Why Dishonored is not very good.

Yep, I'm going there. Now Dishonored is one of the most praised games of the past year. It was on a lot of peoples Top Five lists, and then it won game of the year at the BAFTAs and at another recent UK awards gig. Now this isn't to say that I think that Dishonored is bad, per say, just that it sure as hell ain't 'game of the year', especially not in the year that gave us XCOM, and Spec Ops: The Line. Now this isn't to say that critics haven't spotted and talked about some of the game's faults. The terrible voice-acting/dialogue, the binary moral choices, the fact that most of the upgrades are only useful for killing enemies. So, as always, I will attempt to refrain from the obvious complaints.

Linearity disguised as non-linearity

One of the supposed selling points for Dishonored was the idea of an open-world stealth game, in the vein of Thief. Games such as these are generally best with large open maps that allow multiple routes to the target, allowing for a generally more interesting and diverse play experience. However there are a few things that kneecap this aspect of the gameplay, and as is often the case, they come in threes.

1. Side-quests: While complaining about a game having more content seems strange, particularly with a game that barely squeaks in at 6-8 hours with that extra content included, hear me out. You see it isn't that the side-quests give to much content, its that they don't have much diversity and actually hamper the idea that if you put seven gamers in a room that they'd have played the level differently. Because the side-quests give the all important power-ups you are going to want to complete them all.
2. Map, more like Mini-Map: Yeah I think the maps are kind of small. And before someone starts complaining that bigger isn't always better, I would like to preemptively rebut you. One of the most recent examples of this little sub genre, Hitman: Blood Money. Now the better maps from that game, and series, are the ones that genuinely have multiple routes and options. So that players could potentially get the same score. The maps in Dishonored are small and rather claustrophobic, most of the important stuff is all in the same place. 
3. Power-up, unless you don't like killing: This is the real big problem, almost all of the upgrades in the game are related to combat. There are a couple of non-combat power-ups, such as the blink upgrades, and the eye-thing. But there are no real good upgrades for non-combatants. Combine this with the fact that the combat upgrades are actually pretty cool, like who doesn't want to summon a swarm of killer plague rats? And the game constrains the player even further, by encouraging one play style over the other.

"Blah, blah, blah", between stabbing.

This isn't me criticizing the terrible dialogue, I said that I wasn't going to go for the generic criticisms and I meant it. No, my problem is how boring these in between scenes are. Between your stabbing grounds you'll be forced to make tracks back to the revolutionary town in order to talk with the locals and be given the opportunity to hunt for more collectible doodads, before you can have fun again. This isn't to say that I dislike slowing the game down to try and build the world in which we are hunting, I love that idea. In fact in Deus Ex: Human Revolution when they did that I loved it. But in that game the acting and the dialogue were actually good, and so it was easier to immerse myself in the world. 

One of the worst things that a video game can be is boring. Even offensively bad is a better fate than being boring. After all, which do you remember more, for better or for worse, Haze, or Metroid: Other M? Now both of these games are pretty bad, but one of them is remembered, albeit mostly as a "how not to" guide, and one of them most of you forgot existed until just now. And that is the real crime that Dishonored is guilty of, it's boring. 

The stabbing gameplay is mostly fun. Partially due to the incredible shortness of the campaign. But at the same time it just goes to show how little Dishonored does above competently. If the game was longer it probably wouldn't have been as loved, as it probably would've suffered Borderlands 2 syndrome and become so long and arduous that the good bits turn bad from repetition. 

Conclusion

So if I was a publisher-approved game critic that measured everything with numeric ratings that undermine the concept of complex subjective opinions, what would I give Dishonored? Probably a 3/5 on a good day. Not atrocious, not overly good either. Most of my real issues with this game come from the lavish praise that was layered on it by games journalists. As always, if you disagree, think that I missed something, or don't think that I was hard enough on it, please comment. 

Why I don't like Injustice: Gods among us

One of the games that has been getting the most press in the past few months has been Injustice: Gods among us. As someone who has a friend that is really into comics I can say that this isn't surprising. DC is far more focused on marketing their books that making actual good stories, so it's no surprise that they would push the upcoming game this hard. But the game itself looks awful, hilariously bad in almost every way. And I wouldn't be the critic I occasionally like to pretend that I am without nitpicking the hell out of it.

Enough with the damn gritty reboots already!

I may have mentioned this before but I really am getting sick of every single AAA release being some kind of gritty, Image Comics reboot. I know that there is a place for it, and yes quite a few times it works like a damn charm. But does it have to apply to everything? Do comics especially have to return to the dark ages, is it really necessary for the cause of games being taken seriously? 

But aside from my normal disdain at this genre, there is another reason that I find this idea especially to be sub-par. That reason is as follows; a fighting game based around a story isn't a terrible idea in theory, but that doesn't mean that this is the story to make it work.

The story is stupid

This is the real terrible secret to the game, the story is awful. DC recently released a prequel comic to the game that was meant to explain what happens that leads into Injustice. Now setting aside the question of why you need a thirteen issue comic series to explain the backstory, and doesn't that just mean that you are poor storytellers? The other issue is that the story is really bad.

The story starts off with the Joker setting off a nuke in Metropolis, because he wanted "to play on Easy for a while" (I'm not even kidding, that is a quote from the damn comic). Superman kills him, no really, and demands that the world stop being mean to each other or he will force them to play nice, no really again. So Aquaman starts a war with the entire human race because of Japanese whalers, I swear I'm not making any of this up, and Superman, without even attempting diplomacy, lifts the entirety of Atlantis, I couldn't even begin to dream this up, and deposits it in the Sahara desert. This leads into the game, with the heroes divided between supporting Superman or Batman.

Now this is obviously heavily summarized, as there are thirteen issues of this damned thing, but that is the overall story. So lets just make a list of all the ways that this is stupid.

1. Superman kills: Now obviously in the hands of a talented writer, almost anyone else, this could actually be pretty good. An exploration of Superman acting in a moment of emotional anguish, haunted by his actions, forced to face the question of whether or not he can be redeemed. All of this is really interesting stuff, that the story doesn't seem to want to do anything with. Instead Superman, paragon of goodness, becomes a totalitarian nut. 
2. Wonder Woman wants to ride Superman: No. Just No. This is a storyline that basically just screams Elseworld title. Many bad writers try to incur character development and conflict through having two established heroes want to bone one another. It's an atrociously overused crutch to give the illusion of a character arc. Particularly with this pairing, enough of it, MLP:FiM shippers have more creativity than you guys.
3. Aquaman declares war, for no good reason: Yeah whaling sucks, but is it really worth declaring war against the entire world for? Because i'm not kidding here, in the comic, that is what he does! He starts by attacking a group of whalers, understandable, then expanding his attack to Japan, less-understandable, and then a whole bunch of major cities, despicable and stupid. I'm not an Aquaman fan, but I'm sure that his fans will say in the comics that he doesn't normally declare war for no good damn reason.

Conclusion

Now obviously this is all tentative speculation. Now that the game is out I'm sure that fans of the game or its characters will argue for it in the comments, so that I'm inevitably forced to buy it for the WiiU... right?

Post your opinions on my opinions in the comments below. Agree or Disagree, this blog is meant to encourage discussion. The next article will be my sort-of review of one of the most talked about games of the year...

 

Why I don't like Tomb Raider (2012)

I don't like the look of the new Tomb Raider. I didn't from the moment that I saw the "gritty" atmosphere that the game was trying to build. This was before the whole, "defend her from rapists" thing, I just didn't like it. And this isn't to say that I'm some kind of Tomb Raider purist, I've enjoyed them occasionally, never to the point that I was a huge fan or anything, but occasionally enjoyed. And no it isn't because I'm offended by the absurd level of violence, some of which is sexual, aimed at Lara, although I know many who are. No my reason for disliking it is very simple, and yet sort of complex...

The death of "Fun"

The reason that I put fun in quotation marks is because I don't mean fun in an overall sense, you can still have fun when going through a hostile atmosphere of ultra-realistic violence and misery, like in survival horror games, I mean fun as a theme. The old Tomb Raider games weren't about storytelling, they weren't about character development, they were about having fun. The game wanted the player to enjoy themselves, some story and character developing may have happened, but it wasn't framed like this. Yes, Lara wasn't exactly a well-defined character, she was treated and marketed like a pair of breasts with guns, and it was fairly simplistic. But that doesn't have to be a negative, not at all.

For example, lets say that I write a Zelda game, in canon of course, that is a prequel explaining Link's origin story. Now let's say that as a part of that origin story I have him raped by a Gerudo, and then he took up a sword and slaughtered all of that Gerudo's family violently. You would all probably hate me, and you'd have every right to. That isn't to say that the above premise couldn't be done well, but the question is why does it have to be done to this character, and why does a previously light-hearted series have to go all dark. The simple reason is that it doesn't, the character of the new Tomb Raider game doesn't have to be Lara, it doesn't have to bear that name, it can be good without a brand to recognize. Speaking of which...

Re-Branded

The simple fact is that when you go so far in the opposite direction like this, you re-brand the property. And I'm sure that some are arguing that this is a good thing, that they don't like the original Tomb Raider brand and it should be changed. Well aside from the fact that changing something that drastically and alienating your entire original fanbase is something that Square Enix already did, and its part of the reason that most of their original fans Hate them right now, I will approach this from a different perspective, a question. How long can they keep this new image up? It's a simple question, how many times can they create a Tomb Raider game involving Lara being faced with the human heart at its ugliest? Maybe one more? Perhaps? And they really can't go back to the old way can they? Because the two characters are entirely different, so they can't just go back to making Tomb Raider the way that they used to, because then they alienate their new fanbase.

Now this isn't to say that these things cannot go together, but it is very difficult to pull off. And the idea that Square Enix, undoubtedly one of the worst companies in recent memory, thought that they could do it baffles me. Now I also hate to sound like an old man here, but I also just hate the trend of a remake that names itself after the original without change, or by taking off one word that wasn't important to begin with.

Conclusion

So obviously I am going to have to actually play the game to see for myself if any of these complaints are founded. And I plan to, the game is in my GameFly list, up at the top, and its listed as High availability. Again I don't mean to insult everyone's tastes, yet, but I can't help but be skeptical. And considering the financial issues that Square is facing, it may actually be the swan song of the series, whether that is a good or bad thing we will soon see.   

Why Logic doesn't matter pt2

So if everyone remembers I recently wrote a post about the problems plaguing the game industry, but today I'm taking aim at a different beast... game criticism. You see I stopped caring about game criticism, like IGN, OPM, or even Escapist Magazine, a long time ago. And the reason is actually quite simple.

"Awesome" has been devalued.

I want you to engage in a little thought experiment here, I want you to go to a major game criticism/news site, like one of the ones I listed above. Check through ten reviews of AAA game titles at random, and count how many times you see 4/5, 5/5, 10/10, 9/10 8/10. You'll probably end up with at least 70% of them falling into this "Awesome" category. Now in any other society this would be because all of these games really are game-changers, or pieces of game history. But in this world, it isn't because of quality, not even close. Now while this is obviously subjective to taste, I'm fairly certain that you'll find that you disagree with at least 2 of the games you found. Now I have a few reasons why this might be... and no I will not be mentioning the possibility, though it is possible because it can't be easily disproven, of reviews being bought by publishers, I like to challenge myself. 

1.) Fanboy Fear

Now this is quite possible that regardless of whether the critics dislike something they give it a good score because they don't want fans of the game to be upset. The effects of which can be seen in the numerous occasions where reviewers like Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, don't give great reviews to games that have a lot of fans. Now while it may seem silly for critics to be afraid of fans, with one bad review fans can go from people who really like a game, to trolls that will clutter up your message box with hate mail, or more distressingly to those that run the websites, they'll stop visiting them. This is why, for example, it would be a rare sight to see a critic dislike Uncharted. Even if they don't like the latest installment if they say it then they'll run the risk of pissing off fans who may stop visiting the site and bring down overall traffic.

2.) They have to play nice with publishers

Again, I'm not talking about critics being bought here, I'm talking about per-release copies. You see let's say, for example, that you give a terrible score to a new game from EA. Now the game in question may suck, but let's say that EA doesn't like the fact that you gave their game a bad score. Now let's say, mostly because its a certainty nowadays, that they have another game coming out this year, that they decide not to give you a copy of before release. Now you're in deep crap, because your review of this new, assuredly also AAA release, will go out quite a bit after everyone else. Now this isn't too terrible if for example you're The Escapist, and you have a bunch of video producers that provide you with all of the traffic that you need, but if you aren't you may have just screwed yourself. Review copies, and the swag that goes with them, are little reminders from the industry that if you don't play nice that they'll stop playing with you. But these aren't the only problems...

Bad for everyone, especially the little guy

Now one of the reasons that getting a new Intellectual Property off the ground in modern gaming is the fact people like what's familiar to them. But this is a well-worn excuse that I think doesn't give the human race enough credit. For one thing, and I know its strange to say, you have to give people a little more credit. Some people will go out on a limb and buy new things, they will try to have new experiences, but not blindly. I'm going to give you all an example here, let's say that we have three games in front of us, God of War: Ascension, The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, and Asura's Wrath. Now I would rate these games all between 6-7, depending on how fair I'm being forced to be, but if the average consumer were going by reviews, the only choice is the one that, In My Opinion, is the worst of the bunch, Ascension.

Now this isn't some hipster, you should always support something just because its not a franchise thing. While I would say that Wrath is the game that the player should pick up, its mostly because while at the end of the day it's not great combat wise, it is an unusual experience. The story, the writing, pacing, and even visual style want to be an interactive anime, and it succeeds at doing so. Which isn't to say that Survival Instinct isn't also okay. In this day and age of quick-time-events and scripted cinematic action Survival Instinct is a breath of fresh air, a short, unchallenging, repetitive, breath of fresh air. But neither of these games got the 8's and 9's of GoW's latest outing. Now one might say that this is because of personal preference on the part of the critic themselves, but if that's the case then where are the critics who value innovation, improvised gameplay, or anything of those sorts, do they exist outside of TGWTG.com or are they and Yahtzee it?

Conclusion

Now obviously all of these problems are things that aren't easy for consumers to fix, but it's good to be aware of the issues growing in the industry, and what they may affect. It's difficult to gauge what everyone's response to these ideas will be, so I'll just say this. I don't have know what really goes on behind those closed doors, I don't know if my theories are true. So I'd like to encourage you to leave comments with your own ideas on what may be wrong in the games industry and in game criticism. Because, as cliche as it is, knowing the problem is the first step in combating it. 

Heart of the Swarm (followup)

Now I mentioned back in my first post that I was a huge fan of Heart of the Swarm correct? Of course I did, rhetorical question. And I mentioned that I had already prepared to buy it. Well I have been planning this little follow-up for a little bit, but wanted to wait until I had played some matches online so as to experience the full game. So now with all of my new knowledge I would like to start by saying that not all of the problems I thought it would have were there.

The story was awesome

Now the biggest thing that I was worried about was the storyline, as Heart is the middle entry in a series, and it has to find a way to turn a villain into a hero, while setting up a new villain and bringing closure to two character's stories. Heart does this surprisingly well, Kerrigan goes from being a restored human back to being a zerg of her own choice, but more importantly is that the games new villain, while unseen, is still interesting. 

The new villain is the Xel'Naga, or rather a Xel'Naga named Amon, who the game actually does a pretty good job of introducing, giving a backstory and motivation, and making him sound like a real badass dude. It managed an even more impressive version of Wings story by giving Kerrigan an arc, but also expanding the mythos and everything else.

Great supporting cast

One thing that elevated Wings of Liberty was its cast. The characters were interesting and relatable, yeah sure they weren't exactly perfect, some arcs ended too early, but overall it was pretty good. The interesting thing about many of the supporting cast was how they played off of Raynor, the hero from Wings. Tosh, a rogue ghost/specter, considered him and Raynor to be very similar because of how many people that they had killed in order to achieve their goals. And this clashed with Matt Horner, Raynor's second in command, who was a standup guy who was very selfless and believed in Raynor, even when he was motivated solely by revenge. 

Since Heart focuses on the Zerg, who we've seen to be very simple-minded, you'd think that the supporting cast would suffer because of it, which is certainly how things look for the first half. The new version of the Adjutant is stupid, the new version of Swann is basically a less annoying fairy from Skyward Sword, and the guy that you pick up on Zerus has a really irritating voice. 

But the two that I really like were Zegara and Alexei. Alexei was actually a character from Brood Wars, he was the head of the Earth Defense Force. Here he's been turned into a Zerg, and enlists Kerrigan's help in shutting down Mengsk. This is mostly because I like Brood Wars and always dig phony accents, but Alexei was really fun. Zegara actually serves as the emotional heart of the story after Kerrigans initial arc is complete. I won't say anymore for fear of spoilers, but she's my new favorite character in the universe of Starcraft. 

But just because I liked some stuff, didn't negate the parts that don't work, and there are quite a few things that annoy me about the new units and additions to the story.

New unit balance issues

First one major thing has been altered that I do like, changing Reapers into non-tech units without an anti-building bonus. Aside from that, all of the new multiplayer units irritate me, either because they are too good, or because they suck. First of all, the really boring guys...

Hellbat, Viper = suck 

The Hellbat is just boring.

The Viper can't attack air units. It can in story mode, but not in multiplayer. Dumb.

Swarm Host, and Oracle are way too good.

At first when I played with the Swarm Host in single-player I thought that they sucked. They are basically a bad Lurker. But in multiplayer they are amazingly good, and because of their range they can basically take out an entire non-Siege tank defended base without having to adjust themselves more than once.

I mentioned that Oracles were probably too good, well as it turns out I was correct. It takes them 2 shots to kill 1 probe, and can reduce a group of 27 probes to 11 before you get your Stalkers over there to defend your minerals.

Conclusion

The game is really good, but the multiplayer element needs a bit of balancing. The range of the Swarm Hosts could use some reducing, or at least program marines, after killing the locusts that were spawned, to try and take down the Swarm Hosts, even if they aren't in visible range. The Oracle is far too strong, especially combined with the fact that it flies, if the damage is reduced to... 4 shots to down one probe then I'll consider it balanced.