Some Thoughts On Reviews

It's nice to see superheroes get some love, but full marks?

Videogame reviews are an often contentious subject, their broad significance and final scores usually the biggest topics up for debate. They’re constantly complained about; their integrity is often contested; and it’s not uncommon to find people question the meaning of scores, particularly these days after the creation of aggregate sites like Metacritic. Add in the fanboy ingredient -- where people are so infatuated with their favourite franchises and/or developers that they can’t see things rationally or objectively, nor accept another person’s opinion -- and you have an egregious, somewhat explosive (unnecessarily) subject that does more harm than good, and which causes pointless hostility between people who should be sharing in their passion, videogames, rather than arguing over it.

Personally, it’s a topic that I have mostly avoided because I find the discussion over reviews to be, mostly, redundant, and because I’m open-minded enough to be interested in what other people think about a particular game, and how they felt about their experience with it. I couldn’t care less whether a big blockbuster game scores a perfect ten or only receives a seven; I have no interest in whether a review should be a “buyer’s guide” or if it should approach a game critically; and I certainly don’t care about the perceived narrow spectrum of scoring, where videogames are supposedly only scored between the seven-to-nine range. I’d much prefer to be talking about something else, in other words, so I have kept quiet about reviews because I know which ones are the kind I would like to read, and whose opinions are most likely to represent (or at the very least, correlate with) my own.

But lately, there has been a semi-related issue regarding reviews that I am more interested in, and one that, if I am to be honest, has me feeling somewhat concerned and uncomfortable.

As most gamers would know we are currently in the midst of what I call ‘Onslaught Season’: the period in which most developers and publishers release their biggest titles, and where we as players are insanely excited for these games as well as worried that we’re not going to be able to afford them all. This means that blockbuster franchises like The Elder Scrolls and Uncharted make their return, and publishers like Activision will make a lot of money due to yet another release in their Call Of Duty series. It’s crazy season, basically, and definitely one of the most enjoyable times of the year due to the enthusiasm and anticipation that drives it. A byproduct of this period, however, is the way in which these giant games are reviewed and, more importantly, whether the authors of these evaluations are able to cast aside their personal preferences and elation to make a better informed and more meaningful assessment.

Yet another GOTY in the making?

This year alone, we’ve already seen three titles that have received 10/10s at various publications. And while such scores might not be consistent with every website and magazine, the general perception is that these games -- Batman: Arkham City, Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception and, seemingly, The Legend Of Zelda: Skyward Sword -- are the year’s best thus far, and the cream of the crop of modern gaming. Now I have no problem with games receiving full marks and actually believe they should get that level of recognition if they deserve it -- unlike others who believe that the aforementioned spectrum of 7-9 is more applicable -- but I do have some concerns if these scores are seemingly thrown around in a carefree manner.

By giving these titles top marks, whether they deserve it or not (I can’t comment on that since, aside from Uncharted 3, I have not played them), the reviewers of this industry send out a message that suggests that these titles are some of the finest you will ever play. That’s fine if these authors mean it and can justify their opinion, but it isn’t good if the result of that message insinuates something that mightn’t be necessarily true later, once this exciting rush of games has passed. It also suggests that these games are better than some of the big name titles from previous years, the ones that are otherwise agreed upon to be this generation’s defining games.

Are we really sure that -- as a collective industry that includes critics, developers and publishers, and players -- we want to claim that Batman: Arkham City or Skyward Sword is better than, say, Portal* or Assassin's Creed II, both games that are regarded exceptionally highly and yet didn’t necessarily receive those elusive 10/10s on release? What about the reputation that such high scores bestow upon the developers behind these wonderful games -- do we want to imply that Rocksteady or Naughty Dog** are better than a Rockstar or Irrational? If yes to both questions, why? Now I’m not saying that these developers or games don’t deserve such praise and adulation, especially when I haven’t had the pleasure of playing them yet, but what I am saying is that do we really want to convey that message -- that these games are better -- because they’re the ones getting perfect scores when other high profile games may not have received similar recognition? If we do then fair enough, but if we don’t because next year when the insanity has died down and we’ve gotten over the initial awe of playing these brilliant games we’ve realised that maybe they aren’t as good as this generation’s best names, then how are we going to deal with that? How are we going to assess and analyse these games, and their position within the wider medium, when we’ve already sent the message out that they’re so phenomenal that they deserve the best scores. When singing the praises of Portal or BioShock, yet again because they really are that good, will we put them above or below the games that have received full marks this year? And what of next year’s titles which have the potential to go even higher?

