Psi's Brain Dump

The Ideal Armory: Psi's Approach

2009-10-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

I have been playing FPS games since I was roughly four years old, and, to date, I have not found the perfect armory emulated in a game. I am a bit of a gun nut (though not a very good one, due to a horrible memory), so this might get a little technical. Bear in mind that this system would only work well in an RPG environment; some of the complexity stems from customizable weapons in tandem with player skill levels in a certain brand of firearm.

My ideal armory has four main tenets. First, the bulk of it must be composed of real world weapons. Second, they must be customizable to the point that I am swapping individual parts at will. Third, the skill system must encourage the player to find a single weapon and stick with it. Finally, any nonrealistic weapons must be highly specialized.

Nothing quite breaks immersion for me like a drab armory. To prevent this, each of the realistic weapons needs to be based on real world data. I find myself sometimes laughing at the liberties game developers take with firearms, such as magazine size, and the monkey in your backpack that automatically refills half-spent magazines. I’d also like to see procedurally spawned variants of each weapon. Perhaps one has a different attachment, or is just a hair more accurate. Finally, first person shooters need to make each weapon handle slightly different. Instead of having five submachine guns that are exactly the same save for ammo types, I’d prefer to have two very different submachine guns.

Customizability is a must for an armory to keep me interested in the long term. Not only do I want to find myself attached to a specific weapon, I want to constantly keep upgrading it with parts I find from the procedurally spawned weapons. If I can’t find a better part, I’d like to be able to make it, which leads to my next point.

I’d like to see an RPG where the proficiency with each gun is tracked as a stat, either with the weapon type, or on a page where the player can see all the weapons he has found. Two submachine guns, while being used in the same manner, have their own little quirks and intricacies. A player’s ability with an MP-5 would not be the same as his ability with a P-90. I’d like to see a game actually force the player to decide which gun to carry, beyond ‘generic submachine gun’. I’d also like to see various levels of proficiency; it’s one thing to know the loud end of a gun, it’s another to completely take it apart

Last, we have the nonrealistic weapons; the lasers, the gravity guns, the ‘oh shit’ weapons. I don’t mean games where these are commonplace; I mean games where these are one of a kind artifacts left by a forgotten civilization. Each of these weapons needs to have a very specific use; I don’t want a laser-ized version of some kind of weapon I already have. The weapons I have will be upgraded to the point where they’re incredibly powerful. I don’t think these weapons need a specific skill each; nonrealistic weapons generally don’t come with a manual. These weapons need to be rare, incredibly useful, and ideally obviously powerful to anyone looking on.

Why Left 4 Dead Sucks Now (Or Why Psi Is A Whiner)

2009-09-30T18:25:00.000-07:00

Left 4 Dead has lost its appeal to me.

I preordered the game. I’ve been playing it pretty religiously for almost a year now. I had my ‘all 4 completed on expert’ wiped in the first few weeks. I’ve poured a shitton of hours into the game. I like to think I’m fairly good at it. However, today, I found myself considering uninstalling the game.

I’ll start with why I don’t like Campaign Mode, then move on from there.

Campaign Mode has turned into a textbook case of formulaic drudgery. It’s the same challenges on the same maps. The same AI infected from the same spots. The levels are creative enough in their design, but are fundamentally flawed: it feels like they aren’t complex enough to support the AI Director system to its maximum abilities. The Infected’s behavior has never changed. Once you’ve played each campaign on every difficulty, you’re done, outside of having fun with friends. This wasn’t a problem to me originally, but I’ve run through each with varying server cvars, different crowds, and it feels the same.

This wouldn’t be a problem if we could mod the game directly. However, I don’t think there is a user friendly way to directly manipulate the Director’s methods of behaving, adding new items to the game, or anything similar. If I remember correctly, the only way to modify the game is SMOD (server-side plugins made by a third party) or server cvars (which are limited).

None of that would be a problem if there a constant timely or semi-timely montage of new maps. In the context of Left 4 Dead, the idea of new maps has become something of a cruel joke. Not only has Valve consistently failed to make deadlines (which isn’t a problem considering it’s Valve), but only two new campaign maps have been delivered. The custom campaigns are, on the whole, really dark. There’s a few gems, but for the most part aren’t worth downloading unless you have a group of eight friends who doesn’t mind playing on different variations of dark.

Next on my list of bitching is the Versus mode. At the time of writing, the skill gap for Versus is plain silly. Either people who just got the game are playing their first run, or a well-coordinated team of experts (or hackers) manages to headshot or melee you completely out of the air through two teammates, three walls, and a dump truck. There’s no room for players with some degree of skill who can’t play upwards of fifteen hours a week. Every Versus game I’ve ever played has been a complete shutout in one direction or the other. Then again, despite several changes to the fundamental mechanics of Versus, there is still at least two spots in each mini-finale where the survivors are utterly untouchable, rendering melee spam a decent replacement for any kind of skill.

I’m sure a catalyst to that is the proliferation of hacks available for Left 4 Dead. I understand the use of keybinds, the fact that 25% to 40% of the user base is better than me on a given day, and that luck/ping/random firing cone make a difference in the outcome, but these factors fail to explain rounds where roughly 1 in 4 pounces actually connect across an entire Infected team against a guy who you watched get the ‘Spinal Tap’ achievement. Google ‘Left 4 Dead hacks’ and go to town. What stumps me is why Valve hasn’t commented on these at all. Are they working on it? Do they know?

Lastly, I am tired of finally getting a lobby together, then getting tossed into an SMOD server. I understand that Official servers exist, but an option for the best available dedicated without 3rd party mods would be much appreciated.

