Call of duty

How Many Sequels Does A Game Really Need To Become Redundant?

March 23, 2012 by Raj Agrawal 1 Comment

Every game these days has a sequel. And every sequel either has a prequel leading up the sequel, or another sequel set hundreds of years in the future, which leaves room for prequels and sequels to the prequel. A sequel might be a major overhaul, or it may add an extra element or two to an already established formula. That’s just fine. If the game is good, people might want more of it, because we obviously cannot possibly have enough of something which is good and addictive, and gaming is a hobby which strives on addiction. But do we really need ten to twelve games supporting this habit?

We always need more of something when the experience is good

Multiplayer games fall under this category. If a game has a good multiplayer component, then each iteration will only add to the fun as it becomes more polished. Games like Battlefield are a testament to this. Each game in the battlefield series has brought new additions to the franchise, and has become immensely successful because of the same.

Call of duty, now that’s a different story. This series has always had great multiplayer, but recent releases seem to suggest that it is merely a money making machine for Activision than anything else. The story of each iteration is becoming shorter and the multiplayer is starting to seem like a rehashed version of an earlier iteration. And a formula, no matter how great it is, is limited by eventual monotony when it comes to gaming. Make the greatest game ever made, and by the fifth or sixth iteration, it’ll start to feel the same.

Originality is a dying breed

The number of new games released now is much less compared to when developers actually wanted to do something different. And it’s understandable; earlier, experimentation wasn’t as risky as it is now. Game development costs are constantly on the rise, and at the end of the day, gaming is just another business, so it’s okay to play it safe and make something which the general public will like. But this will take the industry to stagnation. Role playing games are now more about the action than actual role play. Real time strategy is heading towards extinction. Graphics rule the roots over gameplay or story when it comes to game development. And making sequels is more appealing than starting something from scratch.

In my opinion, it’s fine to make sequels, as long as you’re trying something different. Bioshock: Infinite is a prime example of this. It has the same basic formula, but the context has been changed completely. And it looks more intriguing to me than any other game this year. Also, making few quality sequels than a dozen average ones should be top priority, because nobody wants to have the same average pizza with a different topping everyday. And as with any business, risks need to be taken. It is the lack of risks because of which so many companies have shut down. Thinking outside the box is a major asset in game development, and it is up to the developers to make sure that they don’t lose this asset.

What Is The Best FPS Of All Time?

January 10, 2012 by Raj Agrawal 3 Comments

The first person shooter genre is probably the most popular in gaming. Even after almost 10 years after its release, people still play Counter Strike. Call of Duty and Battlefield series of games are breaking sales records year after year. There have been enough FPS games in the past ten years to eclipse all the other genres in gaming. So the obvious difficulty i’m having in choosing the best FPS game ever made shouldn’t come as a surprise to many.

The FPS genre has undergone a severe transition over the years from being single player focused to multiplayer focused. Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 both have single player campaigns, but they’re an afterthought when compared to the excellent multiplayer offerings. This makes the decision to find the best game even more difficult. One side you have games which rely heavily on single player such as Half life 2. On the other side you have multiplayer games like Modern Warfare which have changed the scope of multiplayer games.

Off the top of my head I can list the following games that thoroughly deserve the crown:-

Half Life
Half Life 2
Bioshock
Halo
Halo 2
Unreal Tournament 2004
Doom
Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare
Battlefield 2
Call of Duty

All of the above are shining examples of what a good FPS must be. Games like Unreal Tournament and Modern Warfare have changed the multiplayer landscape, whereas Bioshock and Halo have redefined single player gameplay. To choose one best game out of these would be to seriously insult the others since the competition is so close. But, to not chose even one would completely betray the purpose of writing this article. Hence I shall pick two best games which i think have defined FPS gaming. And when I say defined FPS gaming, I do not imply popularity, in which case Modern Warfare and Halo would be runaway winners; it’s how much they have affected FPS game development on an evolutionary scale, and how they have changed the way players look at first person shooters.

Half Life 2

The original half life was sort of an evolution in the FPS landscape. It did nothing special, but whatever it did, it did perfectly. Well almost perfectly, otherwise I wouldn’t pick the sequel above it. Half Life 2 was something completely different. It’s an unrelenting campaign from start to finish. It pauses without stopping and rushes without hurrying. Couple this perfect pacing with a good story and some new fantastic gimmicks such as the gravity gun and physics puzzles, and you have a winner. But HL2 was much more than that; one which relies more on versatility than anything else. What i most remember the game for is its variety in levels. You won’t play the same time of environment in this game for more than 3-4 hours. And it’s a long game which will last you almost 20-25 hours. How can a game have all of these features and not be one of the best games of all time. I thought the same, and frankly I couldn’t come up with one reason about why it deserves anything less.

