Re: What Have You Been Playing... IN APRIL 2024?

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

It's that moment you've all been waiting for, kids. No, not the
opening of the bar (that comes later). It's our monthly thread where
we all share what video games have occupied our time for the past
thirty days! Yaaaaay!

>

Me first, me first!!!

>
>
>

Quite Short
---------------------------------------
* Dead Space 3
* BeamNG.drive
* Hitman: Codename 47
* Crysis Remastered
* Ghostrunner
* Industria

>
>
>

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very Long
---------------------------------------

>

* Dead Space 3
"Dead Space 3" is not a bad game.

>

I just felt I had to get that out there first, because it might be
easy, given my following comments, for you to assume that I think it's
terrible. I'll admit, I don't really /enjoy/ playing "Dead Space 3";
it is often more chore than pleasure. There's a variety of reasons for
that, but my dislike doesn't mean the game is all bad. It has its
moments, after all.

>

It's combat is fun. It's much more relaxed than earlier games in the
franchise; although the enemies seem a bit spongier, their placement
and the level design makes it easier to mow them down, Call of Duty
style. Your overpowered weapons and powers make this game more
power-fantasy than survival horror, but that's fine, if you're into
that thing. While the game lacks some really impressive set-pieces
-those moments in the game where you just gaze about going 'wow, that
looks really cool!"- there's a lot of incidental detail that gives the
game's maps a verisimilitude that still holds up after all these
years. The sequences when you're floating around in orbit look quite
nice, and the ice and snow made me feel cold just looking at it.

>

I'd forgotten how generous the game was with health and ammo pickups.
Unlike earlier "Dead Space" games, I was never running short, and even
if I were, tech-benches (which doubles as your stash and crafting
location) are so frequent that you can easily restock. And if you ever
started running low on supplies, the optional side-missions filled
your coffers with so many crafting materials that I had to leave some
behind because my inventory couldn't hold it all. Sure, all these
beneficence take away a good deal of the game's challenge, but that's
okay.

>

Some of the gameplay was iffy, though. Because it was designed also as
a co-op game, your AI companion appears and disappears in a way that
breaks immersion; in fact, I sometimes suspected he was entirely a
figment of the main protagonist's imagination (nobody else seems to
notice he's even there, although the game's canon insists he's a real
person). It always made me feel that I was missing out, that my AI
companion was off having more exciting adventures than I was whenever
he was out of sight.

>

The various mini-games (the mountain climbing bits, the electronic
locks) weren't much fun either; they weren't difficult but felt clunky
and tacked on. Even the optional missions quickly lost their charm;
while each featured its own map - most with unique textures - the
mission structure was simplistic and repetitive. The craftable weapons
- as noted - also were poorly balanced, and it was quite easy to end
up so overpowered as to make combat a breeze (once I got my machine
gun with underslung rocket-launcher (which, as a bonus, slowed down
time), even the biggest bad guys crumbled beneath my firepower.

>

As for the story and characters... well, they were never the strongest
points of the "Dead Space" franchise, and this third game doesn't
reverse the trend. In fact, it pretty much ignores any growth the
protagonist had in the second game, forcing him to once again go from
selfish, wounded jerk back into hero-willing-to-sacrifice-
himself-to-save-the-world. It was very much a sense of deja vu;
haven't I played this before?

>

But still, despite all those issues, I don't think "Dead Space 3" is a
bad game. It's not a great one, but it's passable popcorn-movie action
fun. It has a stupid plot, shallow characters, big guns, and lots of
aliens that explode in cartoony violence. It's fine. It's not a bad
game at all. But it's a terrible "Dead Space".

>
>
>

* BeamNG.drive
"BeamNG.drive" is a great game. It's also one that didn't really
entertain me for long.

>

In some ways, "BeamNG" is a gimmick game. It's extremely robust
physics model -including full soft-body physics for all the cars - is
the game's primary hook, and exploring how those physics affect the
gameplay is really what the game is all about. The cars roll and drive
very convincingly, and the crashes are probably unmatched outside of
dedicated test suites used by automobile manufacturers or researchers.
Driving 90 miles an hour down a highway and then plowing into a wall
result in some extremely realistic results, and "BeamNG" gets a lot of
longevity from that feature alone.