Finally, we have Survival mode, which takes the same mini-finales and finales, and has you survive against endless waves of Infected. It would be an awesome mode, if players hadn’t thought of it within weeks then created pen and paper server cvar lists. The achievements are nice, and the Tanks are a great touch, but the mode lacks any kind of hook.

A better take on the ‘survival’ game mode archetype is World At War’s Nazi Zombies game mode, where players try to survive against constantly growing hordes of undead goose-stepping monsters. Compared to Left 4 Dead, Nazi Zombies starts off slower, but gradually builds to a generally explosive climax involving a plasma weapon and a bunch of bloodthirsty crazies. Left 4 Dead’s Survival lacks a certain something that Nazi Zombies has in spades, with various power-ups, barricade building, and an armory that is quite diverse. Nazi Zombies requires a great deal more strategy, compared to the rampaging clusterfuck that Left 4 Dead’s Survival mode rapidly degenerates to.

Will a buy Left 4 Dead 2? Probably. Is this post filled with opinion, grounded or ungrounded? Yes. Does this post make me an Angry Internet Man? Not quite, as most of the grievances I make can be sorted into (a) people are assholes or (b) easy fixes. It’s more like a post mortem on a game I generally enjoyed, and probably will again in the future. However, that won’t be until the random shenanigans I’ve seen fades into a distant memory and a wave of nostalgia leaves me misty eyed and hungry for the bacon-sizzling sound of Infected dying by the fifties.

Introduction And Thoughts On FEAR 2

2009-09-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

Contrary to the title, not much introduction is needed. Chances are you are someone I know or followed this link from someone I know. To the first, welcome friends. To the second, welcome as well. I will be using this blog to outline various projects, talk about games, complain about games, and share random thoughts (thus the title of Brain Dump).

Today's topic is Alma from FEAR: specifically how she changed from FEAR 1 to FEAR 2 and why it made FEAR 2 less scary and slightly cheesier than FEAR 1. There are major spoilers below, just so you know.

In FEAR 1, Young Alma was a little girl in a red dress who was used as a major scare set piece. Most often, she'd appear at the end of a hall, or turn a corner, and the player would charge after her, wondering where she went. She also interfered with the player's HUD and flashlight to both spook the player, as well as set up for other scares. Finally, she'd sometimes just appear behind you and giggle. As far as horror set pieces go, she was very creepy, and used to great effect.

Near the end of the game, Alma changed from a (roughly) five year old girl to a corpse-like, anorexic young woman lacking any form of attire. Long, dirty black hair covers her eyes and chest, and her movements changed from 'scared little girl' to 'psychotic she-wolf'; at least, when you could see her move. Sometimes, she'd move several feet at a time, erratically, in time with strobe lights, as if she were teleporting. In one iconic scene, she slowly sauntered towards you down a flaming hallway, and her hips moved in a creepy yet delicious fashion.

Both variations of Alma from FEAR 1 are scary, but for different reasons. Young Alma is scary since she has the body and mind of a child, but the power of a havoc-wreaking demigod. You see her run around, hear her cry and sometimes laugh, all the time wondering what she is. Then you round the corner, see a room full of blood and body parts and think 'whoa shit'.

Older Alma's main scare source is a little different. She's more violent, and her presence usually signified a major supernatural scare coming up. For example, the player would see Older Alma make a brief appearance before they fought her minions or Point Man's hallucinations. In addition, her movements are more sensual, and she's on screen for a longer amount of time per appearance. At the 'sauntering down a flaming hallway' scene, I realized that I was honestly giving her the eye, and it made me shiver.

All this is well and good; FEAR 1 is a game that managed to make me jump a few times before it was over. Alma was used to good effect in FEAR 1. She was scary in both forms, and that's what counts in a horror game.

However, her spookiness takes a hit in FEAR 2. Most of her appearances are Older Alma, not Young Alma. When I played FEAR 2, Alma's scares weren't as creative; the only one I remember clearly is when you step inside of a subway car, the doors lock, and her shadow is cast in front of you. Moreover, she is the main focus of a recurring quick time event where the player is trying to kick her off to stop her from kissing you.

Yes. The player is trying to kick an anorexic, naked, psychotic telepath off of himself to stop her from kissing him. This leads to my reason why she is less scary: she is sexier.

When you see her move, her sensual gait has been kept, and the player gets several wonderful views of her breasts (most of the time obscured by her hair). Often, encounters with Alma end in her attempting to kiss the main player. She goes from a psychotic monster whose actions basically touch off an apocalypse to a lust-crazed telepathic corpse hell bent on tracking down the player and carrying his child.

Alma becomes too human to be scary. She becomes like that crazy girl who seduces a man just for the honor of carrying his child. Not all of this was clear at first; I knew she was less scary, but I couldn't place why. It was the ending that really explained everything.

In a nutshell, the player is strapped to a chair, sees Alma lean in for a kiss, then all hell breaks loose. You enter a hallucinatory state, seeing only flashes of her riding you in between segments of combat. When you finally finish the combat, you hear her moans, then see her explode. A few moments of darkness later, and you see Alma against a backdrop of fire, pregnant.

Once I saw it, and reflected back on all the Alma sightings, I realized that Alma wasn't scary any more at all. She had become an undead sex kitten, whose main 'scariness' stemmed from the fact that she could kill and absorb people at will. Instead of trying to be creative about using her as a set-piece, it felt like FEAR 2's main scares came from other sources as well as Alma's 'residual scariness' from FEAR 1. By the end, she stopped being scary altogether. When I stop seeing the main horror set piece as scary, and start seeing her as sexy, she stops scaring me, and the main draw to the game slowly slips away.