Resident Evil 4 is Really Good
I played one third of RE4 on GameCube, then got distracted by something and never finished. I just bought RE4 for PS2 and finished it one time through. Here are some highlights:
--Fairly bad story
--The shooting gallery mini-games are the worst idea to appear in any game this year
--The entire portrayal of the merchant is ridiculous and clashes with rest of the game (and his mini-games do even more damage to the 4th wall).
I give the game and A+, and it is the best game of 2005 that I know of (even taking God of War and World of Warcraft into account). It has an incredible amount of "design" in it. Every few steps there's some scripted scenario.
--Villagers are trying to get into a little two-story house. You must fend them off for X minutes.
--Pilot a small boat which is being dragged through the lake by a huge monster which you must defeat with a harpoon (a weapon only usable in this sequence).
--Get to the top of a castle while catapults are attacking you from all angles. You pretty much have to use the sniper rifle to take out the catapult operators.
--Protect a female NPC who is performing a task in an area you can't reach. Keep enemies off of her so she can complete the task.
--Survive a mine-car ride (with three connected mine-cars) while enemies jump into the car along the way.
--Use an infrared scope to see and shoot 4 special areas on one type of enemy, or he will keep regenerating and never die.
This list could go on and on and on. Not only does this game have great graphics, great sound, and a great core mechanic and controls...but it has so many specialized scripted sequences that it feels like about 20 games in one. I'm really blown away by the total experience.
It leaves me with one question though. Should games have that much content? Almost 20 hours of one play through (with soooo many different kinds of gameplay along the way) and a whole bunch of extra missions and replayablity afterwards. That kind of content costs tons of money to make, takes a long time, causes the publisher to bear a huge risk and makes them afraid to experiment. Plus, I'm not sure the average gamer wants a game that long. What a game of this quality that lasted 2 or 3 hours and cost $10? Should we be trying to make something like that? Or is that a bad idea for some reason?
--Sirlin
--Fairly bad story
--The shooting gallery mini-games are the worst idea to appear in any game this year
--The entire portrayal of the merchant is ridiculous and clashes with rest of the game (and his mini-games do even more damage to the 4th wall).
I give the game and A+, and it is the best game of 2005 that I know of (even taking God of War and World of Warcraft into account). It has an incredible amount of "design" in it. Every few steps there's some scripted scenario.
--Villagers are trying to get into a little two-story house. You must fend them off for X minutes.
--Pilot a small boat which is being dragged through the lake by a huge monster which you must defeat with a harpoon (a weapon only usable in this sequence).
--Get to the top of a castle while catapults are attacking you from all angles. You pretty much have to use the sniper rifle to take out the catapult operators.
--Protect a female NPC who is performing a task in an area you can't reach. Keep enemies off of her so she can complete the task.
--Survive a mine-car ride (with three connected mine-cars) while enemies jump into the car along the way.
--Use an infrared scope to see and shoot 4 special areas on one type of enemy, or he will keep regenerating and never die.
This list could go on and on and on. Not only does this game have great graphics, great sound, and a great core mechanic and controls...but it has so many specialized scripted sequences that it feels like about 20 games in one. I'm really blown away by the total experience.
It leaves me with one question though. Should games have that much content? Almost 20 hours of one play through (with soooo many different kinds of gameplay along the way) and a whole bunch of extra missions and replayablity afterwards. That kind of content costs tons of money to make, takes a long time, causes the publisher to bear a huge risk and makes them afraid to experiment. Plus, I'm not sure the average gamer wants a game that long. What a game of this quality that lasted 2 or 3 hours and cost $10? Should we be trying to make something like that? Or is that a bad idea for some reason?
--Sirlin
11 Comments:
At 6:13 AM, The Wolf said…
That idea seems similar to what you wrote an article on your main site about, with the "episodic content". I think that you're exaggerating a little with RE4, becasue a lot of those mini scripted sequences or minigames are just aspects and varieties of a regular FPS game. But about the episodic content...
I think that unless these were really episodes of a game, with similar gameplay elements and a common story, like missions in an FPS, then people would be fine buying it. But a game that showcases just one or two small mechanics and lasts only 2 or 3 hours isn't going to feel like a satisfying experience to any player. However, if a small developer wanted to showcase their idea to a large publisher to get funds, then the sort of 2-3 hour game that shows off the best parts of the game sounds like it has practical applications.
-Dawolffman
At 9:40 AM, 5.9 said…
The concept of the episodic game is already underway. Check the website for Sin Episodes. It's a sequel to the old PC shooter Sin, and they're planning to release monthly installments through Steam. I think it's an interesting concept and will definitely be trying it.
I agree that RE4 was loaded with variety, because although most of the sequences were fundamentally the same, between unique level and enemy design it always felt totally fresh. The sequence where you defend Ashley while she's out of reach while also under attack yourself was an awesome sequence, but felt entirely different from trying to keep yourself alive in the hellish hedge maze.
And really, these go beyond the little varieties in the action genre. When you look at action games on the whole, I'd say that bosses aside, they stay pretty much in set boundaries the whole time. Take a look at F.E.A.R. I love the game, but I know many people were disappointed because there are only about 7 enemy types, and about 95% of the gameplay is battling the guard enemies. It shows hints of variety, but nothing on the scale of what RE4 offers.
Getting a couple hours to tackle a couple little variants on gameplay is exactly what I'm hoping Sin Episodes will provide. If it works out, I can definitely see it as being a popular method in the future, especially for smaller developers.
Also, nice article on game tuning Sirlin. On the subject of games that are meant to be experiences, have you played through ICO or Shadow of the Colossus by any chance? I'd say they fit the bill even better than games like Rez and GoW.
