Posts Tagged ‘ Bioshock ’

Condemned 2 Bloodshot – “Condemned We Are”

Like its predecessor, “Condemned 2” is (supposedly) a first-person survival horror game, with hand to hand combat sequences and “C.S.I.” inspired puzzles. The original “Condemned” was a moody ambiance piece; its only redeeming factor was its capacity for building up suspense, thanks to its  deliberately slow pacing, and its dark, decrepit portrayal of American urban centers, in Fincher’s neo-noir style (also present in games like “Max Payne” or even “Silent Hill 2”). Not that the game really took advantage of that aesthetic – the second half of the game brimmed with visual excesses and over the top action and narrative. In other words, it was a mess that ended up ruining the carefully concocted ambiance and pacing of the first half.

condemned-2-bloodshot-20080229005848147

The sequel is pretty much the same, but going even more overboard than the second half of the original. The brawn has been ramped up, with a clear abuse on repetitive, boring action sequences, with a heavier focus on fire-arms (almost completely absent in the prequel). The plot is the silliest piece of Hollywood wanna-be action drivel I’ve encountered in a long while – it’s a dumb application of the mono-myth, filled with angst and foul language on part of the hero, i.e. more silly “dark and mature” adolescent fantasies written by inept writers. The aesthetic does manage to keep the influences of the original, which allows the game to sometimes shine. However, it quickly becomes repetitive, with the art designers lacking subtlety, and abusing dark color palettes and graphic detail. Not to mention that there are some ridiculous references to “Saw’s” torture porn, and “Bioshock’s” art deco (which makes as much sense in “Condemned” as a renaissance painting in a modern art exhibit). There is one mild improvement over its predecessor in the “C.S.I.” puzzles, which are now, well, actual puzzles which you must solve. What is a shame though, is that they bog down to visually flattering forms of questionnaires, which don’t really conceal that much substance. You’ll never deduce anything or really be forced to think like a detective, so you’ll never feel like one, despite tremendous effort from the designers on that regard.

xbox360_condemned_04

“Condemned 2” is a derivative game in every sense of the word. It tries really hard to capture what made so many games great in the past, by borrowing many bits and pieces, but in the end, it simply lacks the creative nexus to make everything blend together. A great example of this flawed exercise is in the use of a subjective point of view. “Condemned’s” creators tried to use the same consistent first person view of “Breakdown” or “Mirror’s Edge”, a technique that allows greater identification with physical actions and dramatic effect on part of the player. But instead of realizing the potential of such an approach on a survival horror game, they ruin the idea by using out of body cut-scenes (poorly shot and with some horrible animations) and employing a noisy HUD with combo meters and score tally’s. They spent all that money in making interesting first person animations, only to pull you out of character in no time, with some poor, easy to fix, design choices. And everything in the game works out in that same way, as every interesting solution they come up with, only being used for the most immediate, functional, infantile form of entertainment. But if we pull back, and take a good look around, we can’t be unjust to the point of saying that “Condemned 2” is much worse than its contemporary peers, because it isn’t. And that is the only frightening reality the game can really condemn us to feel.

score: 0/5

2009
07/13
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Review
TAGS






Leave a comment

Dead Space – “Dead Space”

dsmedia

“Dead Space” is an academic work on how to create a (western) horror game. It’s as if a game design student were asked to devise an action/horror game out of existing models. What would happen? The student would go do some research on how to design such a game, he’d then borrow ideas from the major genre references both in and outside the means, seeing how he could glue them together and come up with a  formula of sorts. “Dead Space” is the end-product of that formula. The quality of this academic exercise depends solely on the quality of the student, on his choices for references, and on his ability to (re)interpret them correctly. So how good is Bret Robbins (“Dead Space’s” creative director) as a game student?

screen_nuisance_download_022708

The basis for “Dead Space’s” model is obvious: “Resident Evil 4”. Whatever the view on “Resident Evil 4”, it’s widely regarded as a great game [though I have some issues with it… but that’s a different story], so the choice to use it as a major reference seems spot on. For all intents and purposes, “Dead Space” is “Resident Evil 4”; copied with precision and perfectionism, which is more than you can say about most plagiarists. There’s the claustrophobic camera angle, the sluggish tank-like movement, the “stop, aim with laser pointer and then shoot” interaction, the overwhelming odds against hordes of living dead monsters, the silly item/weapons store in the middle of a war zone, the grueling old school inventory management, etc, etc. Its a thorough and well designed facsimile. Even the less obvious notions that made “Resident Evil 4” a success are mimicked. For instance, level structure: like in “Resident Evil 4”, levels are built as mini-roller-coasters, each starting with a slow crescendo of enemies, properly paced with exploration sequences, but quickly ramping up to a succession of hectic encounters with several monsters. The result is a non-stop thrill ride till the end… and that’s what action games should be all about.

