Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1585https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5479Last week I bought the recently released Far Cry 3. Although I haven’t played any previous Far Cry game before, I decided to pick this up because of the marketing for this game. Touted as Skyrim with guns, I decided to see if this was the case. I liked Skyrim before, and a game with guns is usually a winning combination, so I decided to try it out. Upon playing the game, I realized that this game was exactly what it said. Far Cry 3 is Skyrim with guns, but it is a lot more than that as well. At the beginning, the game tells the brief introduction story about how you play as a trust fund kid who is rather unlikeable. Him and his friends all get trapped on an island by a scary guy named Vaas, who is about to sell the player and his friends into slavery. Then a break out happens and the world opens up from there. The bulk of the beginning of the game is finding the missing friends and finding a way of the island. However, after a while, more story elements start to develop, and before you know it, you are participating in a civil war. While the game’s story plays it straight forward, the gameplay is really where this game shines. Although it plays like a first person shooter, there are lots of different elements that separate it. For example, because you play as a person who doesn’t have a lot of experience using guns, the guns tend to sway and accuracy is a bit off. That is, until you upgrade the character by hunting or other missions that boost his attributes. It kind of feels like Skyrim in a way, yet, does enough things differently to distinguish itself. Overall, Far Cry 3 was a satisfying game with some cool ideas and some nice gameplay elements.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:10:05 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5479&iddiary=9774https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5478This week, I decided to buy the game Super Hexagon on the iPad, and to be honest, it is one of the most frustrating game I have ever played. However, I mean that in the best way possible, as the frustrating nature of the game is the most addictive aspect to it. It is one of those games where, once a person starts to play it, it is really hard to put it down. Similar to the feeling I had with Super Meat Boy, the immense difficulty attributed to the greatness of the game. It is so simplistic and yet it beats out a lot of games I’ve played this year. The core of this game is basically moving a triangle to avoid incoming lines on a hexagonal plane. It sounds complex, but in practice it is devilishly simple. The goal in the game is to see how long you can last until you hit an obstacle. Super Hexagon is a game where you will die over and over again. The first time I played, I think I might have lasted about 2 seconds before dying. At first, the game played like a weird acid trip, as I had no idea what was going on. However, after trying and trying over and over again, I finally got the hang of what I was suppose to do. Granted that didn’t make me any better at the game, but it did make it a lot more fun. This die and starting over again is certainly an extreme hook to have. There are some games that do this, but I can’t think of one better. Super Hexagon does something different, however, in that it sports some great music. That was basically the reason why I kept playing. It’s kind of ingenious in that the game presents music that you want to hear, but can’t because of constant death. Playing it over and over again to get a higher time basically equates to listening to more of the music. Only hearing the track for a few seconds at a time makes me want to improve my score so I can hear more of the track. It’s a smart way to implement music to this type of game.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:43:52 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5478&iddiary=9773https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5372This weekend, I decided to rent the new game Hitman: Absolution. I have never played a Hitman game before, but I did know what it was. I’ve recently been hearing good things about the game, so I decided to try it out. The core concept was appealing enough for me to warrant a try, even though I haven’t played previous installments. Upon playing the game, I can definitely say that it is certainly enjoyable and very ambitious, but the biggest highlight was something I wasn’t expecting. Hitman Absolution isn’t just about killing people. This game is more about how to kill people and is the biggest factor in this game. The story is decent enough and the gameplay is well done, but the biggest strength is actually something that I did not expect from a game like this: choice. While the choice system in this game is nothing like, say, The Walking Dead Game, it is still very intriguing. Players choose how to kill their assigned targets. A person can be sneaky, not having to kill a single person other than their target. Someone could also blast their way through the level, killing everybody in sight and causing mass chaos. The different ways to approach a mission really sells the game as the choice players make are really exciting to watch. In one mission, I decided to sneak through with non-violent tactics and using disguises. The next mission I exploded my target in an alleyway full of fireworks. Every different mission can warrant different tactics, and that is very appealing. Much of this mechanic is heavily relying on level design. Without a good level to explore choices, this game would fall apart. However, the developer did an excellent job crafting each level to maintain the semblance of varying choices. In one level, the player must enter a building to get to the target, and in all honesty, can conceivably enter through 5 different places. The game gives numerous amounts of choices for the player to make, which really separates this game from many other games that have similar elements.Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:26:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5372&iddiary=9667https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5355This week, I got the new iteration of Call of Duty. I wasn’t really excited about Black Ops II, but upon further playing, it has been surprisingly fun. I haven’t really gotten into a Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare 2. Every iteration after that game seemed to be repeating the same formula, and with its yearly releases, it eventually got really repetitive. However, with Black Ops II, the developers really seemed to make things different and make the series less stagnant, and it looks like they have accomplished just that. I’ll say that the campaign isn’t really the best part of the game. The stories before weren’t really anything to write home about, but in this iteration it felt overly complicated and corny. The multiplayer on the other hand has undergone a significant change to the status quo. The new create a class system has been overhauled into something called “pick ten.” This system allows the player to pick any ten items, perks, grenades, etc., and put them in their class. At first I thought that this might unbalance the game, but in reality, it actually helps in making the game less frustrating. This new system doesn’t really provide any overpowered class and it really gives the player to build a class that suits them. It really is an improvement over previous versions of the multiplayer. The biggest change is probably in the side mode called Zombies. In previous games, players were regulated to one map and after a while it could get repetitive, until the developer released new maps. In Black Ops II, there are 4 or 5 maps all interconnected with one road that a bus drives along. This really improves the zombies mode, as it gets less stale after a while. New places to explore and a new mechanic, the bus, really adds to this already great game mode. Add on the new head to head zombies game type and custom zombie games, Black Ops II has really changed the Call of Duty status quo for the better.Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:43:04 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5355&iddiary=9641https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5354This week I purchased Halo 4. I was very excited to get this game, as I was looking forward to a new shooter on the market that wasn’t Call of Duty. As a franchise, Halo really paved the way for the modern console shooter, and I was really excited to go back to the shooter roots and be able to play that classic style of shooting. However, upon playing it, I was surprised to see that Halo 4 shares many similar qualities with Call of Duty than I had originally thought. The biggest difference from past Halo games is that Halo 4 is a lot faster. This really threw me off at first, as the slower pace of the Spartan soldier was kind of a series staple and one that I was anticipating. However, I was surprised to see that sprint is an automatic feature in the game, which further states the fact that Halo 4 is starting to get very similar to Call of Duty. It isn’t a bad thing that the developers made the game faster paced, but it does make the game lose a little bit of it’s identity. Other aspects that are similar to Call of Duty are some elements taken from the multiplayer side of things. Halo 4 now implements class loadouts, where players decide what kind of guns and abilities they’re able to take into battle. There is also a kind of killstreak system, where players are rewarded for the amount of kills they get. They do have a Halo like quality to them, which certainly makes it seem that the developers are trying to make it their own, but at some points this strategy doesn’t work. Some things feel distinctly Halo, while others veer into that Call of Duty category. Nevertheless, it is still Halo, and although some parts seem unoriginal and unlike previous iterations, the core aspect of being a Spartan and making things go boom is still really satisfying.Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:41:40 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5354&iddiary=9640https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5308Today, I finished playing the fourth and penultimate episode in the Walking Dead episodic game by Telltale. I was really excited to play this, as this game is really something great. The characters are very well defined and the story is very well told, as the past three episodes have been a fun experience. The choices through the game are great and effect things way down the line, which is something that most games don’t do. However, with this latest episode, I felt a bit disappointed, as much of the things that made the previous episodes great felt a little blurred in this episode. While I still liked the episode overall, it was lacking considerably to what came before. Most of this episode is dedicated to the zombies. The episode opens with an action packed scene where the group has to survive a zombie onslaught in the open streets. But the thing is, the game shouldn’t be about the zombies. It has been so good because of the fact that the main focus is suppose to be on the characters and how they survive through this awful condition. While there are some cool character moments, the episode mostly just felt like an action set piece. This would have been fine if the gameplay mechanics worked well, but the action parts are actually the worst part of the game, with the best parts being about dialogue and choice. The story isn’t really that compelling in this episode either. As mentioned before, the bulk of it is action. While there are some quiet moments that focus on the characters, some of these moments felt forced and sometimes cheesy. Even with one of the major decisions in the game, it really feels one-sided and forced that I could see it coming from the beginning of the episode. The cliffhanger ending, however, is the saving grace, as it is shocking and sets up the scene for the last episode in the season. The ending totally saves the rest of the episode as it made me want to play the next one right away. Hopefully, the last episode in the series will retain the higher level of quality that I have expected from these episodes. But for now, the fourth episode in the Walking Dead is just an average adventure, just paving the way for what is to come in the finale.Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:26:46 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5308&iddiary=9594https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5307Today, I picked up Assassin’s Creed III. I had tried out all of the previous games before, but none of them really appealed to me all that much. The first Assassin’s Creed was a little disjointed, still trying to figure out what kind of game it wanted to be. The second game was a lot better, with a cooler story and better game mechanics. After that, the franchise sort of petered out. No real innovation with these semi-sequels meant that the series started to get stagnant and boring. However with this new game, something was different. It had just enough new ideas to spark my interest in the series again. The first big difference between Assassin’s Creed III and the other games before it is the narrative. The last few games have centered on an Italian guy who, at first was interesting, but eventually became dull with multiple games. This new game starts off with new characters and a different setting all together, The American Revolution. While this game has always been centered on historical time periods and figures, this game seems to be more interesting, probably because of its “close to home” setting. With this new setting and new character, it really stands out among past games in the franchise. While Assassins Creed III has a new setting and character, most of the general gameplay still remains intact. The player is still using parkour to get through the map. The objectives are still basically the same, with the main goal to assassinate key members in the Templar faction. However, everything feels a little bit faster. The main character Connor handles himself a lot better than the previous protagonists, and in this case, makes combat feel faster. This is mostly due to the fact that kills are easily streamlined, with the addition of a dual weapon fighting style. In all though, the game remains relatively the same, which can be a detriment to the game, as it often gets repetitive. However, this game is way better than it’s predecessors, mostly due to its new narrative setting.Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:25:15 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5307&iddiary=9593https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5281Recently I have been revisiting a game that I haven’t been playing in a while, Marvel vs Capcom 3. I remember when I first played it when it came out, there were problems with some of the characters and balancing issues that really irritated me. Now, after giving it some time, I have decided to come back and found that it has improved, but there are still some major issues in the game, which hamper enjoyment. The biggest gripe that I have with this game is the balancing issues. I understand that this happens in most fighting games, and it is a genre that sees the most problems with balancing. However, there are still a few things off with it. Because there are 3 characters in a team, it is often difficult to have characters balance off well with each other. Games like Street fighter and Mortal Kombat might not have to deal with this as much, as those games implement the 1 vs 1 concept, but this game has some problems. Players can combine certain powerhouse characters into the ultimate team, which gets really annoying. The big thing in Marvel vs Capcom 2 was the team of Sentinel, Magneto, and Storm. Those characters were the cheapest team out there. Whoever used those characters, more often then not, won. That has translated into MvC3 with characters like those in certain teams being unstoppable. Cheap moves coupled with annoying tactics and button mashing made these certain teams really annoying, almost to the point that you didn’t even want to play an online match with a person. Other than that however, it is still a very good fighting game. The amount of characters is staggering compared to most fighting games, with nearly close to 40 playable characters. However, with some severe balancing issues, this game is just another fighting game in need of some fixing.Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:49:16 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5281&iddiary=9564https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5260Last weekend, my friends and I played the Xbox 360 version of Minecraft. I had never played the PC version of Minecraft but decided to buy it to try it out. I played a little by myself before, but after this weekend I realized that it is a very good multiplayer game. In general, Minecraft is a fun sandbox game that isn’t overly accessible at first, but after a while, can be a whole lot of fun. When my friends and I were playing, we didn’t really start off with a goal or anything. Basically we eventually just forced to survive the monsters in the area. The good, or bad thing, about this game is that there really isn’t an end game. There is game mandated goal for players to achieve. The player must decide what to do and set out to do his or her own goals. They could decide whether just to build and survive against monsters, or possibly find the best materials to make the best equipment, or just build things. It is totally up to the player, which is really freeing in a world where many games is just funneling players down hallways to get to the end. When I was playing with my friends, we would always just mess around. We never really had a set goal. At one moment, we would be building a house, then the next we would be exploring caves, trying to find diamond while fighting off waves of monsters. It is really gratifying and freeing, which makes the game a whole lot of fun. It’s a good experience to have a true open world game where anything is possible. The only limitation is the imagination. Many games these days don’t leave anything to the imagination, which is kind of depressing. A game like Minecraft just lets the player get lost in this open world, and that is something we need more of in todays games.Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:40:41 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5260&iddiary=9539https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5241The other day I downloaded the multiplayer beta to yet to be released game Medal of Honor: Warfighter. At first I thought that it would be just another generic military shooter. Although it might be similar to previous military shooters, it does something interesting to multiplayer mechanic that helps separate this games from games like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Even though it might borrow heavily from those games, it does something quite different, which adds intensity and cooperation in this shooter. Like other military shooters, Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a first person shooter that pits one team against another to complete objectives or just to get the most kills. Where it deviates from the normal military shooter aesthetics is the fact that the player is assigned a battle buddy. It might not seem like a big deal, but this greatly changes the game in a good way. While games like Call of Duty is played in a more lone wolf style of play, this forced cooperation with the battle buddy makes it feel like the player has to achieve something or help them out. This works best when there is an objective type game where the player has to work together with the team anyway, but even in team deathmatch, it still provides that sense of cooperation as the two players try to keep each other alive. While this game might not be the first game to use that kind of system, it is more noticeable than in others. Battlefield had a similar system with squads, but with a two-man team, I felt more inclined to watch my partners back. In Battlefield, there were four man teams, but we would eventually go on and do our own thing. With this game, it has this nice cooperation mechanic that helps generate that teamwork style of play, which is always a good change of pace from the run and gun, lone wolf style that Call of Duty implements.Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:25:17 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=5241&iddiary=9516