Bioshock

I was torn between Bioshock and Modern Warfare for this spot, but in the end Bioshock just about managed to nudge ahead. Storytelling in videogames have never been good enough to compete with movies, but this game come scarily close. And the story has a very deep impact on the game world and the characters. There’s much to talk about this game, but most of it will serve as a spoiler. This is one game which will constantly surprise and awe you, and I intend to keep it that way. And as far as twists go, this one is right up there with the best.

Well thats my two cents. What do you people think about these choices? Whats your favorite FPS of all time?

Where Ubisoft Got It Wrong With The PC

December 17, 2011 by Raj Agrawal 2 Comments

Ubisoft has been one of the prominent game publishers in the market for years. With franchises such as Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and the new but popular Assassins Creed, they have made a name for themselves as one of the biggest names in the publishing industry. They have always been able to showcase their games well, with great quality and a good sense of marketing, but one area of the industry they haven’t been able to penetrate is the PC.

Brand Logo

Almost all of Ubisoft’s games have always been available for the PC. Those that haven’t released alongside the consoles have made it to the PC eventually. But off late there seems to be a change in their strategy regarding the platform. As time passes by, they seem to be getting more hostile towards it. Just recently they revealed Ghost Recon online for the PC. A good prospect, but it comes at the price of the cancellation of Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Also I am Alive is being averted on the platform. And this just seems like a sign of things to come in the near future. I’m pretty sure that the other Ubisoft properties such as Rainbow six and Assassins Creed will follow the same route.

The main reason why Ubisoft seem to hate the platform is piracy. And its not entirely untrue that piracy does hurt the gaming industry. The Witcher 2 was downloaded over 4.5 million times according to the developer CDprojekt. Other games such as the Call of Duty series, Starcraft 2, Crysis have all experienced humongous rates of piracy and have been affected by the losses incurred. The developer for I am Alive said that ” If only 50,000 people buy the game, then it’s not worth it”. In today’s world, where game development is becoming more and more expensive, piracy is becoming a major problem. And with the state of the economy being so whimsical, it puts further pressure on game companies to make games that they know will sell. So when you make an excellent game, and it gets downloaded for free, it can be a huge kick in the n&*s. So then is Ubisofts stand justified???

No, it’s not. And I won’t be giving personal opinions on why they’ve got their strategy wrong. Rather, lets just look at the facts. I talked about how the Witcher 2 was pirated over 5 million times. But at the same time, it sold more than a million copies in three months; the same feat took its predecessor over two years to achieve. Now I don’t know how many more copies it would have sold had it not been pirated. But what I do know is that I know a lot of people, who would rather just play something else if they can’t play a particular game for free. And the developers themselves were happy with these numbers. Other games such as the Call of Duty series, Starcraft 2, and Crysis have all sold handsomely on the PC despite having high piracy rates. Crytek, which whined a lot about the PC platform, managed to sell over 3 million copies of Crysis. 2011 was an especially good year for the pc. Battlefield 3 and Skyrim have both penetrated the million mark on the PC at retail, and are supposedly selling very well digitally. Why then has Ubisoft not been able to capitalize on the PC market? Do their games not appeal to the PC crowd?

The answer again is no. There is a very simple rule to life when it comes to interactions – If you treat others well, then they will treat you well as well. This is something Ubisoft just haven’t learnt. Constant disregard for the platform, delayed releases, buggy ports, hefty use of DRM have all created a dislike for their games in the minds of the PC gamers. Games released by companies like Blizzard and Bioware are called “labors of love”, but you cannot say the same about Ubisoft games from a PC gamers perspective. Skyrim was released with a shitload of bugs, but it still sold well, because Bethesda care for their PC fanbase, and have been constantly trying to address every problem out there. It just takes a little bit of dedication and trust in your fanbase, and they will support you. And the one difference about games released on the PC and those released on the consoles is that PC games may be poor starters when it comes to sales, but they have great legs; they keep selling at a steady pace. You just need a good understanding of the platform to achieve success.

Where then does this bitter relationship go from here? My money is on Ubisoft abandoning the platform entirely in the near future, and then jumping the bandwagon again after a few years. But, if they actually understand their mistakes and try to make amends with their diminishing PC fanbase, then maybe they will see some positive results. And then finally we won’t need to do things like “go to settings.ini and change the values of consolification and pc explosion to zero to go from 5 FPS to 6 FPS” to rectify a buggy port for a game released 10 months after its release on the consoles.