Acko.net

Games

16 Sep 2005

Fahrenheit rocks the big one

I'll cut to the chase: Fahrenheit rocks (aka Indigo Prophecy in North America). Now if you haven't heard of the game at all, I suggest you just head over to Eurogamer and read their excellent (and humorous) first impressions.

I just want to point out some reasons why it rocks so much.

First: adventure fans rejoice, because there is a little bit of every great past adventure game in Fahrenheit. There is a paranormal aspect, with a strong religious/graveyard theme, which reminded me a lot of Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers. A significant part of the game is spent doing police work, and while the obvious origin story there is Police Quest, there are in fact much better ancestors to remember, such as Blade Runner. The movement and camera scheme on the other hand feels like a souped up Grim Fandango. Heck, there is even a tiny bit of Deus Ex in it, and the aspect of switching between characters brought back fond memories of Day of the Tentacle for me. But don't get me wrong, Fahrenheit is far from a copy-cat game. It stands firmly on its own.

Second, though the game is about choice, it doesn't represent itself falsely. Traditional adventure games were known for providing you with tons of apparent possibilities, of which 99% were useless. I'm sure the frustration of reading "That does nothing" for the umpteenth time has shaved millenia off the collective lifespan of adventure gamers when they weren't lucky enough to stumble upon e.g. wear puppy. No such situations occur in Fahrenheit due to the excellent context-sensitive actions. And once you realize this, you'll be glad that the choices you are presented with are actually significant one way or the other.

Thirdly, the action scenes are a blast and a welcome change of pace. Most of them are controlled in a "Simon says" fashion where you follow on-screen button presses. If you make too many mistakes, you fail and your character will usually die. Now though on the surface this might seem like a gimmicky feature, it serves the wonderful purpose of keeping the player active (and thus immersed) even during the most cinematic scenes.

You see, the strongest point of Fahrenheit is not the puzzling, nor the story nor the sound. It's the characters and the way the game puts you in their heads, sometimes literally. One particularly memorable scene has one of the characters suffering from a claustrophobic attack after descending in a dusty, dark basement that serves as an overstocked archive. The view is locked to a narrow first-person view and a mini sidegame of "balance the breathing" is started. However, the main game continues and the player still has a task to fulfill. You will feel the dread and urgency of the character, who wants to get out of there as fast as possible. Lovely.

Another important way that this sort of character identification is implemented is through a Sims-like mental health bar that ranges from "normal", "tense", "stressed" all the way to "wrecked". You will actively start looking around for ways to cheer up your current character so he or she doesn't become suicidal. What at first seems like a gimmicky addition turns out to be a genious move that motivates you to pay even more attention to the environments. It's like a revival of the pixel hunt, except without the frustration.

Though most 'interactive drama' type games that have been made before have always seemed to be films that try to be games, Fahrenheit is more like a game that tries to be a film. It succeeds at both, so if you have some cash to spare, go out and buy it now. You won't be disappointed.

Update: after having played through a second time, and taking advantage of the chapter-feature to replay some sections, my view on the game has shifted a bit. For one thing, the game leaves you with much less choice in certain scenes than you'd think on a first play, because it sometimes takes the 'all roads lead to Rome' approach too strictly. For example, at one point, you are given the choice about which of two detectives should go and question a suspect. Yet, no matter which one you choose, the exact same questions will be asked and the detectives will think exactly the same thing. This doesn't fit their wildly different personalities.

On the other hand, in some areas it has a surprising amount of variation. It turns out that some action sequences in the game are choices in disguise, and by failing them you will continue the storyline in a slightly different fashion. The problem there lies in the fact that such choices can only be discovered by accident. Even worse, the majority of the sequences are not optional, so the game discourages you from trying out too much. Also, I found that by the end of the game (where the most variation is to be found), completing the sequences was a piece of cake so I would only fail them if I did so deliberately.

Similarly, an interesting twist occurred when I deliberately avoided collecting evidence on the murder. But, this is something which you wouldn't think of except when playing the game for a second time. For one thing, at each of the crime scenes, the game prevents you from leaving until you've found a certain clue, so you tend to assume that each possible action is a necessary one. This is further worsened by the interface, where you can only indicate the object you want to interact with, meaning you can only guess what the action is without trying it.

In fact, it seems that the most obvious choices you're given have the least effect of all. The first scene is where the player character commits a murder and is given tons of ways of dealing with it (and which pieces of evidence to leave behind). This was in fact the demo's main (and only) focus point. So why is it that the method of finding the murderer is based on an object you cannot interact with? It would've been much more interesting if you could for example on a second play through, deliberately avoid doing whatever it was that got you caught the first time.

What's also disappointing is that the dialog choices don't have much effect at all most of the time. Asking the right questions simply gives you, the player, some extra information or gives you a slight boost on your 'mood-o-meter', but ends up having no effect on the way the story unfolds generally.

