Click here to go to the archives main page.
Other popular tags: Sony, Xbox 360, PS3, Activision, Microsoft, EA, Nintendo, Wii, PC, fail, DLC, Xbox Live, Modern Warfare 2, Xbox, Girls, journalism, Review, video, Ubisoft, Valve, Xbox Live Indie Games, gaming, Kotaku, DRM, UK, DS, Left 4 Dead, PSP, XNA, Disregarded Demographics
The gauntlet is set: The rooftops of The City. This round of the ‘drome takes place in the retina-scarringly white-washed universe of Mirror’s Edge. The time trial mode is the obvious choice as it has a way of comparing times. Unfortunately, the demo of Mirror’s Edge required you to have used a special GameStop pre-order code to have unlocked the time trials. This means this week only those of us who have the full retail version of Mirror’s Edge can take part.
As mentioned in the NGCast, ‘Edge’ is the name of the timetrial (Wardrox accidentally called it a speed-run) we will be running and it can be accessed only after finished the ‘Prologue’ chapter of the story mode (this is right at the start of the game and not very difficult).
GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that Electronic Arts is planning to cut 1500 staff along with axing many “blockbuster” titles in order to save $100 million annually. The cuts are to be in areas such as corporate and publishing, with the biggest losses (900) occurring in the development sector.
EA’s CEO John Riccitiello said that it was never pleasant to see staff being cut and that: “We think the cuts we have made are very, very aggressive. We’ve cut teams, we’ve cut corporate, we’ve cut overhead [and] we’ve cut publishing”. EA has also stated that it will scale back its game production from around 60 titles last year, to 50 this year and “high 30s” in 2010.
UPDATE: Looks like EA have rectified the mistake made earlier today. The three games now come out at £14.99 total and it only took them seven hours to notice. Surely a company as big as EA can sort out such a damaging mistake quicker than this. Even when you look past the monetary losses (especially for a company as successful as EA) the embarrassment alone would be encouragement enough to get it sorted out as quick as humanly possible.
In regards to the money, I really do wonder how many people would have actually downloaded these games had it cost them a single penny. I’m wagering not very many at all. Unfortunately still no response direct from EA themselves, maybe they are just too embarrassed to comment. Read more →
Story (or campaign) modes are the motivation that drives us to play through a game.
Like a good book, when you start you want to see what events will transpire, what will happen to various characters, and learn about the world in which our journey takes place. So when the ending to a game we play is a disappointment, I feel a little cheated at times. It feels like all the time I have invested in a game is a waste. Sure, the gameplay was fun and the character development was interesting, but to have an entire story canon voided with a melodramatic and rushed ending bugs me.
Before I embark on five of the most disappointing endings, I should set up some ground rules:
Let’s begin! Oh, and of course, there will be spoilers.
It kinda does. Joining myself on this week’s amble into videogame related chatter is the lovely Chelsea and the also lovely Brittany.
Amongst the ebb and flow of this week’s episode, we talk about;
So, use one (or several) of the multitude of distribution methods below and enjoy! As always, feedback is very much welcomed, either in email (NGCast@negativegamer.com), in the forum or the comments below.
EA made a bunch of new games. Reviewers wet themselves over all the innovation. Gamers went “hmm, looks a bit crap tbh”. The games didn’t sell as well as they should.
Cue John Riccitiello, CEO of EA. He told investors that although EA sold fewer units than expected, the reviewers liked them.
While we saw significant improvement in the overall quality of our key products this year, that quality has not yet translated into enough sales. So far in calendar 08 we have shipped 17 titles with Metacritic scores of 80 or above versus seven this time last year. Quality is a prerequisite for a great selling game – but it is not the entire equation.
Perhaps the reviews are crap? Or maybe I just haven’t had enough sleep and I’m cranky. Either way, Riccitiello continued.
We did manage to put quality and innovation on the board, and we’re very proud of that. Many times, what happens with a new intellectual property is the first edition doesn’t generate the units that subsequent editions can generate
I can’t fault him on the observation that sequels often do much better. The name of the game is out there and people expect the quality of the game to be a step up from its predecessor. Putting innovation on the table though? I had no idea it was that calculated. “We’ve put 3 innovations in this game, its sequel should sell well”.
We’re very pleased with a lot of our new franchises this year. We think Spore has established a strong base for being an ongoing franchise, we think the same of MySims, Dead Space looks like a long term big winner for us [...]
Mirror’s Edge is one that was very strongly reviewed. That one’s going to go forward, we’ll probably be looking at some issues around the design to make sure that a strong IP is married to a strong business,
Regarding his last sentence about Mirror’s Edge; I wonder what he means by “married to a strong business”. Are EA going in at the ground floor, telling their developers to actually build in design features, all to generate cash?
Mirror’s Edge 2 to be third person with DLC shoes and t-shirts, confirmed.
Before I start talking about anything, I want to say what I mean by “first person perspective.” This is a game where you are in direct control of the human/alien/whatever you are and you are looking through their eyes. You can look up, down, left, right, move sideways, strafe and maybe if you’re lucky (or unlucky) you can jump. So anything similar to Halo, Left 4 Dead or Mirror’s Edge.
The biggest factor of first person perspective is how it’s controlled. Consoles use directional pads or analog sticks. PCs use keyboard and mouse. Each works very effectively in simulating that you are indeed the person you are playing and you have direct control over them. Everything you see is what the character sees, everything you do is what they do and everything you point your gun at is everything they point their gun at.
Essentially the two control schemes are the same. (I’m only talking about the things that control motion.) There is one method for controlling body movement (left analog or WASD) to allow you to move forward (and all other directions) and another for controlling where you look via your head/eyes. Wherever your eyes are looking that is “forward.” I’m sure you’re bored of me explaining how first person controls work so I’ll move on. Read more →
According to an article posted on Friday in the Guardian Games Blog, Mirror’s Edge is getting less than perfect review scores simply because it’s got too much innovation for reviewers to handle. The article by Keith Stuart titled “Do game reviewers really understand innovation?!” makes a few rather interesting claims.
Stuart points out that the game probably wont be getting scores as high as other major titles coming out this season, but says rather boldly that “if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece.”
His main argument seems to be one of the weight (or lack thereof) given to “innovation” in reviews. Taking examples from film Stuart makes the argument that when a game is being innovative, is it not fair to give it leeway if the innovation comes at a cost to the conventional aspects of games?
For example, no-one complains that, say, Pan’s Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror’s Edge down for control issues – a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character?
And this is where my opinions begin to differ with those held by Stuart. I don’t think Mirror’s Edge is as stunningly innovative as claimed. It’s a seemingly new idea yes, but it’s not a grand enough leap forward from other games to warrant the high level of praise being given to it. First person perspective, running away from enemies, avoiding direct combat, quick time events, the colour blue: all of these things have been done before. The innovation is the combination and blend.
I am a firm believer that most of the artistic language games use is embedded within the aspect unique to the medium: the gameplay. One of the most important parts of the gameplay itself is how you control your character’s movements and interactions within the game world. This makes the controls a very integral part of the experience.
In the example above, Stuart talks about giving leniency to the game. He gives comparisons between the game’s shortcomings and those of critically acclaimed films. In my opinion, equating the effect of control issues in a game with an unconventional narrative structure in a film is wrong. A much more accurate comparison would be to liken control issues with a poorly constructed narrative; something creating a profoundly different effect.
I think he is misinterpreting the target audience for most reviews. The example of a review he gives is one from IGN. It’s not written as an artistic deconstruction of the game to be read by well informed game critics; it is written for the average gamer. And the average gamer most likely doesn’t realise the artistic value games take on. These are game reviews, not game critiques. The difference between the two highlighted last year in a talk by Ernst Adams.
A further example of the difference between a reviewer and the critic is that a reviewer should take into account the value (in cold hard money) of the game. This is something which will change the priorities of the player, and subsequently those of the reviewer, likely pushing aside the purely artistic or innovative parts. A game critic would do what Stuart suggests is needed: de-construct, and applaud innovation and art. I completely agree that there is a need for articles like that to expand the audience of gaming as well as the artistic expressionism games are developing. But I don’t think that the average game review is a place for that.
Judging this medium on set criteria like graphics, sound, gameplay, lasta-fecking-bility – oh God, sometimes all that crap needs to be torn up.
I happily second his call for more in-depth, critical analysis as a basis for a review of a game. But I don’t agree that the places for the exploration of the often subtle artistic substance a game provides is within mainstream game reviews.
Reviewers are not undervaluing innovation with Mirror’s Edge; they are simply reviewing it based on the often shallow yet highly effective common criteria of quality. This is a definition of ‘quality’ that reflects less of the artistic or innovative value of the game, but more the enjoyment of the gamer.
Long Version
Mirror’s Edge has been watched very closely and tentatively since the first trailers and gameplay videos started appearing several months ago. The refreshing surroundings, promise of immersing and fast gameplay and a severe lack of space marine have all helped to build the following and interest the game has seen. With the release of the demo we can all finally get our hands on Faith (not like that) and see what it’s all about.
After an installation taking just less than the time it takes to eat a bowl of cereal (I timed it), you are ready to get running. The first thing you notice comes even before the game starts, as the loading screen has been enjoyably covered up with a video, similar to the briefings in CoD4. The animated short gives a bit of insight into what’s going on in the world. Basically, the world is now very clinical, controlled and the population is brainwashed (This trailer explains all of it).
The first part of the demo is simple training grounds. Here you learn the basics. And they are basics. L1 is “up”, L2 is “down”, the sticks move and look, and thats about it. Jumping over gaps and up walls is handled with up, ducking, sliding and tucking your feet whilst in the air is handled with down. There is no “run” button, you simply gain momentum the longer you’re running, or after every successful object vaulted over/under. Where sixaxis controls rear their ugly head, alternate button presses can (and should) be used instead. It’s true that everything feels very natural, but only as much as your standard FPS feels natural.
After you have the basics sorted you meet Celeste, a fellow roof-runner. You follow her as she leaps and bounds over a series of roof-top obstacles. Her animation is impressive, yet still not quite accurate enough to avoid looking awkward in parts, even from a distance.
The soundtrack has an uplifting electronic vibe (as used in all the trailers). The sound of your breathing, jumping and landing are all excellent, but let down by the overuse of “city sounds”. You are continually reminded that you’re on a city roof-top by the dense traffic noises seeping up from below, but a quick glance over the side and you’ll be lucky to see more than 3 cars and maybe a dozen pedestrians.
The streets are also not the only thing to feel a little too empty. The rooms and rooftops are distinctly devoid of small details. All objects are either large or not there. Rooms feel very square and almost nothing can be pushed or interacted with in any way. It feels very similar to Half-Life in that respect. It continues this similarity with the speed at which you travel through levels. You are most definitely not meant to take your time and explore. Most of the time exploration is met with a quick death or checkpoint restart.
The second half of the demo sees you playing the “Financial District” level, the one featured in nearly all hands on videos. The “multiple routes” advertised are there, but switching between what feel like contrived paths is hardly ever done, as the way you want to go is almost always directly in front of you. The routes also bottle-neck frequently, or at least they did on the demo level. I can understand time-trial modes forcing you to try what little variation there is, but I know that’s something I would get bored of quite quickly.
As you continue parkouring (probably not a word) to your eventual destination, you will inevitably meet some police. And for once, violence is not the answer. During the demo level you’re encouraged to simply run away. When you eventually are forced into an unavoidable confrontation, a button press at just the right time disarms your opponent. This isn’t the only way to get past though as jumping off walls, flying kicks and sliding tackles are all possible.
Incidentally (and disappointingly) even if you do get a gun, they have very little ammo and are useless at the range you’re typically being shot at. Not that it matters unless you’re being shot at point blank range, you take little damage. If you are unfortunate enough to take one to the face, our trusted friend auto-health regeneration is on hand to help us through.
The demo ends with you making a daring leap onto the landing legs of a helicopter; an epic moment which feels just a touch artificial. Something echoed in most aspects of the game. Unless it is some deep metaphor relating to how Faith is actually not free, the continual feeling of being in the uncanny valley does detract from the overall polished experience.
The demo was fun, but with the bland presentation and simple mechanics, I struggle to see how it can be expanded out into a full, satisfying and good-value game without a lot of either padding or repetition. Also, the inclusion of a time-trial mode only accessible when you pre-order the game is just dumb.
Short Version
It’s like if Valve made a game about running, but not quite as good.
iTunes