Bittersweet Symphony

As a preface I must clarify that I applaud developers for trying out new things, however so long as these "new things" work. By "work" I mean that they either fit the franchise or genre they are inserted into, or that they don't impede on the games overall transmission of fun, and in Splinter Cell: Convictions case, Ubisoft Montreal (the team behind the good ones) are massively guilty of ignoring the former.

This isn't Splinter Cell as you may know it.

To an outsider like myself it appears the team in Montreal sat down together during a pivotal moment in Convictions publicly troubled development cycle and watched the Bourne trilogy with their pants off. During this seminal moment they came so hard whilst watching Matt Damon that they decided to forgo all inroads the previous Splinter Cells had made into the stealth genre and made... an action game. Sam Fisher no longer asks questions, he no longer dispatches enemies from the shadows with a disabling blow to the head, he whips out a pistol an tears shit up. For all intensive purposes they may as well have called it Jason Bourne: Conviction.

After killing someone with your bear hands, you then get the ability to mark a bunch of enemies. Do you get excited in films when the protagonist enters a room only to dispatch 10 guys with a single, concise bullet to the brain? Well if you do you're going to love conviction. As much as it often feels like cheating there is no denying the mark and execute mechanic empowers the player and makes you feel like Jack Bauer's illegitimate son. This is the perfect example of everything wrong about the game, although at times it may be heaps of fun, it is not what it says on the cover, it is not Splinter Cell.



See this is one example from a long list of the changes made to conviction. You no longer need to sneak around. You no longer have to shoot out lights. You no longer have to move bodies. And while on paper these changes sound like good things, which in many ways they are, they are equally something completely different to Splinter Cells ethos. They are like putting jelly in a kebab, completely wrong.

As much as I wanted to love Conviction, and as much as I enjoyed it, I will not call it Splinter Cell.

By Design

Have you ever had the displeasure of sitting through a traffic jam, only to realise when it clears that there was no discernible cause? Well, whilst watching The One Show, Adrian Chiles and his permanently hollow face took the time to explain this phenomenon known colloquially as the phantom traffic jam.

What actually happens, interestingly, is that as the motorway twists and curls endlessly to it's destination, the cars travelling swiftly upon it aren't moving at equal velocities, causing vehicles to slow down at certain points to accommodate other driver's unique traits and average speeds. This inconsistency in speed sends a rippling effect backwards down the motorway as all vehicles must bunch to prevent mass collision following the sudden halt in parallel proceedings, catalysing the phantom traffic jam.

Now, follow me into the most uncomfortable of metaphors. Imagine the motorway is actually the fun a video game transmits to its audience, the smoother the journey, the more fun the player receives. Each small detail such as an inconsistency in speed can have a rippling effect, leading to a metaphorical traffic jam, preventing the player from having a "fun" experience.

It is these philosophies that the most successful designers apply to their video games, most notably Bungie. Bungie are a studio that don't just aim to prevent traffic jams, they delicately measure the road surface to ensure a smooth journey, and erect signs to subliminally guide players on their way, in a direction they didn't even intend to travel. They are the masters of "fun" game design, the "pukka pies" of game studios: no compromise.



What better way to illustrate my point, apart from a fucking motorway metaphor, than a pdf file.

In Bungie land, changing the intermission between each shot with the Sniper Rifle from 0.5 seconds to 0.7 is enough to keep the motorway in a constant flow of "fun". The above PDF details Bungie's lead gameplay designer Jamie Griesemer's philosophy of breaking game design down to micro levels of detail, each of which build up to form one fun experience.

In the PDF Griesemer refers to the Bungie trademarked "30 seconds of fun" gameplay loop that if correctly utilised can keep providing audiences with gratifications in a continuous cycle. Referring back to the motorway metaphor, if the traffic keeps stalling then the driver is more likely to take the next exit, or in Bungie's case switch to a different game altogether. And it is Griesemer's job as Lead Gameplay Designer to keep the audience playing, at any cost.

In a recent Bungie podcast, when asked about the change in FOV (the players field of view) for Bungie's latest title, Sandbox designer Sage Merril discussed the many aspects that have to be considered when changing a shooters FOV, aspects that to me the ignorant player, had never crossed my mind. Firstly there is scale, what goes unnoticed in first person shooters is that the scale of the environments have to appear correctly within the players field of view, whilst also matching up to other minute elements of the game, such as grenade arc and line of sight. The field of view can also change a player's perception of speed, changing the entire pace of a game, a potentially catastrophic accident waiting to happen if not properly balanced.

By balancing these minute details, Bungie are able to stay rooted at the forefront of the first person shooter genre today, as it is these design philosophies and details which prevail above all else to keep the player engaged within the game. Fancy graphics and experience points may be a tasty substitute but they are no match for good old fashioned fun.

To Be Or Not To Be?

Have you ever read those low budget fantasy fiction novels that allow the reader to make decisions surrounding the fate of the protagonist by choosing to wilfully skip to certain pre-determined pages? Well once, during a family holiday to Croatia, I did. Don't worry about your ability to comprehend what I am about to pontificate if you haven't though, they are shit, and I have already given them more phonemes than they deserve.

The problem with these novels is that they are woefully out of place in the context of their medium. A novels greatest attribute is its ability to engross the reader into a set narrative, with all the highs and lows that come with such a thing, not to have the reader turn to page 64 only to be eaten by a Goblin. These novels should never have been printed, instead they should have been videogames.

And in 2010, we finally have one. It's called Heavy Rain.

Upon inserting your disk into the PS3 you are prompted to remove the piece of paper contained within the games packaging and lead via onscreen instructions into a short tutorial on origami. From this point it is fairly transparent that Heavy Rain isn't like most games you have ever played. A risky move from Sony in the age of cookie cutter corridor shooters and cover systems.



Heavy Rain is an interactive narrative. Major events are pre-set, with the player free to manipulate scenes within it, controlling multiple protagonists in order to affect its progression, and ultimately conclusion. To do so the player must utilise a quirky and often befuddling control scheme, a challenge within itself at times.

Here is a handy example of one of the games scenes:

The player is controlling a journalist named Madison Paige in an attempt to gain evidence surrounding a notorious yet illusive child murderer known as the "Origami Killer".

I knock on the door of a man known to be linked with a property connected to the Origami Killer who also happens to deal in illegal medicinal substances. I am prompted on screen with a number of choices which will help me gain entry to his home in order to search for evidence. I pick the option showing interest in purchasing some medicine from the man, which is greeted with success as he invites me inside.

The creepy looking man offers me a glass of wine, I refuse, he insists, I suspiciously take the glass but decide not to drink it. The man notices my stubborn attitude towards not drinking his beverage and reluctantly slides off to fetch the medicine I claimed I required. This is my chance, I am free to snoop around his home. Tense, fast paced music begins to play, i know I don't have long before he returns.

His bathroom reveals nothing, apart from a lack of personal hygiene. The music is going at a faster tempo now and I know I am running out of time to find a lead, I even toy with going back to the living room where he left me in fear of him discovering my real intentions, and the consequences that would arise from that. But I plough on like the investigative journalist I am controlling and enter the mans bedroom. Big mistake. I twist the analogue stick to open his cupboard which reveals an abundance of surgical gowns. Fuck, this guy is a creep, the atmosphere and context has me freaked out. I want to leave. I exit the room but the camera teases me with one last door at the end of the corridor. I know I shouldn't, he will be back any moment, but I can't resist. As I enter this last mysterious room I am hit on the back of the head by the man. The screen cuts to black as I fall unconscious.

I won't spoil any more for you but I imagine you get the idea. What is interesting is everything here was a cognitive choice by me, the player. One problem the old fantasy novels faced was that it would take the player to a situation and then give them the false veneer of choice, "George took the sword and ran at the group of Goblins, turn to page 46 to fight the one on the left, turn to page 32 to fight the one on the right". Heavy Rain lets you steer clear of the conflict altogether.