I’m not arguing any particular point here nor am I trying to suggest these games -- or any others in the future -- don’t deserve 10/10s. What I am saying, however, is that full marks have been appearing quite frequently lately and I just want to make sure it is for the right reasons, rather than because the people awarding these high scores are influenced by the gorgeous graphics, spectacle and riveting gameplay that these titles have to offer. I’m saying that the industry as a whole needs to be careful, because once it has committed to a perspective there is no changing it and we should be wary of the future whilst we are enjoying the present. You only need to look at games like The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess or BioShock 2 to see an example of the way in which these titles can have a backlash post-release, so just be mindful of what you’re doing when assessing these games and please, ensure that you own your opinion and mean every word you use to convey it -- failure to do so is failure to represent the medium sincerely, and none of us want that.

**It should be noted that The Orange Box, the package that Portal originally came in, did receive full marks at a variety of publications, but it wasn’t until subsequent rereleases (such as on XBLA) that the game itself got judged individually.

**Disclaimer: I personally do believe that Naughty Dog deserve to be seen in the same light as a Rockstar or a Valve, and can only hope that the success of Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception will get them there. Guess time will tell on that one.

Metroid Marathon: The Little Things (MP1)

[Part of a series of posts in which I discuss my favourite videogame franchise: Metroid. Today, a look at the incidental details in Metroid Prime that are so easy to overlook, but enrich the experience when noticed.] 

If three big moments characterized Metroid Prime’s transition from 2D to 3D for me personally, then it is the little things that form the game’s unique personality, give it its atmosphere and constantly surprises almost wherever you turn. It’s the little things that, when combined as a whole, give Metroid Prime a level of detail that few other games can achieve, and when separated provide a subtle, if even unnoticed, addition to the game’s immersion.

Attention to detail isn’t new in videogames, however, the effort some developers put into their games to create an experience that is unlike any other often being the key contributing factor as to whether the overall product -- the end result of a carefully considered vision or idea -- is successful or not. Games like the Uncharted series, Grand Theft Auto IV and BioShock all take care to include the little details, minor additions that will cooperate and assist major ones in forming a particular point of view, understanding or atmosphere, each enhancing the overall experience rather than detracting from it.

A Sap Sac hanging on the side of a wall.

But Metroid Prime’s attention to detail is, I would argue, a lot more subtle than the aforementioned games -- and it’s worth pointing out that they’re all current generation games, too -- using existing features of the game’s world to enhance the immersion. Rain droplets fall onto Samus Aran’s visor if she looks up towards the sky, whilst other drops splash and bead on her infamous beam cannon. Flamethrowers in the Magmoor Caverns area of Tallon IV -- initially something to be avoided -- can be frozen once the Ice Beam has been acquired, progress beyond them now achievable with relative and quick ease. The electricity of Samus’ Wave Beam pulsates whilst the Ice Beam leaves a tiny, cold fog as she moves her beam cannon around. Juice from a Sap Sac drips once it has exploded, whilst acid from a mindless creature’s attack splashes on Samus’ visor upon impact. Fish gently swim amongst the water, quickly scurrying as Samus draws near; a reflection of Samus Aran’s eyes and face can be seen as a burst of light emanates from a nearby explosion; steam clogs up her visor and limits visibility for a brief period of time. When submerged underwater -- particularly before the acquisition of the Gravity Suit -- movements become slow and subdued, with a pleasing sense of weight and a floaty feel making for a nice contrast to the usually quick, agile movements enjoyed on land; the morph ball’s bomb jump ability also shares a similar feeling of weight and casual buoyancy, bobbing up slowly rather than bouncing immediately as on land. Continuing the underwater theme, it actually feels like you truly are submerged when traversing its many depths, the cold, blue and translucent water stretching out beautifully while the aforementioned movement and the game’s clever use of sound enhances the feeling and ensures its effectiveness. Few other games can achieve this submerged feeling -- BioShock 2 is one of the only other examples that comes to mind -- keeping the immersion high and the game’s unique attention to detail amazing.

Fish scurrying about as Samus approaches.

Enemies also receive this level of attention, with a variety of ways to kill them coming to mind. The environment plays a part, a carefully placed shot on a nearby Sap Sac instantly killing something upon its explosion, whilst an idle defense turret can explode on impact from a missile or be disabled by a few shots of the Wave Beam, collapsing it in confusion. The Space Pirates aren’t immune either, their weaves and dodges of one beam quickly turned around as you freeze them, their bodies crumbling to pieces upon another concussive shot. Even boss battles contain subtle ways in which to attack, allowing for strategies that might not be immediately obvious.

