Viewing entries tagged
action
As recently as about a year ago, if anyone had asked me whether I liked zombie games or not, I would have replied with an emphatic "hell no" and left it at that. I've never been big on horror in any form of media, but especially in games, as I find the interactive nature of the experience a little too visceral. That and I never understood how anyone can find it entertaining to be scared and stressed when they could be doing literally anything else.
Realism is an interesting idea when it comes to video games, as it's often regarded as something admirable to aim for, while ultimately being compromised for entertainment purposes. I mean, there are many games that flirt with realism, but if they actually created hyper-realistic systems and gameplay mechanics, the entire experience would be a frustrating bore.
I've been playing video games since I was a kid in the 1980s with a Commodore 64, but it wasn't until a decade later that I really threw myself into gaming. Up to that point I'd played with a NES and of course that C64, but as much as I enjoyed it, nothing had truly gripped me and sucked me into the wide world of video games that I now know and love. It took the release of the original Doom in 1993 to hook me once and for all, and I've been loving life ever since.
I'll be the first to admit that mechanics aren't the first thing I look for in a game, and many games I love have very light gameplay systems and mechanics at the end of the day. However, I'm not all about the stories and I still enjoy a fun challenge from a game that doesn't really care about story all that much, opting for fast and frantic combat as the main selling point from start to finish.
Fair warning, I'm very much one of those weird Blade Runner fans who loves the movie more than is reasonable for anyone to love a movie. I have multiple copies of all five different cuts of the original, as well as a collector's edition that came with lithographic prints and a model cop car from the film. So everything I have to say about this game, should probably be taken with a grain of salt.
Something I want to talk about more on this blog are the kinds of games that I start playing, but never end up finishing for one reason or another. Sure, a lot of the time this means that I haven't enjoyed myself and I try to avoid posting about games that I can't say anything good about, but there are some titles that I thoroughly enjoy, despite never being able to finish.
There's always so much to be gained from going into a game blind, with no real idea about what to expect. Then again, we've all be burned by a movie or a game that looked interesting, but turned out to be a stinker. However, when you go in blind and discover an excellent little experience that you were never expecting, the overall level of satisfaction gets raised significantly.
Sometimes when I sit down to write these blog posts, I wonder to myself what kind of point I might want to make about the game in question. Often I have something I want to say, so I just ramble on until I think I've said it, but then there are those special cases where I don't really feel like I have a lot to say, but I still want to ramble on a bit because I had such a good time after all.
There's something about the latest Tomb Raider trilogy that always leaves me with unanswered questions. After finishing each game, I think back on the story and the gameplay, and find a large hole where something important seems to be missing. Even though I've enjoyed these games and have been wonderfully entertained by the updated adventures of Lara Croft, I feel like I'm still left wanting. Now that I've finished the third in the recent series, I feel like I might be able to put my finger on precisely what could be missing.
It wasn't so long ago that I delved into Remedy Entertainment's odd sci-fi experience, Quantum Break, which now seems like an interesting experiment along the way to much better things. In fact it seems like they studio have learned a lot of useful lessons from some of the key successes and failures from this troubled entry in their development history.
There are some developers who always pique my interest thanks to their track record and Remedy Entertainment are no exception. While some studios can be known for a franchise or a singular gimmick, Remedy have what I like to call a recognisable signature to their games. As with other developers of their calibre, this underlying style manages to go a whole lot further than a franchise or mascot ever could.
Oh how I love a good twin-stick shooter. The simplicity of the mechanics, the awe of the aesthetics, and the challenge of the moment-to-moment gameplay. All of these things make up one of the purest and most satisfying gaming experiences you can get, so why do people keep insisting on adding lore into the mix?!
Sometimes I find it quite difficult to sum up my feelings on a big budget game from a large studio. Partly because the good studios have a track record of making decent games with few issues and that doesn't really make for much of a discussion. When my opinion of a game is a simple "it's good", I tend not to make much of a stink about it, even though it probably deserves some praise.
What is it about console launch titles that means they all have to be a bit mediocre? It seems like whenever a new system gets released, the creators failed to ever really test some of their new gimmicks in the real world. The sad thing is that games released close to launch have no idea that the new control method or camera will end up being a real pain in the butt.
It's always interesting to see what happens when one of the biggest gaming franchises in history decides to change up their development process. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought Ubisoft's idea of taking a year off from releasing another Assassin's Creed game was a good idea. Especially after the negative sentiments stirred up by Unity. So how did an extra year of development time serve Assassin's Creed: Origins? It's kind of hard to say.
Hype can be a double-edged sword, as it's often a result of aggressive marketing that never lives up to its promises. Over time we've learned to avoid buying into the huge swell of praise and applause handed out to big budget "hits", thanks to a long list of disappointing experiences that were supposed to be transcendental. It's a shame then, that when a truly excellent game comes along, it's mired in doubt on account of all the hype built up in its wake.
This may be the only Halo game I ever play, which might seem a little strange to some, but obvious to others. To this day I've never played another Halo game, because I've never owned an Xbox of any kind. This could have been any other twin-stick shooter and I still would have given it a go, but it just so happens that it's a spin-off from one of the biggest Xbox franchises in history.
Up until now, my involvement with the Star Wars universe has been limited to the major movie releases. I've always been aware of the extended universe and how intricate and detailed it can be, but I never delved into the depths. However, I've bought a Star Wars game collection or two, and have all these old games waiting for me to dip my toe in and have a look.
Okay, it's fair to start off with a statement: the last Battlefield game I actually enjoyed was the first Bad Company. I even spent many hours playing the Bad Company multiplayer, thanks to the novelty of its destruction system that seemed incredibly "next-gen" for me at the time. I'm not about to say that Battlefield 1 is better than Bad Company, but at this point it probably gets the silver medal.
For the longest time, any game built on the reputation of some other form of media, tends to make a big old mess of things. Often I suspect it's because some executive decided that they needed a game to sell alongside the release of their next "blockbuster" movie, and rushed one out to cash in. So why would anyone make a game based on a movie that came out 25 years ago?