>

But beyond that there's not much to the game. There's very little in
the way of progression, partially because it's a 'sandbox' game, and
partly because the game is still in open access. There are a variety
of modes - races and whatnot - to play around with, but none of them
are very satisfying. There's a reason the "Need for Speed" and "Forza"
games eschew extremely realistic physics, and that's because the
fantasy of high-speed racing doesn't work all that well in a universe
where your car crumples into pancaked steel and plastic even at 'low
speed' impacts.

>

"BeamNG" does have a huge variety of game-mods made by fans that can
keep the fun going (the "Flood" mod in particular is fun) but these
aren't always the easiest to get running. The interface on the whole
isn't particularly clean or intuitive, for that matter (again, likely
a result of that whole 'early access' thing). And the playing the game
with digital controls is pure misery; a keyboard is right out, and
even a gamepad is pretty disappointing. If you don't have a wheel, you
won't get half of what the game has to offer.

>

"BeamNG.drive" is a fascinating project, and what it does well - its
physics model - it does very, very well. I also have full confidence
that eventually this game will evolve into a well-rounded, polished
experience. Even now, its physics engine make it something I think
anyone even marginally interested should experience. I just don't
think that - at this point - it has the longevity to entertain any but
the most hardcore players, and outside of that group, isn't really
worth the price the developers are asking.

>

But I eagerly await the day when it does.

>
>
>
>

* Hitman: Codename 47
The forgotten first game of the "Hitman" franchise is often seen as
the weakest of the series, and I can totally understand that. Compared
to the sophistication of the newer games, it is an extremely
simplistic and clunky game. Nonetheless, for years I've also held it
up as my favorite of all the Hitman games. But, not having played the
original in over a decade, I wondered if that was still true. So there
was nothing to do but give the game another try.

>

Just getting the game to run on modern hardware was a chore. Or
rather, I could get it to run but not without glitches and graphical
flaws. In the end, rather than struggle with various config files and
patches, I chose a simpler path; I pulled out the original CD-ROM,
stuck it into WindowsXP computer, and played it on era-appropriate
hardware.

>

Visually, the game wasn't going to win me over its more advanced
sequels. Still, for a game released in 2000, it had some impressive
tricks up its sleeve: vegetation that reacted to my passage, an
impressive roiling river, and banners fluttering in the breeze. The
levels themselves were notably large and detailed for a game released
twenty-plus years ago too. The models and animations were less
remarkable, but got the job done well enough.

>

The game-play was... stiff. This first Hitman was more puzzle game
than shooter, and its sandbox was relatively limited. There really was
only one way to get through the level properly; sure, you could just
start shooting your way to your victim, but clunky controls (and - on
later missions - scripted AI that made the target flee off the map at
the first sign of trouble) made this method of limited utility. No,
the game expected the player to engage in a lot of trial-and-error
play-throughs to figure out what needed to be done, and when.
Sometimes it wasn't even obvious what options were available (for
instance, there was no clue that I needed to talk to the bartender
twice in the third mission), which often meant that the only solution
was to look for guidance from a walkthrough. Fortunately, even after
all these years I /mostly/ remembered what steps were needed to finish
each level, which made the whole thing far less frustrating. But for
those used to the open-ended sandbox of the later Hitman games,
"Codename 47" feels incredibly constricted.

>

Yet these same constraints are the biggest reason I prefer this game
to its later sequels; the puzzles are more straightforward and there's
less need to juggle thousands of different variables. The tighter
level design also feels more in tune with the character of the Hitman
himself, who seems the sort to always be in control of the situation,
with a clear-cut plan for getting in and out with a minimum of fuss
and bother. The later games always felt too flying-by-the-seat-
of-my-pants to match the stoic character of the protagonist. Sure, it
gave the PLAYER more options, but narratively it felt off.

>

If there's one thing that didn't feel dated, though, it was the
fantastic soundtrack created by Jesper Kyd. It's hard to believe it's
actually a MIDI soundtrack (albeit one using custom sound patches and
Microsoft's DirectMusic software-MIDI emulation). Every track on every
map was a fantastic listen, and it remains one of the best parts of
the game.

>

But the question remains: does "Hitman: Codename 47" remain my
favorite in the series? Honestly, I'm no longer so sure. I love its
simplicity and directness (and that music, oooh!) but its clumsy
controls and trial-and-error gameplay make for some rough gameplay.
Certainly later games - 2007's "Blood Money" and 2016's "Hitman"
reboot in particular - give the original some tough competition! I
can't say if it's my favorite in the series... but it's certainly
ranks pretty high amongst its peers. That's pretty good for a 24-year
old game, I think.

>
>
>

* Crysis Remastered
Look, I bought it because it was on sale, all right? You know how I
get when I see something on sale: I'll buy any old thing, no matter if
it's worth the price or not.

>

Because there's no real reason to purchase "Crysis: Remastered".
Certainly not if you - like myself - already own the original game. In
fact, I'm not sure it's worth the price of admission even if you've
never played the game.

>

Not that there's anything wrong with "Crysis"; it's remembered as a
classic for a reason. It wasn't just the visuals - although those were
outstanding when the game first released in 2007. It offered some very
satisfying gameplay as well (end-game notwithstanding). It had robust
AI, fun vehicles, giant maps, and the nano-suit gimmick allowed varied
gameplay. It was a very satisfying game.

>

But it was also a game released almost twenty years ago, and there's
very little "Crysis" did that hasn't been matched - or surpassed - by
newer games. It's a great game, sure, but there's no real reason you
have to play /this/ game anymore. It's most memorable in how much it
achieved back in 2007, but if that's not that important to you, you'll
get a similar experience playing any of dozens of other, similar FPS
games released since then.

>

But that's just "Crysis". The new "Remastered" edition is a harder
sell. Not because it does anything wrong or worse than the original.
In fact, that's the Remastered version's biggest problem: it  does
very little different from the original. Certainly I had a hard time
noticing any visual differences. The original still holds up pretty
well, and the remastered? It looks fine. Not great. There doesn't seem
to have been much work done to the textures or models, which look a
bit dated. Apparently it uses ray-tracing, but I only noticed it in
the artificial looking reflections on the nanosuits in the opening
cinematic. Honestly, I noticed the engine's deficiencies - forgivable
for a 17 year old game - more than any improvements. The game ran, it
ran smoothly, and it looked like the original game. That's fine... but
hardly a reason to buy it.

>

I mean, I guess maybe there are some under-the-hood improvements. It's
probably more compatible with modern processors or something. But I
couldn't see the difference. Supposedly the 'remastered' version is
actually an up-scaled version of the console edition, but it seemed to
have all the features I remembered, so I won't hold that against it.

>

I had fun with the game, mostly. The last few levels were as painful
as I remembered. I spent two hours chopping down every palm tree in
the first level using a heavy machine gun, just because the physics
model was so fun to play with. My familiarity with the (much better)
maps of the first half meant there was little in the way of surprise;
even after all these years, I still had all the enemy placements
memorized. The story was as schlocky as ever, but I admired the
set-design. It was fine. Not great, but fine.

>

But I sort of regret paying for a 'remastered' version that was
functionally identical to a game I already own several times before.

>
>
>
>
>

* Ghostrunner
I  wasn't sure what to expect from "Ghostrunner". I was afraid it was
going to be one of those 'runner' games, where the character is
constantly in motion, pushed recklessly forward by the computer in an
endless sprint. "Ghostrunner" isn't that, though. It's close, but not
quite. You can stop your forward motion at any point, should you
chose. It's usually not a good idea - there's a lot of the game where
you're jumping over bottomless, instant-death pits - but if you want,
lay off the W key and you stop. Usually to die moments later.

>

"Ghostrunner" is a first-person parkour game; "Mirror's Edge" in a
sci-fi'd cyber-ninja dystopia. But it's got some of "Super Meat Boy"
in its genetics too; it's ruthlessly precise and unforgiving. Wall-run
from platform to platform, crouch-slide down a ramp, shoot your
electro-grapple onto a latch point, do a 180 to hit the next
latch-point, then briefly slow-time to dodge incoming fire. It
requires immaculate timing to get it right, and miss a step and it's
back to the last auto-save. There's no second chances, and you'd
better memorize all the enemy positions and trap timings down to the
millisecond if you want any chance of getting through.

>

I really dislike that sort of thing.

>

Not that it's a bad game. I'm sure if you love the challenge of
mastering the mechanics and beating your own high-score (the game
counts not only time to finish a level, but also number of times you
died/respawned) then you'll get a kick out of "Ghostrunner". But, god,
getting to that point requires far more persistence and replaying than
ever I want to dedicate to a single title. Especially one with such a
dull, predictable story and characters. It's a 'git gud, scrub!' game
through and through, but with little reward to the challenge except to
say, "Hey, I did it." And that's not me. I need more.

>

The visuals are nice, though... if a bit repetitive. It's all grey
sci-fi techno-hallways lit up in neon, start to finish (with a few
side-journeys to an even less cyberspace). It's well detailed -
although the game never really expects you to slow down long enough to
admire it - but it's all too similar throughout. The techno-soundtrack
is the same; not bad tracks any of them, but the pulsing synth gets
very samey over the course of the game.

>

I don't want to be dismissive of this game; for what it is, it's
pretty good. Sure, the controls could have been a bit less clunky, the
AI more reactive, the story better. But if you want a game to test
your twitch skills to the max, this one will do that just fine. But
that is just not the sort of game I enjoy at all.

>
>
>

* Industria
Earlier this month we had a discussion about so-called 'Slavjank'
games. I'm not sure, by definition, if "Industria" could be counted
amongst those type games, but only because I don't know where its
developers are based. It may not be Slavjank. But it's definitely jank
of one sort or another.

>

Let me be blunt: "Industria" is not a good game. It's not without its
merits; its developers have an eye towards creating interesting
set-pieces; they've a talent for lighting it. "Industria" has a
surreal world; it reminds me of the diesel-punk aesthetics of Benoit
Sokol as seen in the "Syberia" adventure games. It's not - in its
setting nor appearance - really all that original, but it's not a
badly done imitation either.

>

But beyond that? I have little positive to say. It was a
disappointment from the /very first word/ uttered in the game. An
adventure nominally set in East Berlin and a vaguely eastern European
locale, it was incredibly jarring to hear the broad American accents
spoken throughout the game by the protagonist. It completely destroyed
any sense of immersion.

>

Not that there was much of a chance of that happening anyway. The
world was so utterly generic, despite the best attempts of the
map-makers. It was a poor imitation of Eastern European aesthetics,
lacking much of that regions character or detail; a cheap Hollywood
rip-off using very obviously purchased game-assets. It even lacked
internal consistency, with some posters and signs in German, and
others in English. The story was uninteresting, and the protagonist
has to be one of the stupidest I've ever had the displeasure to guide
through a game ("Golly, I just stepped into a very obvious teleporter
that brought me into some alternate reality; I'm so confused that
everything is different!")

>

The gameplay is a mess; "Industria" doesn't seem to be sure if it
wants to be a run-n-gun shooter, a survival game, or a walking sim.
The amount of enemies it throws at you suggests the former (as do the
over-abundance of ammo pick-ups), but the tiny size of your clips and
the clumsy controls are more akin to survival shooters. Meanwhile, the
often gratuitously slow pacing and puzzle solving remind me of
'narrative games' like "Everybody's Gone to the Rapture". It's an
unsatisfying mixture of elements that don't combine into anything
enjoyable. The lack of variety - in locales, in monsters, and in
weapons - don't help make things any better. Fortunately, the game is
fairly short (largely due to any sort of climax being put off until
the inevitable sequel; the game just sort of ends haphazardly) means I
didn't have to suffer for long.

>

Oh, and did I mention the bugs? 'Cause there were a bunch of those too
(my favorite was how the game didn't capture the mouse, so every time
I moved too far left or right, my mouse would skim off onto the next
screen, and my next mouse-click would essentially alt-tab out of the
game. This despite the game being in exclusive full-screen mode).

>

I really, really wanted to like this game. I wasn't expecting a
masterpiece, but I was willing to overlook many of its flaws in the
hope that its unique character and atmosphere would give me a new
experience. But all I got was an unexciting, unpolished mess of a game
that didn't say or do anything new.

>
>
>

---------------------------------------

>

Even though most of the games I played this month left me
disappointed, I still think I had a great time overall. I /like/
playing different types of games and experiencing all the highs and
lows they have to offer. I mean, I wouldn't want to make every month
like this month, but I appreciate the variety in styles.

>

How about you? Did you have a good month of playing video-games?
Basically, what I am asking is...

>

What Have You Been Playing... IN APRIL 2024?

>
Diablo 4 in WIndows and Doo Lingo in my iPhone. :P