2303: Review in Progress

I've noticed a lot of gaming sites posting "review in progress" articles for new releases recently. And while there is a time and a place for this sort of thing — most notably in the case of massively multiplayer online games, or multiplayer-centric titles that are dependent on their communities — I don't think it's a particularly appropriate way to handle single-player games.

The idea of a "review in progress" is for the author of the article to post their thoughts and opinions about the game as they're playing it, updating it over time before coming to a final judgement and a score, assuming the publication in question does scores. This does kind of make sense in a way, because some games are slow burners that take a while to learn, and it can be interesting to see how someone's reactions and feelings change over time. But at the same time, I find myself asking why the author didn't just hold fire until they'd beaten the whole thing, then talk about their complete "journey" all in one go. That makes for an interesting structure for an article; in the case of games with strong emergent narratives but challenging mechanics — something like a Paradox strategy game, for example — it can even provide the basis for a compelling "story" of how the reviewer learned how to manage their empire more effectively after their incompetent beginnings.

The reason why "reviews in progress" exist should be obvious by now, though: they're there to hoover up some of those sweet, sweet clicks from people Googling, say, "valkyria chronicles remastered review" or "overwatch review" or whatever else the latest hotness might be. Because the word "review" is in there, these half-finished articles show up in search results (assuming the tech guys at the sites in question have done their SEO homework) when what people are really looking for is detailed, authoritative, helpful and knowledgeable information on games they're interested in. It's one of many examples we have today of the inner machinations of the press being self-serving rather than in service of their readership.

More than that, though, as someone who's floated in and out of the games press since he was a teenager, I find the idea of a "review in progress" somewhat objectionable on another level. When I took on my first ever writing assignments, I did so on the understanding that you should finish the game you're writing about before putting pen to paper in order to be able to give a complete, in-depth appraisal of everything it had to offer. Granted, this was in the magazine age, when publications had rather more time to assemble their articles, and also in an age where there weren't nearly as many games released every week as there are today — not to mention an age where 100-hour games were pretty much unheard of — but still, I think it's a good goal to aspire to.

If you're a professional critic, regardless of what you think the "purpose" of game reviews are, people are going to come to you on the assumption that you know what you are talking about, and that your articles will be well-researched, informative and helpful for making a purchase decision, or simply to find out more about a game. If you're not doing your job properly — in other words, if you're posting garbage like this or this, to give two extreme examples — then you shouldn't be at all surprised when you become the object of ridicule that the average modern games journalist is today.

In other words, the games press would be a whole lot better — and more helpful to its readers — if it stopped worrying about churning out articles to release dead on embargo time, and instead only post pieces when the author in question actually has a full, complete and knowledgeable understanding of the thing they are commenting on.

Sadly, I don't see this happening any time soon.

2301: Overwatch

I decided to give the game everyone seems to be talking about — Blizzard's new first-person shooter Overwatch — a bit of a go this weekend. They were running an open beta, after all, so there was no risk whatsoever involved in downloading it and giving it a shot.

And what do you know — it's actually pretty good. I'm not sure if I'm sold enough on it to want to pick up a copy when it comes out later in the month, but I certainly enjoyed the time I spent with it over the last couple of days.

For those who have perhaps heard of Overwatch but not found out any more information about it, it is, in many ways, similar to Valve's classic Team Fortress 2 in that two teams made up of various different characters with different capabilities face off against one another in order to complete an objective of some description. In the game as it stands at the moment, the objectives on offer include a "king of the hill" type affair, where over the best of three rounds, each team has to control a particular area on the map for a certain amount of time; an "attack and defend" situation, where one team has to defend a point against assault from the other team; an "assault" variant, where the attacking team has to escort a slow-moving "payload" vehicle from one end of the map to the other while the other team stops them; and a mode that mixes the "attack and defend" and "assault" objectives together.

Like Team Fortress 2, the different characters have different roles on the team. Offensive characters are nimble but fragile, with their weapons and abilities concentrating on inflicting damage efficiently. Defensive characters have the ability to do things like lay down turrets or, in the case of one particular character, turn themselves into a turret. Tank characters have a huge pool of health points so are designed to act as a distraction for the other team. And support characters generally have some sort of useful ability to help the team out — usually some form of healing, buffing or both.

Where Team Fortress 2 only had one character of each archetype, though, Overwatch has several, each of whom has a unique weapon and loadout of special abilities. Weapons have clips of ammo and have to be reloaded when empty, but you have infinite clips, so there's no hunting around for ammo or any punishment for spray-and-pray gunplay. You can restore your health by returning to your home base, similar to how Blizzard's MOBA Heroes of the Storm works. And if you find a hero isn't working out for you, you can switch either when you die or when you're in your base.

Overwatch strikes an excellent balance between simplicity and tactical depth. The characters are all easy to learn in terms of mechanics, but applying their weapons and skills to situations throughout a match is the real challenge. That and not blowing yourself up in some instances; my favourite character so far, D.Va, has the ability to self-destruct her mech suit, killing anyone nearby, which is an absolutely devastating skill, but also very likely to take you with it if you don't immediately run away.

