Messages

26

Podcast Discussion / Re: RetroActive #19 - Killer 7 - Official Discussion Thread

« on: August 27, 2011, 09:02:06 PM »

text text text

I have to say I'd be extremely surprised if any of your posts get read out on the podcast

Also, Jonny, I approve of the comparison with the old Resident Evil games. I am highly tolerant of those games and I actually think that Killer 7 has decent gameplay and some quite good puzzles. It's archaic, but to me it's an acceptable form of archaic.

27

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 254: Silk the Shocka

« on: August 17, 2011, 08:31:05 AM »

Mario 3D Kart?

EDIT: Oh my.

28

Podcast Discussion / Re: RetroActive #19 Poll - GameCube 10th Anniversary Edition

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:03:08 AM »

I'm surprised to see such a negative reaction to Killer 7 winning. But while I'm sure some of those votes were registered for shits and giggles, there have also been people in this thread who have said that Killer 7 is a GOOD game, myself included. It may not be to everyone's tastes, but I hope that this Retroactive will encourage people to go back, give this game another chance, and maybe they'll be able to appreciate it for what it does well. Primarily for me, looking back, what sold it on me was primarily its unique art-house aesthetic and atmosphere.

I'm relieved that Origins hasn't won it, there have been enough RPGs discussed in previous Retroactives. They're too long, and we saw what occurred in the Mother 3 thread - lots of spoilerific discussion around the story, and the discussion on RFN ended up feeling incomplete for not addressing it, although it's understandable why it was left out.

29

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 252: Sky Puppies Defeat Fake Hero

« on: August 04, 2011, 09:23:22 AM »

Mario Kart Prologue would be much more suitable IMO.

30

Podcast Discussion / Re: RetroActive #19 Poll - GameCube 10th Anniversary Edition

« on: July 26, 2011, 10:28:38 AM »

I don't have a Gamecube so unfortunately I won't be able to actively participate in this like I did with Perfect Dark (probably a relief for some considering my essays in that Retroactive thread). I would've loved to play Baten Kaitos Origins back when it came out, but unfortunately it never made it to Europe. That was a real shame, since I thought the first game was enjoyable, if a bit marred by the horrendous voice acting.

I never completed Killer 7, always wanted to though, I thought it was a really good game so I might vote for it anyway. Story is batshit insane, but that's part of the charm. I was disappointed with No More Heroes and think this is far superior gameplay-wise. Despite the crude controls I actually think it plays well and the levels are well-designed. Plus the music - who can forget Rave On?! The concept of running through a completely empty room with that music going was a fantastic way to get pumped for the boss battles.

31

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 248: Perfect Agent Greganna

« on: June 27, 2011, 07:39:47 AM »

Ha ha, that was a great rendition of PD's voice acting. Like Greg's friend I wasn't really sure Carrington was supposed to be Scottish at first, but now I think it's actually probably supposed to be a direct impression of Sean Connery. That's not an excuse for its awfulness though!

32

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 17, 2011, 12:02:01 PM »

You pretty much didn't play the same game I did, nor did you finish it. It would explain most of your complaints.

I've made it clear in my posts how much of the game I've played. This thread is partly about people coming to a game for the first time and writing about their experiences as they are playing the game so I don't think it's fair to harp on at me for not having "completed" the game. And I have to question what you consider "finishing" the game to mean. Typically in a singleplayer game, like, say, Resident Evil, I'd say anyone who has played through to the end credits on any difficulty level has finished it, even though there is usually plenty more content available and other difficulties on offer. In hindsight, some of my complaints about PD are somewhat premature I suppose because of the way the game changes on Perfect Agent, but I still contend that playing through the game on Agent and Secret Agent is to a pretty large extent unenjoyable, and you have to wonder how many players were willing to push through the chaff. As I mentioned, if it weren't for Nick's post, I wouldn't still be playing PD and starting to reevaluate my overall opinion of the game.

As to my comments about the Skedar/Half-Life enemies comparison, I think you are missing the point somewhat. I believe you when you say that the head-crab type enemy is a common FPS archetype, although since my experience with Duke Nukem 3D is limited to playing briefly at friends' houses I never saw that sort of enemy. The main point though is that on Agent at least, that level is extremely tedious. The comparison with Half-Life was less to do with the enemies and more to do with the linearity and playstyle of that level, which I don't feel work since the objectives pose very little challenge, the enemies require very little strategy, and at the end of it is a boss who requires obscure tactics to beat, whilst firing rockets which can kill you instantly. The randomised pillar placements do not make it anymore fun. I just checked and what you said about the IR scanner is actually untrue - the enemies do not show up on the scanner until they spawn.  I should emphasise though again that this is on Agent difficulty (I don't have access to any higher difficulties on that level), and from what said about facing Skedar on Perfect Agent I can see that there is potential. It really does sound as if we are playing a completely different game. The difference is that it sounds like you're playing a good game - Perfect Agent difficulty - and I'm playing a mediocre one with flashes of greatness - Agent/Secret Agent.

Also I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I want a linear experience. Half-Life was not my first FPS, I had played Doom, Gloom and Goldeneye several years earlier and loved them. I greatly value the freedom offered in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark to tackle objectives in any order. I probably wasn't clear enough about this in my previous posts but the issue is not non-linearity per se, but rather that in PD the levels tend to be so big as to be overwhelming, so that the game ends up feeling unfocused and big for big's sake. Yes, you can complete the objectives in any order, but first you have to be able to find the objectives and not constantly come up against locked doors and dead ends. However, now, playing on Perfect Agent, the levels so far make way more sense, since previously vacant parts of the level are utilised. And in a level like the Crash Site there is a lot of strategy involved in choosing the order in which you tackle objectives, which makes it far more interesting to approach than a linear level.

Also, you raise some good points about some positive changes made in PD that I hadn't noticed, like the lack of infinite enemy spawns. In certain missions those could be really frustrating in Goldeneye, although I did think it made sense in a few missions like the Bunker when the alarm system was involved and you basically had to restart if the alarm went off because of those armoured double ZMG bastards.