Heavy Rain isn't free from its own identity crisis however. The opening 30 minutes task the player with brushing their teeth, having a shave and taking a shower. This may be well suited to some forms of entertainment, but perhaps not one with a 12 - 24 average target audience. It had me wondering why I was dedicating my time to something I could well accomplish in real life, without having to wrestle the worlds shittiest control scheme.

After all, is that not the point of entertainment itself? Do you think drug dealers in Baltimore get home and stick The Wire on? Do you think, technology permitted, that between beachhead assaults and evading machine gun fire, soldiers in World War 2 would have played some Call of Duty to pass the time?

Heavy Rain is not perfect. It is a promising template for a more mature experience than one currently existing within videogames today, and a welcome change from the shooter saturated market currently dominating the industry. Let's hope the audience can mature alongside it.

Hey Bro, Fancy Shooting Some Terrorists?

Bro-operative. Bromance. These are just a couple of adjectives that could be used to describe the nature of Army of Two: 40th Day. A game where you and a friend (Biological or Artificial) need to essentially, as the name suggests, become a walking, shit talking army of two.

The plot unfortunately is fairly non-existent, which should come as no surprise given the game’s target audience, no offense intended. And whatever plot is present is unfortunately too quiet to hear. Yes quiet. During the games development cycle the developers forgot to turn the volume up during any scene of narrative worth whatsoever. This leaves the player in an apocalyptic rendering of Shanghai with no context at all to fuel your actions, in fact, upon completion me and my bro-op partner had literally no fucking clue what had just ensued, minus the asstastic gameplay.

But on the bright side, we did learn that EA Montreal was the first development studio comprised solely of deaf people.

So with the absence of a story, the game really needed some top calibre, highly polished, eternally fun gameplay to shine through the bullshit and make you forget those initial criticisms. And guess what, it doesn’t accomplish that one either. A third person shooter with a clunky aiming system is like a racing game with cars made out of cheese, it’s doomed to failure, just like Army of Two. Not to mention the game has an unintuitive cover mechanic that screams, “What the fuck” at you whenever you attempt to hide from the sheer number of bullets en route to your face.



However, amid this torrent of shit lies a silver lining. A single bubble of fun that has transcended all else to rise above the crap. The game handles co-operative play really well. Whether that be a system that allows players to draw fire away from their buddy in order to co-ordinate an attack, or whereby one player can falsely surrender, luring the gullable, artificially unintelligent terrorists into believing your cowardice whilst your partner conveniently dispatches them. It’s fair to say that the most original aspects of Army of Two come from these co-operative elements and when played with a friend the game isn’t shit, heck, it could even be described as “enjoyable”.

Had I not played Army of Two: 40th day with my friend this post would not exist. I would have failed to experience the single redeeming quality of the game, been exposed to a flood of derivative level design, combat and an overall sense of shit and proceeded to dismiss it as a dreadful videogame, which if experienced in tandem with a bro, it’s not.

Economic Imperative

The problem with entertainment nowadays is that the need to make money usurps the need to entertain. Sure, nobody wants to construct something unentertaining, however the need to make money will have a significant effect on the entertainment provided. Stupid fucking capitalism.

Take Bioshock 2 for example. The original holds more artistic merit in my opinion than Mona Lisa's slutty smile, and in fact presents a story as encapsulating as anything I have ever been exposed to. Partly because the twist was so twisty, but mostly because instead of wrapping a linear story within a non-linear experience, it understood that this just could not be done, and in fact video games weren't actually films in burly disguises. Irrational Games effectively fired a cum shot onto the video game industry's metaphorical chin.



Did Leonardo Da Vinci go out and produce a sequel to the Mona Lisa two years after he painted the original, perhaps with a speck of tit showing to please those freaky art lovers? Did he shit. He knew that the original was so revered, whatever he was to produce in direct succession to the original was never going to hold the same artistic value. Perhaps those economic dildos within the board room at 2K should have thought about that before giving the green light to Bioshock 2 then. Oh wait, they did, and they laughed it off. Who gives a fuck about artistic value when you have money, maybe now you will understand my point.

Bioshock 2 has much improved fundamental gameplay tweaks over the original. If you were locked in a room with no past exposure to the two games, a magnum pointed at the side of your brain, and told to select which one was the better game, a sane person would surely select the sequel. However, this is missing the point. The original had such an engaging narrative and a world so fresh and alien to the player that it felt perfect. The sequel therefore looses all such charms, leaving the player with a sharp stench of repetition and a lingering scent of deja vu. 2K too missed the point.

Belated Review of Modern Warfare Two

How does a developer go about crafting the sequel to one of the decades most appreciated videogames? Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare launched to instant success, eventually topping over 10 million sales across multiple platforms. This was a double-edged sword for developer Infinity Ward; they created the current generations most influential first person shooter, yet they themselves must go one better and produce a sequel worthy of the name. Modern Warfare 2 is their much-anticipated attempt.

The campaign kicks off with the player controlling Private First Class Joseph Allen, a US army ranger based in Afghanistan as he takes part in a Humvee assault through an Afghan city, reminiscent of American drama “Generation Kill”. Recognised for his achievements, Private Allen is then whisked off to join Task Force 141, recruited to covertly infiltrate a known terrorist threat lead by the game’s primary antagonist Vladimir Zhakarov. The game then presents a twist, one which provides the narrative fuel to drive the player through to the inevitable conclusion.



In typical Call of Duty style, the game ping pongs between different characters during the story in order to tell each individual section of the narrative. This can leave the game’s pacing feeling flat, often deflating the player when he is stripped of his task force 141 rank and thrown back into the ordinary boots of Private James Ramirez, a generic soldier tasked with performing tedious objectives. For example, whilst one mission has you assaulting a military base under the stealthy cover of a blizzard, the next sees you escorting an Armoured Personnel Carrier through the suburban streets of Eastern America. This stark contrast can be a hindrance to the player’s enjoyment, especially considering developer Infinity Ward’s ability to craft such memorable set pieces, instead forcing you to rely on such genre clichés as an escort mission. Despite the drop in calibre, these set pieces are still wonderfully crafted, with one tasking the player to retake the Whitehouse from Russian invasion, a visually emotive experience that encapsulates the game’s sombre narrative.

The narrative itself is standard action game fare. A slightly unrealistic scenario littered with plot holes but accepted due to its all out epic nature. A tepid Russia un-cover a reason to invade the United States of America whilst the whole world hangs on the precipice of nuclear fallout. I think you’ll agree an exhilarating prospect, and unfortunately in today’s post 9-11 society an ever more plausible one. Filled with multiple twists it is the perfect accompaniment to the games fast paced gunplay.

Although inconsistent, the game really shines during its most intense moments. Fast paced, action packed and full of set pieces you will want to replay, the Singleplayer is nothing but excellent. Highlights include jumping from the corregated iron roof of a shanty Favela hut to reach the dangling rope of a rescue helicopter, and storming an Alcatraz esque prison culminating in a narrative twist most fans of the series can’t help but smile about. Furthermore, the games final sequence is arguably the most enjoyable moment, leaving players with a sweet taste upon completion and a heap of fond memories.

Upon completion of this 6 – 8 hour campaign the player is then introduced to Spec Ops; a co-operative two player mode which presents modified set pieces, some extracted from the campaign, some original, each thoroughly entertaining. The game remains challenging as the missions are varied whilst escalating in difficulty and intensity. Intelligent achievements task the player with completing each Spec Ops mission on the highest veteran difficulty, a challenge truly worthy of the gamerscore (or trophies depending on platform) it hands out. While challenging, the game is exploitable on the hardest missions, taking some of the fun away in exchange for virtual progress. Spec Ops is a “best of” selection from the Call of Duty series, thoroughly entertaining and a worthy addition to the series.

Of course, while these two modes are an enjoyable starter, the games main course is the multiplayer. If you were one of the millions that played Call of Duty 4 then things should be instantly recognisable. Each player can apply 2 perks to give them advantages in combat which help them to rank up so they can unlock special items and camouflage patterns. However this time Infinity Ward have increased the player’s already huge array of options. The range of killstreak rewards (selectable abilities gained after having achieved a certain number of kills before death) has over doubled, now offering the ability to airdrop a care package which enables the player a random ability, potentially a match winning one. The array of attachments which can bolster your weapons effectiveness have also seen a healthy increase, now featuring items such as a thermal scope for spotting enemies in low visibility environments.

Inevitably, all this added chaos would need to be properly balanced for competitive play, and it is this fact that comes back to bite the game. Unfortunately, the incentive proposed by these kill streaks slows the game’s pace down as players are more inclined to wait for their kills rather than risk venturing out and earning them. Matches often divulge into people perched on rooftops or behind dumpsters, awaiting their next victim. When the ability to call in a remote controlled gunship that fires explosive shells is potentially only 4 kills away, then why would the player risk sudden death only to have to start his streak again. They won’t, and it naturally hurts the high paced gameplay of Modern Warfare 2.

This is not to say the game isn’t fun. It is. Players of any skill level can jump into the multiplayer and have some modicum of success, with kills largely defined by who saw who first, meaning map movement is key. And Infinity Ward haven’t lost the ability to make the player feel rewarded, with experience points allocated arbitrarily for challenges such as sprinting a certain distance or falling off a high object and surviving, the player is always progressing no matter their performance in game. A quick applaud to Infinity Ward again for including a completely new set of weaponry in Modern Warfare 2, with any returning numbers completely remade from scratch, making a similar game to Call of Duty 4 seem all that bit fresher.

To quote Epic Games lead designer Cliff Bleszinski, Modern Warfare 2 is “bigger, better and more badass”, although that was the idea. The pressure of creating a game superior to Call of Duty 4 obviously had an affect on the final product, with an over compensating amount of additions that lack balance and meaning. Modern Warfare 2 is a thoroughly entertaining game, one that stands as a benchmark for the genre, but ultimately can’t best its younger brother. [8]

Massively Affected

Blade Runner. Star Wars. Star Trek. What do these Science Fiction juggernauts have in common. A double barrelled name of course.

And now we can add another. Mass Effect. The original game was a solid expedition into outer space, often feeling like a fan tribute to Star Wars with it's creepy re-imagining of "the force" and jedi-like peace keepers of the galaxy. The sequel however is a much improved effort from developer Bioware.

Straight off the game no longer feels like a George Lucas powerpoint presentation. What I infer by this is that the original had such a bad framerate it often devolved into a slideshow during intense combat segments and particularly well detailed environments. No more. Mass Effect 2 flows smoothly from combat to exploration without forcing your console into a fit of whooping coughs.



Character interaction is also miles ahead of it's archaic predecessor, with conversations forcing both parties to interact as they move around the room, a welcome change to the oddly static system of the original. Furthermore conversations can be interrupted with typical gaminess moral ramifications. Is some green alien withholding vital information that you need, fuck him, put a gun to his abnormal little eyes, although expect to receive stern words from your more virtuous companions. In fact, the interrupt system is an example of how Bioware's approach to morality has improved over the years. These dark versus light alignments are a trademark of Bioware RPGs, ever since they ironically created KOTOR. However in Mass Effect 2 they appear to havebeen replaced by a postmodern equivalent. No longer are these two distinctions binary opposites, with the player able to garner both without sacrificing the other. Both moral standings can now grow parallel to one another, with the reasoning that Shepherd (the player) is on a suicide mission, he doesn't always have to play nice.


The game's depiction of a galaxy littered with multiple species is also full of racial subtext. As you progress you realise that not every species appreciates one another, and that extends to you, the human. In fact, dialogue options offer you the chance to become strangely racist yourself. I in particular have noticed my own tendency to help another human isn't always mirrored by my tendency to help a Batarian for example. Perhaps this is a result of my racial discrimination from the Batarians in the game, but whatever Bioware have done, it works.

Performance issues, characterisation and improved combat help Mass Effect 2 massively outclass the original, and that massively impresses me.