ThunderPeel2001

Phaedrus' Street Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8780

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThunderPeel2001

  1. Posted

    I think having grey tends to veer dangerously into subjective territory. What one reviewer might think is a ridiculously good game, another might think is not so good but just OK. By working with thumbs up/down it encourages the person to make the decision with their own experience and judgement ("Do I like this genre? Does it look good? Do I like the games it's compared to?"). You never know, they might even read the review.

    I think a review without opinions is, well, probably just a press release. Of course you need objectivity, but you have to trust that the reviewer you're reading is attempting to be objective as possible. It's really them who should be saying if something is good or not. It's up to us to decide if we agree with them.

    Wrestlevania: Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. Apart from wanting review scores to be scrapped, you seem to have come to the some of the same conclusions as me, to the point where you've put forward the same grading as me (minus the hyperbolic "milestone" grade).

    I think a magazine where every staff writer offers their opinions is, again, impractical and unworkable, though. Firstly, you should be hiring reviewers who have enough skills to be as objective as possible, so you shouldn't, in theory, need everyone else's opinion (why not just have a website that collects public votes and scrap magazines altogether?).

    Secondly, a review needs a writer to spend a fair amount of time formulating their opinions to write a comprehensive article, so everyone couldn't do it. (If they did all find the time, you might get six different articles saying the exact same thing... Five unprintable reviews, six fees to pay, one article as a result.)

    Thirdly, in magazines where they have done something similar, allowing staff writers to offer alternate opinions in side boxes, it's often that they don't actually have anything to say (much more often than not).

    Meaning that really, all the opinions fall onto that one original reviewer again.

  2. Posted

    Thanks for comments!

    What exactly is the distinction between 2 and 3 stars here? Having two ratings for "it's worth doing something" (i.e. 2 stars or 3 stars) is making grey when things should be black and white.
    Whether you like it or not, there are shades of grey. A simple black and white/yes or no system is not really sufficient with games, nor very practical, in my opinion. Even the most famous reviewers to consistently use such a basic system, Ebert and Roeper, actually pepper their grades by having two reviewers give their opinion, adding a shade of grey.

    Both reviewers use a system of seven grades for their personal reviews.

    To use your binary system in a practical example; Prey scored averagely in reviews, whereas Guitar Hero II scored overwhelmingly positively... but under your proposed solution, they both would be graded the same: BUY IT. What if you could only buy one? Which should you buy first? What about Deus Ex 1 & 2, KOTOR 1 & 2, Guitar Hero 1 & 2? Such information is completely lost in your system.

    Realistically, if you're going have grades at all, they do need to include shades of grey.

    Two is too little, a hundred, too much... hence my post.

    Since it's extremely unlikely that game reviews will ever lose the scoring system (I really can't imagine the gaming equivalent of Premiere ever coming to light), I was simply trying to propose an alternative that gets across the same information with less fuss.

    Maybe I should have made that clearer?

    Thanks for the feedback!

  5. Posted

    These sites can have some interesting stuff, but my lord does the way they excitedly present any article where there's the slightest opportunity for a bit of mockery fuck me off. :tdown:

    YES! It winds me up so much. Never mind personal blogs, though, there's so much hyped nonsense in even professional journalism. If it includes Microsoft you can usually double the amount of hyped-nonsense, too.

  9. Posted

    One of the things I thought Invisible War did even better than the first game was how the three factions you could work for had philosophies that weren't good/bad, they were different. (Although I do recall the templars getting increasingly insane as the game progressed, but that may just have been me). I also liked how renouncing all three philosophies at the end of the game (there was something unpalatable about them all) led to global nuclear war with only the cyborg chaps surviving. It was a real "Shit, that was totally irresponsible" moment; the game was totally rejecting the 'renegade who plays by his own rules' as a hero, and forcing you to make a choice. In Invisible War, you can't save the world through indecision. I think that's the time I've really been made to think, and hard, about a choice I've made in a game. I remember procrastinating for about 20 minutes trying to decide which course of action was the more moral.

    Wow! That sounds absolutely amazing! I think I should pick that game up, I really loved the first one, but the second one seemed to get middling reviews... Looks like I should have stuck with my instincts and bought it.

  10. Posted

    You make some good points, but I think it's 50/50: There are the value judgements in the game, and how much you buy into them.

    I don't particularly care if a game tells me off; the game world is there to let me do what I want with it regardless of other people's opinions. Like Dan says, many people will have no problem using a civilian as a shield in a game, and as the review of Bible Adventures on Thumbs way back pointed out, any moral judgements put into a game can easily be flouted by the player.

    I played Fable TLC twice, once to be as good as possible and once to be as bad as possible. It didn't really make much difference to the story, the main ones were aesthetic and the biggest was just owning more property as an evil bastard who'd murder people for their houses. I didn't feel bad or good on either run through, I just looked it. Both plays were just an interesting poke at an interactive system.

    Yep, I think you've just solidified by point, somewhat. Ie. The "good" and "bad" aspects of Fable didn't really add anything for you, and certainly didn't create any emotional ties to the game. It's a shame!

  11. Posted

    That was a great post! Thanks for posting those pics, it's really interesting to see them side-by-side. I wish the XBOX controller would work on my PS2 so I could buy just the GH1 disc without needing to buy another controller, but I'm guessing it doesn't!

    I can't remember who it was that was saying they sucked at Guitar Hero (they failed a song on easy and unlocked their friends achievement), but seriously: EVERYONE is that bad when they first start playing! I can't believe how much I've come on since I first played it!

    I can do all the songs on easy in five star now (I've even done a few without missing a single note!), but when I started I could barely do one song on easy. I've now moved on to hard, and it's quite a challenge, but it still feels like fun! So, keep at it and don't get discouraged, I can't see how anyone starts this game with any amazing amount of skill, even real guitar players.

  15. Posted

    I've just written this lengthy piece for my blog... It's not great, but I was wondering what people think of the points I raise:

    http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2007/03/peter-molyneuxs-emotional-stuff.html

    (It's a little easier on the eyes in the link above.)

    Peter Molyneux and 'emotional' gaming...

    Good old Peter Molyneux. Maverick genius. Gaming god. Someone who is always pushing the bar higher and higher. His company, Lionhead, has recently worked hard attempting to take gaming to new levels by giving a player the freedom to make moral decisions with their in-game avatar, and so shape their future into one of either "good" or "evil". The idea is that by allowing a player to decide how to react to a situation, Molyneux hopes that they will become more emotionally involved and perhaps even learn something about themselves in the process.

    It's a great ambition, but in my opinion, the morally ambiguous Syndicate (1993) offered the player more moral freedom than Black & White (2001) or Fable (2004), despite these more recent games being designed specifically to offer this new type of gameplay. Is Peter Molyneux moving in the wrong direction, or am I just talking rubbish?

    In Syndicate, yes, you were working for a heartless, futuristic megacorp, taking out its competitors using the most underhanded and unscrupulous methods imaginable, but at least you were free to complete your missions in any way you saw fit. Meaning you could wait for the car to pass, or blow it up and cross the road immediately without fear of recrimination, losing "good" points or growing "devil" horns.

    Ok, it's not a great example of a moral dilemma, but at least the player was free to do what they wanted (provided they could handle the police response), without actually being judged for their actions. You see, as soon as you think there's some all-knowing, all-seeing deity watching over your every move, judging you, you start acting in a way to please them, instead of yourself.

    The idea of being watched and judged is the very foundation of control not freedom.

    It really irked me that Black & White's tag line was "Find out who you really are", as if the designers had created a flawless personality test that would reveal the truth about people. The truth is, you can't truly make an honest decision if you think the game is going to judge you for it. What if I don't feel like helping that villager right now..... Well if I don't, my "good" rating will decrease, so I guess I better had. It's not really eliciting the 'emotional response' Molyneux has talked about, or providing a decent moral quandary, but instead turning "morality" into a "points based" system, and therefore a conscious decision to play the game a particular way.

    What's worse is that Black & White's two advisory characters, The Voices of "Good" and "Evil", have very explicit and self-conscious ideas about "right" and "wrong", when they really don't need to. "Evil" doesn't really exist in a real-world sense; it is usually apathy or fear or some other negative emotion that leads to actions that are later judged as wrong, rather than someone making a conscious and premeditated attempt at doing something bad.

    So, instead of Black & White's The Voice of Evil saying, "Let the villagers burn, why should you care about those little creatures... you're a god!" (paraphrase), he should say, in a fed-up tone of voice, "Ohhh, do we have to help them? I'm sure they'll be able to sort it out themselves. Afterall, they survived long enough before we arrived. Why do we need to interfere for every little thing? There's such a thing as nature, afterall." Ie. Create a justifiable argument that might convince the player to do something arguably "bad". Even altering the scenarios so that players are tempted with a "fast reward" for doing something quick but not necessarily "good", would have tested a player's apathy and seen how prepared they were to do the "right" thing. Even so, the game shouldn't really recognise "good" and "bad" actions, which unfortunately, it does: Play "bad" and your citadel turns "evil" looking, play "good" and it grows wings and a halo, and sprouts a rainbow, or something.

    Similarly, in Fable the player should have only been judged by individual NPCs or communities of NPCs, instead of a "universal", unseen right and wrong, which then alters your character's appearance.

    Neither game should have used this visual gimmick, if they wanted the player to be truly honest with themselves. Instead, if such a thing was going to be used, it would have been more interesting and true to life if it changed depending on how the NPC you were talking to viewed you (at least in Fable). For example, kill a NPC's husband and the next time you speak to her you will look "evil". Stop talking to her and you will look neutral again. Go talk to a father of the boy you saved and you will appear "angelic". If the people of a village hear of your misdeeds, you appear menacing when you enter the village, and normal again when you leave.

    (If Peter Molyneux feels strongly about certain moral decisions and wants to foist his opinion of them onto the player, then he should appear as a villager in the game and give his judgment that way, just like everyone else!)

    Removing the idea of being judged and rewarded altogether would be best, though. It would create an infinitely more interesting, mature and ultimately more emotional experience for the player. Doing so would also allow the designers to create more complex quandaries, leaving the user to make up their own mind about the "right" decision, and experience the resulting consequences.

    Imagine having to seriously think about your character's reaction, rather than just making a simple, cartoony decision to play as "good" or "evil"; it could be very addictive and inspiring!

    Friends and online communities might well begin arguing the "correct" action for a particular scenario in such a game, and with no-one to step in and play god, telling them who is right and wrong, we would all probably learn a lot more about ourselves in the process of discussing and justifying our decisions. The early moral quandries might be simple, but as your progress into the game, they become more and more of a "grey" area and hence more difficult to decide about.

    I can imagine a future where games could really excel in something like this, in a way in which other mediums really can't compete.

    Of course, this shouldn't all be laid as Molyneux's feet, as if he's to blame for the lack of such a game existing! If anything I should be praising him for pushing games towards such lofty ideas, and poking at other gaming companies for not even trying to do anything new.

    Who knows what the future of such games is, but fingers crossed Molyneux (or some other talented designer) will take all the ideas that Lionhead have injected into the gaming world and turn them into something even more revolutionary.

  17. Posted

    It's gone up to £89.99 now :tdown: GAME are offering a better deal at the moment. £95 with that Buzzer game (with four buzzer controllers) or £95 with Singstar Legends and the Microphone controller (you gotta love those custom controllers!).

    Anyone else seen anything better? I'm in the market for a new PS2!

  18. Posted

    Yeah, but I'm also getting a sneaking suspicion it's not just that these steps are appearing more and more in games. I'm thinking I may be, in a way, getting too old for this shit. I lose patience with games a lot more now. I hate replaying things, and I hate feeling that I'm losing. Maybe I'm hating that more now than before. I keep stopping playing hard games and starting playing easier games, like Picross or Phoenix Wright. Well, maybe easier is not the word. Less stressful, maybe.

    YES! This is exactly how I've felt for a while now. My real-life is stressful enough now that I'm no longer a kid/student/whatever. I play games for FUN. I don't appreciate insanely stressful/difficult things in games, because they're not rewarding. If I'm not being rewarding for my time, then why the fuck should I bother playing??

    I like a challenge, don't get me wrong... Just don't give me "Oh fuck off!".

    Damn... :oldman:

  19. Posted

    Thanks for that. I've passed on your comments... Hopefully my friend will pick it up and we can go head to head! I can imagine that some guitar players might feel a bit upset at Guitar Hero because they're not as good as their non-guitar playing friends who have practiced longer. Ah, well!

  23. Posted

    WOW! I'd have to say that this is well worth it!! The Movies isn't perfect, infact it feels like two things: A pretty fun management sim (think 'Sim-Hollywood Studio' instead of Theme Park) and an incredibly capable 3D movie maker. You could have easily sold the two separately, and the sim "game" element, is lots of fun.

    The whole thing is incredibly polished, too.

  24. Posted

    At least there's some hope:

    "I only recently learned of this. Anyone who knows Andrew knows he would never do anything violent. This was clearly a cry for attention that came from a very dark and lonely place inside of Andrew. It seems the media in general is already treating this as some hot topic when, in reality, it is a small story about a sad and confused guy who needs to get some help. He is now getting that help."

    I hope he gets better!

  25. Posted

    And all becomes clear... ;)

    Table Tennis[/i] illustrates that the software dev-co's are interested in doing more on Xbox than just FPS titles. And, more importantly Table Tennis is a) huge amounts of simple clean fun, and B) rightly sold by the truckload. (I'd definitely recommend it as a rental--if not an outright buy.)

    As for what's on the horizon and getting away from marauding through city streets wielding guns, Blue Dragon should be pretty good once the translation's complete. And, whilst I've never been interested in JRPGs since Chrono Trigger on SNES, I'm really intrigued by Lost Odyssey. Plus Capcom have just announced brand new HD versions of Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo and Super Street Fighter II (with the character art being completely redone by Udon!).

    Aaaah! I'm glad that cleared things up. Thanks for your list of things to come, they do indeed sound hopeful! Another version of SSFII, though?? Hmmm. I wish they'd just bring out Street Fighter Alpha 3. THERE was a decent SF game!

    Also, I wish they'd get their act together with regards to the emulation of the XBox... At least I could have a fish around with some of those "classics" if they could be bothered to implement them! :(

    Ah, well. I'm looking forward to picking up Guitar Hero 2 when I get some cash! :tup: