A Week Long Mass Effect 2 Binge Helps No One.

One thing I rarely get from games these days is a sense of satisfaction upon completion. The closest thing I can think of is the feeling you get after finishing a really good novel. You shut the book, sit back and just let it soak in. The original Fallout and Planescape: Torment were two games that I can immediately recall as having this effect; Mafia and Deus Ex are another two, although perhaps for different reasons.

With Fallout and Planescape, the comparison to a good novel is perhaps obvious. Both have fairly epic plots, with fantastic characters (especially Planescape) and most of all, both were jam packed with text. (That you had to read. Like a book). However, with Mafia and Deus Ex, the comparison is perhaps a bit less obvious. As the last mission is completed, the final boss destroyed, the princess rescued and the credits roll, these games really felt complete. You were done. You still wanted more, but the game was done, everything was wrapped up and you had to shut the door on the beautiful, detailed worlds created by the author/dev team.

Increasingly, I find that upon finishing a game, I often feel relief, indifference or occasionally frustration, but rarely that elusive sense of contentment. So what's happened?

On the one hand, all game mechanics everntually boil down to the same set of actions, repeated over and over in order to drive the story along. I recently completed BioShock. It was excellent, and the city of Rapture was a thing of beauty. A wonderfully realised underwater post-war dystopia, completely unique to anything else out there in games today. The story was also fantastic and the use of audio logs to drip feed you information about the horrors that had occurred kept pushing you to explore the nightmare of Rapture further. However, towards the end of the game, I found myself looking forward to finishing it. It's a bit like checking your watch in the cinema, even though you're really enjoying the film. Shooting up labs and whatnot, looting all the boxes and corpses and killing Big Daddies. It had become too formulaic. Perhaps my videogame OCD (must... search... every... CRATE!) didn't help (and I definitely should have turned the Vita-Chambers off), but when it came to the final boss, I was slightly relieved to be finishing*.

But is the problem with the length of games? Call Of Duty 4 was non-stop action, but felt like it was over as soon as the opening title screen had faded. It was annoying that it finished so quickly, but at the same time, it left you desperate for more. Both BioShock and CoD4 were excellent games, and neither suffered because of their length. I just wish there were more games that sucked you in and didn't let go until the very end. Maybe I just don't have the attention span I used to, but I think that really, all game mechanics have a finite lifespan (apart from TF2 apparently).

Also, I'd argue that these days, games are less about being a complete package, and more about kicking off franchises and flogging downloadable content. With development costs spiralling into the trillions of pounds these days, its not surprising that publishers and developers are looking at generating the most income possible out of their products. However, at times I feel that their games are suffering because of this. The most obvious example I can think of here is Mirror's Edge. I really fell in love with this game because of the art direction, but it was nice to see an FPS doing something different by barely concentrating on combat and making it all about movement and escape (took me back to Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast). However, fun as it was, this game was short. Really short. The ending clearly paved the way for a sequel (development of which seems to be in question after the first game failed to sell as well as expected), and it's kinda annoying to be sold the first episode of something, rather than the complete project.

No doubt if Mirror's Edge had been much longer, I'd be whining about how I got bored of it towards the end, but I really wish developers would focus on producing a good game first, and kicking off a money-spinning franchise after. In fact, this is what Irrational seem to have done with BioShock after it proved a surprise hit. The first game really has no need for a sequel plot-wise, but I'm very much looking forward to a chance to return to Rapture.

As for DLC, don't get me fucking started. That's a whole post full of ranting and bad language right there. It is pretty frustrating to finish a game, uninstall it and stick it back on the shelf, only for the dev team release a new level a couple of months later. I'm usually keen for new content, but it's unlikely that I'll be bothered to reinstall a game and try and get back into it for a couple of extra hours fun, especially not when the DLC pack costs £5 to download. I just don't like the idea of content being deliberately held back for release as DLC, and it seems that this will increasingly be the case.

So what am I trying to say here? That games these days aren't any good? Pfft! Rubbish. I've just finished Mass Effect 2, and this was a game that left me feeling completely content. Despite the fact that it commits all the crimes I've listed above (part of a franchise, open-ended, DLC on the way) BioWare have created such a finely detailed universe that it feels sad to leave it, whilst at the same time, this chapter in the Mass Effect story seems complete. I'm actually looking forward to the DLC (although that will probably change once the prices are announced), and I can't wait for Part 3, which is apparently due out early 2011. With Mass Effect 2, Bioware have created a rich, detailed universe and set out a well-told story in it. Just like Mafia and Planescape: Torment, you're sad to close the book on these worlds, but also glad to have enjoyed the ride.


*I feel I should just point out here that BioShock is indeed thoroughly enjoyable and well worth your time and money. Although it might sound like I'm moaning about it, this was a fairly minor complaint, and one that I feel applies to games in general rather than BioShock specifically. Go play it!

Reload: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Vampire - The Masquerade: Bloodlines (2004): Finally got Bloodlines back off one of my old housemates and reading the back of the box stirred up all the fond memories of playing it through a few years back, so I thought I'd give it another run through with a different character style. Replaying Bloodlines also gave me a chance to try it out with the newest fan made patch (now up to v.6.7) made by a guy called Wesp (http://www.patches-scrolls.de/vampire_bloodlines.php if you wanna give it a go). Bloodlines was famously bugged to shittery on release due to the fact that Troika went bust before finishing the game, which was a real shame. Apparently on first release, there were a few proper game-breaking bugs, as well as missing textures and models and stuff, although once patched up it's now really quite stable. I did experience a few crashes to desktop, but nothing really bad.

I'm pretty sure I first played this back in 2005, when I was still deeply in love with the Source engine (those water effects...) and despite technology moving on a fair way since then, Bloodlines still looks quite pretty. The graphics and soundtrack are perfect for LA by night, and there are very few games I can think of which create such a fantastic atmosphere. However, Bloodlines' strongest point by far is its cast of characters. From vampires to humans and a whole host of other creatures in between, the range of different characters and personalities encountered is quite awesome. Some are just standard RPG/videogame/movie cliches, others are completely original, but all are well-realised. The closest comparison I can draw is to the original two Fallout games, which is perhaps unsurprising as Troika Games was founded by various members of Black Isle Studios who bailed before Interplay shut the company down.

Bloodlines is definitely worth a replay today, once it's all patched up. It's sort of like Deus Ex, if Deus Ex had Fallout's writing staff. It's not all fantastic though, with a couple of the quests descending into basically mindless hack n slash type nonsense, but even this isn't enough to bring the game down.

Unfortunately, Bloodlines didn't sell well on release and it looks like the end of the line for the Vampire games series, which is rather a pity what with everyone being gay for vampires these days. With games in the state they are at the moment, I can't see anything like this being produced for a while, but at least Bloodlines exists as an example of how great PC games can be.

Post script: Rock, Paper, Shotgun did a lovely VTM: Bloodlines retrospective which is infinitely better than anything I could write: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/02/11/forever-young-the-tragedy-of-bloodlines/

Reload: Tribes Vengeance

Tribes Vengeance (2004): I never really played Tribes back in the day, and until T:V, my only real experience with the franchise was Starsiege from way back in 1999. I first picked it up for about four quid or something in 2005 after reading some generally positive reviews and having a go at the demo (whilst playing catch up for the previous four years of PC games that I'd missed out on from not upgrading).

At the time, it was actually pretty stunning. Flying round the huge maps by jet pack and skiing down almost vertical slopes at 5000 mph was fantastic fun, even though the weapons were either bit shit or completely redundant. The Unreal 2 engine made everything look lovely and shiny, and the space-opera storyline was actually rather compelling as well, despite being painfully cheesy at times.

It was only when I started exploring the online and multiplayer options that it began to become clear how pissed off most of the Tribes community seemed to be with T:V, the game's developer Irrational and its publisher VU Games. After its launch in 2004, T:V failed to sell for a number of reasons and support for the game was quickly abandoned by VU. Existing Tribes players seemed to think that T:V moved too far away from the original games and stuck with them, rather than moving on to Vengeance. Also, 2004 was not a good year for rebooting PC franchises, with UT2k4 and Half-Life 2 occupying most gamers' free time. I can't help but feel that it was also the beginning of a transition from mainstream online gaming away from PCs and towards XBox Live. If Vengeance had been launched a year later on the 360, perhaps it'd have fared a bit better. In any case, by 2004 there really wasn't room for what was essentially a new online FPS franchise.

The failure of Tribes Vengeance is a pretty sad story overall, and whilst the multiplayer may not have made the grade considering the game was essentially a multiplayer game, the single player campaign is still worth a play through if you haven't tried it before (despite the fact that its really only there to provide training for the multiplayer). The Unreal 2 engine is certainly showing its age, although I still prefer its post-processing to the over-blown plasticiness of the Unreal 3 engine.

As previously mentioned, the T:V storyline is pretty good and Irrational certainly managed to do an impressive job of telling it from various different points of view, switching between the past and present.I doubt there's anyone playing it online these days, but as a single player game, Tribes Vengeance is definitely worth giving a spin if you haven't tried it before, and still worth a replay if you have.

Can I Get A Reload?: TIE Fighter

Recently, I've found myself replaying a few of the older games in my collection, a situation that has arisen out of a mixture of boredom and the fact that my PC lacks the oomph to run anything post 2007 at an acceptable standard. It's been quite an interesting experience, revisiting titles that I remember were fantastic in their day and seeing how they've stood the test of time.




TIE Fighter (1994): Who doesn't have fond memories of playing TIE Fighter? Probably quite a lot of people actually (doubt anyone under the age of 18 has even heard of it), but let's not dwell too much on that. Deeply atmospheric as only a Star Wars space sim could be, TIE Fighter was a Proper Star Wars Game, with a pretty cool plot that saw you completing missions as both a faceless TIE pilot nobody and as a sort of special agent for the Empire (often placing your primary mission goals in jeopardy). Flying missions for the Empire mostly involved policing the galaxy, busting pirates/smugglers and combating Rebellion "terrorists", making a nice change from the guerrilla-style hit and run missions of X-Wing.

TIE Fighter was also bloody tough, especially in the early stages when you're piloting fighters with low or non-existent shielding, possibly made from balsa wood. This forced the player to rely on speed and maneuverability, as well as careful management of shield and laser energy in order to stay alive. It seems that the developers realised quite how tough and frustrating the game could at times become, and chose to include the option to turn player invincibility on or off at any time. Whilst this might seem like a bit of a cop out, I think it actually proves to be a smart inclusion, if used sparingly.

So what's it like to revisit TIE Fighter? Obviously the game looks old (it came out in 1994!) but rather than hold back the game, I feel the aged graphics actually give it a sense of charm. The ship models and textures lack detail and the actual space environments themselves are sparse, with a few pixley planets here and there, but the gameplay remains so solid that it is easy to look past the game's age and have a thoroughly enjoyable experience. The craft-specific cockpits/HUDs are also nicely detailed and actually go quite a long way to giving the various fighters a good sense of identity.

I was playing with the "Enemies of the Empire" add on campaign, which adds three additional sets of missions following on from the main game. The primary focus of the campaign involves hunting down a rogue Imperial commander and his fleet, which actually becomes a bit dull when compared to the variety of missions found in the original game. I certainly felt that once the game no longer centres around being a Fascist Space Policeman, it loses much of what originally made it stand out from other space combat games.

There are variety of legal and less-than-legal ways to track down copies of TIE Fighter, and I'd definitely recommend that you give it a play. Having said that, I bloody love space shooters, but I know they're hardly to every one's taste (which is why they died out back at the end of the '90s, but there's a whole other post for that). Word on the streets is that LucasArts might be re-releasing all it's space shooters over Steam, hopefully opening them up to a new audience, as well as giving old-timers a chance to revisit them. I'd rather see a whole new TIE Fighter release with shiny modern graphics and stuff, but no one likes space games these days, so I can't really see that happening. Even if LucasArts were to do this, they'd probs shit out some godawful Phantom Menace themed nightmare.

Ah well, all this ranting about TIE Fighter has really got me jonesing for some X-Wing Alliance now...

Can I Get A Reload?: Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory

Recently, I've found myself replaying a few of the older games in my collection, a situation that has arisen out of a mixture of boredom and the fact that my PC lacks the oomph to run anything post 2007 at an acceptable standard. It's been quite an interesting experience, revisiting titles that I remember were fantastic in their day and seeing how they've stood the test of time.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (2005): Upon starting this one up the first time round, I remember initially feeling disappointment because of the way it felt so different to Splinter Cell and Pandora Tomorrow. Having spent the previous two weeks sneaking my way through the first two titles in the series, I wasn't quite ready for the change of tempo offered by Chaos Theory. Mostly, however, my initial distaste was down to the fact that the new Unreal 2.5 engine seemed to give Sam Fisher et al. stupid fat faces. However, my reservations quickly ceased to be once I found myself immersed in the game proper.

Although Sam seemed to have become less a secret agent and more a super soldier, the game was all the better for it. Stealth and action were balanced perfectly, and because the "Three alarms and you're out" rule was gone, it became possible to shoot your way through levels if you got frustrated with the "sneak-grab-interrogate-stab in throat-hide body" formula. Although adopting this approach still usually ends up with President Palmer* yelling at you, several of the levels set in war zones actually encourage this sort of noisey and generally antisocial behaviour, which breaks up the sneaking and knifing nicely.

Having said that, I still rarely used the SC-20K rifle, which makes you wonder why Sam bothers bringing such a clunky piece of gear with him on all his top secret missions. I struggled to finish the first Splinter Cell, mainly because by the end I was getting bored, but whilst playing CT, this tedium never seemed to set in and the game kept me playing right up to the end.

So how does the game stand up on the replay? Well, I can report that CT is still a magnificently cinematic experience. The game itself still looks lovely (apart from the previously mentioned fat face issue) and it plays fantastically. The techno-thriller storyline chugs along like one of the good series of 24 and the Amon Tobin soundtrack remains as suitably vicious as ever (it's remained a constant fixture on my MP3 since 2005).

When compared to the buggy, poorly optimised mess that was 2006's Splinter Cell: Double Agent, CT stands out as even more impressive. A thoroughly great game, well deserving of a replay or even a first time run through for anyone who missed out on it previously.

The next entry in the Splinter Cell series, Conviction, seems to be heading in a new, more Deus Exy sand-box direction, which could be a good thing although it'll have to be very impressive in order to reach the lofty heights of Chaos Theory.

*Actually Dennis Haysbert only voiced Lambert in Pandora Tomorrow.