Waypoints in games are such a simple idea but create a very large side effect. I noticed this throughout my playthrough in GTA V. I've put a silly amount of hours into that game. Well over 100 hours. But even after all this time of gameplay, I still can't really traverse the map with ease. I have a general idea of where things are, but it's difficult to return to locations I've seen. On the other hand, I know the map to GTA Vice City pretty damn well and can probably find a location based off another picture of the surrounding areas. GTA V has 100 collectibles in the form of spaceship parts and letter scraps. I found none on my initial playthrough. Meanwhile, I found about 60 of the 100 hidden packages on my own playing Vice City however long ago. Now, yes, comparing the map size of Vice City to V's is pretty silly, as the game made 11 years after is obviously going to be bigger and more dense. That's not the point I'm going for.
Sandbox games getting bigger are a natural development. GTA 3 was an early big sandbox game with three islands. Each island would take like a minute to traverse. 13 years later, games like The Crew are being released to simulate an open world racing game that would take at least a couple hours to traverse. Sandbox games are getting bigger. It only makes sense. The point I'm getting at is the consequences of the waypoint.
Nobody wants to figure out routes on their own with such a big map. That would be frustrating and annoying and people generally don't have time for that. Solution? Create a trail for them to follow! It's simple, easy, and solves the problem! But creates a world based on a minimap. People become more focused on how to get to their destination than the trip it takes to get there. Now, one may argue that in a game like GTA where you're driving through the same city over and over that the trip isn't that important. If that's the case then you're not enjoying the drive. Take a taxi everywhere, which I ultimately ended up doing. The issue that arises is, even with this massive environment with plenty to look at, people are taken away from enjoying it past the first couple hours. Because of how tedious it becomes to get across this massive playground, it becomes boring to traverse, even with a waypoint directing you where to go.
The fast travel is another thing that could lumped in as an issue of huge environments. Why go through the woods and explore when you can just bypass that trash to get to our destination super fast? It's the video game equivalent of taking a nap on a plane. Yeah, you might see some interesting stuff, but the longer it goes, the less interesting stuff becomes. You start to see everything, nothing's new. I imagine that likewise, people begin to dread longer flights and search for anything to do in the meantime.
So what's the solution? People want sandbox games to get bigger and better. Sandbox games like Minecraft are never ending. Games like Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky are taking people into space for exploration.
I guess in the end, it comes down to what people want in a game. Do people want a sandbox they can familiarize themselves with? How are they going to traverse it? Or does it not matter? It was surely convenient to know how to get between any two locations without a map in Vice City without needing a waypoint, but I guess the population is pushing towards a different sandbox. With more and more games, it becomes less about becoming comfortable with specific areas and just general ideas. Or, games like Assassin's Creed IV where exploration is a big point. You're not expected to get comfortable with the Caribbean sea, and it doesn't matter. If it's fun to explore the game world, then you're set. If it gets boring, however, make travel exciting. Or incentivize an exciting way to travel that people can work towards.
Game maps like Vice City are gone. Video games have moved to a much grander scale, where you can get lost easier and spend hours combing through the environment. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe sandbox games are going through a paradigm shift. And maybe in the future, I'll interact with game environments in a manner that I enjoy more so than simply being comfortable with a familiar setting.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Bloodborne Afterthoughts
I recently beat Bloodborne, and by recently, I mean like a month ago, but after sitting on it for some time, I have enough thoughts about it for a review.
I'll begin by describing my relationship with the From Software's Souls series in general, as even if Bloodborne isn't directly connected to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, it's format is almost identical, in the sense that you're tossed into a big world with little knowledge where scary monsters take turns beating your existence into a pulp. That is, until you get a grasp on how to play the game, or as other people have described, until one "gits gud." Now, the only one I've played is Dark Souls, and that was just last year. I quite liked it. If you watched my year-end favorite games list of 2014 with my friend, you'll see the it was my #6 favorite game of the year. I spent an insane amount of time in that game and still did not manage to beat it. It took me a long time to "git gud."But, I did eventually git gud, or at least good enough to beat Ornstein and Smough, a pair of bosses that some would declare to be the hardest in the game. I would agree. It took me 70+ attempts, and I took a 9 month break between it all, but I still did it! But no, I never beat it.
I did beat Bloodborne though.
Bloodborne, though similar, is different enough to be seen as a complete game on its own. And it was different enough that I beat it, so gimme credit there. The game takes place in the dying gothic city of Yharnam, which I find to be a wonderful setting. The environments look wonderful, allowing you to see to incredible stretches of the city, places that you will likely go to later on in the game. You're dropped in this city and sent to dispatch people, monsters, and bosses until the game tells you to stop, or until you smash the controller in half against your knees. Occasionally, you'll reach a boss that's harder then the tension building up between your clenched teeth from how many times you've died, and they'll destroy you many times over, but if you're persistent and willing to adapt, you'll overcome them and feel an amazing sense of accomplishment. Or at least I did. Aaaand you'll likely continue on until you've completed the game.
Okay, it's a little bit more than that. The combat feels very tight, and the game shoots to be played at a faster pace than Dark Souls. Dark Souls was a lot of circle strafing or hiding behind a shield, while this one is quickly getting attacks in. The game includes a mechanic where you can regain recently lost health by quickly attacking an enemy. Instead of a shield, you're given a firearm to stagger your enemies. A well-placed shot leaves the enemy open for visceral attacks, which will deal massive damage and grant some health. And you'll need all the health you can get. Healing comes from blood vials, items usually dropped by enemies or found, which you slap against yourself to regain a bit of health. The only other way to get health is returning to the Hunter's Dream from checkpoints, but one shouldn't be relying on that.
Checkpoints in the game are few and far in between. Rather than a linear progression that drops a checkpoint for sufficient progress, the design of the environment is created with checkpoints in mind. Often, after making a decent amount of progress through the environment, you won't find another checkpoint. Instead, you'll open up a shortcut to that last checkpoint. The game does a wonderful job at feeling like a twisted, intertwined pathway. Sure, the level design may make little sense in the scope of an actual city that people actually live in, but as a video game, it works wonderfully. And again, throughout the entire game, the world does look wonderful, this is one of the best looking games out there. It does what it wants to, big enormous environments and enemies ranging from simple spooky to downright unsettling, and it does all of the incredibly well.
You may remember some paragraphs ago saying that you'll play "until the game tells you to stop." While being a silly joke, it's also kinda true depending on how involved with the story you are. The plot of game is largely hidden from the player. If the player wants to go searching for answers, they can, and depending on how hard they look, it can leave them all sorts of lost and confused. While some might dislike this method of storytelling, it works greatly in Bloodborne. It creates a sense of question to what you'll uncover next in the scope of the city while paralleling the sense of both dread and intrigue in wondering what the next big enemy will be. The director of the game says the story is purposely left up to interpretation to the players, and it's incredible how deep one can get into the lore with what they're given. It's because the game doesn't give players exposition, it gives players facts. If I were to present this review in the style of the game, it would probably only talk about when I got the game, how I ended the game, and a picture of my tear-drenched, calloused thumbs. With only the flavor-text of the items, the short conversations with the NPCs, and the various notes scattered about, many people can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas, and it's up to you to decide which one's the most correct. Fun fact: I thought Bloodborne was a kinda silly name that sounds a bit weird, but it makes waaaay more sense as the title now that I think I understand the story of the game. Maybe people knew that and I'm just dense, who knows.
But involvement in the story is ultimately up to you, the player, if you care. If you don't, you can run through slashing people, leveling up, and just playing for the reward in accomplishment alone.
If you couldn't tell, I quite liked Bloodborne, but I wouldn't quite call it a perfect game. The game has chalice dungeons which are easily the worst part of the game. They're tight underground environments with little variation and they make the game boring. I know, right? How can a game where you stab a tentacle beasts with a sword the size of your torso boring? Put it in the same uninspired environment for hours on end. Granted, the dungeons are entirely optional, but some things are locked off to be just in the dungeons, including the best attachments for your weapons. It makes the game kind of grindy.
Speaking of grind, blood vials are not a good idea. The esthus flask from Dark souls worked fine. Limited uses, refills at bonfires on death. Blood vials work fine if you're in an area where enemies drop them frequently enough. But anywhere like, say, a chalice dungeon, or after multiple deaths against the same boss, causes the player to run out and have to go elsewhere for some time to get some more. I don't know anyone who thought that was better than the esthus flask.
Finally, a minor gripe is the co-op and pvp. The way to play with a friend or against other players requires use of certain items at the same time in the same place along with, presumably, a palm reading, an aligning of stars, and couple of coin tosses because in seems to be incredibly finicky the few times I've been asked to co op with a friend. Likewise, players only battle each other when one is trying to co-op with a buddy, usually. It's a drag on people who want to co-op with their buddies for fun as well as for the people that enjoy the challenge of fighting other players. Ultimately, though, these are just minor gripes as this game for me was a wonderful experience solo. I didn't really want to play with friends, and I didn't really want to play against other people. I liked the isolated experience.
Bloodborne was a truly wonderful game that I thoroughly enjoyed playing to completion. Yes, there are the minor issues, but that didn't come close to outweighing how much I enjoyed playing the game. I'm sure there are things I neglected, but I like to think I got all the important stuff across. Play it if it sounds or looks appealing to you. If it doesn't, I absolutely understand. This isn't a game for everybody, but the was very much a game for me.
I'll begin by describing my relationship with the From Software's Souls series in general, as even if Bloodborne isn't directly connected to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, it's format is almost identical, in the sense that you're tossed into a big world with little knowledge where scary monsters take turns beating your existence into a pulp. That is, until you get a grasp on how to play the game, or as other people have described, until one "gits gud." Now, the only one I've played is Dark Souls, and that was just last year. I quite liked it. If you watched my year-end favorite games list of 2014 with my friend, you'll see the it was my #6 favorite game of the year. I spent an insane amount of time in that game and still did not manage to beat it. It took me a long time to "git gud."But, I did eventually git gud, or at least good enough to beat Ornstein and Smough, a pair of bosses that some would declare to be the hardest in the game. I would agree. It took me 70+ attempts, and I took a 9 month break between it all, but I still did it! But no, I never beat it.
I did beat Bloodborne though.
Bloodborne, though similar, is different enough to be seen as a complete game on its own. And it was different enough that I beat it, so gimme credit there. The game takes place in the dying gothic city of Yharnam, which I find to be a wonderful setting. The environments look wonderful, allowing you to see to incredible stretches of the city, places that you will likely go to later on in the game. You're dropped in this city and sent to dispatch people, monsters, and bosses until the game tells you to stop, or until you smash the controller in half against your knees. Occasionally, you'll reach a boss that's harder then the tension building up between your clenched teeth from how many times you've died, and they'll destroy you many times over, but if you're persistent and willing to adapt, you'll overcome them and feel an amazing sense of accomplishment. Or at least I did. Aaaand you'll likely continue on until you've completed the game.
Okay, it's a little bit more than that. The combat feels very tight, and the game shoots to be played at a faster pace than Dark Souls. Dark Souls was a lot of circle strafing or hiding behind a shield, while this one is quickly getting attacks in. The game includes a mechanic where you can regain recently lost health by quickly attacking an enemy. Instead of a shield, you're given a firearm to stagger your enemies. A well-placed shot leaves the enemy open for visceral attacks, which will deal massive damage and grant some health. And you'll need all the health you can get. Healing comes from blood vials, items usually dropped by enemies or found, which you slap against yourself to regain a bit of health. The only other way to get health is returning to the Hunter's Dream from checkpoints, but one shouldn't be relying on that.
Checkpoints in the game are few and far in between. Rather than a linear progression that drops a checkpoint for sufficient progress, the design of the environment is created with checkpoints in mind. Often, after making a decent amount of progress through the environment, you won't find another checkpoint. Instead, you'll open up a shortcut to that last checkpoint. The game does a wonderful job at feeling like a twisted, intertwined pathway. Sure, the level design may make little sense in the scope of an actual city that people actually live in, but as a video game, it works wonderfully. And again, throughout the entire game, the world does look wonderful, this is one of the best looking games out there. It does what it wants to, big enormous environments and enemies ranging from simple spooky to downright unsettling, and it does all of the incredibly well.
You may remember some paragraphs ago saying that you'll play "until the game tells you to stop." While being a silly joke, it's also kinda true depending on how involved with the story you are. The plot of game is largely hidden from the player. If the player wants to go searching for answers, they can, and depending on how hard they look, it can leave them all sorts of lost and confused. While some might dislike this method of storytelling, it works greatly in Bloodborne. It creates a sense of question to what you'll uncover next in the scope of the city while paralleling the sense of both dread and intrigue in wondering what the next big enemy will be. The director of the game says the story is purposely left up to interpretation to the players, and it's incredible how deep one can get into the lore with what they're given. It's because the game doesn't give players exposition, it gives players facts. If I were to present this review in the style of the game, it would probably only talk about when I got the game, how I ended the game, and a picture of my tear-drenched, calloused thumbs. With only the flavor-text of the items, the short conversations with the NPCs, and the various notes scattered about, many people can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas, and it's up to you to decide which one's the most correct. Fun fact: I thought Bloodborne was a kinda silly name that sounds a bit weird, but it makes waaaay more sense as the title now that I think I understand the story of the game. Maybe people knew that and I'm just dense, who knows.
But involvement in the story is ultimately up to you, the player, if you care. If you don't, you can run through slashing people, leveling up, and just playing for the reward in accomplishment alone.
If you couldn't tell, I quite liked Bloodborne, but I wouldn't quite call it a perfect game. The game has chalice dungeons which are easily the worst part of the game. They're tight underground environments with little variation and they make the game boring. I know, right? How can a game where you stab a tentacle beasts with a sword the size of your torso boring? Put it in the same uninspired environment for hours on end. Granted, the dungeons are entirely optional, but some things are locked off to be just in the dungeons, including the best attachments for your weapons. It makes the game kind of grindy.
Speaking of grind, blood vials are not a good idea. The esthus flask from Dark souls worked fine. Limited uses, refills at bonfires on death. Blood vials work fine if you're in an area where enemies drop them frequently enough. But anywhere like, say, a chalice dungeon, or after multiple deaths against the same boss, causes the player to run out and have to go elsewhere for some time to get some more. I don't know anyone who thought that was better than the esthus flask.
Finally, a minor gripe is the co-op and pvp. The way to play with a friend or against other players requires use of certain items at the same time in the same place along with, presumably, a palm reading, an aligning of stars, and couple of coin tosses because in seems to be incredibly finicky the few times I've been asked to co op with a friend. Likewise, players only battle each other when one is trying to co-op with a buddy, usually. It's a drag on people who want to co-op with their buddies for fun as well as for the people that enjoy the challenge of fighting other players. Ultimately, though, these are just minor gripes as this game for me was a wonderful experience solo. I didn't really want to play with friends, and I didn't really want to play against other people. I liked the isolated experience.
Bloodborne was a truly wonderful game that I thoroughly enjoyed playing to completion. Yes, there are the minor issues, but that didn't come close to outweighing how much I enjoyed playing the game. I'm sure there are things I neglected, but I like to think I got all the important stuff across. Play it if it sounds or looks appealing to you. If it doesn't, I absolutely understand. This isn't a game for everybody, but the was very much a game for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)