The little things may not be unique to Metroid Prime nor might they be instantly apparent, but they all combine to enhance the game overall and assist with immersion, leaving a tiny but acknowledging smile on the face of those who notice them, and indirectly improving the experience of those who don’t.

Liberty Blues

Images taken from the glorious DeadEndThrills.com

Grand Theft Auto IV's Liberty City is, easily, my favourite videogame setting around. That may surprise you given my bias towards certain games and, indeed, their own locations, but Rockstar's faux-version of New York is king because it continues to surprise me each and every time I visit.

Every three months or so I fire up GTA IV simply to go for a walk or drive around Liberty City. I do this, I guess, because I want to relive my experiences of playing the game when it first came out, or when the Episodes proved that the city had many stories to tell. I also do it because its huge size, impressive design and sense of life is unparalleled in this medium, even three years after its release. You know something was incredible when even L.A. Noire's Los Angeles -- already impressive in its own way -- can't match Liberty City's scope or awe. It truly does feel like Liberty City exists whether you're visiting it or not, and this distinct difference elevates it above any other game setting as the best one I have ever had the luxury of visiting; of inhabiting.

Verisimilitude is wonderful and certainly something that has seen substantial progress within this current generation, but it means nothing if these wonderful worlds that get built for games like Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Red Dead Redemption are under-utilised or, worse, forgotten about. Obviously that's a non-issue at the moment as these games and their amazing environments are absolutely relevant to us right now, but my fear is that as we continue to progress and continue to move forward with technology, new hardware and new, amazing intellectual property (IP), these places of wonder will exist only in memory and nothing more. This might have been acceptable (to a degree) in the past where the medium's evolution was such a significant force, but as we reach and surpass the uncanny valley and photo-realism, I don't think it will be right to forget about Venice in Assassin's Creed II, Empire Bay in Mafia II or, yes, Liberty City in GTA IV. So much effort, time and resources go into making these virtual masterpieces but, because of the always looking forward mentality (that I keep bringing up on this blog) and the perception that what has come before must be outdone, I'm seriously worried that these wonderful game settings, these amazing spaces, will be left behind. Whether they are or not remains to be seen, but if it does happen then losing the brilliance of Liberty City will be the biggest loss, I think.

Think about it for a second. The Episodes From Liberty City downloadable content bucked the trend of DLC by redefining the city through new, fresh perspectives, adding a different take on a place we had all become familiar with. Like, say, Minerva's Den (also fantastic) from BioShock 2, this content took what we knew about these worlds and showed us that this was only just a small part of their overall make-up, that our insight was just a small component of a much bigger, much more incredible picture. They made something old new again, and definitely enhanced our overall enjoyment (and perception) of Liberty City as a whole. But, now that those episodes have been and gone, where do we go from here? Towards the next instalment of GTA (whatever that happens to be), of course, leaving Liberty City as nothing more than a memory -- an amazing memory, sure, but still a memory.

This year's E3 is the perfect example of this situation: every single press conference that opened the show was met with gamers everywhere anticipating the announcement of the next Grand Theft Auto. Like Half Life Episode Three (or, indeed, Half Life 3) the announcement never came, but the point is that everyone is ready to move on and experience the next title in Rockstar's seminal franchise, and they can't wait to hear about even just confirmation that it is coming. These people have moved on, in other words, and while they can reflect upon their time in GTA IV's Liberty City and acknowledge how great it is, it's no longer relevant to their gaming habits because they're too busy awaiting the future. This is understandable, of course, and I don't begrudge anyone who is excited to see where the GTA franchise goes next (both literally, in terms of where it is set, and figuratively in terms of the impact it will have) -- I know I'm anxious to know as well -- but as such an immense fan of Liberty City, it's somewhat disheartening and definitely disappointing to know that no one cares about it like they used to.