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from now Oohhboy. My gripes about PD are based on the fact that neither the linear levels nor the non-linear ones have been positive experiences for me on the lower difficulties, for a variety of reasons (mostly though just that the levels are too big and the missions are too long!). I suppose it shows just how tough it must be to design levels that can be played in a variety of ways across difficulty levels whilst still remaining fun and challenging.

33

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 16, 2011, 11:44:26 PM »

Great post marty, and I'm not just saying that because it's a relief to not be the only dissenting voice in this thread! I vaguely recall having heard that GE was an on-rails shooter originally, but I'd completely forgotten, so thanks for that nugget, that's really interesting. And also thanks Nick, your post motivated me to pick up the game again when I was ready to give up. I took your advice and have now completed two levels on Perfect Agent (the first level and the crash site), which were both pretty enjoyable. They did involve some frustration though, I think due partly to some of the reasons marty pointed to. Crash site in particular suffers I think because of how expansive the level is.

One thing Perfect Agent has made me think about is how the progression through difficulty levels differs from Goldeneye. In Goldeneye the progression through the difficulty levels would go: Agent took you through a level down a linear path in most cases, with easy enemies and few objectives. Secret Agent made the enemies a little bit harder but the main difference would be in the objectives: you'd usually have at least one added objective which would require you to go off the beaten path and do a bit of exploring. 00 Agent generally kept the same objectives as Secret Agent, and only occasionally added minor wrinkles, none of which require substantial additional exploration. The exception is the Dam level, which on 00 forces you to go through the underground passage beneath the dam.

Based on my experiences so far in the two levels I've beaten so far on Perfect Agent and a look at a walkthrough of PD, I think it's a little odd how in Perfect Dark every difficulty up adds at least one new objective. In the case of the levels I've beaten, Crash Site and the first Datadyne mission, the added Perfect Agent objectives substantially added to the level. In the Crash Site in particular, I was frustrated on Agent at how sprawling the level was, and how much of it felt like unnecessary space, when in actual fact the objectives are fairly easily accessible. My level completion time was something like 20 minutes because I'd wasted loads of time traversing cliffs and facing off against turret guns to no end. And then Secret Agent is almost identical with one extra objective that is found very close to where you start the mission. Only on Perfect Agent are the cliffs and turret guns sections of the level utilised. It's a similar case in the Datadyne level too, although perhaps not to quite the same extent. Perfect Agent requires you to fully explore the top three storeys of the building, whereas Secret Agent and Agent only require you to break into Cassandra's office (the top of the three accessible floors) before you can descend to the bottom floor.

This would certainly explain what Nick said about Perfect Agent being the best way to experience the game. From those two levels I can certainly see it. On the easier difficulties practically half of the Crash Site level is dead space! I think the Dam in Goldeneye gives a good example of level design which helps to prevent the experience of aimless wandering I've come across several times on the lower difficulties in Perfect Dark. The Dam is basically a straight line from start to finish, but by the level exit is the entrance to an underground tunnel. Your sole objective on Agent is to jump off the dam so there is no motivation to enter the two buildings on the dam which contain entrances to the tunnel. On Secret Agent the sole additional objective is to destroy the alarms. The final alarm in the level is just inside one of the buildings on the dam, right by a staircase leading down to the underground passageway. The player isn't required to go down there, but the staircase entrance leading to the passage is introduced for what is likely the first time. If the player wants to they can go down and explore, but crucially this is with the knowledge that there is nothing there relevant to the mission (after the final alarm by the tunnel entrance the only remaining objective should be to jump off the dam and thereby end the mission). Then finally 00 Agent requires the full exploration of the tunnel. And, as I mentioned, this level is the sole exception in that the 00 Agent difficulty actually adds an objective which requires traversing someplace new.

To be honest I'm surprised at how much content is exclusive to Perfect Agent in PD. In Goldeneye the challenge of 00 was almost always putting your existing knowledge of the level from Secret Agent to the test through a scarcity of ammo and tougher enemies. Basically, an exercise in honing what you learned in Secret Agent. Whereas Perfect Agent broadens the canvas significantly with its new objectives. My feelings on this are somewhat mixed. It's great that, as Nick put it, the game has finally "come to life", and the levels feel that much more rich and complete. On the other hand, I disagree with the game's implementation of the difficulty levels: the levels on Secret Agent and Agent are filled with so much dead space that the levels feel far too sparse. I think the second level (Datadyne Investigation) is a good example of how Perfect Agent changes a level for the better - on Agent and Secret Agent there are a lot of dead ends and seemingly pointless rooms which become relevant on Perfect Agent. The level suddenly becomes more interesting since there isn't the danger of taking a wrong turn and ending up on a dead end path which has no relevance to any objective. The problem then on Perfect Agent is that the higher threat posed by the enemies makes the new exploratory aspects of the level that much more difficult and time consuming to accomplish. It was frustrating for me on the first Datadyne level, having wiped out three storeys worth of bloodthirsty enemies, to have the engineer delete the file I was supposed to download, just because I didn't knock him out at the right moment after he'd completed his role. I'd much rather have the ability to experience that sort of objective-failure moment on Secret Agent than on Perfect, where the effort and skill required to survive isn't as high.

Having said all that, I'm looking forward to getting back to the game and applying myself to more Perfect Agent!

34

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 12, 2011, 10:55:08 PM »

I am not sure we have played the same games adadad.

I am not sure if you have been spoiled by modern shooters which contain checkpoints every 5 or so minutes, but you can't make a FPS with levels that takes 5 minutes to complete outside of a speed run. Perfect Dark by your definition should take 100 minutes to complete start to finish in a normal first time run including special missions. What you are looking for is Time Crisis, not a FPS. All the action scenes out of the movie without any of the build up. A shooting range in which PD provides for.

Damn right, I suppose you could say that I'm looking for Time Crisis, insofar as I dislike a lot of the mission padding in PD.

I don't think I explained my point very well in my last post about the length of the levels. Some of the best levels for me in Goldeneye are Train, Caves and Facility which give the player very little to think about in the way of objectives. The obstacles in your way are primarily soldier opponents. If you ignore the enemies in Facility and go straight for the objectives, that level can be beaten in under 2 minutes, which boggles my mind. But a first timer is not going to play that way it's so risky. At a more leisurely pace that level usually takes me upwards of ten minutes, and I should say that there is nothing wrong with that length per se (the speed run times for Caves are almost 10 minutes long). But what does annoy me is how often the levels in Perfect Dark go for non-linear level design on a large scale combined with vague objectives.

So, right now I'm playing Area 51: Rescue, and after a fun start in a big room with huge containers and a silenced pistol it goes downhill when you break a wall to get into the labs. It gives you so many potential ways to go from there that it's just ridiculous, and as well as being lost I also have no idea which objective I'm supposed to tackle next, or how to do it. Missions like this, where you have to dress up or obtain access to a lab or some such are tricky too since the goal is not represented visually. A counterexample is in GE's Frigate level, in which you have to place a tracking bug on a helicopter. You have the tracking bug in your inventory already, so there's no confusion, you know what to look for. By the way, I'm not in any way implying here that Goldeneye is exempt from the same criticisms as PD - many levels in GE suffer from confusing objectives and hard-to-navigate level layouts, most notably the Surface levels...bad enough the first time round, they had to put in ANOTHER one, even worse than the first?!

I can't grasp why anyone would play these games for anything other than the action though. Most objectives consist of nothing more than going to a place and hitting the B button. And there are no puzzles to speak of, so I'm confused. Where does the most satisfaction in the game come from? For me, the objectives are simply the conceit to move from A to B and have fun shooting lots of guys along the way, and maybe that's why it annoys me that objectives are integrated in a less linear fashion in PD than in GE. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way - Nik Vendiers said something earlier in this thread which echoes my thoughts:

I do remember playing through it and thinking that some levels were way too long or the way in which they implemented the objectives did so in a way that only extended the game by creating seemingly pointless backtracking or other such means of wandering around the level endlessly searching for some mundane switch or lever that the game gives no hint as to its location.

Worth quoting, because he said it better and far faster than I could.

As for your claims of Head Crabs and Vortigaunts, I am not sure want the hell your smoking
Seriously, what are you smoking.

Oh, what a fool you've made me look! Wasn't it clear that I was not attempting to suggest that these creatures look in any way similar? The point is that their interaction with the player is similar. The Vortigaunts beam in at set points in a flash of light and attack at close quarters, just like the Skedar when they appear close by (I wasn't aware you could see them using the IR scanner). And the baby Skedar things jump at you if you let them get close enough, just as with headcrabs. My complaint with these enemies is not that they're clearly an homage to another game, but that without guns (and obviously this doesn't apply to the Skedar who use Reapers) and in the small numbers the level throws at you, there is almost no strategy required to beat these guys and they pose little threat. Again, compare with GE's Train or Aztec levels, which encourage the player to be cautious and strategic by having numerous enemies in a single room who will shoot immediately if you're visible to them.

In almost every way PD is a better game, looks better except for the frame rate. Massive number of guns, larger levels, more gadgets, secondary fire on all weapons, fully voiced, larger variation in mission types, an AR HUD for Joanna that is your in game HUD. If it wasn't for the frame rate PD would inarguably be the better game since it makes such an impact on gameplay. GE is also a more arcady game, a lot less deliberate than PD should you prefer the former style.

I don't disagree with anything here, although I don't understand what you mean when you call GE less deliberate than PD. You're right though that the crux of this whole argument is that GE is more arcade-ey, which is a style I prefer to PD's bastard hybrid of modern and old-school elements. For me, the arcade style of GE is what makes it unique and still worth playing today. I might add that my reaction to Perfect Dark has been a huge disappointment for me, since I was compelled to complete GE in its entirety for the first time recently, beating every level on 00 Agent and all the speed challenges, and I'm not usually a completist. I had high hopes for PD, but so far I'm less than half-way through PD on Special Agent and I'm not enjoying the experience much at all.

PD built on this and I can't see how you could ask for even more let alone state that it was crudely done from borrowed elements from the PC when it's predecessor had effectively in parallel invented said elements for the console in a working state!

You seem to be under the impression that I wanted PD to perfectly replicate the experience of shooters like Deus Ex and Half-Life. I wouldn't say I'm asking for anything more from the game already has, if anything I'm asking for less since I wish they'd removed the fat from the game and focused on the strengths of their engine. It's the poorly thought out implementation of the missions' "variety" that is the problem.

When going back to an old game like this I think it's worth asking: what does Perfect Dark offer that other shooters haven't done much better since? I can see the arguments for the multiplayer, which has had its merits discussed both on RFN and in this thread (bots, weapons, etc), but the singleplayer missions not so much.

Ugh, I apologise for another essay.

35

Podcast Discussion / Re: E3 2011 - Day One (Wii U Hands-On Impressions)

« on: June 08, 2011, 11:46:20 PM »

Well, I will say Rayman Origins did look very, very good and very fun.

Looooove 2D hand-drawn visuals.

Only one hiccup: that second character looks too much like a reject Strong Bad character.  ... are there any others? I'd take a gray-scale 8 bit Toad with no face over that monstrosity =P

What, Globox?! Wim bam bay da ba du!

36

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 06, 2011, 03:40:43 PM »

There aren't any head crabs in PD, they are adolescent Skedar and have the same AI as the larger unarmed counterparts. (Yes you were killing kids).

Come on, they're blatant headcrab knockoffs. The adult Skedar too, with the way they beam in suddenly, are also EXACTLY like the Vortigaunt.

As with dealing with civilians, pistol whip is your friend, use the secondary function on the Falcon 2.

I'm aware of this, and I have to say the pistol whip is very satisfying to use, but it can be really annoying on a level like Chicago where the civilians can get in the way and be killed in the crossfire and then it's instantly mission failed.

Rare never tried to replicate the PC experience and they couldn't even if they wanted to. PD already took the N64 to breaking point and then some especially with multilayer. It can't match the lighting detail found in the Thief games that enables Thief's unique gameplay. Half-life is a completely linear, abet seamless experience that PD was never meant to be. HL and PD are FPS, but are very different games with very different goals. The N64 couldn't handle a game the size of Deus Ex, the minimum video RAM requirement alone would have maxed out the N64 and the PS2 version had to cut down levels. It is extremely unfair to directly compare PD to those games which had an order of magnitude more computing resources.

PD was constraint by the N64 and played to it's strengths. GoldenEye was the first FPS on a console that really worked and PD is a bigger, better version of that, but no matter how much better it maybe, will suffer from sequel bias. Like the 3 examples you gave, PD had it's own direction that worked for it, so I wholly disagree with your assessment. It stands strong along with the best the PC could offer at the time.

While I completely take your point that technology was what allowed those game concepts to be realised on the PC, and a game like Half-Life simply would not be possible on the N64 (in fact weren't there some slight cuts made for Half-Life on the Dreamcast and possibly the PS2 too?), my point is that Perfect Dark is so overambitious that it tries to expand Goldeneye by bringing in gameplay styles from those PC games, and the singleplayer game suffers for it. Why crudely borrow these things from other games when Goldeneye has a proven blueprint to work from? I would've preferred it had Perfect Dark been what you describe: a bigger, better version of Goldeneye. For me, that would mean simply a game with more levels than Goldeneye, with each level averaging under five minutes to complete.

Ultimately though I think a lot of this argument comes down to the fact that I think Goldeneye is a superior game to Perfect Dark as a singleplayer experience. In multiplayer for me they're about even, but I can absolutely see why many would prefer Perfect Dark, Rare did a great job with it.

I don't want to go on another rant, but for me the appeal of both games is the shooting. It's satisfying. My favourite parts of both games are when you're confronted by enemies and have to play tactically in order to beat them. So, for example in Perfect Dark, in the third mission I enjoyed facing off against Cassandra's bodyguards with the shotguns, particularly near the top of the building when the lights go out and you have to overcome four of them at the same time. So perhaps now you can understand why I find PD's final level so tedious to replay - there's no strategy whatsoever when most of the enemies simply spawn next to you and just run at you, it's just backpedal and shoot, backpedal and shoot. I'd be curious to know what it is for you that makes Perfect Dark so endearing, at least as far as the singleplayer missions go, because to me they feel bloated.

37

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 06, 2011, 01:40:05 AM »

Been playing some more of the Perfect Dark missions, and today I got to (and after a good deal of trial and error, finally beat) Chicago. On the plus side once you know what to do the mission is a good deal shorter than most of the others, which is a relief. The tone, the setting and the objectives were clearly a big inspiration for the Timesplitters games. I think one of the problems is that, as with every other mission, you get chucked into the fray without any real sense of where you are and what you are supposed to do. Even when the path is linear and not branching, the objectives can be so obscure that it takes a while to become oriented. The briefing helps to an extent (and in Perfect Dark the briefings are always essential reading!) but it feels like a bit of a cheat to me. It reminds me of the old adage that films ought to show story rather than simply have the characters say the story out loud. In movie-speak, you might say that Perfect Dark as a film has a ton of exposition and does not do much showing. This was a problem too in Goldeneye, although I don't feel it was quite to the same extent.

Anyway, the Chicago level really reminds me of the Timesplitters games. There's an emphasis on stealth in this mission, arguably probably as much as there was in the entirety of Goldeneye's singleplayer (the second Bunker level with Natalya in jail with you was the only time I can think of where stealth was ever really required). It got me thinking - yes, again - about the state of the FPS genre when Perfect Dark and Goldeneye were released. Goldeneye came out in 1997? And Perfect Dark was 2000? It's amazing how much of a enormous change the FPS underwent in just those three years. Not just in the FPS genre of course, but all of gaming, but in particular I think for shooters there was a revolution in gameplay. And of course Goldeneye greatly contribute to that shift by bringing diversity to the FPS genre, with a wide variety of objectives and approaches to levels that differed from Doom's run-and-gun style of play. And in 1998 that same creativity really started to flourish on the PC and we saw remarkably diverse and classic FPSs like Half-Life, Thief and Deus Ex, all of which hold up to this day in my opinion. Also, even though it's not an FPS, Metal Gear Solid too really helped to popularise stealth as a new method of interacting with a world.

And then, to play Perfect Dark for the first time in the wake of all of these innovations I think would have been disappointing. Goldeneye was on the cutting edge in 1997, whereas Perfect Dark was (in the singleplayer at least) a relatively minor iteration on Goldeneye. I can imagine that even by 2000 Goldeneye must've looked really old hat compared with the PC shooters of the day. Still, the major problem I have with Perfect Dark is that almost all of its changes to the old formula do not improve the experience in my opinion. I've already posted my thoughts in this thread on the final level's nods to Half-Life, and likewise, I think the Chicago level is highly reminiscent of Deus Ex (specifically the Hong Kong section of the game), both visually and in the way certain objectives can be done out of order, with multiple approaches and routes on offer. Just as with the Half-Life references though, it's too brief and ends up simply feeling out of step with the rest of the game. I'm coming to see PD's singleplayer as a kind of grab bag of these different elements from other games, but it's like seeing a parody of a classic film in a cartoon - it can be good but it's never going to serve as an adequate replacement for the original. And especially not when the sequences are so short, like the headcrab stuff in the final mission. It's just not possible for Perfect Dark to replicate the tone and feel of Half-Life in a minute long corridor walk in a single bounded level, when Half-Life is a seamlessly flowing 15 hour experience with its own distinctly cinematic style.

For its flaws I do think it's fascinating how Perfect Dark's singleplayer attempts to straddle the line between the old and the (then) new. Ultimately it's a shame though. Those three PC shooters I mentioned, Deus Ex, Half-Life and Thief, were great because they took and stuck to one direction that differentiated them from everything else around at the time. It's a shame in my opinion that Perfect Dark's singleplayer doesn't often enough emphasise Goldeneye's best features, which for me boils down to satisfying shooting mechanics and tactical enemy encounters. Instead it shoehorns in elements of other games and stretches the limits of the mission structure, which leads at times to an undesirable place.

One last complaint since I'm ranting: civilians, I hate them in this game. One civilian casualty and it's automatically mission failed?! Come on!! I blew the entire mission ten minutes in when I shot a scientist, because he gave me lip and set off the alarm. I swear in Goldeneye they give you some leeway here, like you can kill maybe 3 civilians before you fail the mission? Gah.

38

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 01, 2011, 07:21:25 PM »

I've never heard of being able to use two controllers to play with a dual analog setup? although as I've never played shooters on the N64 that may be why...

It's featured in both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, although when I was young to me it just seemed like a way of playing co-op, so I would play with my brother sometimes with him moving and me aiming and shooting. As you can probably imagine, that made getting through missions a lot more difficult and would result in much yelling and arguing.

I've been playing a lot of Perfect Dark today, in particular I am proud because I finally beat the last (regular) mission. And god, what a load of crap. I know I already complained about it, but it's so infuriating to spend so much time trundling through the mission only to die at the final boss. Even though I replayed the mission at least 15 times - a conservative guess - and knew exactly what to do, my final completion time on the level was still 10 minutes. The whole level is just an exercise in frustration and I feel as though it offers a neat summary of the game's failings as a singleplayer game. Towards the end of the final level I got the impression that Rare are aiming for a suspenseful atmosphere - the corridors are mostly dark as the lights flicker, and little aliens (a blatant rip off of headcrabs from Half-Life) jump at you. Following this, there's a sequence in which you are trapped in a room and assaulted by 10 Skedar soldiers (another blatant rip off, this time of the Vortigaunt creatures in Half-Life) consecutively. It's cool the first time, but inevitably during subsequent retries these sections quickly become tedious as they're both completely linear and require little to no strategy. I think Oohhboy made a good point in the talkback thread about the Carrington Villa mission: replaying that mission is enjoyable because there are alternative routes through the level and a variety of strategies for tackling objectives.

My impression of Perfect Dark's singleplayer though so far (finished on the easy difficulty and now starting over on the middle) is that it gets bogged down trying to imitate the modern Half-Life style of gameplay, by stretching the levels out in an attempt to offer players an atmospheric or cinematic experience, as opposed to Goldeneye's more arcade-y levels. Did Rare forget that missions like Runway in Goldeneye could easily be beaten in under two minutes, and that perhaps made the level fun? Perfect Dark is excessive, decadent even by comparison, with the boss fights and expansive levels, but it lacks the structure to facilitate that sort of gameplay. A single stage or mission without a checkpoint can only offer so much before the prospect of losing and having to repeat the stage becomes a source of frustration. This could easily have been resolved if missions were split up better: as it is they're mostly too damn big with too many objectives. And at times, such as in the final mission, the levels are bogged down with the sort of challenges and events that are fun to do only a very limited number of times before they start to lose their appeal. A series of linear corridors in darkness facing off against headcrabs can only be suspenseful once or twice in succession, because after the first time you know what's going to happen next, and exactly where that thing's going to jump out at you, etc.

Despite all my negative words for Perfect Dark's singleplayer, I'm grateful for this Retroactive, because it has shown me the appeal of Perfect Dark's multiplayer, which I had never really understood before. While I think I still marginally prefer Goldeneye for multiplayer parties, I can completely understand why someone would prefer Perfect Dark for its bots and its nutty arsenal. In singleplayer though I don't think there's any contest. Perfect Dark has a few good missions (the opening mission and the Carrington Villa are both good levels), but Goldeneye is a far tighter experience overall in my opinion. That's not that to say that Goldeneye is without its clunkers mind you. Still, I'll carry on going through Perfect Dark's missions tomorrow, and I hope that they'll leave me with a more positive taste in my mouth.

39

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: June 01, 2011, 10:47:12 AM »

Hey Nik, cool post, good to have you joining in the discussion. Just to comment on what you wrote about the controls.

I haven't played the XBLA version but it sounds as though the control scheme has been updated. In the original game the default control is not dual analog. You use the N64 analog stick to look left and right and move backwards and forwards. You can strafe and look up and down with the C-buttons but it's not usually necessary to use them, unlike a dual analog setup which absolutely requires you to use both sticks to get around. So in this sense I think Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the N64 are actually quite hospitable to newcomers. I'm only a few years older than you, and so I was playing Goldeneye from around the age of 8 or 9 (incidentally that was why I was not able to play Perfect Dark at the time; in the UK Perfect Dark was given a 15 rating, and my parents refused to buy it for me), and the basic controls were fine for me. Since you were never required to strafe on the main stick, strafing with the C-buttons was something you graduated up to, so to speak.

Bear in mind both Goldeneye, and to a lesser extent Perfect Dark, were part of the very first wave of console first person shooters. There was no standard for how a console shooter ought to control, unlike now, and also many people just weren't used to controlling in 3D yet. That's one of the trade-offs for dual analog shooters nowadays - they allow for much more control than other control schemes, but they are also far less accessible for newcomers than Doom and Quake were.

While we're on the topic of the controls, I'd also like to mention the dual analog option on the N64. I feel like an idiot because I only just figured out today how you can accomplish this with two controllers (control schemes 2.2 and 2.4), but five minutes of play later and I'm finding it's a real struggle because of the N64's slightly dodgy analog sticks, which just aren't cut out for precision aiming. I'm going to keep practising and see where it gets me, but I seriously doubt that I'm going to lose the ability to get my ass handed to me by the high-level bots any time soon.

40

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 245: Most Dishonorable

« on: May 30, 2011, 12:03:19 AM »

What's up with James in this episode? Is it his time of the month?

I used to piss my flatmates off so much whenever I used that excuse to explain my grumpiness. IT'S REAL.

41

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN RetroActive #18 - Perfect Dark (N64/XBLA)

« on: May 24, 2011, 10:57:39 AM »

I've been trying to get through the singleplayer campaign on the N64 version on Agent, and I think I'm on the last mission now (the Skedar Ruins), but suddenly the lack of mission checkpoints has become very frustrating. It takes me about 20 minutes alone just to get to the boss even now knowing exactly how to proceed through the stage. After finally getting the boss, to be killed instantly by a single rocket at that stage is incredibly annoying. That's one thing I prefer about Goldeneye. While that game has its share of long stages (Facility and Control in particular), in the case of Control for example, the most challenging test - the protect Natalya objective - can be taken on after perhaps five minutes of preamble. Another example is the Jungle, in which the tricky Xenia fight is early on. You are by no means incapable of dying after the Xenia fight, but there aren't any further obstacles which involve grenades being launched at you. It doesn't feel like Perfect Dark's missions take the lack of checkpoints into account for players in quite the same way.

And yes, to Johnny's point, the challenges do dramatically ramp up in difficulty in the original game too. I'm currently stuck on a King of the Hill challenge involving multiple Elvis's.

Struggling through these challenges reminds me of the main reason why, as a child coming off years of Goldeneye, trying Perfect Dark at a friend's house left me somewhat cold, although not unimpressed. I dislike the fact that if you get caught by someone with a good automatic gun, you're dead almost instantly, before you even have a chance to realise what's going on. This makes it more satisfying for the killer, and it is cool to get the drop on someone and kill them before they can get on a shot at you, but I feel as though it leaves the automatic weapons like the Laptop gun feeling too much like powerful explosive weapons, so that pistols are too weak to compete.

A small additional note too is that the music in this game is really weird. It seems that every level simply cycles through tracks at random? I suppose the variety isn't a bad thing, but the changes between songs are often jarring, and unlike the Zelda games for instance, the music doesn't appear to function dynamically. Again, this was a feature that Goldeneye made use of too, if I recall correctly.

42

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 243: Talk Talk Talkpy

« on: May 21, 2011, 07:55:34 PM »

Just watch out.  My wife gamed some when we were dating but, once we got married it went out the window.

Funny, that sounds just like a certain cliche about marriage...

43

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 243: Talk Talk Talkpy

« on: May 19, 2011, 10:21:52 AM »

Seriously adadad, I've taken college courses in which I read less than that post.

Yeah. Sorry about that. I was very tired when I wrote it which is why it's so rambling. I take it you don't study English Literature then  :

I suppose the thing that gets on my nerves NinSage is that you make out that you're preaching to people who define themselves as "hardcore gamers", addressing fanboy bias against Nintendo etc, but you're doing so on a Nintendo fansite - what's the point? And you basically attacked Broodwars (a forum user on a Nintendo fansite) for legitimately criticising Nintendo and seem to be lumping him in the "crowd of gamers who are too insecure to play games that don't somehow imply a pixelcount/dick size correlation", when (and this was the unarticulated point I wanted to express in my previous post I guess) that has nothing to do with online. If I value online gaming then I have a legitimate reason to criticise Nintendo and cast the Wii in an unfavourable light next to the other home consoles. That's simply a preference and I don't see how that has anything to do with "them" which you are constantly rallying against.

Your confusion about "them" and the comments you've made give me the impression that, for you, any person who plays games on a regular basis and does not enjoy Nintendo games or consoles is wrong, or a misguided fool who needs to be taught the error of their ways. Obviously as fans of Nintendo we both enjoy their output, but I respect the fact that Nintendo don't have something for everyone, they never will and they never have. So why fret about it, and why be rude to people who don't share your opinion?

44

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 243: Talk Talk Talkpy

« on: May 19, 2011, 01:00:39 AM »

NinSage, why does there always seem to be a constant subtext in your posts of "us" vs "them"? I just want to take you up on a few of your points:

Is it cheaper? Yes, it is.  If Nintendo charged us $50-60/yr or $400-$600 for the console, I'm sure they'd have invested in a stronger online infrastructure.  Since my online Wii games work, since my WiiWare/VC titles are available when I need them, and since I prefer the content of the Nintendo channel to the "battle of who could care less" that is modern gaming journalism - I'm quite content with the cost ($0) benefit (bare bones yet functional online) ratio.

You make it sound like PSN and Xbox Live are identical, which is not the case. You criticise Broodwars for making gross generalisations while missing the point that PSN and Xbox Live are charged for in different ways - one of them is free and the other isn't. It's silly to lump the two in together by citing the PS3's high hardware price as the revenue stream for PSN, since Sony lose money on each piece of hardware sold. The cost of the hardware has nothing to do with the online service - if Nintendo charged a higher price for their console that would in no way a guarantee of an improved online service, and you're going on pure conjecture when you argue that point. Obviously there is your perspective as a consumer, which you have every right to make use of when deciding what precisely you are buying when purchasing a console - whether or not it is a good value proposition for you personally - however it would be fairer to say that this is what you are buying a console for, rather than what you are buying. When you purchase a console you are buying the hardware, which does not include online gaming per se.

Furthermore, (and I'm referring here exclusively to online gaming, since that is what you refer to in your post) the models Sony and Microsoft subscribe to are vastly different from each other, since Microsoft charge exclusively for online gaming, whereas Sony's and Nintendo's respective approach to online is pretty much identical; on that basis they are preeminently comparable. As with Nintendo for the Wii and DS, online gaming on the PSN is not sold independently but as a selling point of PS3 games, which is where Sony make money (alongside paid DLC, which of course is present also on the Wii).