2084053788_278614cd50

To add some variety into the “Resident Evil” action formula, there’s the occasional puzzle. The importance of puzzles in survival horror games could be easily overlooked, but for once, it was actually understood. Because puzzles force players’ mind to focus on something other than shooting enemies, they establish the perfect occasion to catch him off guard and unprepared for combat, as another batch of monsters jumps out of nowhere. It’s a cheap trick of course, but a very effective one at getting your adrenaline flowing – “Dead Space” uses it constantly. Moreover, the jumpy chair moments fit perfectly with the “Resident Evil 4” survival horror vibe, thus adding more excitement into the roller-coaster ride notion. Obviously, the puzzle models had to come from somewhere else, and, once again, our student did the job. He borrowed from “Half Life 2’s” gravity gun, arguably the best use of environmental puzzles in modern videogames; “Prey’s” gravity twisting, which allowed players to run through walls and ceilings, a great idea left undeveloped in the original game; and the now standard time bending mechanics from… well any game with time bending – which game is complete without it?

concept_desolate_hallway_download_021208

What Bret Robins lacked in his formal exercise was something that could weave all these game design fabrics into a consistent piece – he needed a game world, a set of artistic assets that could establish a believable background for the interactions. Consistent with his approach, he turned to classic horror movies, specifically, sci-fi horror movies. He took the “Alien” saga’s set up, the environment and religious undertone from “Event Horizon”, spiced it up with a monster design based on “The Thing”, and weaved everything together with a story. The result is a dark, moody scenario, perfect for any survival horror game. And because it’s sci-fi, all those crazy game design notions could be made believable –  in the future, anything is possible. The only thing left was how to translate the story. The word out on the media is that cutscenes are a thing of the past, so “Dead Space” avoids them by incorporating the narrative devices from “Bioshock” (or its predecessors, “System Shock” and its sequel), most notably, the use of disembodied objects, such as text-logs, audio-logs and video-logs, to translate story. The choice is a smart one, because, like in “Bioshock”, these elements effectively allow for the absence of characters’ physical presence, thus enhancing a sense of loneliness and helplessness face the environment – a crucial factor in a survival horror themed game. Once again, our student passes with flying colors.

080325deadspace

But though the exercise was pulled off, there’s something fundamentally wrong with this approach. Copying from others in such a systematic fashion may achieve good results, but can only be regarded as plagiarism, something that challenges the very notion of Art – which is based on human creativity, not xeroxing. That’s one of the greatest problems in this industry, this notion that mimicking others is a good way to achieve great products – the result is out there for every one to see: endless remakes, sequels and rehashes flood the market every year. Furthermore, even if one could accept this  academic process as a valid notion on how to address game design, “Dead Space” could still be criticized. Because, though its author had the knowledge and the resources to pull off the formal requirements, he lacked the ability to reinterpret his references in a meaningful, artistically profound way. His blind faith in successful design models stopped him from criticizing and deconstructing those references, in the process reconstructing what could’ve been a new game, that though based on a couple of references, went further with its own ideas. But there are no original ideas in “Dead Space” save a few stylized gimmicks (dismemberment shooting, in-game HUD/menu system viewed as a hologram, …). The end result is a well executed work, that while amusing in itself, never transcends the sum of its numerous parts. Adding to that, its infatuation with superficial gimmicks and technical minutiae leaves its core experience a hollow shadow of its predecessors. It ends up lacking texture and density in every one of its expressive vehicles: the story is detached and bland, its environments are too predictable and dull to become scary, and as a pure action thrill, you can’t but shake the thought that it never achieves the mastery of its main reference, “Resident Evil 4”. And that’s its greatest downfall. If a game doesn’t add anything substantially new to its genre, and can’t pair up with the game it tries so hard to imitate, then… why bother playing it? The answer is: you don’t.

Overall: 2/5

2008
12/22
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Review
TAGS







4 comments

On Roger Ebert’s view of videogames

A non-edited transcript from a comment reply that was written a few months ago follows. While visiting my blog, I just thought it deserved a full post. [take into account these may not reflect my current opinions (people do change…)] This will probably become common practice in the future, in order to spike further discussions with my dear blog readers.

  1. Rez said,

    May 24, 2008 at 5:16 am · Edit

    I agree with Roger Ebert. Movies are a far more superior medium than games. Most game storylines are just generic varations of other plots. Bioshock is basically Roger Corman.

  2. ruicraveirinha said,

    May 25, 2008 at 9:50 am · Edit

    “I agree with Roger Ebert.”
     Well, first up, let me say I’m a big fan of Roger Ebert… as a movie critic. When it comes to games, he clearly knows nothing about what his talking about. Did he ever play a game on his own? Probably not. Did he ever play (or even watch somebody play) the best games in the means? Surely not. When he describes games, he dismisses much of the elements that make the experience unique and interesting. It’s like a theater critic bashing on cinema, without ever being to a movie-theater – would you believe that person? No matter how valid an opinion can be, if it lacks proper justification, it means nothing. And in Ebert’s case, it lacks.

    “Movies are a far more superior medium than games.”
    No means can be seen as superior to another. In my opinion there’s no possible comparison, because each artistic mean uses different semiotic vehicles to express their author’s ideas. Can you compare literature to cinema? Sure, you can say that literature has far more complex narrative structures, dialogs, and whatnot, but Literature lacks the impact and beauty of image and sound. So how do you compare? Music with literature? Theater with Sculpture? How? It’s simple, you can’t, they’re different languages, with different expressions, different focuses, different motifs, different genres, different everything! To compare just seems silly to me.
    Now, what I do admit, is the comparison between means when it comes asserting the fulfillment of their potential. In that regard, I can see film as “superior” medium, but that is to be expected, it has had more than 100 years of history to perfect the craft, as opposed to 30 in the gaming means…

    Most game storylines are just generic varations of other plots.
    That afirmation is just completely generic and reductive, and the same can be said about most works of art. I bet I can reduce any movie to a composition of others works of art, and the same can be done with any other piece, because every bit of art that exists is always a product of previous works, either directly (when it is in the form of an adaptation), or indirectly, (when you can sense the artist’s influences and references). Artists are human beings and thus, a product of their means. They always take something from the past and use it to create their own unique expression. But that doesn’t make it unique, it makes it slightly different than his influences, but never detached from them. Art scholars do just that: examine a piece of art and conjure up the net of influences that rise behind and beyond.
    So, when you say that “Bioshock is basically Roger Corman.” you’re probably right, but it is far from being detracting to the piece, quite on the contrary, it means its authors have good references and know how to translate them into other means, with added value and expression. Reducing “Bioshock” to a single influence, forgetting all of its brilliant art-deco flair, carefully woven script, claustrophobic ambiance and beautiful soundtrack is mean and unjustified, and I think you can understand why. I could say the same about “1984″, “Brave New World”, “Metropolis”, or any other work of art, and it would always be unfair. So be careful when you say… “A” is “B”, don’t you go forgetting what “A” really is.

So, anyone wanna comment through? Please? What’s your view on Roger Ebert’s thoughts? You can visit his blog here.

2008
08/24
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Editorial
TAGS

3 comments

Bioshock – “Behold… Rapture!”

bioshock_1.jpg

“Bioshock”, like most art, is shaped from an idea, a message, a concept; in this case, it’s Rapture, an underwater dystopia molded by objectivist ideals. In this Jules Verne scenario, 20.000 leagues under the sea, Andrew Ryan (a captain Nemo like politician), after being fed up with government oppression, decides to build an entire underwater nation, where every “man is entitled to the sweat of his brow”. In his own private utopia, justice, religion, morals, ethics and any social considerations are absent, in favor of free commerce and free will as Universal Law. The result, as you can no doubt guess, is nothing but disastrous. Though at first, thanks to the lack of ethical boundaries, science, commerce and art bloom, after some time, everything goes haywire. The result is an underwater ghost city, filled with the monsters of Andrew Ryan’s objectivist dreams: a plastic surgeon that makes Picasso paintings out of women, a sculptor that makes art by molding human flesh, and a capitalist entrepreneur that is willing destroy an entire society, if only to be entitled “to the sweat of his brow”. Rapture is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most consistent, thought-provoking universes ever to grace a videogame. Written by none other than Ken Levine (“Thief, the Dark Project”, design and story, and writer of “System Shock 2”), this metaphor of modern capitalist America and nightmare of Ideological proportions, rightfully belongs in the same pantheon of dystopian masterpieces such as “1984”, “Farenheit 451” “Brave New World”, “Metropolis”, “Gattaca”, “V for Vendetta”, etc.

Bioshock - No gods or Kings. Only Man

The plot itself revolves around the discovery of Rapture by an unknown man, after his plane crashed in the middle of the Ocean. Controlled by the player, he will uncover Rapture’s dark past, by listening to the audio-logs of its inhabitants and by facing Andrew Ryan’s objectivist monstrosities. In the end, his quest will decide the fate of Rapture, according to the moral choices the player picks during the game. And though they might seem simple at first, if they’re taken seriously, they can add a whole level of dramatic impact to the unveiling of the plot, making it much more meaningful. The narrative tends to move slowly and usually tries to establish certain moods, allowing the player to immerse in the chaotic nature of Rapture, while at the same time, learning about its convoluted history. Curiously, few cutscenes are used, which ends up being both a blessing and a curse. On one side, you aren’t obliged to sit through important plot details (which I admit, might be boring to some), but on the other side, much of the dramatic potential of the plot feels wasted (it’s not by accident that people are most often moved by cutscene driven / cinematic games).

bioshock11.jpg

What manages to counterweight the absence of cutscenes, is the sheer amount of detail and information that lies hidden in the art and music of the game. Posters, sculptures, flyers, songs, all have something to say about the world of Rapture, and whether you want to or not, you’ll apprehend a lot of sensorial information that might be otherwise hard (or annoying) to convey. Of course, this wouldn’t be that interesting if the Art Design or Music weren’t as good as they are. The fact is that “Bioshock”, besides featuring one of the best narratives to grace a game, also features one of the best art designs ever to appear in one; and this is, by no means, a shallow compliment. The virtuous art deco transforms every corridor, wall and painting into a beautiful work of art. The contrast between the cold, stark colors of the ocean and the flashy neon of Rapture’s buildings is the perfect testament to the designers’ capability of creating interactive paintings; every light, shadow and texture blends perfectly in the background, feasting your eyes and mind. Even small details, like the camera’s POV, were tweaked to get a particular sense of immersion and dread, contributing, in no small part, to the way the game should “feel”. Accompanying the visuals, a classical and jazz soundtrack by Garry Schyman fills in the immersion gap; whether it’s the 1920’s euphoric swings, or the moody piano ballads, every bit of music adds another dimension the player’s experience, making it a powerful means of inducing fear, claustrophobia, or just delivering some piece of information about Rapture’s spirit.

bioshock200708211115105yo1.jpg

Now, usually, in my reviews of more artistic games, every compliment has been said by the time I get to the gameplay section, which is where I commonly start “bashing”. Guess what? “Bioshock” is also grandiose on that regard. It takes the first person shooter / rpg hybrid mechanics of “System Shock 2”, removes the unneeded complications, and empowers certain abilities, creating the perfect blend of open-ended first person shooter. The player has at his disposal a great number of weapons and abilities (which he can level up), each with a particular context of use, allowing the player to choose his particular fighting style. It’s nothing that hasn’t been done before, but in “Bioshock”, everything feels tweaked and balanced, to the point of making complex mechanics inherently fun to use, while most games, either simplify them too much, thus discarding the tactical nature of choices (“Crysis”), or complicate them to the point of being too obtuse to be fun (“Deus Ex”). Furthermore, special abilities, which range from fireballs to electric shocks, have special uses when the environment’s context is right, thanks to a physics engine that defines water as electric-conducting and oil as inflammable, making special abilities all the more amusing. Perhaps the only (minor) flaw I can find in this game (that can’t be regarded as nitpicking) is the sometimes overly hectic nature of the action; for the most part of the game, there is someone (or something) trying to kill you. The reason this comes out as a flaw is simple: “Bioshock” is beautiful, immersive, and mysterious, warranting exploration and attention to detail in order to sink in all the wonders of the game, but it is hard to do so, when you’re constantly fighting for your life. A more paced gameplay would definitely emphasize the more interesting aspects of the game, even if it would end up losing some appeal for the more trigger-happy players.

bioshock200708261254317yr0.jpg

Now, I know what you’re thinking, what about all the rant the game got? From the players who thought it was too easy or the naysayers that labeled “Bioshock” as “System Shock 2” “lite”? To the first group I’d answer this, if the game’s too easy, then play it in a harder difficulty and don’t use some of the helps the game gives, I mean, nobody forces the player to use the (absurdly famous) vita chamber (I sure didn’t). To the second group, I’d say this, if you think “Bioshock” is a dumbed down version of “System Shock 2”, then you probably shouldn’t be reading this in the first place. “Bioshock” is so much more than “System Shock 2”, especially in its story and art dimensions, that I have be blunt: anyone who can’t see the difference, either is completely blind and deaf, or just plain dumb (pardon my English).