I don't know -- I look at Liberty City and see a gigantic metropolis with so much to see, so much to do, and also get the impression that we know so little about this remarkable city. Sure, we may have it memorised (I certainly do, thanks photographic memory!) and may know where we can go to play darts or go bowling, but as a whole we are a very small element in the city's massive scale, and despite three adventures within it, we've made such a little impact on it overall. At the end of the day we're just one person roaming the streets, with thousands more like us clearly visible amongst Liberty City's hustle and bustle. We may be the protagonist and, like all games, the experience may be centered around us and us only, but as I suggested before Liberty City leaves me with a sense that it exists whether I am there or not, and that my presence won't affect its ability to be home to so many civilians. It is kind of like New York for me in real life -- I know it is there and I'd like to visit one day, but it means nothing to my life here in Australia unless I actively seek to change that by hopping on a plane and flying to America. My concern is that no one will make the effort to make the trip to Liberty City any more, and the reason for that will be because they are always more interested in visiting the places that the various videogames out there take us next.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but Liberty City isn't exactly a disposable thing, either -- it is still the most stunning technical achievement and fascinating environment videogames have ever seen, but all of that will be forgotten once brand new games, perhaps even the next GTA, come along to wow us with their own amazing locations. New York will never be forgotten -- why does Liberty City have to be?

Games Of The Year 2010 #2

Yesterday I offered you the first handful of games that stood out to me throughout 2010 and talked about the elements of them that I'd like to see pursued in the future. Today I give you the rest.

Limbo

Of all the games to feature on my list, this is probably the hardest one to describe and to articulate my thoughts with. Like Flower from 2009, Limbo left a strong and important mark on my gaming career, but for reasons of which I’m not entirely sure.

It’s a beautiful game, the silhouette, shadowy art direction being a pleasure to see in screenshots and an absolute wonder in motion. Its use of silence was particularly endearing, both because so few games use silence effectively and because it enhanced the imagery on screen to create an experience that is unique. It’s brutal; communicates a sense of longing and bravery; and what you discover is at once terrifying and ominous, yet it’s these factors that make progress through the game so compelling and rewarding. It’s also short, sweet, and surprisingly emotional: the very example of the potential downloadable games have as well as what amazing things can be achieved within the indie space. Despite some claims that the farther it goes along, the sillier it gets, nothing in Limbo feels out of place and all of it feels like it was included for a reason. The obligatory discussion about whether it’s an example of art or not is, in my mind, irrelevant -- what Limbo is, is an experience like no other, and a game that deserves to be played regardless of whether you end up liking it or not. It takes an aesthetic, simplicity in its presentation yet complexity in its design, and contends with themes that don’t exist anywhere else, combines them, and creates a game that is just a sheer delight to experience. And, perhaps, it is that last word that explains why it features on this list: it’s not just another game and when you are done, it will stay in your mind rather than be forgotten. If that’s not the sign of something worth attempting again in the future, nothing is.

Minecraft

Indie darling, breakout hit and my personal addiction, Minecraft surprised everybody when it became a phenomenon, including the game’s creator Notch who was suddenly a millionaire. But, when you look at what Minecraft provides and the kind of game it delivers, it’s not as surprising as it initially seems.

A true sandbox title, Minecraft’s best asset is you, the player. The reason for that is simple: Minecraft is what you make of it. Much has been said about the game’s creative side, reminding people of Lego due to its blocky worlds and the enjoyment people have had making insane creations such as replicas of various real life constructs, interpretations of fantasy locations and the demonstrations of ingenuity, particularly using Red Stone. Others again have focused on the kind of experience Minecraft delivers, discussing its survival horror elements thanks to the need to find shelter at night to defend (read: hide) from the game’s enemies; its breed of fantasy born out of ‘waking up’ in a strange new land, uncertain of what you may find; and even on the platforming elements that come from climbing the game’s many mountains and caverns. That last one is a bit of a stretch but such is the imagination that Minecraft inspires in people and the dreaming they can’t help but do when it comes to the game’s world, crucial due to the way in which it is procedurally generated and unique to each individual who plays. So far, I’ve focused on my own feelings that I’ve had during the game, and the subtle but effective ways in which it can tell a story, despite not having a predetermined narrative (yet). There’s plenty more I want to talk about in the near future so I won’t go into detail here, but needless to say, Minecraft is on this list because it caters to a variety of play-styles and player desires, puts us in a world that is at once fascinating and entirely our own, and contains an insane amount of complexity hidden behind its simple art direction and accessible mechanics. It’s popular for a reason, amazing for so much more, and is the perfect example of how to captivate an audience and keep them interested through regular additions and, more importantly, through their own, personally defined goals. This is emergent gameplay at its purest and definitely a game other developers, indie or otherwise, should look to as they chase the ever elusive emergent gameplay prize. Amusingly, the game isn’t even finished yet and as we play, we’re all helping to develop it into something that should be even more special. Based on what we have already, the future is incredibly exciting for not just the game, but the impact it will have on the medium as well.