So with that in mind, Broodwar's criticisms were (in the context of a comparison with PSN) that Nintendo was cheap, inexperienced and lazy when designing their online infrastructure. He also called the online functionality a barely existent mess. Cheap is slightly ambiguous and could be read a few different ways, as you have shown NinSage by apparently interpreting this to mean cheap for the consumer. I suspect though that Broodwar is referring to Nintendo's well-known financial conservatism. I think the point is fairly clear when you consider that Nintendo's online service lacks several of PSN's features such as trophies and a unified friends system, which suggests a lack of effort and/or research development on Nintendo's part. I think that sufficiently covers the characterisations "lazy" and "cheap". Inexperienced is a given, although this applies in equal measure to Sony in my opinion. Microsoft is the only console-maker with any experience, last gen specifically, of the kind of features which are now integrated into modern consoles, such as an online shop. By modelling many of their features on the 360's this generation however, Sony does appear more experienced than Nintendo now when taking into consideration the privileged attention they have given online. We've seen this with Sony's projects like Home, and the addition and integration of trophies a few years ago.

Finally, Broodwars called Nintendo's online functionality a "barely existent mess", my favourite criticism of the bunch, which goes to the heart of the matter. Again, I would refer back to the point that Nintendo and Sony are directly comparable in that online gaming is a feature designed to sell more retail games first and foremost. Barely existent seems to be a fair comment since I would imagine (although I have no numbers so feel free to refute this if you feel I am being unfair or overly speculative) that the Wii has far fewer games with online features versus the PS3. Is the service a mess? Well, if I were primarily interested in online gaming, and I had the choice between an online experience on the Wii or the PS3, I suspect I would opt for the PS3 version. Multi-platform owners are rare of course, however the point still stands. No doubt, the Wii system operates on a game-by-game basis. Held up next to Sony, who use a unified friend system and, as I understand it, can offer voicechat fairly universally in PS3 games through any bluetooth headset, it is not difficult to see why Nintendo's service would be called a mess - it is not unified at all, and therefore it is entirely scattershot. Friendcodes are an example, and another is the Nintendo Channel, which is unmitigated advertising, while the Shop channel contains no advertising content.

In this sense, you might say that Nintendo's service is actually difficult to classify as a service. When RFN discuss online in Wii games it is primarily with regard to the online features and performance of a single game, such as Brawl or Mario Kart. Likewise, it is telling that your proof of a decent service is to point to an individual who has put hundreds of hours into a single game. In a sense it is unfair to refer to Nintendo as having an online service. It would seem far more fair to point to individual games: Monster Hunter Tri's online service, or Brawl's online service. Evidently this would not be the case if performance and features were standardised, or even merely consistent across games. I should mention though that in PSN's case I'm sure a lot of the online functionality is the result of a trickle down effect from Microsoft, who have standardised requirements for features in 360 games, which PS3 ports will be likely to retain.

Finally, and this is a fairly general point since I've rambled for long enough, I disagree that Sony is being given an easy time for the disruption to PSN. I refer back to my initial point in this post, concerning the subtext of many of your posts which I have read. You describe the reaction to the PSN network's downtime: '"oh haha, silly hackers, sh*t happens - who wants to play some HD gamezz?!?"'. OK. What am I supposed to infer from this? I can only assume that you have been spending your day(z) reading inane Youtube comments, or that you are imagining a camp of PS360 users (no less than the gaming press? Taking a wild guess) who will do anything to defend Microsoft and Sony, who, of course, both fall under the umbrella of the HD label. And these Youtube commenters/fanboys/journalists will defend not one, but two home consoles under the moniker of HD, whilst continually attempting to attack and devalue Nintendo products? I would ask that you renounce your analogy: neither Nintendo, Sony nor Microsoft are spotty kids. They are faceless companies and corporations. If there are people out there who do not enjoy Nintendo products and express a preference for games on other consoles, be that because of online functionality, HD graphics or any other reason, then they are not bullies.

45

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 242: One-Winged Migration

« on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:58 PM »

Hello, friend.  I welcome this discussion.

You make a good point and some decent analogies.  Believe me when I say that if I return C1 this would be the first time I'd done such a thing.

As for my reasoning, I really got the sense that, especially given the ENDING of the first game, HVS was trying to build a franchise with The Conduit.  Again, considering the cliff-hanger ending, it really makes C2 the second half of one whole work. (Or, the 2nd 3rd of an even larger work since apparently there is a cliff-hanger at the end of C2).

So, let's imagine that after the very enjoyable Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan made Christian Bale's character a wise-crackin', foul-mouthed, bad boy because critics found him too stoic in the original.

Wouldn't that sour the experience of the first film?

Remember, though I acknowledge I'm in the minority, I value plot among all else in games.  Even if it's a game that "shouldn't" have a plot like, say, Bubble Bobble - I still wanna know why those dinosaurs are blowin' bubbles!

So though C1 might still be a great "game" regardless of what happens in any sequels, if the plot/characters are retro-actively gutted? Then... that ruins the experience.... for me.

I'm not basing my opinion on Jonny's critique of the gameplay.  In fact, doesn't it sound like he enjoyed the gameplay?  But, if the new Michael Ford sees a female ally for the first time and remarks "you're a stone cold fox!" then that is not the franchise I fell in love with.

I was weary when I saw the cover art months ago.  I felt they had literally taken the human out of the character and turned the game into the typical HD dude-bro aesthetics.  Plus, the female ally is covered in body armor..... except for her cleavage.  Another classic dude-bro piece of ridiculousness that the first game was blissfully devoid of.

Well I have to say I am surprised I managed to get away with the U2 analogy so easily. Anyway, I think I can see more where you're coming from now, fair enough. It is a bit strange that they would end the first game with a cliffhanger only to radically change the tone for the second one, and then have another cliffhanger for a potential third game...and, assuming a third gets made, what then? Keep the tone from the second game? Revert to the first game's serious tone? Maybe they ought to make the third like a film noir...avant-garde badass!

Can't imagine there are many people like you out there who value their plot in videogames - have you ever played the Sin and Punishment games? Either one of those ought to put anyone off videogame plots forever.

46

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 242: One-Winged Migration

« on: May 11, 2011, 11:01:53 PM »

2. As for Conduit 2?

It sounds like HVS lost their nerve and it sounds like it's going to make me avoid purchasing C2 ... depending on how much respect they make me lose, I may return C1.  I loved that game, I played through it 5 times. I got my money's worth and I planned to enjoy it as part of a franchise.  If HVS wants to ruin that franchise, I don't need to hold on to it.

Is this serious? If so, wow. Should I return my Simpsons DVDs because I dislike recent seasons? And just because U2 haven't made any decent music in years, does that retroactively prevent War and The Joshua Tree from being good albums? I realise I'm being somewhat antagonistic towards users in this thread but I would love to know what the reasoning behind your mentality is here.

I suppose finally I would add that since Johnny wasn't exactly a fan of the first game (let's face it, everyone on the podcast has shat on it at some point) and your tastes seem to differ from his, does it not sound like the second game might be worth checking out at least? I hope you can at least be persuaded to retrieve your copy of The Conduit from the bin.

47

Podcast Discussion / Re: Episode 242: One-Winged Migration

« on: May 09, 2011, 06:51:30 PM »

I played Conduit 2 online multiplayer for a couple of hours and never saw a team designation on the screen. If it's there and I can't find it or don't notice it, that's still a problem. Or maybe they patched it in after I stopped playing? Regardless, it's not a huge problem but certainly added to the confusion and sloppiness of that experience.

You came out negative on the colour-blind test the other week so we know we can trust your vision credentials.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trudging Its a word.
 

Ceric - I believe this is going to be the first and last time anyone ever responds to any of your ridiculous, near incomprehensible, mile-long posts in these podcast threads but here goes, just once. Trudging is word, but I believe Jonny said "trodging", which is not...probably. Then again I found out quite recently through the OED that "pagina" is a word, so you never know unless you search. (I'm not going to search it)

48

Podcast Discussion / Re: RetroActive #18 Poll - Originals & Remakes Edition

« on: May 07, 2011, 09:16:50 PM »

Ancel is working on a new 2D platformer called Rayman Origins. It was shown at Ubisoft's E3 press conference last week, so it should be out soon. I think it is planned for XBLA, PSN, Steam, and maaaaaaaaybe WiiWare (probably not).


EDIT: Sorry, I just saw info from Game Informer saying that it has been changed to a retail release on PS3 and 360.

Damn, that's too bad, as I only have access to a PS1, N64 and PC...occasionally see a Wii. Never heard of the PS3 or 360. It's just a random jumble of letters and numbers to me. I'll sit tight - I expect they'll announce a PS1 port soon. Some things are inevitable.

49

Podcast Discussion / Re: RetroActive #18 Poll - Originals & Remakes Edition

« on: May 07, 2011, 07:56:34 AM »

I have to agree that Beyond Good and Evil is overrated. It's still a very good game, and I'd recommend it to most people (stealth haters aside), but for me it's not in the same league as Zelda or Okami. The hoverboat/craft thing you fly around the overworld is good fun though. The story is well told too, I just don't think the core gameplay is particularly great. Plus I found the length of the game and size of the world to be slightly underwhelming. I wish Michel Ancel would make a new Rayman platformer, BG&E has a few parts that are reminiscent (mostly in the environments) of Rayman 2.

Anyway, my vote goes to Perfect Dark. I got stuck on a mission several months ago and I need an excuse to get back to it, because up until that point I'd found the missions pretty decent. And considering I've unlocked the 007 difficulty mode on Goldeneye it's frankly pitiful that I haven't even finished Perfect Dark on the easiest difficulty.

50

Podcast Discussion / Re: RFN Special: Jonny's E3 2001 Audio Diaries

« on: April 30, 2011, 08:03:45 PM »

*Probably gonna email you this, in hopes you might discuss it on a future Podcast or something.

Just got a chance to listen to this thing in its entirety, and gosh I envy you John. This was about 10 years ago.. so I'm guessing you were in your late teens or early 20's? I just wish that I could be doing something like this in my life right now. I'm passionate about gaming, but my knowledge isn't as great as yours was here. I think the reason for that is because I've had no real reason to be knowledgeable about gaming in the first place. It's like the ending of your diary explains, no one is interested in gaming to the degree I am. And it sucks! I've gotten to know a few people online who I am close to, but even they don't seem like they are interested in the way that I am. I listen to you guys on the podcast, having these great conversations, and to be honest, at times I am overwhelmed by how technical you all get with gaming terms and such. But anyways, I want to end this ramble and ask a question which I hope you see and don't mind answering. And that is….

What advice do you have to someone like me who wants to be able to do what you were doing, during the time of this audio diary? I really am interested in gaming, and I want to learn about Nintendo, report on Nintendo, and write my thoughts on Nintendo. (If I'm playing a game, it’s usually by Nintendo.) But the problem is, I don't feel like I have the writing ability and gaming knowledge to do so. Did you ever feel this way before you got into video game journalism John?

In many ways, isn't a gaming journalist (at least the sort who writes online) just an articulate forum poster? My advice, completely unconnected to the whole getting-into-the-industry part which I know nothing about, would be to write. Doesn't matter what it's about but if you want to write about something the first thing to do is to learn how to write, and of course you'll probably want to do that in a journalistic context, so if you're at school or university you should get involved with their paper if there is one, or if not look into your local weeklies or whatever. As well as doing that, to practise writing and learning to write about games specifically you should be on forums discussing games - decent forums, not shitty ones. I recommend NeoGAF, although it can take a long time to be approved and get an account there. I'm sure there are others besides. Obviously in that statement I'm including this forum too!