It’s not hard to understand why someone like me, who looks upon games as an art form, would love “Bioshock” in every possible way. It’s one of the few games that actually wants, from the get go, to be regarded as much more than just a toy, or just a “game”. Its aesthetics are beautiful, its message is strong, intelligent and emotionally provocative, and it is an entertaining game on many levels. It is, by my definition, the perfect example of a perfect game, and one of the best works of art I’ve seen in the past year.

Overall: 5/5

2008
03/21
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Review
TAGS




1 comment

And the winner is… “Mario Galaxy”?

Mario Galaxy

“Mario Galaxy” was voted by a vast majority of game sites as 2007’s Game of the Year (Gamespot, Gametrailers, 1Up, IGN, etc). Personally I found it disturbing. Not because I consider it a bad game, mind you. [Though I must admit, “Mario Galaxy” is the only game-of-the-year nominee I haven’t played from start to finish. I have however played and seen enough footage to know what the game is about…] The thing that bothers me, is not the actual award, but its justification. The main reason why “Mario Galaxy” allegedly gained the award over games like “Bioshock”, “Mass Effect” or “Call of Duty 4” was because it was considered to be “more fun” than any other game.

Now this really reminded me how immature the industry and its media really can be. Imagine, if you will, that during the next Oscars “Pirates of the Caribbean” won the award for best movie; that the Grammy for overall best record went to Shakira’s latest album… and imagine the Nobel Prize in literature given to JK Rowling. All, because that was the best entertainment of the year; all because those were the most “fun”. Forget about everything else: THEY WERE FUN.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: games are supposed to be “fun”, right? Hey, movies too. Music, books, paintings… they’re all supposed to deliver on some sort of entertainment. Whether in the form of contemplating aesthetic beauty, the conveying of powerful feelings, the telling of stories, or even the provoking of laughter, amusement and pure pleasure. Whatever the form, all art has one purpose: to entertain an audience. Now, the key thing is: there are many forms of entertainment, and many types of audience, and any medium has an infinite array of ways in which it can deliver entertainment… to an equally large number of different audiences. Think about the differences between a “Da Vinci” and a “Pollock” painting; think about what sets Mozart and Shostokovich apart; think about the work of Kubrick vs. that of Spielberg. Are they the same? No, they’re different; they all have different notions of entertainment, audience… and Art.

So, why is “Mario Galaxy” Game of the Year a problem? Because critics in the videogame industry only contemplate entertainment in one simple way: the amusement one gets from actually playing the game. Everything else: all the complexities, all the variety of possibilities a game offers, all the beauty… falls secondary. This year, the artistry of the graphics, the weaving of the narrative, the message games convey, were forgotten. Only “fun” was rewarded with the Game of the Year award. Now, this doesn’t happen this consistently in other mediums: magazines, websites and festivals consider many aspects beyond this abstract “fun” factor, when reviewing and criticizing art/entertainment. More so, the majority of awards go to works that challenge the audience into feeling or thinking about some issue or message; not the ones that are just more “fun”.

Bioshock - No gods or Kings. Only Man

Not that there is anything wrong with fun. I love playing games that excite me, that challenge me, that entertain me at a more basic level. But a game can, and (in my opinion) should deliver much more. Books, movies, comics, music, tv… all those mediums deliver on so many levels, so why should games be any different? Are they inferior? No, but I guess they are more recent, more immature, and as such, are still seen as “toys”. Because “toys” are the only objects that are all about being “fun”, nothing more, nothing less. Now think a bit: is “Mario Galaxy” just a “toy”? Is “Bioshock” a “toy”? Think about the games you liked the most: were they just “Toys”? Or were they something far more powerful? Something we usually call… Art?

The conclusion one can achieve from the justification of the “Mario Galaxy” award is that the majority of the game media still regard games as some sort of fancy “toys”; the same media that, supposedly, should be enlightening and uplifting people’s perceptions about videogames. And if they regard games as these “toys”, and not as something more, then who will?

[I will come back to the issue of what defines art (and games as art), as well as the lack of maturity most game journalists show, in weeks to come…]

2008
01/16
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Editorial
TAGS





11 comments