At 1:42 PM, mung said…
If I want a 2-3 hour experience, I'll watch a movie, or a TV show, or read a book. But when I play a video game, I want as long and engrossing experience as possible, and most people I know have hold that same sentiment.
At 3:40 PM, emagius said…
I loved Resident Evil 4 when I got the chance to play it last sumer. However, I'm not sure where the 20 hours part comes in. Maybe I just play through action-adventure titles quickly, but it couldn't have taken me more than 6-8 hours my first time through.
I am certainly more fond of games with higher replay value and shorter duration over games of lower replay value and longer duration, but I felt that RE 4 wasn't too long and had a good bit of replayability (especially when one factors in the Mercenaries mini-game).
RE 4 consistently threw new areas, enemies, techniques and encounters at you, which I loved; a game that relied on wandering about generic random-enemy-strewn landscapes would have bored me to tears were it only an hour long.
Of course that doesn't address your concerns on the publishing side of things. To that I can only say that I'm not convinced that ingenuity in level design costs quite so much relative to other aspects of getting games into the hands of gamers.
At 9:55 PM, David Boudreau said…
Episodic delivery of content seems like a natural progression and extension of where games can grow out to- but I worry about something:
Goal setting- if you set the player's sights too low, the feeling of accomplishment might be as low as what the player would get from a more linear, spoon-fed product like what a book or movie offers. If I only have to invest a mere 2 or 3 hours each episode, why should I bother learning the controls, get introduced and accustomed to the story (and it better be at least as good as a book/movie), and sit through any exposition or other kind of contextual setup to the grand "Experience" only games can offer? (Do I care at all about the characters yet?) The game has no long-term meaning for me- your Experience doesn't mean as much, at least, not without a solid base i.e. a strategy might work where the first episode is the traditional 20 hours, then the optional short episodes stack on top of that base. (Gotta read the whole bible first, then come back each week for the sermons?) Adults with less time might think they want episodic games, but they will still need some reason to stick with it, to get into it, addicted, and start feeling the game.
I haven't even played RE4 but it sounds like all these mini-games in its structure all adhere to the same context and theme, at least. You play each mini-game with the assumption that it fits into the larger picture; the ultimate goal. But something tells me each mini-game isn't going to survive on its own, or even in 2 to 3 hour increments. It all must tie-in somehow, maybe a reward back in the 20 hour base game represented somehow.
About 5 years ago, micro-payments were supposed to take off, the idea being that consumers wouldn't have to invest so much if they only wanted a little of something. Technology now affords us that option. But how are we to know if it's worth investing in at all in the first place to even risk trying it out? At what point do we go from a learning curve stage, to actual addiction? I think it's when we start giving a shit about the characters/theme- _not_ just gameplay- it's gameplay PLUS the context of a consistent overall theme or goal. I wouldn't have believed I cared about any game characters, but I'd say the consistent theme is an extremely vital element to the success of any game, even non-rpgish ones. You could have the best gameplay, but they must fit into a larger context at some point.
This blog is good (episodic content), but did it come at the expense of the full-length articles (traditional 20 hour game)? The blog was to be more granular content of lesser quality- but there is now a full BOOK available for us, of all things! (again, the larger context is there- Playing to Win- it ties it all together.)
At 11:58 PM, Anonymous said…
mister sirlin, you HAVE to write an article about Shadow of the Colossus!
At 7:51 AM, Chadius said…
Episodic games can work because they quickly establish the first impression. If people aren't interested in the first 90 seconds, they won't be after 20 hours.
Take a look at Metroid Prime. When we saw screenshots we screamed (NO, it's a generic FPS!) And then we played the demo level, and it was awesome. It wasn't about getting headshots before the badguy did. That level gave us the perfect Metroid experience, squished into 15 minutes. And we were hooked.
If Episode 1 gets the point across, people will buy the remaining episodes without question (well, at least until Sequelitis kicks in.) But if Episode 1 just sucks, no one's going to buy Episode 2, no matter how good it is.
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous said…
Which could lead to a problem: the first episode will tend to be the best, and there will be little incentive for game makers to make the later episodes good as soon as the player starts. Well, maybe. It's all speculation at this point of course.
I'd have to say RE4 is my favorite game for the year too, having played about 40-50 hours and only getting bored a couple times. It has a lot that keeps you going; it's levelling system, it's variety of gameplay, and Ashley's hot ass.
-John Bono
At 8:27 PM, Kicks said…
When I was younger, I used to hate games that were only so long. Being a hardcore RPGer, I suppose made me this way. Several years back I was discussing Metal Gear with a friend and I said that I wish it was longer. He said that it was perfect, and that he likes games that he can sit down and just run through in a few hours. Gonna buy the game tomorrow (RE4), and I'd bet my first run with be 20-30 hours, but my second with be only 5-10. The new metal gears have been this way as well. And now I really like this aspect. I know I can do a speed run through these games in an hour or two, but I can take as much time as I like or whatever. I can look forward to an evening of gaming, enjoying the story, and looking forward to certain parts of the game. I don't think that games should be made shorter or they'd be too short after you get familiar with the game.
At 9:30 PM, Veven Stass said…
The concept of episodic games is intriguing to me. I think it would be neccesary to market the game much like a television show, with commercials and a weekly cliffhanger. Think Lost, if you follow that show.
This method of releasing a game would also create new issues to consider. For instance, development cycles, interface (as a previous poster mentioned, intuitiveness is paramount; you can't ask too much from your audience, this is closer to pure escapism after all), the psychology of "addiction" to a medium/story and marketing.
Anyways, I know this is a dead topic, but I find it of particular interest.
At 7:05 PM, Anonymous said…
I just got the game and it blows me away. Its graphics are awsome and the screen shots are amazing.
Post a Comment
<< Home