F1 2010

It is pretty obvious by now that I’m absolutely in love with this game, my praise shortly after release coming thick and fast, and the role-playing series that followed demonstrating a desire to not only experiment with my writing and approach to games, but to inhabit the world of Formula 1 and see what comes of it. Whether that series has been successful or not is up to you but as far as the game itself is concerned, it is the best F1 game to come out in a long time and does everything a licensed game should.

F1 2010 is more than just the tracks, the drivers and the cars; it’s about the lifestyle, the spectacle and the celebration of speed, technology and engineering (sound familiar?) as well. It’s about the ability to go as fast as possible around a track, as smoothly as possible and with a skill and finesse that isn’t just tricky to master, but something that can’t be replicated anywhere else. It’s about the highs and lows that come with each race, the drama and the emotion that result from it, and the desire to work harder than before to overcome and ultimately master any issues that may arise, be it from performance, mechanical components of the car, or the constant need to improve one’s driving style. It’s about entertaining the fans whilst satisfying the team, and meeting your own personal expectations, whatever they may be. In other words, it’s about the sport of Formula 1 and as such, it delivers the life and passion of motorsport as well as the brand and culture, culminating in a game that transcends its genre (and thus, competititon), elevates a sport that’s sometimes hidden behind the celebrities and controversy, and puts people on the track instead of behind the (virtual) wheel. The fact it was Codemasters’ first attempt, while impressive, is irrelevant; that it goes above and beyond what it means to utilize a license effectively highlights not only what can be done, but why it should be in the first place.

Which begs the question: when’s F1 2011 coming out…? ;)

Heavy Rain

Something has to be said for a game’s quality if it has the power to whisk someone obsessed with another title -- which we’ll get to in a minute -- away and obtain their full attention through sheer amazement over what was just experienced. Heavy Rain did this for me, and even now, months after release and after a series of posts discussing the game, I’m still not sure I can explain why.

Ever since it was announced and I heard what Quantic Dream were attempting with Heavy Rain, combined with my enthusiasm for their previous game Fahrenheit, I was hooked and couldn’t wait to see what the final product would bring. Despite devouring any morsel of information I could find, the end result still surprised me and, like Alan Wake, I think it is purely because of the story and its characters. Unlike Alan Wake, however, Heavy Rain’s narrative was about as real as you can get in games today, focusing on themes that have never been explored (in a serious way, at least) previously, and centering the entire game around a father’s love for his children, and the lengths he would go to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Its mechanics may be a mixed bag of success and frustration; some of its characters may have not met their potential or were exploited in an unnecessary, silly way; and the eventual outcome and reveal of the Origami Killer may be disappointing -- both because it may have not been who you were expecting or wanted it to be, and because no matter how your personal story pans out, the person is the same -- but Heavy Rain delivered on its promise of a realistic narrative which ensures its position here. Its characters -- like it or not -- get under your skin, and that’s something few other games can achieve. To say Heavy Rain had to happen would be an understatement; to be thankful that it did would be to appreciate what it did manage to achieve, as well as highlight to the industry that this sort of thing -- regardless of how successful or not it happens to be -- needs to be explored further if we’re to truly obtain legitimacy as a creative, artistic medium, if not the dominant one.

BioShock 2

Surprise, surprise, a BioShock game is on the list. Come on though, as if it wouldn’t be -- you are reading a blog whose name was inspired by the franchise.

Personal bias aside, however, BioShock 2 would have made the list anyway because, quite frankly, it was just so damn good. It isn’t easy releasing a sequel to a game that has gone on to become one of the medium’s best, and one that is constantly referred to when discussing important subjects. Not since Grand Theft Auto III have we had a game (and now franchise) that has inspired such reverence and discussion (Portal aside), and as such any follow up would be scrutinized. And BioShock 2 was, copping criticism by people who were strangely (in my opinion at least) sick of Rapture; who didn’t enjoy the gameplay a second time around; and who wanted it to be, perhaps unrealistically, better than the first game. The thing is it was better than the first game, maybe not in terms of the awe and beauty that the original displayed but certainly in terms of refinement of the game’s mechanics and definitely in the way in which it framed the hallowed, empty halls of Rapture in a new light. And it is this last point that is the most important: the new perspective BioShock 2 brought to Rapture didn’t just show us another side of the city, it changed it from being Andrew Ryan’s baby to being everyone’s, through its emphasis on highlighting the people rather than the power. The areas we visited in the first game were created for Rapture’s dignitaries and people of importance, as well as designed to showcase the unique personality and extreme attitudes that Andrew Ryan so incessantly portrayed, further exacerbated by the opposition struggle led by Fontaine. BioShock 2’s version of Rapture, on the other hand, doesn’t just showcase the areas in which the ‘common-folk’ live, it showcases why they’re just as important, if not more so, than the big-shot personalities found in the likes of the Medical Pavilion and Fort Frolic. By doing so, it provides insight into the inner workings of the city as a whole and illuminates the emotion, morals and resolve that its inhabitants have -- whether Ryan or Fontaine recognised it or not. It may have introduced a new power, of sorts, with Sophia Lamb, and the importance of family -- particularly as far as the Little Sisters are concerned -- certainly played an integral role, but it was this new perspective with which to view Rapture that elevated BioShock 2 beyond sequel status and into the history books as a game worthy of attention, perhaps more so than its predecessor.

Throw in the astonishing and incredible downloadable add-on Minerva’s Den, which further defined the city through yet another perspective and demonstrated so easily just how many stories are still yet to be told within those walls deep in the depths of the ocean, and you have a game that doesn’t just improve on what’s come before, but reinvents it and boasts to the world that anything you can do, can be done better. It is this mantra, whether you believe it fits the game or not, that needs to be acknowledged in the wider industry and, with any luck, is one that will become a motivation in the years to come. Best of all, for someone like me? Rapture may be dead as far its production and celebration of the self is concerned, but it has never been more alive when it comes to its potential and what can be discovered amongst its walls. All we have to do is visit it and explore it, the rest will happen naturally.

***

So there you have it, my choices for 2010’s best games. Like all of you no doubt, I didn’t get to play everything that I wanted to during the year -- and I’m frustrated with myself for not being able to play games that were particularly high on my anticipation list -- but what I did experience was amazing and certainly suggests to me that gaming hasn’t just evolved, but that it is well on its way to a bigger, brighter and important future. Personally, the ability to inhabit brave new worlds whilst experiencing fascinating stories -- if not creating them ourselves -- was a really strong thing to take away from 2010, as was the celebration of the old, new and the processes in which they are made. Game spaces, stories and new perspectives were all important to me and, I have no doubt, will continue to be as we turn our attention to 2011. Based on the games I'm already chomping on the bit to play, it looks like this year will certainly give the last a run for its money -- no mean feat when you recall just how packed it was, and just what it brought to the table. Don't you just love videogames?

Rapture's Aftermath: BioShock 2's Reception, And The Franchise's Future

Observing the reactions to the newly released BioShock sequel has been very interesting, particularly because they have been so mixed. Generally speaking, BioShock 2's reception has been positive: the game has received an average review score of around 88% (360 version) on aggregate sites and most people seem to recognise it as a competent shooter that has justified its existence as a sequel to a game that most thought didn't need one. But, despite that general perception, further investigation reveals a whole host of different thoughts, both positive and negative, that have been really intriguing.

My regular readers may recall that I had anticipated disappointment in the reactions to BioShock 2, and, I think I can fairly say that in some respects, I was right in that assumption. While most can agree that for what it is, it's a successful installment, there are still quite a lot of people out there who have expressed their disappointment, expecting BioShock 2 to be a lot more than what it actually is. Some wanted it to render the original game irrelevant -- in a similar way to how Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Assassin's Creed II did to their respective predecessors -- while others wanted it to be a remarkably different game that isn't so familiar to the first. Since BioShock 2 doesn't achieve the former and is absolutely similar to the original game in terms of gameplay, mood and atmosphere, and indeed graphically, it's understandable that these people are disappointed that it didn't meet their own expectations. In my opinion, I believe these expectations were perhaps a bit too unrealistic and, as that older post of mine suggests, these people are now disappointed with a product that could never have met such lofty expectations -- but whether this is the case or not is, of course, subjective and only relevant to the individuals concerned.

Personally, on the other hand, BioShock 2 has met my expectations so far, perhaps because I chose my expectations carefully and kept them in line with what I believed a sequel could accomplish. As I mentioned in my brief look, I wanted BioShock 2 to maintain the atmosphere and personality of the first game, continue the story of both Rapture and its deranged inhabitants and, of course, give me the opportunity to return to a city and setting that leaves me in absolute awe. So far it has achieved all of this and more, and when combined with the gameplay improvements and other refinements BioShock 2 delivers, I'm left with a positive impression of the game that motivates me to continue playing and makes me eager to see what will happen next. This difference between my expectations and the arguably unrealistic ones of others doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but is something that has been interesting to consider as I observe how others react to the game and compare those reactions to my own.

To be clear for a second; as an opposing argument to my comparison it could easily be said that I have a bias towards the original BioShock, if not the franchise* -- I mean, this blog's name was influenced by it -- and as such, anything I suggest about the reactions people are having could be as a result of clouded judgment, but with or without that potential bias I still believe that the response people have had has been interesting and worth observing.

The last thing that I have found intriguing is this article on Kotaku, pondering whether Rapture as a city and game space that players get to experiment within can hold up a third time in BioShock 3, if not future installments altogether. The article questions whether it can, as well as contemplates the location and setting any further sequels should have if it can't by allowing the site's readers to weigh in with their say.

My instant reaction to that article is one of astonishment, but further consideration of the topic yields a similar response. As far as I am concerned, Rapture is BioShock and to have further games set elsewhere would be like setting a Mario game on the USG Ishimura (of Dead Space fame). You just don't separate certain elements or features from each other, and while I have no doubt that a BioShock game set elsewhere would be interesting, it just wouldn't be the same as one set in Rapture. The beauty of Rapture is that, as a city, it has a lot of potential to continually offer new areas that we haven't seen before, not to mention the characters and motivations that drive those places -- BioShock 2 is a wonderful example of how the perception of Rapture can be altered and continued in new and interesting ways, and I don't see any reason why that should (or would) change if another installment were to be created. Sure, after a while it might get a little difficult to maintain the consistency and flow of the narrative across each game, but if done right, as BioShock 2 has certainly been in the levels I've played so far, then there is no reason for Rapture to be replaced by another location. If, and perhaps when, Rapture loses its appeal and cannot be explored further, then, in my opinion, BioShock as a franchise should not be explored further either. When that times comes -- and let's face it, one day it probably will -- then the series should be left alone as a hopefully wonderful memory and a significant part of gaming history whilst a new franchise is created, hopefully as remarkable and compelling as the original BioShock was. I guess what I am saying is that some things are best left where they are, and when we have seen all there is to see with such an amazing and arguably important franchise, then developers and, more importantly, gamers need to know when it's time to move on.

If, instead, the BioShock franchise continues elsewhere as a reaction to some people's disdain with the familiarity, then the resulting perdition that will stem from that is surely much worse than anything we could ever see among Rapture's destruction. How would that be for the swan song of BioShock's insanity?

*I would actually suggest my fanboyism is directed at Rapture, rather than the game/series as a whole.

A Brief Look At BioShock 2

Big Sister is angry with you...

It was inevitable that I would buy this game. Not only is it the sequel to what is easily one of my favourite games out there, it also gives me the chance to return to a videogame space unlike any other: one so unique in its theme and appearance; filled with attention to detail and personality; and set somewhere where few other games, if any, have explored, that I can't help but be excited to explore it once more. As far as I am concerned, Rapture is BioShock, so any opportunity to return to the underwater utopia is going to be taken immediately.

My first impression of BioShock 2 was one of relief. Within moments of loading the game, it felt like I was home, and while that sounds incredibly ridiculous or perhaps even hyperbolic, it's true. Those initial moments of control, when I (as opposed to who we play as: the Big Daddy original prototype known as 'Delta') was finally playing the game, were strangely calming, and I stood there for a few minutes, surveying my new surroundings and just taking it all in. This was undoubtedly Rapture, and I had undoubtedly returned, and the relaxing moments those two facts had inspired was exactly the kind of reaction I wanted from not just the sequel, but any installment of the franchise: prequel or sequel.

To take my fanboy approach to Rapture and thus, the BioShock franchise, out of the equation for a moment, it has been incredibly interesting to observe the reactions to the game that everyone else is having and correlate them with my own.* Personally, so far at least, BioShock 2 is delivering on the expectations I set upon it: it allowed me to return to Rapture, it maintains the atmosphere and personality that was so prominent in the first game, and continues to flesh out the narrative of both the city and those who populate it. Admittedly, I'm still fairly early into the game so it remains to be seen if things will change or continue, get better or get worse -- but in the meantime my impression of BioShock 2 has been positive and, more importantly, I'm glad 2K Marin, Australia and China (as well as Digital Extremes) were able to justify its existence and show that it wasn't just a cash-in but a genuine attempt to iterate on a remarkable game. It goes without saying that I'll have more about BioShock 2 soon -- this blog's name is influenced by the series after all...

*I'll have more on these observations in my next post as they have been rather intriguing and, I think it's fair to say, quite mixed too.

Anticipated Disappointment

2009 is passing by at an extremely fast rate. E3 has just passed giving us a look at what we will be playing later in the year (and beyond) while gamers around the world are currently playing games like inFamous and Prototype. Others again are playing older games such as Resident Evil 5, Halo Wars and even Flower. I'm in this latter category, playing games in my collection that either come from the holiday rush of last year, or, from years previous that the industry has quickly forgotten. We move on fast in this industry and before we know it, we'll be in the holiday season once more where, despite caution to prioritise games this year, I still expect to be overwhelmed with the amount to play. This industry loves seeing the next big thing and while the future is bright, the past is colourful so it's disappointing that we don't spend more time focusing on it. But, we move on this way because we're habitual creatures and can't resist the hype. The discussion stemming from E3 alone proves this, and will continue to do so each and every year.

This is a good thing, though. The convention's insight into the future brought surprises, spectacle and excitement, and information on games we were already anticipating. For me, three games in particular cannot come soon enough: Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2 and, of course, BioShock 2. I loved the original games and can't wait to see their stories continued in the sequels. Like any fan would be, I'm eagerly awaiting the release of these games and jump at any piece of information I can find referencing them. I can't help it, it's how I've been brought up by the industry.

But it's the other occupants of this industry, the other fans of various franchises, that have been on my mind recently and whom are the subject of this post. These people are following the exact same trend I am and are anticipating whatever upcoming titles take their fancy. There is nothing wrong with it and I am glad they have something to look forward to. I see a problem, however, with the audience's anticipation for certain games and what their reaction to them will be. It just so happens that these particular games also happen to be the ones I've mentioned above.

All three franchises are pretty big names these days, but none more so than the inspiration for this blog's name, BioShock. The original game set in the underwater city of Rapture was both critically and commercially acclaimed, with fans enjoying multiple aspects including the experimentation with Plasmids and weapons; the exploration of the city; the implied history and the narrative. Naturally anticipation for BioShock 2 is high with everyone eager to return to Rapture, to see what is new while revisiting the familiar; as a fanboy of the game I too share this desire to get my hands on the sequel. But what I think separates me from a lot of these other people is that I'm looking forward to it realistically.

Speculation is rife about what will happen in the game, with people discussing how what has already been revealed will relate to what was experienced in the original. This discussion is fostering an excitement and level of expectation for BioShock 2 that, I think, will eventually end up in massive disappointment and perhaps as a result, backlash and maybe even hatred towards the game. This is an unfortunate, yet expected by-product of the insane hype that surrounds big-name titles before release. So why am I writing about it? Well, I think people are expecting BioShock 2 to be as impactful and effective as the original was by providing a story that continues on with the brilliance of the first game, giving new locations within Rapture to explore and fall in love with as well as new Plasmids, weapons, enemies and unexpected surprises around every corner. Arguably this is an understandable expectation, but to me this will only lead to disappointment for those who have such high expecations.

To be blunt, unless 2k Marin end up pulling something special off, BioShock 2 will be a disappointment. I'm not saying it won't be a great game because I'm sure it will be, but it won't be what everyone wants it to be and it's this that will unfortunately see BioShock 2's reputation be mixed, resulting in what will essentially be a love/hate game. I am, on the other hand, anticipating BioShock 2 with more realistic expectations. Sure, I want the game to be everything it can be and as good as the first game, if not better, but I have set myself up so that if this is not the case, then I won't be as disappointed as others will be. To put it simply, all I want from BioShock 2 is for it to engage and immerse me in the same way the original did; for me to be drawn right back into the allure of Rapture, to be entertained with the continuation of the story regardless of how much it relies on predictable, or not-so predictable plot twists and for me to still enjoy the experimental gameplay the series is (or should be) known for. If it can achieve this, then I do not care if it doesn't contain the "OMG" moments, or whether it's as successful as the original in terms of advancing the medium or whatever.

Basically, I want to return to Rapture and revisit a place that feels like home, a place that feels part of me and one I've missed ever since leaving in late 2007. What's the harm in that?

On a side note: it'll be interesting to revisit this post once BioShock 2 is released in late October.