There's also a fun metagame that doesn't fall into the Call of Duty trap of excessive challenges and skill levels: you simply have an experience level, which gives you a "loot box" every time you level up, and the items in the loot box are randomly selected skins, animations, spray paint logos and voice clips for the various characters in the game. None of these have any effect on the characters' abilities — they're just there as cool collectibles as an incentive for players to keep playing. The choice to make Overwatch a full-price game rather than a free-to-play affair also seems quite sensible, too; while some may balk at paying full whack for a multiplayer-only game, there's a substantial amount of content in here, both heroes and maps, and Blizzard claim that they're going to support the game post-launch with new, free add-on content rather than paid DLC. A round of applause for them, then; doubly so since their parent company is Activision, who loves milking the annual Call of Duty installments dry.

The other nice side-effect of it being a full-price game is that everyone has access to everything from day one. Everyone can pick a favourite character and get to grips with them without having to wait for them to come around in a free-to-play rotation; everyone is, in other words, on a level playing field to begin with, with no advantage given to someone who has paid up for characters, boosters or whatever.

As I say, I'm not yet sure if I'm convinced enough by the beta to hand over 50 quid for the full game when it releases later in the month, but I will say it's the most fun I've had in a first-person shooter for a very long time indeed, and I generally don't go in for competitive first-person shooters. The beta seems to have had some positive attention, too, so hopefully it will enjoy a solid community for some time — long enough for it to be worthwhile for Blizzard to keep adding new content.

If you want to give it a go for yourself, I believe you have until Monday morning to try it out. Better hurry!

2299: The Sprawling Endgame of Dungeon Travelers 2

I must admit, when I first started playing Dungeon Travelers 2 I was concerned that its dungeons were a bit on the small side compared to the dungeon crawler I had previously played, Demon Gaze. As the game progressed, however, it became apparent that I didn't have anything to worry about.

And then I heard about the post-game content. And then I got into the post-game content.

Demon Gaze had a certain amount of post-game content — most notably a fairly straightforward dungeon where you re-fought all the bosses from earlier in the game, then a horrendously difficult true final boss right at the end. It took me quite a while to plough through it, mind you, though this was partly due to the fact I was also chasing the Platinum trophy, which necessitated a certain amount of grinding on the random number generator in the hope of getting some of the best item drops in the game.

Dungeon Travelers 2's postgame is on a whole other level, though. It's practically a whole other game's worth of content; you finish the main story of the game around about the level 50 mark or so, and the postgame will take you to 99 (and beyond, if you level reset in the hope of "crowning" your characters through permanent stat bonuses) across a number of different dungeons.

What I find most fascinating about Dungeon Travelers 2's postgame is how much effort has been put into it. I find myself wondering how many people will beat the final boss of the main story, watch the credits roll and then put the game down. It would be perfectly valid to do so, after all, since the game is technically "complete" then, even if you haven't even seen half of what it has to offer. There aren't even any specific trophies for the postgame — the only trophies you're likely to see pop in the postgame is the enormous grind that is "kill 20,000 enemies" (you won't even have killed 10,000 by the end of the main story, but you most certainly will have at least 20,000 under your belt by the end of the postgame) and the Platinum. In other words, the only reward you're going to get from seeing the game through to its true end is the satisfaction of having beaten it.

But boy, is that going to feel good when it happens. The postgame dungeons are significantly more challenging than their main story counterparts, and in some cases make use of mechanics that haven't been seen anywhere else in the game. There are dungeons where you have to contend with the relationship between several different floors, dungeons where you have to flip switches to open coloured doors in the right order, dungeons where you have to bring certain classes in order to pass through certain doors (bet you wish you'd leveled Tsurara now, huh) and dungeons that are just a single floor, but absolutely enormous.

Each of the dungeons has two or three bosses to fight as you progress through them, and a level 99 God boss at the very end who will most likely destroy you if you charge in there when you first reach them. Instead, what you're supposed to do is explore each dungeon until you reach a trigger point (normally just before the door to the God battle) which opens up the next one. In a couple of cases, you have to increase your Quest Rank to a certain level before the next dungeon will open up, too, so hopefully you've been paying attention to the Quests as you go through the game!

I'm currently on the second-to-last dungeon, Gear Castle. This is a five-floor futuristic tower with a lot of puzzles. The first floor featured switches that opened blue or red doors (and closed the others), while the second was largely based around conveyor belts that you could switch the direction of with levers around the level. The third, which I'm currently on, features a mix of these two aspects, and I'm yet to see what the fourth and fifth floors offer.

Once I'm through Gear Castle I'm on the home straight: all that stands between me and final victory — aside from that 20,000 kills trophy, which I have no idea how close I am to — is the 30-floor Tower of Bogomil and whatever lies at the very top. I understand that reaching the 26th floor of Bogomil is a significant moment, as it's at this stage your party should be levelled enough to take on the Gods, so I'm looking forward to that with a certain amount of trepidation.

All in all, the clock is going to be well over 200 hours by the time I'm finished with this beast, and I have absolutely loved it throughout. It's seriously one of the best dungeon crawlers — if not RPGs, generally — that I've ever played, and more people need to play and love it.

Assuming I make it to the end by then, I'm planning a month of coverage on MoeGamer next month. There's certainly a hell of a lot to write about.

2298: Holiday on Zack Island

I wasn't just trying Dead or Alive 5 Last Round out of the blue yesterday; I was inspired to finally pick it up after playing some Dead or Alive Xtreme 3, which I've been enjoying a great deal.

For those unfamiliar, the Dead or Alive Xtreme series has very little to do with the fighting game series Dead or Alive save for involving some of the same characters — specifically, kickboxer and playboy Zack, who owns the various tropical paradises the Xtreme games unfold on, and a selection of lovely ladies from the series indulging in various holiday-ish activities.

The first Dead or Alive Xtreme game — Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, which many people thought might be a joke when it was first announced — was released on Xbox and largely focused, as you might expect, on playing volleyball, but there was a curious dating sim metagame attached, too, where you could give gifts to the various girls in the hope of getting them to partner up with you — you can't play beach volleyball without a partner, after all.

Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 on Xbox 360 was a very similar game but had a couple of additions to the original formula. Most notably, it added jetski racing, which was a hell of a lot of fun, and provided a reliable means of making money for those who weren't very good at volleyball or some of the smaller activities the game offered.

And so we come to Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 on PlayStation 4, which in many senses is a bit of a step backwards for the series in that it's closer to the original game in structure, but manages to remain enjoyable regardless. I miss the jetskiing in particular, but I'm enjoying the volleyball and other activities, and the fact that the game is a lot less obtuse about things like what gifts the girls like, what is happening to your relationship levels and suchlike makes it a much more pleasant experience. Couple that with a simple mission and levelling system plus a "grade" given at the end of every 14-day virtual vacation, and despite being pared back in terms of content, Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 is, in many regards, the most well-structured game in the series.

The thing I like about Dead or Alive Xtreme — all of them, but most recently 3 in particular — is that it's just plain relaxing to play. Gentle, chilled out music plays in the background as you engage in various activities ranging from beach volleyball to rock climbing or a tug of war on floating platforms in the swimming pool. As day gives way to night, your chosen girl heads back to her hotel room and has the option to hang out in the casino and play roulette, blackjack or poker. Then the whole process repeats again.

The reason why it's so relaxing is that it doesn't put any particular pressure on you to play in a given way. "Mission" pop up every so often, either from the girl you're controlling or Zack, and these provide rewards for the overall metagame, but they're strictly optional. In the case of the girls' missions, they can provide a good indicator of how well you're doing on this playthrough, though — in order to get the best score at the end of her holiday, you need to have completed 7 of her specifically numbered missions, ending with "Satisfy [girl] by the end of the vacation".

Aside from that, though, you can tackle the game how you see fit. You can focus on trying to get a complete collection of swimsuits for a favourite character. You can work on trying to satisfy as many of the girls on the island as possible in a single playthrough — pretty difficult when you first start playing, but as you level up their "excitement level" over time, it becomes easier. Or you can switch to "Owner Mode" and just use the game as an attractive software toy, allowing the computer to take control of your chosen girl in various activities while you play with the camera angles and take photographs.

Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 is notorious for not getting an official English localisation due to some controversy a while back. There is some debate over whether or not publisher Koei Tecmo really believed that the game would be subject to backlash from social justice types when it was released, but you can bet if the game did see an official Western release, we wouldn't hear the end of it from the numerous holier-than-thou publications and writers on the market today.

The silly thing is, it's not offensive in the slightest. It's sexy, sure, but Dead or Alive has always featured spectacularly beautiful women, and this in itself isn't offensive. Some of the swimsuits are quite revealing, and some of the minigames cause an entertaining "swimsuit malfunction" for the loser, though the suit in question doesn't actually fall off or anything — it just comes untied and stays magically attached. In other words, there's no nipples, no fannies, no bumholes, no fucking, no kissing and definitely no holding hands. It's just an all-female cast hanging out on the beach, playing games and having fun rather than punching each other in the tits like they do in the mainline Dead or Alive games.

To put it another way, Dead or Alive Xtreme 3, like its predecessors, is a game that it's just nice to play. It's not a deep game, it's not a complicated game (unless you want to optimise your playthrough strategies for the fastest progress) and it's not a difficult game, but it is a game that it's just thoroughly pleasant to spend time with, and I predict it's one I'll keep coming back to when I just want to chill out and enjoy myself without thinking too hard about anything.

The perfect virtual holiday, in other words.

2296: Games Called "Simulator" That Aren't Simulators: A Joke That's Run its Course

Back in the Good Old Days, my Dad played a whole lot of Flight Simulator, both in its SubLOGIC days and subsequently when it became a Microsoft product. (He still does, though perhaps not quite as much as he used to.)

One recurring joke we had in our family was taunting my Dad by saying that Flight Simulator was a game (which it is), which he would inevitably respond to by vociferously declaring that "it is not a game", because he didn't play games. (He has relaxed this policy in recent years, largely due to the advent of iOS.)

While I didn't agree with his assessment of what a game was, I did, however, understand where his argument came from. Proper noun Flight Simulator was a cut above even other lower-case flight simulators in terms of realism and depth, and noteworthy at the time for being one of the only civil aviation flight sims. It was also noteworthy for being one of the first ever open-world sandbox games, in that there were no goals whatsoever besides those that you set for yourself; there wasn't even really a "fail" state, since if you crashed, you could just respawn and start again.

By far the most noteworthy thing about Flight Simulator was the fact that it did exactly what its title suggested: it provided an accurate simulation of what it was actually like to fly a plane. That means no simplified controls; that means no throwing your plane around the sky; that means the need for at least a basic understanding of physics (including lift, thrust and drag) in order to even get off the ground. And even outside of the more obvious realism aspects such as the flight model, even navigation was simulated accurately; you had to tune navigation radios, follow the needle and so forth. Many real-life honest-to-goodness pilots actually trained to fly on instruments using Flight Simulator, such was its level of realism and detail when it came to this side of things, even if the graphics weren't particularly impressive in the early days.

As a result of all this, I came to associate the word "simulator" with… well, simulations. Virtual depictions of something real — and a depiction that errs more on the side of realism than providing a thrilling gaming experience.

This morning I received an unsolicited Steam invite to a group promoting an upcoming game called Pregnancy with Your Mom Simulator 2016. This is what Pregnancy with Your Mom Simulator 2016 looks like.

If you have never encountered the modern use of the word "simulator", Pregnancy with Your Mom Simulator 2016 pretty much sums it up. These days, although Flight Simulator still exists, the word "simulator" is much more frequently used in a "hilariously" ironic manner to describe something ridiculous, obviously unrealistic and filled with puerile humour.

I generally have nothing against puerile humour for the most part, but the use of the word "simulator" for this kind of thing is just getting a bit beyond a joke now. In just the last few years we've had Surgeon Simulator, Goat Simulator, Shower with Your Dad Simulator, Zombie Training Simulator, Corporate Lifestyle Simulator, Domestic Dog Simulator… and, well, literally hundreds of others. While there are a few genuine simulators in among the dross — the most noteworthy being titles like Euro Truck Simulator and its ilk, which follow the Flight Simulator mould of actually providing a realistic simulation of a real-life activity — the vast majority of these games are designed to be stupid visual jokes for YouTubers and streamers to whoop and holler over on videos with headlines like "CRAZY game from HELL?! SHOWER with YOUR MOM!!"

More than anything, I find it a bit frustrating to see the word "simulator" thrown around so casually these days because sometimes you just want to actually indulge in a genuine simulation of something — you want to see what it's like to drive a truck, use heavy construction machinery, fly a plane, launch a rocket, whatever — and this nonsense's use of the word completely devalues the word "simulator" to such a degree that it's now meaningless. Moreover, it's actively difficult to find real simulators — which, in the past, have had pretty functional, self-explanatory titles, such as Flight Simulator — among all this shit.

Ultimately this sort of thing is just another side-effect of the attention deficit disorder that the Internet seems to collectively suffer from. The population of the Internet staggers drunkenly from meme to meme, desperately searching for the next joke they can milk until it becomes the opposite of funny, then all the people who only use Facebook can start posting about it and it officially becomes dead, at which point a new meme shall rise and everyone shall become sick of it once more.

Perhaps I'm just old and cynical. Or perhaps I'm just tired of Steam and the mobile app stores getting flooded with "joke" games like Pregnancy with Your Mom Simulator 2016. People complained about the Wii being laden with shovelware, but that was nothing compared to the shit we see on Steam and mobile in 2016 — shit that distracts attention away from stuff that is actually noteworthy and interesting.

2295: You Should Play Aselia the Eternal

JAST USA recently released Aselia the Eternal on Steam. The game's been around for a good few years now — its original Japanese version for even longer — but its release on Steam will doubtless allow a whole new audience to (hopefully) enjoy it. I will now attempt to explain why it is worth giving it a go.

Aselia the Eternal is a combination of a visual novel and a strategy game. The overall balance is very much in favour of the story side of things — it's a good six hours of reading before you get to the game's first strategy battle sequence — but when you do get to the strategic aspect, it's a game that puts up a good fight.

The narrative concerns the player-protagonist Yuuto, who finds himself drawn into another world populated by people who speak a completely different language to him. Unable to find his way home, he gradually learns to communicate with these people — the ones with whom he's staying known as "Spirits" — and finds himself recruited into the army as an "Etranger", a wielder of a powerful, sentient sword that regularly threatens to eat his soul.

Gradually, as Yuuto becomes more and more involved in the lives of the Spirits, he starts to worry less and less about trying to find his way back home and more about helping to resolve the conflict that threatens to tear this fantasy world apart. As such, the narrative becomes very much a high fantasy sort of affair — war on a grand scale, magic and mayhem around every corner, transcendence of humanity not at all out of the question — and builds to a thoroughly exciting conclusion that I won't spoil here.

The story is compelling, interesting, well-written and well-translated, but it's the gameplay part that is perhaps the most interesting thing about it, since it's one of the most original takes on strategic RPG-style combat I've seen. Virtually eliminating all luck from the equation, combat in Aselia the Eternal is actually about putting units together in small squads to perform most effectively according to what type of unit they are — and by doing this correctly you can effectively guarantee that you'll win a conflict before you reach it. The tricky part is in finding those suitable combinations in the first place.

The basic rules of engagement have each of your squads made up of three ranks — a frontline fighter, a mid-range tank and a support fighter bringing up the rear. Each of the different types of Spirits perform best in a particular slot: Blue Spirits (such as the eponymous heroine) do their best work as speedy damage dealers in the front row; Green Spirits tend to have the highest defense and HP, so sit in the middle; Red Spirits often have support abilities that can damage an entire enemy squad or provide suitable benefits to your own, so sit at the back. You're not limited to this arrangement — and indeed, with Yuuto in the mix, who is none of those things, you'll have at least one squad with an unconventional lineup — but there are clearly optimal ways to do things, making each of the battles in the game as much of a puzzle as a strategic RPG experience.

Aselia the Eternal comes together so nicely because everything it does is in service to its narrative and worldbuilding. Despite not having an open world you can freely explore, its excellent storytelling and descriptive narration builds a wonderfully convincing setting that gives the strategic sequences genuine meaning and drama. And, as a result of that worldbuilding, your units in the strategic sequences become more than just sets of stats and abilities; they become people. People who you don't want to see die, because yes, this game has permadeath.

The question of being "more than just a soldier" is one of the main narrative themes explored in the game, and it's a rather wonderful moment when you realise that you, the player, are having the same epiphany that the characters in the game are. There are some wonderfully touching sequences with Yuuto and the Spirits as they get to know one another, and you're right there with them. And, as the narrative ramps up and you bring more and more allies with you, the tension becomes palpable as you take them into battles that you really don't want to see them lose.

I don't want to say too much more because part of the wonder of Aselia the Eternal is exploring the experience for yourself and discovering everything this remarkable work has to offer. Suffice to say if you enjoy in-depth storytelling — and lots of if — and aren't averse to a bit of red-hot strategy action, you should most certainly check it out. And then strongly consider supporting JAST's recent release of the sequel Seinarukana, which I'll be investigating for myself in the near future!

2291: Alienation: Loot, Guns and Unobtrusive Multiplayer

I'd been umming and ahhing over whether or not to give Housemarque's latest PS4 game Alienation a go, but I eventually decided to take the plunge and try it out this evening, even feeling the trepidation I already did that it would have too great a focus on online multiplayer for my liking.

Thankfully, it turns out to be an excellent game that looks to have a decent amount of depth — and best of all, while it does have an emphasis on online co-op (as well as optional Dark Souls-style "invasions") it can be played solo or with friends only if you so desire, though I don't doubt that soloing the game will prove to be an exercise in frustration.

But what is it? Well, it's basically Diablo with guns, with a touch of competitive arcadey high-score systems added for good measure. It's not an out-and-out arcade game like previous Housemarque titles Resogun and Super Stardust in that there's a persistent campaign with character levelling, skill trees and all that good stuff, but it does feature mechanics such as score multipliers, powerups, bonuses and the like. Plus apparently once you finish the main campaign there's a whole host of more arcadey stuff to enjoy — randomised levels, harder difficulties, special mission types — and so there's clearly a fine pair of legs on this game.

The moment-to-moment gameplay is satisfying. The guns feel suitably powerful, and the interface reflects your interactions well, with health bars being chipped away, damage numbers flying around and overdramatic pyrotechnics punctuating every firefight. The destructible environments are both impressive and hazardous, and there's a good variety of both enemies to contend with and weapons with which to dispatch them. Objectives are simple and straightforward — usually "go here and interact with this" or "go here and blow up these things", at least in the first few levels — but allow for game sessions to run smoothly with minimal aimless wandering and backtracking, and minimal need for voice communication, for that matter, which is the aspect of the online multiplayer I was most concerned with. (I hate voice chatting with strangers.)

Thankfully, in the few games I played this evening, no-one was using voice chat; everyone was instead making use of the three preset stock phrases "Over here!", "Wait!" and "Nice!" assigned to the D-pad. This was all that was needed for effective teamwork and coordination, and because the game doesn't particularly reward lone wolves or trolls — it is a purely cooperative affair, after all, unless you enable the Invasion feature, which is strictly optional — there's no real reason for someone to jump into a game and spoil the experience for everyone else. Consequently, while there wasn't much in the way of socialising between me and the players I teamed up with for a few missions, I don't mind that at all; it was a pleasant enough experience just fighting alongside them, and I don't actually really need the social element to feel like playing with others is worthwhile.

This is what I mean by the game having "unobtrusive multiplayer". The multiplayer is drop-in, drop-out, meaning that you can start playing without having to wait for hours in a lobby for three other people to be on the same mission as you, and once the other players are in there are no interruptions; they appear in your game seamlessly, and the action isn't interrupted any time they want to access the menus to level up or change their gear. In a way it's kind of just like playing with computer-controlled squadmates, only it's actual humans from all over the world controlling them. You may wonder what the point of this is, but it just works, okay? And speaking as someone who is generally terrified of playing online games with other people — particularly cooperative ones, which, oddly, seem to foster some of the most aggressively perfectionist assholes in all of gaming — I found my brief foray into Alienation this evening to be most satisfying and enjoyable.

I'll definitely be playing some more; the combination of loot whoring (with variable rarity items a la Diablo), upgrading weapons, cooperative blasting and high score chasing — with your "score" here doubling as the experience points you earn in a mission — makes for an addictive formula that I'm pleased and happy I decided to take a chance on.

2288: Star Fox Zero Isn't Too Hard, We've Just Grown Complacent

A much-mocked Polygon non-review of Nintendo's new Wii U title Star Fox Zero criticised the game for being a "miserable experience" on the grounds that it was too difficult. The article's author Arthur Gies cited the game's controls as a sticking point for him, and indeed the most vocal critics of the new game — most of whom, it has to be said, haven't actually played it — constantly point to the control scheme as the reason the game is somehow "bad".

Well, having cleared the main game three times now (with my last run unlocking a bunch of hidden levels) I can confirm my initial impressions of the game: the controls are really not a big deal, and in fact, for my money, are better than the inherent limitations of the fixed aiming reticle from the previous installments, allowing you to shoot in one direction while flying in another.

I don't want to get hung up on the controls, though. I do, however, want to address the question of it being "too hard" because, having hurled a number of choice swear words both at Andross the first time I reached the final boss and at the optional hidden boss on Corneria when I first came across it, I realised I was encountering something that has become quite unfamiliar in a lot of modern games: the game putting up a bit of resistance to the player and challenging them to get better at it, rather than just brute-forcing their way through.

(That said, Star Fox Zero does have Nintendo's "pity powerup" system that they introduced in the Mario games a while back, in that if you fail a mission repeatedly, you have the option to collect a powerup at the start of the mission that makes you completely indestructible in exchange for your score not being recorded. Gies did not mention this in his not-review, but it's surely pretty plain to see that this option would allow even the most incompetent moron to clear the game without too much difficulty.)

So no. Star Fox Zero isn't too hard; we've just become accustomed to console games — particularly high-profile, big budget and/or first party productions — holding the player by the hand and going out of their way to make sure the player gets to see everything without giving up in frustration. The difference between a Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master (who wants the players to see their adventure through, albeit with a few obstacles in their way) and an actual adversarial player in a role-playing or board game situation (who wants to defeat their opponent and claim victory), if you will. Star Fox Zero takes the latter approach; most other games of today take the former. (Which is fair enough, when you think about it — given the astronomical budgets of modern triple-A games, it's not at all surprising that developers want to make sure that players get to see all the stuff they've spent time, effort and money creating.)

There are exceptions to this rule, of course, the most well-known being From Software's Souls series, which is legendarily unforgiving and demands that players practice each and every encounter until they can complete it perfectly. Many independently developed games, too, err on the side of punishing difficulty, particularly if they're going for an old-school feel to their gameplay as well as old-school visuals, as is (still) currently fashionable in that particular part of the games biz. But for the most part, a game on the scale of Star Fox Zero — that is to say, a high-profile, potential system-seller from a first-party publisher — is more likely to err on the side of giving the player a theme park ride: it seems dangerous and challenging at first, but in actual fact, the player is a lot more safe (and constrained) than it might initially seem. Star Fox Zero, meanwhile, gleefully allows the player to fail, and continues to hide things from the player even once you've beaten the final boss.

Take the hidden levels, for example — a wonderfully old-school nod to the previous games in the series. You are never given an explicit warning that a trigger point for one of these is coming up — you're expected to notice the cues for yourself and act accordingly, and if you miss them, well, you miss them; no awesome secret level where you get to play as Peppy taking down a this-totally-isn't-a-Super Star Destroyer-honest for you. (Delightfully, Peppy joyfully shouts "Barrel roll!" every time you do a roll while you're playing as him.)

On top of that, clearing the game for the first time unlocks Arcade Mode, which challenges you to play from the start of the game to the end with no continues and the ability to only stock one spare life if you successfully manage to collect three gold rings. This mode isn't actually any harder than the main game (in which you can freely select any level you've previously cleared) but the added pressure of having to do it without fucking up (well, without fucking up too much) makes it feel like it's slapping you around a bit, though the satisfaction of seeing a mounting high score makes it eminently worthwhile. And, in a pleasant homage to classic arcade games such as Out Run, this mode records an independent high score for each and every possible route through the game you can take, and there are quite a few different alternative routes throughout.

So no; Star Fox Zero isn't too hard. But it is a game that you can fail at, or be bad at. And it's kind of telling that we've reached a point where, outside of the Souls series and a few other exceptions here and there, this has become unusual to some people.