As it is now, Fahrenheit is still a very enjoyable piece of entertainment that does get many things very right. But it could've been even better if they hadn't simplified the puzzling or added some more variation in the main storyline other than the ending. Maybe the guys at Quantic Dream should've played some more Fallout ;).

Tags:
12 Nov 2004

Commander Keen - OCRemix

If you're not a total toddler, you'll remember Commander Keen: the cool 2D platform game starring a boy on a pogostick. With cool music.

I stumbled on this a while, and it's brought back tons of memories. A remix of the Commander Keen theme!

Tags:
23 Oct 2003

Where are the fun games?

I just wrote up this large comment on an Eurogamer article titled 'Less is More'. Considering that no-one will read my comment there anyway, I reposted here.

These days when I come to Eurogamer, the mainpage is always filled with news about new games I've never even heard of. And after reading the (p)review which praises it into heaven, my desire to play such games is exactly nil.

The game industry has moved towards producing disposable games. You can no longer expect your (now tiny, DVD sized btw) box to last you more than a week.
And when the industry attempts to follow up on a classic, it fails miserably: 'Master of Orion 3' totally missed the point. And in 'Freelancer' it seems the designers forgot that if you give the player a giant universe to roam around in, that you actually need to provide something to DO in that giant universe. I'm sure there are other frappant examples.

Replay value and durability have partially been replaced by what was once considered to be the holy grail of gaming: multiplayer. But are online RPGs really whole new fantasy worlds where you can lead a different life? Not really, in the end you still just have to keep smashing up monsters for yet another packet of experience. The difference is that you can now do it with another person who is just as bored as you.

And online strategy games are so filled with fanatics, that any occasional player who wants to have some fun will get bashed to death through the latest new gameplay inbalance. The fun factor is absent here and replaced by the desire to be #1 in whatever ranking system CrappyCompany has set up.
No thank you.

Where are games like Fallout? System Shock? Master of Orion 2? Outcast? Torment?

Why is everyone drooling up on Doom 3 just because it offers stencil shadows and bump mapping? I'll take System Shock's psychological horror any time over Doom3's 'cheap' *cough* effects.

And here's the biggest contradiction of them all: if games today are all designed as disposable products, why isn't the point-and-click adventure genre thriving? These are perfect play-once games that you can put away at any moment and resume later.

What I want to see is the First Person Shooter concept rethought. What's wrong with them you might think? First, let's consider movement:

  • Because of the inaccuracy of the controls, everything is oversized. Usually this isn't too noticable, except when a lot of other characters (or mirrors) are present and ingame cutscenes are used. Look straight ahead and compare the game's eye-line with the real world. Desks will commonly be shoulder-height. Toilet stalls can easily fit an elephant. This was most obvious to me when I played Undying a while ago.
  • The most important limbs in FPS games are the legs. Need to pick that box up from the table? Forget about those arms (they're holding your rediculously oversized gun anyway) and jump on the table to pick it up.
  • Want to get up on that ledge in front of you? If you're not playing Thief or System Shock, you better find a staircase because Our Hero™ cannot climb up.
  • Need a candidate for this year's triathlon? No problem. Our Hero can run like the wind for hours on end, can swim like a dolphin and can pilot any vehicle at rediculous speeds.

Secondly, what you can do in the game. Game physics are an important part of this, but why does nearly every FPS involve mowing down hordes of enemies? This is even more painfully obvious in multiplayer FPSes, where during a typical game, you respawn about 50-60 times. I hope you have good karma.

I get the idea that no-one really knows what gamers want, so they just keep on doing the same old thing again. I understand that making a game today is wholly different from a couple of years ago, but I refuse to believe that all that game-designing talent suddenly got flushed down the toilet when 3D accelerators became popular.

(feel free to recommend me some proper games to play these days, because I'm tired of waiting for Deus Ex 2 / Thief 3, which will probably not live up to their predecessors anyway)

Tags:
01 Oct 2003

Single player games - MEEOYO

While browsing EuroGamer I stumbled upon this great comment:

Hooray for single player games (Or "massively engrossing experiences on your own" MEEOYO)

Exactly my kind of game. To me, the idea of massive online gaming seemed like heaven, but practice has shown that online games often lack immersion and are simple an alternate version of real-life rather than a fun, engrossing world to play in.
But these days it's hard to find a quality single-player game. So a couple of weeks ago I got FreeLancer. A sort of Elite-clone/Privateer-sequel. Wonderful graphics, great gameplay, amazing immersion and nice storyline. Great except for one thing: after finishing the story, there is absolutely nothing to do. The game-designers created a giant universe, only to have you follow a predetermined story, or fly around shooting stuff.

So now I'm looking forward to X2. Totally freeform gameplay in a giant, dynamic galaxy with fun things to do.
I'm getting a fancy pixelshader videocard for Thief III / Deus Ex 2 anyway. This should be a fun investment :).

Tags: