Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:35 this Wednesday (GMT):
>
>
> It's that moment you've all been waiting for, kids. No, not the
> opening of the bar (that comes later). It's our monthly thread where
> we all share what video games have occupied our time for the past
> thirty days! Yaaaaay!
>
> Me first, me first!!!
>
>
>
> Quite Short
> ---------------------------------------
> * Dead Space 3
> * BeamNG.drive
> * Hitman: Codename 47
> * Crysis Remastered
> * Ghostrunner
> * Industria
>
>
>
> Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
> very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very Long
> ---------------------------------------
>
> * Dead Space 3
> "Dead Space 3" is not a bad game.
>
> I just felt I had to get that out there first, because it might be
> easy, given my following comments, for you to assume that I think it's
> terrible. I'll admit, I don't really /enjoy/ playing "Dead Space 3";
> it is often more chore than pleasure. There's a variety of reasons for
> that, but my dislike doesn't mean the game is all bad. It has its
> moments, after all.
>
> It's combat is fun. It's much more relaxed than earlier games in the
> franchise; although the enemies seem a bit spongier, their placement
> and the level design makes it easier to mow them down, Call of Duty
> style. Your overpowered weapons and powers make this game more
> power-fantasy than survival horror, but that's fine, if you're into
> that thing. While the game lacks some really impressive set-pieces
> -those moments in the game where you just gaze about going 'wow, that
> looks really cool!"- there's a lot of incidental detail that gives the
> game's maps a verisimilitude that still holds up after all these
> years. The sequences when you're floating around in orbit look quite
> nice, and the ice and snow made me feel cold just looking at it.
>
> I'd forgotten how generous the game was with health and ammo pickups.
> Unlike earlier "Dead Space" games, I was never running short, and even
> if I were, tech-benches (which doubles as your stash and crafting
> location) are so frequent that you can easily restock. And if you ever
> started running low on supplies, the optional side-missions filled
> your coffers with so many crafting materials that I had to leave some
> behind because my inventory couldn't hold it all. Sure, all these
> beneficence take away a good deal of the game's challenge, but that's
> okay.
>
> Some of the gameplay was iffy, though. Because it was designed also as
> a co-op game, your AI companion appears and disappears in a way that
> breaks immersion; in fact, I sometimes suspected he was entirely a
> figment of the main protagonist's imagination (nobody else seems to
> notice he's even there, although the game's canon insists he's a real
> person). It always made me feel that I was missing out, that my AI
> companion was off having more exciting adventures than I was whenever
> he was out of sight.
>
> The various mini-games (the mountain climbing bits, the electronic
> locks) weren't much fun either; they weren't difficult but felt clunky
> and tacked on. Even the optional missions quickly lost their charm;
> while each featured its own map - most with unique textures - the
> mission structure was simplistic and repetitive. The craftable weapons
> - as noted - also were poorly balanced, and it was quite easy to end
> up so overpowered as to make combat a breeze (once I got my machine
> gun with underslung rocket-launcher (which, as a bonus, slowed down
> time), even the biggest bad guys crumbled beneath my firepower.
>
> As for the story and characters... well, they were never the strongest
> points of the "Dead Space" franchise, and this third game doesn't
> reverse the trend. In fact, it pretty much ignores any growth the
> protagonist had in the second game, forcing him to once again go from
> selfish, wounded jerk back into hero-willing-to-sacrifice-
> himself-to-save-the-world. It was very much a sense of deja vu;
> haven't I played this before?
>
> But still, despite all those issues, I don't think "Dead Space 3" is a
> bad game. It's not a great one, but it's passable popcorn-movie action
> fun. It has a stupid plot, shallow characters, big guns, and lots of
> aliens that explode in cartoony violence. It's fine. It's not a bad
> game at all. But it's a terrible "Dead Space".

Don't you love those games that are fine on their own but ruin a legacy?