2287: Deep Dungeon is Exactly What FFXIV Needs

I got burnt out on Final Fantasy XIV a little while back and haven't felt particularly tempted to go back since — especially since my Free Company had been less than conversational for the last few months, making even the social aspect of the game less worth logging in for than it had been.

At PAX East this week, Square Enix announced an exciting new plan for some future content that has me clamouring to get back to the game once it releases: a new type of activity called Deep Dungeon, which will be familiar to fans of both Final Fantasy Tactics' Midlight's Deep optional dungeon and Final Fantasy XI's Nyzul Isle.

It sounds as if Deep Dungeon is going to be a discrete type of activity for players to participate in, with the eventual plan presumably being to have a number of different dungeons for players to challenge. Initially, there will be just one, called Palace of the Dead.

The reason this excites me so much is because it shakes up the established formula of Final Fantasy XIV — which, don't get me wrong, I like very much, but just needed a break from, thanks to the necessity of grinding the same content week after week in order to obtain the next incremental upgrade. Unlike the current substantial array of static content available in the game, Deep Dungeon has a strong random element, plus a great deal more flexibility than the rest of the game's reliance on the MMO "Holy Trinity" of tank, healer and DPS.

Deep Dungeon sees you and up to three friends tackling a randomly generated dungeon. It also has its own progression system separate from the main game's experience and item levels, mitigating the issue the game currently has of a significant proportion of players outgearing the majority of the current content. The in-game reasons for this are that the dungeon saps your character's strength, and in order to power back up again you'll have to make use of items you find within the dungeon itself, progressing and regaining your strength as you proceed.

If it's anything like Final Fantasy XI's Nyzul Isle — which FFXI veterans inform me, it sounds very much like — then each floor of the dungeon will not only be randomly generated, but it will also have various objectives to complete, as well as challenging boss fights every so often. It sounds like a lot of fun — and I really like the fact that it's seemingly flexible enough to cater to any party makeup from 1-4 players, hopefully leading to some interesting combinations of classes exploring the depths. All-tank runs? Bring it on!

I have questions that will hopefully be answered in the coming months: firstly, what will the point of Deep Dungeon be? Will it be another means of acquiring progression currency, or will it be a completely separate activity? My main concern with it is that it ends up being a Diadem, which sounded awesome in concept but turned out to be a bit toss when it was actually released. Part of this was down to player attitudes, admittedly, rather than any real fault with the content itself, but hopefully the smaller scale of Deep Dungeon will mitigate this risk somewhat.

To be honest, if Deep Dungeon proves to be a significant enough challenge with enough variation on each run, I can see it becoming one of my main activities in Final Fantasy XIV, particularly if I have the option of running it either solo or with friends. And with the promise of score rankings coming in a future update, there's the distinct possibility of some friendly competition, too.

The first Deep Dungeon, Palace of the Dead, is due to arrive in the game as part of Patch 3.35. I'm planning on jumping back into the game around Patch 3.3 to find out what happens next in the main scenario quest — the story is getting very interesting — but if Deep Dungeon lives up to its potential, 3.35 will see me getting back into things in a big way.

Please don't mess it up, Yoshi-P and co. I have faith in you!

2285: A Day with Star Fox Zero

My copy of Star Fox Zero arrived today, and I've spent most of today playing it. Here are some thoughts, organised under various headings for your convenience.

Is it Star Fox?

Most definitely yes. Combining the basic core mechanics from Lylat Wars/Star Fox 64 (most notably the scoring system) with a number of levels and encounters inspired by the original Starwing/Star Fox, Star Fox Zero is very much a Star Fox game that knows its roots, knows what the people want and delivers on all fronts.

You want specifics? Okay. The forced-scrolling stages are as pure a Star Fox experience as you're going to get. Learnable groups of enemies (chainable for high scores and bonuses), environmental obstacles, hidden collectibles, alternative routes triggered by various actions you take in the level — it's all here. On top of that, clear inspiration has been drawn from the SNES original with levels based primarily around simple (albeit beautifully textured) geometric shapes in awkward arrangements — plus the final boss battle against Andross is, of course, against a giant head that spits flat blocks at you.

Not only that, but there are plenty of direct quotes and callbacks to the old games, both in dialogue and music, and the end sequence is pretty much a shot-for-shot recreation of the N64 game's ending.

So why not just play Lylat Wars?

Well, besides the fact that Star Fox looks glorious and spectacular in HD, there's plenty of new stuff, too. The most notable addition is the ability for vehicles to transform. The Arwing fighter can turn into a bipedal walker for more precise navigation through confined spaces — ideal for blowing up capital ships from the inside, say — and the Landmaster tank is able to turn into a bomber aircraft for a limited period. There's also a helicopter-like vehicle called the Gyrowing that can move and strafe in all directions, and this also comes with an attached robot-on-a-string called Direct-i that can either be used to grab objects (like conveniently placed bomb boxes) or sneak into tiny holes to hack computers or grab secret shiny things.

As a result of the varied vehicle lineup, stages have much more variety than the previous games. There's a much stronger emphasis on the free-roaming All-Range Mode when you're in the Arwing, and there are some dogfights throughout the game that rival the Ace Combat series for twisty-turny lock-on fun.

What about those controls?

People have been making much too big a deal about these. They're really not that complicated — and not that different from the N64 version, for that matter.

Here's how they work in the Arwing: left analog stick turns and climbs or dives. Right analog stick rolls, boosts and brakes, fulfilling the role that the C-buttons had on the N64 pad. ZR fires your guns — tap for rapid-fire laser, hold for lock-on charged shot.

Simple, right? The thing that people are getting hung up on is the addition of motion controls using the GamePad. These work by making your aiming reticle independent from the way your ship is facing, allowing you to move in one direction and shoot in another, eliminating the problem the past games had of forcing you to be in a potentially inconvenient position on the screen if you wanted to hit something in an awkward place. Much like the motion controls in Splatoon, these are surprisingly sensitive and precise, and can be re-centred at any time if you find your hands drifting from their original position. They're really not a big deal, though; you can get through the vast majority of the game without needing the added precision of aiming using them.

A slightly bigger adjustment for some people will be switching your attention between the TV and the GamePad screens during play, because you'll need to. The GamePad displays a first-person cockpit view of whatever vehicle you're in, while the TV screen usually displays a rear view of your vehicle, but has the option of switching you into a '90s flight sim-style Target Lock mode, which keeps both your ship and the thing you're targeting in view, meaning that the camera won't necessarily stay behind you. Most of the time, this is optional, but there are a number of boss battles in particular where you're forced into Target Lock view, which is your cue to keep one eye on the TV to recognise your relative position, but give most of your attention to the cockpit view on the GamePad. This is particularly important in the final battle, in which important elements are only visible through the cockpit view on your GamePad, but where dodging some of the boss' attacks is considerably easier from the Target Lock view, which gives you an overview of the action.

Once you become accustomed to using Target Lock view in combination with the cockpit view on the GamePad, you can have a full awareness of your position relative to the enemy on the battlefield, and position yourself accordingly. There's a small learning curve, but the payoff is great — plus it makes the TV screen really fun to watch for anyone sitting with you.

Does Peppy say "do a barrel roll"?

Of course he does.

Is the "barrel roll" still not actually a barrel roll in aeronautical terms?

Correct. This is a barrel roll.

I heard this game's really short.

You haven't played many shoot 'em ups, have you? Star Fox Zero is actually pretty long by shmup standards, at a couple of hours from start to finish, but the point is not to play it once and never touch it again. The point is to replay it to find alternative paths, secret levels, hidden collectibles and the five medal conditions on each stage… then replay it some more in the "Arcade Mode" that unlocks after clearing the main game once to beat your best clear times and scores. There's plenty to do.

What is Star Fox Guard?

Ah yes. I actually hadn't heard of this at all until I preordered my copy of Star Fox Zero, but conveniently the edition of the game I got came with a physical copy of Star Fox Guard as well, which, it turns out, is a fun game in its own right, too.

Star Fox Guard is… kind of a tower defense game in that you have a thing you need to protect against being destroyed by evil things, and you have other things that shoot stuff at the evil things in order to prevent them reaching your thing.

Where it differs from your usual tower defense affair is that you're in direct control of all your towers. Twelve of them, in fact, scattered around maps of various layouts, and all of which have a camera attached to them. During a level, you'll have to keep an eye on twelve screens at once (thirteen if you count the GamePad map) and switch focus to one at a time in order to shoot incoming enemies manually.

Another twist is that you don't have to destroy all the enemies: the only enemies necessary to destroy to clear each level are the "Combat" variety, which will immediately destroy your core if they reach it. There's a specific number of these you'll need to defeat on each level, and once you reach it, the level is over immediately. All other enemies are "Chaos" enemies, which have various abilities that interfere with your cameras and towers, but which can't destroy your core directly. Some blow up and knock out nearby cameras completely for a few seconds; others spew gas that ruins your visibility; others still replace your camera's view with intermittent nonsense.

Unusually, there are also boss fights, in which you use your twelve cameras to take down a single large enemy, which may or may not have minions.

There's also a levelling system, which unlocks new types of camera and weapon to use — including some that can lock on to multiple enemies or slow enemies down — and a selection of Extra missions that add additional objectives or mechanics to the mix. Then when you're done with all that, you can create your own Squads of robots you've unlocked by progressing through the game and design your own fiendishly difficult waves of enemies for other players around the world to challenge, and you can challenge other players' Squads too.

While simple in execution, Star Fox Guard has has a surprising amount of care and effort put into it, and I can see it being an entertaining little diversion.

Is it good, then?

It's not an exaggeration to say that Star Fox Zero is the Star Fox game I've been waiting for since Lylat Wars. While it doesn't do anything particularly interesting with the story — it's a remake/reboot rather than a sequel — Star Fox has never been about narrative and characterisation. Instead, it's about satisfying, spectacular, cinematic space combat, and in that regard, it well and truly delivers.

Not too hard?

No. If you think it is too hard, you have no business reviewing games.

Right then.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Barrel roll diagram by Zaereth – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.