Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=440https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2966GAMELOG 2 GAMEPLAY: I think that Civilization III is one of the most realistic empire building simulation games out there on the market. The strongest selling point of this game is that it allows players to rewrite history to their desires. For example, I played as Japan in which I had set all the AI civilizations as the countries that made up the allies. The game turned out into a World War II simulation in which I was allied with Germany against everyone else. After defeating all other civilizations, I built the UN and was voted as the Chairman (since only I and my ally were still alive). For me at least, being able to rewrite history as I desire is a major reason that makes this game fun to play. I would also like to comment on the game’s storyline. Generally, there is no background story at all. There are no specific missions to complete, and there are no campaigns that tell a specific story or anything along those lines. However I would disagree with the fact that the game doesn’t tell a story. All the gameplay is recorded- everything from the completion of world wonders, capture of cities, significant battles, as well as the beginning and ending of golden ages. After the player “wins” the game, the player is able to view a histograph of all the civilizations in comparison with each other, which shows visually the changes in power/culture/score over time as the player defeats other civilizations and builds new wonders. Thus I regard the timeline of my civilization as a story in a sense. So the history of the world your civilization is in could be seen as a form of emergent narrative. DESIGN: I think that one of the strongest design points of this game was that it allowed for a wide array of interactions between the player and the game (usually AIs). The player can have negotiations with the AI directly, such as signing political agreements, inking trade deals, or exchanging gifts (or demanding them). Then the player can use the ingame units to indirectly interact with the AI. For example, if the player places many units on the border, this will usually make the other AI have a mood of being “cautious” towards the player. This tactic also deters any potential warmongering AI. The AI also makes decisions on it’s information that it knows about the player- for instance the AI will make decisions based on the player’s past interactions with other AIs, technology level, and military strength. Another good point about Civilization III is that there are multiple ways to win the game. For example, the player can go along the traditional conquest route by conquering every other civilization. Or the player can choose to engage the game in a more non-violent way by being diplomatic with the AIs and forming good relations, eventually being voted as the head of the UN. The player can also engage in cultural conquest by building up a high culture and assimilating other civilizations. Another interesting way to win is to win a space race by being the first civilization to build a spaceship. In addition, the player is also able to set a few ingame goals of their own, such as trying to win the game without conflict. Overall I like the way of how the player is allowed multiple ways of winning which means that there are multiple ways of playing the game.Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:34:15 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2966&iddiary=5754https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2966GAMELOG 1 SUMMARY: Civilization III is a turn based strategy game in which the player is given charge of a civilization and competes with other civilizations by building units, expanding cities, and researching technology in order to win. Since the game has a very loose definition of “victory,” there are several ways that the player can win. GAMEPLAY: Civilization III is a really unique game in my opinion. There is no story, as in having a campaign which motivates the player to continue playing. The game is the story essentially. When the player starts out, he/she is able to first pick what sort of map they like to play on. Map choice has a major impact on strategy- for example if the player likes to use military conquest then they would probably prefer to have one massive land mass instead of separated small islands. The player also gets to choose which civilization they represent- they could choose this based on the civilization’s in-game strengths/weaknesses, or they could be patriotic and choose the civilization that they identify the most with. In my view, this game really lives up to its name of “Civilization.” The game starts out with the player having a single worker and a settler. The player then builds cities, which allows the player to build additional units to expand and improve the empire. The player also has to manage individual cities and units, as well as manage the civilization as a whole. For example, the player has to decide where to move the unit, which is a small decision limited in it’s effects. The player also has to decide what technology to research next, and this decisions is broader and has a major impact on play since technological prowess enables the player to stay ahead of his/her rivals.Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:28:51 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2966&iddiary=5724https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2910Gamelog Entry 2 GAMEPLAY: Overall Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is a pretty fun game. First of all there is the fact that there is so much that the character can do. Since the character can pretty much ignore the missions in the game, the player is free to explore the game world (or the city at least). Interesting enough the player can affect the character’s appearance through in game decisions, such as going to a barber shop and getting a new hair cut or getting some new clothes. The game still keeps to its roots however. The player can still go on a rampage across the city with an assortment of weapons, jack cars, and have a fun chase with the police. I have to say that the real fun of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas comes out when the player is chased by the police. It’s interesting to see how high the player can get their wanted rating and how long they can survive in such an environment. DESIGN: The game designers really planned the entire game out well. First of all you have three cities to play in, and each city then has its own network of streets, shops, special locations, and npcs. This makes the game world feel much wider/freer than the previous GTA games. Each city also had it’s own distinctive style and feel. For example the city of Los Santos features many of the landmarks found in real life Los Angles. In addition the designers also made it so that the player actually had to travel between the cities through the country side as opposed to simply make it so that the player automatically appears in the other city. This further reinforces the sense of being in a wide game world. I also found the way the designers tried to motivate the players interesting. In order to motivate players into actually following the storyline and completing the main missions, the designers made it so that after most missions the player is able to unlock something or get a new item. For example the player at the start of the game cannot leave Los Santos and head off to any of the other cities. In order to unlock those cities the player has to finish at least the main missions. This solves the problem of players ignoring the storyline and goofing off. Sure, the player can still go off and do whatever he/she wants to do, but sooner or later they will get tired to running around the same city and will want to head to another city. That’s when the reward system kicks in, forcing the player to do the missions in order to unlock the other cities.Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:59:31 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2910&iddiary=5482https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2910Gamelog Entry 1 SUMMARY: Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is a third person action game in which the player takes on the role of a gangster struggling to survive in the fictional city of San Andreas. In order to advance the storyline the player has to complete certain missions- or the player can choose to ignore the missions and wreck havoc in the city by shooting innocent NPCs and driving around. GAMEPLAY: If you’ve ever played any of the GTA games then you pretty much know what the game’s going to feel like. GTA-San Andreas is first of all structured around a story in which the player plays as a gangster. I guess the best thing I liked about this game was how the player actually had more to do. For example in addition to jacking cars and shooting innocent civilians, the player gets to buff up their character by hitting the gym. In a nice twist there are also quite a few options in food choices for the character- eating fatty foods makes your character fat while not eating enough makes your character thin. However I do have to say that the game isn’t very impressive graphically. In my view, the only reason that the player is motivated to play the game is either due to the interesting storyline, and or the desire to see how much chaos they can cause by shooting cops and jacking cars.Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:29:08 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2910&iddiary=5477https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2387Gamelog #2 GAMEPLAY The campaign in general was very smooth. The story was also up to par generally. The major thing that I have against the story was that I couldn’t help but notice the numerous parallels to Starcraft. For example there was that mission in which Arthas had to survive for 30 minutes before help could arrive- extremely similar to the Starcraft mission in which the humans had to survive for 30 minutes before being saved. However Blizzard did add a few twists to the various missions, such as adding in optional quests like having to save Timmy and destroy a grain caravan. Gameplay wise I would have to say that it was near perfect. Each of the four races has a distinct feel to them, which enables the player to adopt very different strategies. For example the Undead can field massive armies of skeletons which can then be used as shields to take damage from melee units, while the Orcs have to rely on a smaller (but stronger) army. Then there are also different hero units for each race which further impacts the player’s strategy. DESIGN The most interesting part of this game is the inclusion of hero units. Since each hero has its own special powers the hero that the player chooses will directly impact the strategy later on. For example if a player knew that his/her opponent would be undead, then the logical choice would be to choose a paladin as the hero. In addition, the hero units also give the game a bit of a feeling like an RPG game instead of a traditional strategy game. However the greatest weakness of the game was the in-game cutscenes. It’s actually not just the cutscenes, but the entire tone of the game. The art style is obviously cartoonish- units are drawn in cartoon style with bright colors. Although some players might find this funny, I would much rather prefer a more realistic tone to the game. For example I would have preferred something more akin to Starcraft or Command and Conquer. Add in the fact that the cinematic scenes are done in a realistic style, it results in that the player is hungry for the cinematics which they barely pay any attention to the in game cut scenes.Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:21:31 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2387&iddiary=4566https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2387SUMMARY: Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos is a real time strategy game set in the fantasy world of Azeroth in which the primary goal of the player is to lead his/her units to complete each mission in order to further the storyline. GAMEPLAY: Warcraft III for me was a great experience overall despite it’s lack of cutting graphics and cartoon like tone. First off, the game is narrative intensive- the gameplay/visual/audio are all very good, but in my opinion the main driving factor for this game is the intricate storyline behind it. Blizzard lays out a heavy background for this game (like it does for all of it’s games), which is evident in the manual that comes along with the game. The history of Azeroth is provided in detail and directly relates to the in game story. Then there’s the campaign layout- the player has to start on the human campaign as the story advances chronologically. Thus the player has to beat the human level, undead, orc, and finally the night elf level in order to finish the entire story. I think that this was a wise decision because it allows the player to become familiar with a particular race which prevents confusion among players. It also forces the player to at least try playing each race a bit. The one thing that I didn’t like about WC3 was the fact that the mission objectives were presented in in-game cutscenes. Basically Blizzard did away with the “mission briefing” of Starcraft and turned it into in game cutscenes. The major problem that I have with this is the fact that to me the cutscenes look awful, especially when compared to the cinematics. I would much rather have preferred for the “mission briefings” to be presented in cinematic-form despite the fact that it may interrupt gameplay. To me, part of the fun in playing games made by Blizzard is watching the cinematic which are always top-notch.Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:38:20 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2387&iddiary=4538https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2261Gamelog #2 Gameplay: In general I liked the single player mode (Tales of Souls) better than the strategy mode (Chronicles of the Sword). I know the game makers are trying to make the game more interesting by adding in additional elements from strategy games in. However since I’m more into rpgs, this didn’t really appeal to me that much. On a side note I noticed that the single player mode grew much harder later on. Overall the AIs seemed more competent than those from the second series. The ramped up AI resulted in that I couldn’t just simply button mash my way through the game (as I have so often done) but that I had to instead figure out combos and use them in concert with my blocking ability. Combat just seemed more tit-for-tat instead of Soul Calibur II’s massive single combo punch. Design: Well first of off I would like to comment on the single player mode of “The Tales of Souls.” After playing through the storylines of several characters, I left with the impression that the makers of this game put a lot of effort into the storytelling in an effort to increase replay value. The player may choose a character from among all those offered, and most of all each character has a unique storyline. Additionally, during the game the player is often forced to make choices that will affect the continuation of the story. The characters also all have their own special fighting style as well as special moves. All of this results in that the player is forced to play again and again to squeeze out all the potential storyline of the different characters. Then there’s the other elements including the “Chronicles of the Sword,” as well as Soul Arena and World Competition. To me the Chronicles were just an attempt to draw in elements of strategy games into an rpg like world. It’s just wasn’t really into it compared to the rest of the game. I do like strategy-rpg hybrid games, and one that I really liked was Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders. Although KUF:TC had mediocre graphics, it did succeed in combining strategy with rpg- and that’s what I think the makers of Soul Calibur III were aiming for. In addition the game makers added a neat little twist to the in-game videos that players are forced to watch. Many players simply skip the videos in order to get to the fight faster. However the game makers made it so that an in game video has a direct impact on your character. For example someone might throw a blade at you, and then you have to press a certain button during the video to dodge it. If you don’t then you start out the next fight with damaged health. This didn’t affect me much since I was already interested in the storyline, but this will make other gamers pay more attention to the in game vids.Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:30:30 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2261&iddiary=4370https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2261Summary: Soul Calibur III follows in the footsteps of it's predecessors as a fighting-rpg game mainly based around a storyline that once again involves the two swords, Soul Calibur and Soul Edge. The player picks a character and then follows along the character’s storyline defeating various enemies. Gameplay: Having played Soul Calibur II a lot, I was looking immensely forward to the third installment in the series. The game did not disappoint me. Well first of all I was just excited at playing the game since I was looking forward to a continuation of the storyline as well as seeing old characters again. I went ahead and picked a character and immediately started playing through the storyline. The new characters were a nice touch as well as the better animation effects during a fight. It was after a while that I noticed that there were in fact other ways to play this game. I was playing in the story mode of only a few characters when I could have been trying something else. One of the different ways to play Soul Calibur III was to play in the “Chronicles of the Sword" mode which seemed to me an attempt by the game makers to fuse elements of rpg and strategy games into a traditional fighting game.Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:50:25 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=2261&iddiary=4356https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1926GAMEPLAY (2ed): As I said before- the game begins to slow down a lot after a few missions due to the fact that I have to restart each city over forcing me to go through the same process again and again. This combined with my inability to properly balance my government finances often led to frustration and boredom as each mission took longer to complete. The wacky comments said by the citizens of the city also start to loose their funniness as they are repeated again and again. The music is the same as always, and the special events (such as invading enemies) that happen are also the same. The only bright spot was that each new mission has a different terrain forcing the player to build a city that manages to harness the surrounding resources. DESIGN: I thought that the most innovative part of this game was that it was primarily focused on city building. The player can still build military units (and often has to) but military conflict is a minor part of the game. The game also offered a variety of buildings for the player to build, each with its own specific purpose in the game. And due to the fact that your citizens wander the streets randomly it also forces the player to carefully plan out the city layout. The level design was also ok. Since each city has a different surrounding terrain the player is forced to adapt to the local environment in order to earn money. For example a city by the sea might be able to build a port and trade, while a city in the mountains might be able to mine minerals and sell them. Other than the differences in terrain however, the game play of most missions were similar due to the fact that I start out having to build a new city in each mission. I really think that the developers should have corrected this. Yes, building a city from nothing is fun but it gets repetitive and boring if you are forced to do it every mission. Another bad thing was that the choice of which city to build had no impact on the weak storyline. A stronger overarching storyline that tied in with each of the missions would have been better.Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:34:22 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1926&iddiary=3799https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1926SUMMARY: Caesar III is a strategy game that is set in the time of the Roman Empire that focuses on city building. The game provides a realistic experience of city building in the Roman era- such as the ability of the player to build certain special Roman buildings like the baths. The goal of the game is for the player to build up the city and attain certain goals to meet the requirements of the mission before moving on to harder missions. The game also provides a few scenarios that are independent of the campaign. GAMEPLAY: Well given that Caesar III is a really old title I wasn't expecting too much from it. However the campaign however proved to be surprisingly engaging due to its format and small tidbits. The campaign is made up of a string of missions- you start out with a few easy ones (tutorials) that show you the basics of city building. After a few easy missions the player gets to choose between two missions. I really liked how the game forces the player to choose between the two missions as some missions are more suited to players who love to focus on city building and others are more conflict centered. Another thing that made this game fun was that the designers had added in "interactive citizens." In game play, the player can right click on the citizens of the city to find out what they are currently thinking. Sometimes the citizens will say funny lines in response to the current situation in the city. For example if citizens are rioting they will yell anti-government slogans. Game play was also interesting with the addition of the Emperor and the Roman gods. The player has to maintain good relations with the Emperor and does so by sending him goods whenever he demands it. The player can choose not to obey him but this will lead to a loss of the Emperor's trust which may eventually lead to him recalling you. The player also has to please the five Roman gods by building temples to them. If the gods are pleased they will bless the city with special bonuses- if they are angry they will strike the city with disease and make your citizens moody. Thus the player is constantly forced to find a balance between earning money and spending money to please the Emperor and the gods. This game did have a few problems though. There was no real storyline- although you do rise in rank and progress on to harder cities it still felt like that each city was a separate mission. I also found that the game play gets dull after a few missions- since the player starts out each mission having to build an entire new city from scratch, the player is forced to repeat the same basic city building steps again (such as laying out roads, building housing). Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:08:58 CDThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=1926&iddiary=3786