Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=306https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1345One of the really innovative features about this game I think is the idea of breaking free of the notion that a player must complete levels in which the designer has planned out for him/her. By using unlocking mechanisms of star power for the doors and 6 different ways to get stars in each of the worlds available to you at the moment, the player is given much more freedom in deciding his/her destiny. This also help keeps a player engaged because they are able to "skip" levels they dont like, as well as act as a handicap feature for less experienced players so that they can possibly achieve success in other levels in which they are building up some more skill before they come back to complete a level that is too hard for them at the time. Another thing I noticed about this game is the appeal it has at so many age levels. Though I believe Nintendo shoots for a younger demographic, this game appeals to people of all different age groups of the gamer subculture versus games like Manhunt that might have a select audience. Super Mario 64 also seems to have been thoroughly play tested compared to other games that I have played. This goes back to the addictiveness factor I spoke of earlier. The fact that you are barely able to complete or not complete a mission which feels almost tailored to your personal skill and progression through the game shows that the testing for difficulty in these levels was done very well. My only real gripe with this game which is pretty minor and in a lot of ways was still fine was the sometimes awkward positions that the camera would take leading to visual illusions about how far away an object you were jumping to etc. On top of that in trying to manually change the angle with the controls, rotation was still somewhat restricted and would not go past a certain point leaving you to really risk your life right before you got to that wonderful glowing star. An amazing game regardless.Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:21:05 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1345&iddiary=2870https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1345This game is simply amazing. I remember seeing it when I was younger at an electronics store with mind completely blown. Years later, I'm still very impressed by not just the ingenuity and structure of the game but just the overall addictive nature this game has on you. This is a very exceptional type of entertainment that is very hard to match even with the current technology of the games we have today. In trying to define this addictiveness that overtook me after replaying it so many years ago, I begin to really think of the characteristics of emergence that we studied earlier in the class. Though the player experiences many different worlds and types of tasks within each one the actual gameplay components are fairly simple. Though Mario can jump, long jump, pound the ground, climb poles, etc. the actions themselves can be seen as simple in relation to their functions, however, in combining these actions to perform the tasks required can create many complex capabilities (i.e. wall kicking your way up and performing a back flip so that you can grab onto a particular ledge, where you are then able to use a magic cap to go through a wall, etc, etc.). This idea of "keeping it simple" even though the development of the game as a whole is anything but that seems to be a common theme with Nintendo. While other game makers seek to make their graphics at the most cutting edge and that has its values, the fact is that beautiful games do not necessarily translate into great games. However, for its release Super Mario 64 was able to embody both of these aspects and blend them very well.Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:57:43 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1345&iddiary=2865https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1173While playing further I noticed that though the levels and settings for them change dramatically, the actual objectives required for completion can become repetitive such as firing trackers onto moving vehicles in virtually every mission or the constant request to minimize civillian casualties. I guess in some ways having repeating objectives does give the game some continuity and multiple settings in which to develop that particular skill. One interesting thing is that you can also be required to play the same level over and over. Though you have completed an obejctive needed, if you do not also complete the primary mission associated then you will not have enough points to advance. In the sense that you force a player to really know your level layout and maximize gameplay for that level, this can be seen as a good technique. However, in trying to keep with a consistent, non-repetitive storyline, this tends to get a little ridiculous. For example, the idea of killing the same bad guy in a Ferrari while trying to accomplish a set of increasingly difficult secondary objectives. An upside to the game are the hidden paths that are discovered, which can make things easier or more difficult depending on which objectives you are trying to achieve. The game also boasts some great music that sets the speed and mood of the game. Overall, Spy Hunter is a great game that adds some planning and precision to fast-paced gameplay.Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:06:54 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1173&iddiary=2513https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1173Spy Hunter is a highly addictive, fast-paced game that combines many aspects of previously unrelated games; borrowing from several different genres. In one sense it is a racing game that requires that you are usually racing against the clock (alotted amount of time). In another sense, it can be seen as a mission-based that requires a certain amount of objectives to be achieved. It can also be seen as an action/shooter based in the third person with an inventory of weapons to choose from. Yet Spy Hunter has managed to combine all these into a fun way in which all these aspects are played simultaneously rather than segmented like other games have done previously. My initial impression of this game is that its innovation lies in it's multi-facetedness yet still requiring the fast-pasced thinking of a race game. In addition, I have to admit that the metamorphosis of your vehicle in different settings (i.e. water) or upon taking damage definitely adds to the enjoyment and engagement of play.Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:47:26 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1173&iddiary=2508https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1021The structure of Goldeneye is setup to be very mission oriented and it does this well. However, a level's completion is not limited to its objectives and there are some room for maneuvering within them. For example, one might try sneaking through a level taking out security cameras and using a silencer to stealthily dispatch enemies or go on into a compound Rambo-style with guns blazing. In some instances one approach might be better than the other but regardless it seems, depending on your skill you can choose to do either or employ a combination of these methods. There is also the ability to pick up other items on missions that are kind of out of the way and most times make gameplay easier once you find them (think grenade launcher in an open-area snow plains level). While the controls were fairly intuitive, one of the things that was mildly frustrating about this game was the use of the "B" button for reloading and for actions such as opening doors. This lead to some damage to my character by opening a door with guys charging it through it when I was trying to do the opposite and prepare for the next room. While this is a minor issue and tended to only happen in close quarters it was still disappointing and should have been caught by game testers. Strafing with the C buttons also took some time to get used to but was back to my original level in no time. While the game does take place in a 3d space it does tend to be very linear and simple in how you complete missions. The layouts are not entirely complex but what I found intriguing about this game in its being ahead of its time was the idea that you should not always trust the characters in the game and how situations can be presented somewhat deceptively, such as the programmer that takes you to the mainframe promising to hack it for you but then activates the alarm or going to the satellite dish and hitting the action button which actually alerts them to your presence rather than just blowing it up, etc. This adds a level of surprise to a game that for the most part has pretty simple missions.Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:35:01 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1021&iddiary=2198https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1021One of the first things I noticed about 007 is the detail put into creating an environment that is destructable. This applies to the explosive crates and shattering windows found in a lot of shooters but also to the more mundane items like a rack of test tubes for example. The player also leaves his/her mark on the world whenever he accidently (or purposely) shoots a wall leaving bullet holes. This adds to the realism of the game and draws the player in more I believe. A lot of effort was also put into the death animations when the player murders Soviet soldiers. There are a myriad of ways in how you can "drop" a body depending on where you hit them and how much you shoot them. Cutscenes are used very effectively with a camera fly-by of the environment you are about to encounter along and a finishing animation that lets you know you succeeded in your mission (usually posing the Bond characater as very relaxed and cocky as he leaves the scene). What is good about these cut-scenes is that they use the same graphics that you were just or just about to play with and they are short and to the point. This makes sense because the developers probably assumed a wide range of players would already be familiar with the movie and James Bond in general. Also, by using actual gameplay graphics for cut-scenes, continuity of the game is not broken and expectations are not raised. An innovative feature of this game, for its time, is an auto-aim feature which totally makes sense in trying to introduce players to become more comfortable with an analog stick that was fairly new to everyone. There is also the ability to turn it off which helps with handicap issues in multiplayer if you have a younger sibling, etc.Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:50:41 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1021&iddiary=2192https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=829While the game already provides a variety of levels of gameplay simultaneously (horizontal) along with the many mini-games that the player comes upon by surprise or purposely, there is also another interesting element to this multiplicity in San Andreas that makes it unique in a lot of respects. I noticed, while playing, that even with specific, goal-oriented missions, there is the ability to employ a wide range of approaches. This is in contrast to the classic game idea (even ones that allow you to use multiple strategies) that one approach with the correct strategy solves the level when in fact there can be many was to complete the same mission. For example, the last mission I just played includes a warehouse with machines that creating fake poker chips that have infiltrated a casino. While going in guns blazing and taking out the band of 10-12 guys within the warehouse usually will end up with you getting shot to death instantly it definitely is possible to beat it this way. In addition, you could modify your approach by letting them shoot at your car from a moderate distance until its about to explode and speed the car toward the entrance and dive out at the last minute letting it explode inside and then go in and clean up. You can also sneak in a side entrance taking out guys more quietly and by surprise etc. etc. This list could continue. The point I am trying to make though is that even with a specified objective that historically had few ways of achieving victoy, San Andreas opens up a huge world of possibilities in how to win which is also ironic considering you could argue it tries very closely to mirror real-life in so many ways instead of some crazy fantasy style game. This idea of mirroring real-life but at the same time satirizing it (the radio stations are a great example) is also interesting because I believe it is achieving an aspect of wanton violence (similar to the reception of Mortal Kombat a decade or so earlier) but at the same time acknowledges in a lot of ways that it is doing/allowing this. But once again, social implications aside, a great game with so many levels of gameplay (simple to complex- short term to long term goals), freedom, and genuine entertainment that it definitely deserves to be on the classics list for this class.Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:24 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=829&iddiary=1865https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=829Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as the other games in the series, pose the ultimate question. What would you do in our contemporary society if had complete freedom to rob, kill, and commit other acts of deviance without impunity. While a game of this kind poses a myriad of philosophical questions (Nietzsche comes to mind) as well as other socio-cultural concerns (satire and/or reinforcement of racial stereotypes? fetishizing of black urban culture, etc.) the game itself is an amazing experience. Cutscenes for missions seem to be shot with theatrical quality as far as camera angles, etc. but at the same time are kept to the regular gameplay graphics. This I believe is a smart move because while cutscenes that are highly rendered and look amazing can add to the atmosphere, they also tend to let the gamer down when game play is reverted back to a lower quality of graphics. This interruption of continuity is something that I think is less than desirable but of course personal preference. The controls are very intuitive with all modes such as driving, shooting, and general navigation matching up and making a lot of sense with the frequency that you use them. The ability to customize your character down to haircut, tattoos, clothing style, and even body type (fitness). I think this allows the player to feel alot more connected to his/her avatar a lot more emotionally as well allowing a wide range of possibilities as far as identity is concerned. Another feature of San Andreas that I think is done very well is the skill build up for each individual weapon and vehicle. This is interesting for several reasons. While being along the lines of RPG as far as a cumulative build up of skills, San Andreas streamlines this classic notion of a constant reminder (usually a level up bar) with points until your next level, which I think makes you overly focused on a little ratio based on points, and simplifies it with a progress bar that only pops up when you have gained more proficiency in that specific component of the game (based on time played with it?)Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:50:00 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=829&iddiary=1834https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=576Some of the other problems I had with this game was the terrain on which you are battling. The maps seem to be desolate monotonous areas that look like they were thrown together haphazardly at the last minute. The same tree model and is used for ALL trees in different maps. The mounds of rocks and trees not only do not live up to the epic scenery of LOTR at all but in addition i would still criticize it if were any other RTS game. Another problem is resource collection. Before you can get the ball really rolling you have to build only farms and use half of the designated numbered spots you have in your base (no freedom in that respect either) before you can branch off and begin to build other buildings and have a steady rate of resources to start pumping out a decent amount of men. This creates a game that does not require a whole lot of skill but a lot patience. The cramming of two many ideas into a game that could have just been improved in some of the aspects listed before does not help either. Adding the option of heroes, veterancy, and a "tree" of special powers unlocked by some unknown measuring of experience (maybe unit kills?) to a mix that already isn't flowing too well is going to frustrate the player rather than engage him/her. These problems combined make BFME an unpleasant experience. While the backstory is amazing (as it should be being based off best selling books and movies) all the best cut scenes in the world are not going to save a game if the gameplay itself is not enjoyable. Within the RTS (real-time strategy genre) there have been many greats such as the Command and Conquer Series to the huge hits put out by Blizzard which include of course Starcraft and Warcraft series. Unfortunately, this is not one of those games. P.S. This is NOT a 5 out of 5 game~I was not aware of the rating system option before I created this log.Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:28:22 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=576&iddiary=1366https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=576Battle For Middle Earth is a game that takes a gamers hopes of defending or wreaking havoc in Middle Earth and then utterly destroys these hopes with a non-intuitive user interface, crappy graphics (dangerously low polygon counts), and a limited amount of supply limit (which equals a small army). Lets start with problem number one: user interface. Of all the things that should not be done cheaply or skipped over, I believe, is the virtual controls for which you view and control a game. One of the problems with the UI is that it is way too small. This would make sense if the graphics were great because if the game is gorgeous or has an absorbing cinematic quality its good to keep the UI out of the way of that, however, that is not the case. In addition, many of the little spheres that supposedly hold actions that you can potentially use are largely empty making most of the slots useless even if you were tried to use it (instead of keystrokes). In addition to a user interface that to put it mildly; sucks, there is also the issue that the game for some reason requires a 4 CD installation for 3D graphics that sadly would have been better off being done in greater detail isometrically in 2D. The heads on most of the soldiers look like little knobs with no detail at all. I would much rather see some detail on my characters to ensure their valiant or evil qualities than see faceless groups of humanoids fighting each other. A third problem I have noticed so far is a low supply limit. While a 200 supply limit seems reasonable and is in most cases the norm some of the more advanced creatures like mountain trolls and mukamil eat up a good quantity of this allowance reducing the sheer size of you army greatly. While this could be acceptable for any other game, the fact that BFME should be representing imagery where infantry cover whole mountainsides and valley makes this unacceptable. As I said before, if the constraints (average gamer hardware) kept developers from creating a massive army as LOTR should be AND besides one that is not even very detailed, they should have followed Blizzard's cue with Starcraft and kept it simple with 2D that looked fairly 3D. My quest continues...Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:52:09 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=576&iddiary=1356