> * BeamNG.drive
> "BeamNG.drive" is a great game. It's also one that didn't really
> entertain me for long.
>
> In some ways, "BeamNG" is a gimmick game. It's extremely robust
> physics model -including full soft-body physics for all the cars - is
> the game's primary hook, and exploring how those physics affect the
> gameplay is really what the game is all about. The cars roll and drive
> very convincingly, and the crashes are probably unmatched outside of
> dedicated test suites used by automobile manufacturers or researchers.
> Driving 90 miles an hour down a highway and then plowing into a wall
> result in some extremely realistic results, and "BeamNG" gets a lot of
> longevity from that feature alone.
>
> But beyond that there's not much to the game. There's very little in
> the way of progression, partially because it's a 'sandbox' game, and
> partly because the game is still in open access. There are a variety
> of modes - races and whatnot - to play around with, but none of them
> are very satisfying. There's a reason the "Need for Speed" and "Forza"
> games eschew extremely realistic physics, and that's because the
> fantasy of high-speed racing doesn't work all that well in a universe
> where your car crumples into pancaked steel and plastic even at 'low
> speed' impacts.
>
> "BeamNG" does have a huge variety of game-mods made by fans that can
> keep the fun going (the "Flood" mod in particular is fun) but these
> aren't always the easiest to get running. The interface on the whole
> isn't particularly clean or intuitive, for that matter (again, likely
> a result of that whole 'early access' thing). And the playing the game
> with digital controls is pure misery; a keyboard is right out, and
> even a gamepad is pretty disappointing. If you don't have a wheel, you
> won't get half of what the game has to offer.
>
> "BeamNG.drive" is a fascinating project, and what it does well - its
> physics model - it does very, very well. I also have full confidence
> that eventually this game will evolve into a well-rounded, polished
> experience. Even now, its physics engine make it something I think
> anyone even marginally interested should experience. I just don't
> think that - at this point - it has the longevity to entertain any but
> the most hardcore players, and outside of that group, isn't really
> worth the price the developers are asking.
>
> But I eagerly await the day when it does.

Keep us updated :D

> * Hitman: Codename 47
> The forgotten first game of the "Hitman" franchise is often seen as
> the weakest of the series, and I can totally understand that. Compared
> to the sophistication of the newer games, it is an extremely
> simplistic and clunky game. Nonetheless, for years I've also held it
> up as my favorite of all the Hitman games. But, not having played the
> original in over a decade, I wondered if that was still true. So there
> was nothing to do but give the game another try.
>
> Just getting the game to run on modern hardware was a chore. Or
> rather, I could get it to run but not without glitches and graphical
> flaws. In the end, rather than struggle with various config files and
> patches, I chose a simpler path; I pulled out the original CD-ROM,
> stuck it into WindowsXP computer, and played it on era-appropriate
> hardware.
>
> Visually, the game wasn't going to win me over its more advanced
> sequels. Still, for a game released in 2000, it had some impressive
> tricks up its sleeve: vegetation that reacted to my passage, an
> impressive roiling river, and banners fluttering in the breeze. The
> levels themselves were notably large and detailed for a game released
> twenty-plus years ago too. The models and animations were less
> remarkable, but got the job done well enough.
>
> The game-play was... stiff. This first Hitman was more puzzle game
> than shooter, and its sandbox was relatively limited. There really was
> only one way to get through the level properly; sure, you could just
> start shooting your way to your victim, but clunky controls (and - on
> later missions - scripted AI that made the target flee off the map at
> the first sign of trouble) made this method of limited utility. No,
> the game expected the player to engage in a lot of trial-and-error
> play-throughs to figure out what needed to be done, and when.
> Sometimes it wasn't even obvious what options were available (for
> instance, there was no clue that I needed to talk to the bartender
> twice in the third mission), which often meant that the only solution
> was to look for guidance from a walkthrough. Fortunately, even after
> all these years I /mostly/ remembered what steps were needed to finish
> each level, which made the whole thing far less frustrating. But for
> those used to the open-ended sandbox of the later Hitman games,
> "Codename 47" feels incredibly constricted.
>
> Yet these same constraints are the biggest reason I prefer this game
> to its later sequels; the puzzles are more straightforward and there's
> less need to juggle thousands of different variables. The tighter
> level design also feels more in tune with the character of the Hitman
> himself, who seems the sort to always be in control of the situation,
> with a clear-cut plan for getting in and out with a minimum of fuss
> and bother. The later games always felt too flying-by-the-seat-
> of-my-pants to match the stoic character of the protagonist. Sure, it
> gave the PLAYER more options, but narratively it felt off.
>
> If there's one thing that didn't feel dated, though, it was the
> fantastic soundtrack created by Jesper Kyd. It's hard to believe it's
> actually a MIDI soundtrack (albeit one using custom sound patches and
> Microsoft's DirectMusic software-MIDI emulation). Every track on every
> map was a fantastic listen, and it remains one of the best parts of
> the game.
>
> But the question remains: does "Hitman: Codename 47" remain my
> favorite in the series? Honestly, I'm no longer so sure. I love its
> simplicity and directness (and that music, oooh!) but its clumsy
> controls and trial-and-error gameplay make for some rough gameplay.
> Certainly later games - 2007's "Blood Money" and 2016's "Hitman"
> reboot in particular - give the original some tough competition! I
> can't say if it's my favorite in the series... but it's certainly
> ranks pretty high amongst its peers. That's pretty good for a 24-year
> old game, I think.

Never played any of them but nice.

> * Crysis Remastered
> Look, I bought it because it was on sale, all right? You know how I
> get when I see something on sale: I'll buy any old thing, no matter if
> it's worth the price or not.
>
> Because there's no real reason to purchase "Crysis: Remastered".
> Certainly not if you - like myself - already own the original game. In
> fact, I'm not sure it's worth the price of admission even if you've
> never played the game.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with "Crysis"; it's remembered as a
> classic for a reason. It wasn't just the visuals - although those were
> outstanding when the game first released in 2007. It offered some very
> satisfying gameplay as well (end-game notwithstanding). It had robust
> AI, fun vehicles, giant maps, and the nano-suit gimmick allowed varied
> gameplay. It was a very satisfying game.
>
> But it was also a game released almost twenty years ago, and there's
> very little "Crysis" did that hasn't been matched - or surpassed - by
> newer games. It's a great game, sure, but there's no real reason you
> have to play /this/ game anymore. It's most memorable in how much it
> achieved back in 2007, but if that's not that important to you, you'll
> get a similar experience playing any of dozens of other, similar FPS
> games released since then.
>
> But that's just "Crysis". The new "Remastered" edition is a harder
> sell. Not because it does anything wrong or worse than the original.
> In fact, that's the Remastered version's biggest problem: it does
> very little different from the original. Certainly I had a hard time
> noticing any visual differences. The original still holds up pretty
> well, and the remastered? It looks fine. Not great. There doesn't seem
> to have been much work done to the textures or models, which look a
> bit dated. Apparently it uses ray-tracing, but I only noticed it in
> the artificial looking reflections on the nanosuits in the opening
> cinematic. Honestly, I noticed the engine's deficiencies - forgivable
> for a 17 year old game - more than any improvements. The game ran, it
> ran smoothly, and it looked like the original game. That's fine... but
> hardly a reason to buy it.
>
> I mean, I guess maybe there are some under-the-hood improvements. It's
> probably more compatible with modern processors or something. But I
> couldn't see the difference. Supposedly the 'remastered' version is
> actually an up-scaled version of the console edition, but it seemed to
> have all the features I remembered, so I won't hold that against it.
>
> I had fun with the game, mostly. The last few levels were as painful
> as I remembered. I spent two hours chopping down every palm tree in
> the first level using a heavy machine gun, just because the physics
> model was so fun to play with. My familiarity with the (much better)
> maps of the first half meant there was little in the way of surprise;
> even after all these years, I still had all the enemy placements
> memorized. The story was as schlocky as ever, but I admired the
> set-design. It was fine. Not great, but fine.
>
> But I sort of regret paying for a 'remastered' version that was
> functionally identical to a game I already own several times before.

But can it run Crysis

> * Ghostrunner
> I wasn't sure what to expect from "Ghostrunner". I was afraid it was
> going to be one of those 'runner' games, where the character is
> constantly in motion, pushed recklessly forward by the computer in an
> endless sprint. "Ghostrunner" isn't that, though. It's close, but not
> quite. You can stop your forward motion at any point, should you
> chose. It's usually not a good idea - there's a lot of the game where
> you're jumping over bottomless, instant-death pits - but if you want,
> lay off the W key and you stop. Usually to die moments later.
>
> "Ghostrunner" is a first-person parkour game; "Mirror's Edge" in a
> sci-fi'd cyber-ninja dystopia. But it's got some of "Super Meat Boy"
> in its genetics too; it's ruthlessly precise and unforgiving. Wall-run
> from platform to platform, crouch-slide down a ramp, shoot your
> electro-grapple onto a latch point, do a 180 to hit the next
> latch-point, then briefly slow-time to dodge incoming fire. It
> requires immaculate timing to get it right, and miss a step and it's
> back to the last auto-save. There's no second chances, and you'd
> better memorize all the enemy positions and trap timings down to the
> millisecond if you want any chance of getting through.
>
> I really dislike that sort of thing.
>
> Not that it's a bad game. I'm sure if you love the challenge of
> mastering the mechanics and beating your own high-score (the game
> counts not only time to finish a level, but also number of times you
> died/respawned) then you'll get a kick out of "Ghostrunner". But, god,
> getting to that point requires far more persistence and replaying than
> ever I want to dedicate to a single title. Especially one with such a
> dull, predictable story and characters. It's a 'git gud, scrub!' game
> through and through, but with little reward to the challenge except to
> say, "Hey, I did it." And that's not me. I need more.
>
> The visuals are nice, though... if a bit repetitive. It's all grey
> sci-fi techno-hallways lit up in neon, start to finish (with a few
> side-journeys to an even less cyberspace). It's well detailed -
> although the game never really expects you to slow down long enough to
> admire it - but it's all too similar throughout. The techno-soundtrack
> is the same; not bad tracks any of them, but the pulsing synth gets
> very samey over the course of the game.
>
> I don't want to be dismissive of this game; for what it is, it's
> pretty good. Sure, the controls could have been a bit less clunky, the
> AI more reactive, the story better. But if you want a game to test
> your twitch skills to the max, this one will do that just fine. But
> that is just not the sort of game I enjoy at all.

If the aesthetics are like Mirrors Edge, I'm intrigued.

> * Industria
> Earlier this month we had a discussion about so-called 'Slavjank'
> games. I'm not sure, by definition, if "Industria" could be counted
> amongst those type games, but only because I don't know where its
> developers are based. It may not be Slavjank. But it's definitely jank
> of one sort or another.
>
> Let me be blunt: "Industria" is not a good game. It's not without its
> merits; its developers have an eye towards creating interesting
> set-pieces; they've a talent for lighting it. "Industria" has a
> surreal world; it reminds me of the diesel-punk aesthetics of Benoit
> Sokol as seen in the "Syberia" adventure games. It's not - in its
> setting nor appearance - really all that original, but it's not a
> badly done imitation either.
>
> But beyond that? I have little positive to say. It was a
> disappointment from the /very first word/ uttered in the game. An
> adventure nominally set in East Berlin and a vaguely eastern European
> locale, it was incredibly jarring to hear the broad American accents
> spoken throughout the game by the protagonist. It completely destroyed
> any sense of immersion.
>
> Not that there was much of a chance of that happening anyway. The
> world was so utterly generic, despite the best attempts of the
> map-makers. It was a poor imitation of Eastern European aesthetics,
> lacking much of that regions character or detail; a cheap Hollywood
> rip-off using very obviously purchased game-assets. It even lacked
> internal consistency, with some posters and signs in German, and
> others in English. The story was uninteresting, and the protagonist
> has to be one of the stupidest I've ever had the displeasure to guide
> through a game ("Golly, I just stepped into a very obvious teleporter
> that brought me into some alternate reality; I'm so confused that
> everything is different!")
>
> The gameplay is a mess; "Industria" doesn't seem to be sure if it
> wants to be a run-n-gun shooter, a survival game, or a walking sim.
> The amount of enemies it throws at you suggests the former (as do the
> over-abundance of ammo pick-ups), but the tiny size of your clips and
> the clumsy controls are more akin to survival shooters. Meanwhile, the
> often gratuitously slow pacing and puzzle solving remind me of
> 'narrative games' like "Everybody's Gone to the Rapture". It's an
> unsatisfying mixture of elements that don't combine into anything
> enjoyable. The lack of variety - in locales, in monsters, and in
> weapons - don't help make things any better. Fortunately, the game is
> fairly short (largely due to any sort of climax being put off until
> the inevitable sequel; the game just sort of ends haphazardly) means I
> didn't have to suffer for long.
>
> Oh, and did I mention the bugs? 'Cause there were a bunch of those too
> (my favorite was how the game didn't capture the mouse, so every time
> I moved too far left or right, my mouse would skim off onto the next
> screen, and my next mouse-click would essentially alt-tab out of the
> game. This despite the game being in exclusive full-screen mode).
>
> I really, really wanted to like this game. I wasn't expecting a
> masterpiece, but I was willing to overlook many of its flaws in the
> hope that its unique character and atmosphere would give me a new
> experience. But all I got was an unexciting, unpolished mess of a game
> that didn't say or do anything new.

Sounds like it would at least be fun to laugh at.

> ---------------------------------------
>
> Even though most of the games I played this month left me
> disappointed, I still think I had a great time overall. I /like/
> playing different types of games and experiencing all the highs and
> lows they have to offer. I mean, I wouldn't want to make every month
> like this month, but I appreciate the variety in styles.
>
> How about you? Did you have a good month of playing video-games?
> Basically, what I am asking is...
>
> What Have You Been Playing... IN APRIL 2024?

Mostly Phoenix Wright and Balatro. I'm actually up to Apollo Justice
case 2 now, and boy is it a weird one (even for this series..). Also, I
tried YOMI but gave up immediately bc there's no tutorial.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom