Saturday, January 26, 2008

Character Customizaton Sucks

Barbie Mario.

Open World Game Design Sucks.

Imagine, for a second, that you are Mario. Only, instead of having a linear path to run down and bricks to punch, you don't HAVE to do anything. You can go anywhere and do whatever you want. No more Shigeru Miyamoto breathing down your neck, forcing you to slide down that flagpole and get on to 1-2.

Screw that timer. Bop your head on that coin brick for hours. Jump on those pipes! Wasn't that fun? Chase Starman! Go ahead. Welcome to the world of "Open World Game Design".

I blame Grand Theft Auto 3, which while I think the series is about as innovative as Tomb Raider (Tomb Raider being noted in this case for becoming legendary on the merits of the first game, which was remade six or seven times over the next ten years with no significant improvements), I do respect GTA 3 for being a proper game.

GTA 3 sold very well and a large portion of that was because the game was so immeasurably fun to dick around in. Most of the actual "game" (e.g. the "missions") are forgettable, but it didn't matter cos the whole world was there to mess with. You could try to atract the attention of the FBI and steal their cars. You could jump cars over stuff, and of course, run people over.

All good fun.

The problem really started to show itself with the magnum opus "San Andreas" which was just damn giant. Instead of tightening up their rather loose game (it's a poor driving game, a poor shooting game, a poor action game, etc etc) to behave to the standards of something like Devil May Cry or Metal Gear, they left it glitchy and loose and instead used up all their money making the game obscenely huge. The game is so damn big, you can spend half an hour in transit. Just going from A to B, 30 minutes down the shitter.

This is open world gaming. Lose, sloppy gameplay and ever increasing worlds.

I stopped playing San Andreas after about a day. I like games that let me steal cars, bone chicks and drive fast. I don't need a traffic simulator. Ever since then, the idea of open world games makes me wanna puke.

But the worst thing, and what made me waste an hour of sleep to type this, is the way the game progression is inevitably built into these games. You go to an area, get some kind of objective, then go accomplish said objective. That's the pattern. If you blow said objective, you go BACK to the starting area and repeat.

In Mario terms: You die halfway though a level, and instead of restarting at the beginning (or even having a FUCKING OPTION TO), you have to get your ass up, and march back to the starting point. There won't be any fun to be had along the way. Just that march to get back to where you want to be.

There will be many, many marches to get where you want to be.

You see, while games are constantly trying to be more "realistic" they end up getting in the way of fun. I don't wanna have to go around and collect all the good weapons every time I die in GTA. I don't want a bunch of busywork put in there for seemingly no reason. The open world situation forces you into busywork. Running around accomplishing menial tasks to enable your primary goal.

Wasting your time in uninteresting ways.

So, I was already a bit apprehensive when I got the new Burnout. I've always loved the series for it's to the point presentation. Wanna drive fast? Do a race. Wanna crash cars, do crash mode. Easy ins, easy outs. Pure fun. But the new one is in an Open World.

No more menus.

I fucking swear, you'd think that Menus raped the parents of every game developer out there for the spite they have for them. They made a game where you drive blind through the streets of London because Maps are "Menus". Menus aren't realistic and shit. Hi, I'm the one over here PLAYING A GAME!

I do not give a shit about menus. I do give a shit about running a race, blowing it and having to drive back uptown for the next two minutes just to redo it. I do give a shit about how much time that wastes. I give a shit that to add a "start the fuck over" button would have been very easy but for some inexplicable reason was left out.

I love the Burnout developers, and I think they are truly innovative, but FUCK does this suck in the game. I know people say that there's so much to do you can just move on, but sometimes I wanna play a game like I play Mario, which is to say beat that little plumbers head into every rock till I pass a specific part. To learn that one level. To really get it down, without having to do it backwards every time as well.

So while people say you do warm to the game, I'm very upset with it now. And above that, i'm pissed with everyone who thinks that no menus is good and open world is even better. SSX started to suck right when they went to an "open world" (number 3 motherfuckers. Tell those idiots at EA to hire Rahzel again and go back to levels. Shit, just remake the first one. It's still the best--talk about a series where no one making the sequels seemed to know why people were stoked on it...)

I do have to give the Burnout crew credit for trying something new, but much like the GTA guys just making their game bigger, I don't think it was the right decision.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Smash Lab Sucks

It's a new show on Discovery. Comes on, lo and behold, after Mythbusters. The ads tell me that it's similar to Mythbusters, but apparently with more destruction (which while hard to fathom, ought to be true based on the title of the show. It looks like "Boom" but with some science.

I'm at minute 25 of an episode where they use this amazing material, carbon fiber (a cloth!) to make things stronger. Apparently jets are made out of it.

So, to test the strength of this stuff (it's cloth!) they take a 2x4 and cover it (staggeringly poorly) in carbon fiber. Then they test it against a control of another, un carbon fiber'd (cloth!) 2x4, by, get this, having all four of them stand on it.

Well good for them that it takes exactly all four of them to snap the wood, and they cannot manage to snap the carbon fiber'd 2x4.

That's to be expected, but all they've proven is it got stronger. they haven't shown why it's in fighter jets. They've shown that if you epoxy some carbon fiber over a 2x4 it can hold at least more than it could before.

Spreading raspberry jam on denim and wrapping a 2x4 would add that much strength. So would just epoxying the thing. So would fiberglass. So what's so special about the cloth???

How about you assholes get an inch more of a budget and go get some weights. Obviously you found that your 750 pounds busts a 2x4. Get some actual weights so you can see how much your poorly carbon fiber'd one can handle. The porn's in the numbers for this. If that reinforced 2x4 can hold five thousand pounds, that'd blow my damn mind. But i'll never know. Thanks guys!

Then they get to making a shack, for as far as I can tell, no other reason than to build it poorly and blow it apart with the backs of two airboats. Whoooo?

seriously, what was the point of that boring ass exercise other than showing me that the two people who built it aren't the best with tools.

So here we are, and they're dicking around with a mobile home to make it more hurricane resistant with carbon fiber. Maybe next week they can make it more hurricane resistant with bricks!

It's a dipshit show, and they're blowing the science end of it horribly, which I have to predict the path of the show based on this it'll be as such:

Mythbusters fans fall off pretty rapidly after posting on their blogs about the shitty science and how it's not Mythbusters. This leaves only the hillbilly jackoffs who wanna see things blow up, which should make this show last as long as "Boom" which was such a promising show, but damn if that didn't get boring after about two episodes.

Average viewership life: 1.6 episodes.