiplayer:

Call of Duty 4's multiplayer has enough modes to please millions of fans of people-shooting. Modes like 1-on-1 death match to Counter-Strike to ...... ermm, there are more; it's just that I've lost my list of modes and my console is 1,130 miles from me.

A study came out that said people like getting killed in multiplayer shooters. It's like a climax to an exciting story, and it happens over and over again until finally the player is done for the hour, waiting a few minutes to do it over again. I, however, find this kind of play hopelessly monotonous. That is why I forgo CoD4's team deathmatches and free-for-alls. They are chaos. Your teammates don't do the teamwork thing, and matches become a matter of all individuals fighting individually to rake up the most points for their team.

I prefer the one-on-one deathmatches and the hardcore modes. Going against just one other XBOX Live user is thrilling. It's a mixture of stealth - being as quiet as possible, walking through deserted, windy streets and into buildings, tip-toeing with your submachine gun or assault rifle - and sudden loud violence - when you sneak up on the other XBOX Live person, the devil, and you strike like lighting. The tension is beautiful. There is nothing like that thrill of hunting someone else down and killing him (or her). And sometimes you will converse with your opponent. In one match, my enemy asked me what I was wearing, asked where I lived, and asked if I would like a ride on his private jet.

The hardcore modes are different from the non-hardcore modes in that bullets do hardcore amounts of damage (if you get shot, you're probably dead) and your HUD becomes less useful; and less people are allowed to play in a hardcore match. I like this mode because it's less of a chaos.

Perks! That's the no-longer-novel-because-even-Killzone 2-has-it feature in Call of Duty 4. As you level up, you get awarded more weapons and "perks."

Perks are basically special abilities. You can use three at a time. You might want the dropping-a-grenade-when-you-die perk or the pull-out-your-pistol-and-shoot-people-as-you-bleed-to-death perk; these will make people hate you, which is good. Unfortunately, as you play, you will realize that some combinations of perks are better than others.

Leveling up and getting awards keep many players playing. You can unlock unlockables for your weapons by getting enough headshots or killing enough people or yadda yadda yadda. And when you reach the highest level on the XBOX 360, you get the option of restarting from scratch, except the next run through gives you another country's ranks to show off to your XBOX 360 friends. (The first run through gives you a version of the U.S. Marine Corps ranks.)

Conclusion:

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare does almost nothing new. But it does it so well. I still think the best Call of Duty experience is the Pegasus bridge defense level, but the ghillie suit missions are the coolest levels I've ever played, and playing "Mile High Club" on Veteran might be the most exhilirating minute in FPS singleplayer. The multiplayer has a little something for everybody who likes military shooters. Call of Duty 4 is a classic, and you should play it.

Unmentioned Nitpicks:

-The shadows on the XBOX 360 version are shit.

-The Information Age Military-style introductions to the levels may come off as grandiose to some wine-drinking gamers.

-Heavily scripted level design saps the campaign's replay value, which may turn off thin-walleted gamers who hate multiplayer shooters or people or both. (Although it is counter-arguable that misanthropes and team work-discouraging multiplayer shooters such as all-shooters-that-require-XBOX-Live go perfect together.)

-Some multiplayer maps are better than others.

Games That Make You Vomit

I don't want to finish Katamari Damacy. I've stopped playing it. The game fills me with nausea. Luckily, I feel as if I at least understand the game, so my self-esteem isn't hurt.

This game-nausea thing has only happened to me with one other game. Psychonauts. I remember almost finishing that game, but I couldn't take it anymore. I almost regurgitated my dining hall food onto my laptop. I think those games made me feel nauseous because they were very disorienting. I'm not sure how they were disorienting exactly, but they most definitely were.

I don't think I could ever fairly judge Katamari Damacy, but I will say that a game in which you are the son of a substance-abusing god who accidentally destroys almost every star while under the influence is epic-storytelling. At least, it feels like epic-storytelling. I'm going to go throw up now.

Two more things. The music in the game is fun, kinda silly really. And you have to see the intro-movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpFFzWPzA2c&fmt=18

BAD ASS POEM ABOUT FIGHTING GAMES!!!

The Fighter's Spirit

The fighting stick stuck to my fingers.

The fighting stick wouldn't let me go.

Despite my mashing the buttons,

The endless fire flying from Ryu's fingers,

The fighting stick wouldn't let me go.

Thus, I had the fighter's spirit,

Till the end of my days.

-Robert Frost