Dust In Your Eye . . . Or, A Few Thoughts On Dust 514

Dust 514 is the Playstation  3 side of Eve Online's massive cross-platform push.  Eve Online is the wonderfully addictive space opera that you play from your PC.  As someone who has never played Eve, though, I can't say much about it other than it looks fantastic.  Giant space battles, an in-game economy that makes money in the real world, and a rabid fan-base that makes player interaction not just encouraged but necessary. 

Dust 514 is the planet side version of Eve, and allows players to engage in massive land battles for control of planets.  Built around the Unreal game engine, it boasts neither impressive graphics or novel game play.  But it's free.  It's cross-platform feature means that players on Eve can interact with players on the ground, offering support and in-game currency.  And by capturing planets, (someday) players can benefit their Even compatriots. 

I've grown fond of this game as time wears on.  Like Eve, Dust has a ridiculously steep learning curve and the near necessity of alliances with other players means that just jumping in a running around blasting isn't a viable strategy.  But the ability to customize your character is truly astounding.  Between the four races, there are at least eight variation on dropsuits (each of which has its own pros and cons) and every weapon has three variations.  Between suits, weapons, shield and armor enhancements, and role specialization the customization seems infinite.

Which is what give Dust it's true playability in my opinion.  Anyone can make a free-to-play game that let's players get their jollies off.  The customization in Dust is astounding, and allows you to approach the game differently every time.  And it doesn't hurt that Dust is a part of the massive and deeply immersive Eve universe.  You can go as deep as you want, and the rabbit hole never seems to end. 

At the moment, however, Dust is a Playstation 3 exclusive and I'm unaware if it will be available for the PS4 (though I can't imagine it won't be).  Only recently taken out of beta, CCP is still tinkering.  Renowned for their attention to detail, and their willingness to listen to player input, means that the game will only improve with time. 

If you like first-person shooters, or MMOs, or both, I think you'll enjoy this game.  Give it a shot.

The Rest of the Last of Us

I'm about halfway through playing "The Last of Us," Naughty Dog's newest game.  Renowned for their Uncharted series, Naughty Dog is once again tackling an over-the-shoulder shooter featuring a male lead and his female sidekick sloughing through bad-guys.  In this case, Joel is the protagonist, and the head you inhabit throughout the game, and Ellie is his side-kick, a precocious fourteen year-old who holds the secret for combating the zombie apocalypse.

Just from that synopsis, the game doesn't sound all that original.  The plot certainly is nothing to write home about.  But the acting is incredible and the designers seemed genuinely interested in building real characters.  Joel, especially, is tired and broken.  But each of the side-characters with whom you often interact are fully-developed, often conflicted, people.  Expected emotional cues occur early in the game, and then diverge quickly into rarely trod territory.  So despite its mediocre plot (so far . . . there could be a twist I haven't anticipated) the characters feel real, and I have developed a genuine attachment to Joel and Ellie.

What is ruining the game for me, though, are the baddies.  First, from the trailers and the synopsis on the back of the game, we know already that the world is in the last gasp of ruin.  Anarchy prevails, zombies run wild, and decency is all but unknown.  So we should expect Mad Max-style confrontations, as well as 28 Days Later run-ins with deranged and hostile enemies.  And we get both.

But other than their skins, each enemy seems to behave the same way.  Some zombies hunt by echo-location only, and wander around maps with ears cocked.  Others group together in packs and rush you from corners.  There's the occasional solo--a big daddy who's nearly impossible to gun down (which, because of the limited ammunition practically requires that you just run in circles whacking it with bits of debris you find lying around). 

Your "human" opponents aren't much different.  Especially the "Lord of the Flies" baddies who wander tumbled urban landscapes.  Some you can just sneak past, despite the fact that it's broad daylight and they're staring right at you.  Others gang up and rush you from all directions.  The only exception are the cops and soldiers who sometimes lob a few bullets your direction, which only makes me suspect I'll soon encounter a zombie who lobs some sort of spit-bullet my direction. And there's the occasional solo baddie who's nearly impossible to gun down (see above).

But oh well.  Because really, the bad guys aren't there to be killed.  Unlike Uncharted and Uncharted Two, which were notorious for the massacre you inflict on untold hundreds of red, blue and yellow mercenaries (literally, they all wore different color clothes so you knew how to shift your tactics for them), The Last of Us depends on sneaking and not-killing as much as bludgeoning your way through a map.  In fact, it built itself on that premise.  You're given hardly any ammunition (though there does still seem to be a lot lying around in odd locations) and expected to think your way through and around confrontation.  More often than not, if you decide to go in guns blazing, you're bound to get shot dead in the first charge.

Beyond the obvious disadvantage this lends to your character, and the lazy enemy AI, the atmosphere is fantastic, lush, and, well . . . atmospheric.  At first, I was a little unsettled by how bright the world seemed.  But then I realized that despite the downfall of human civilization, the sun would still shine.  This lack of lens seems an apt metaphor for the game itself.  We see the end of the world unaided, with all the humanity, anarchy, and danger unmitigated by directorial or narrative sleight-of-hand.

So consider this an update rather than a review, because I suspect the ending is going to leave me raw and slack-jawed.  I'll let you know when I get there.

What the What? . . . Or, Bioshock:Infinite Review

I feel as though the statutes of limitation has worn off, and I can discuss Bioshock: Infinite with a minimum of spoilers. 

Let's get this out of the way first.  Great game.  Deeply immersive, with a great plot, superb voice-acting, and a better-than-pretty-good companion.  That being said, when I pay $60-70 for a video game, I demand certain things.  One of those things is replayability; really, it's top of the list.  Great story, great gameplay, but what I really want is the ability to immerse myself in the game several times, constantly discovering more.  I want Skyrim. 

Bioshock:Infinite is no Skyrim.  Nor does it ever strive to be.  It's a first-person shooter through and through, with a beautiful environment and a pretty trippy story.  You play Book DeWitt, and ex-Pinkerton agent hired to infiltrate the steam-punkish floating city of Columbia and rescue a young woman named Elizabeth from the clutches of the evil Zachary Hale Comstock.  Yeah, if you're a student of American history, that last name should sound familiar.

Anthony Comstock

The Comstock Laws are named for Anthony Comstock, who was Post Office Inspector and helped craft and pass a series of laws in 1873 banning obscene materials from being mailed by the Federal Government.  If you think Zachary Hale Comstock would live up to that draconian moralizing, perhaps borrowing from history, you'd be wrong.  In fact, the fictional Comstock is a purposeful amalgam of several historical actors.  The name seems to have been chosen because of its vague association with the late nineteen-century and not for any particular thing that Anthony Comstock did.

Zachary Hale Comstock is a viciously racist jingoist.  Seeing the moral decline of the United States following the Civil War, he takes his magic floating city and secedes from the Union.  It's a strangely dystopian view of American history, and highlights the lingering darkness of American history.  By re-telling the American history through a lens of counter-factual narrative, the game glances at roads not traveled without examining the deep sociological and historical trends which drove the history of the United States. 

The "Battle" of Wounded Knee

Nevertheless, it is fun and one should forgive their central conceit.  I mean, really.  It's a floating city.  You knew it was fantasy going in.  But it does leave one wondering if video games should teach history.  On the one hand, at least people have the sense that history is valuable and can inform future decision.  But on the other, it's really sloppy, and tends to flatten the rich experience of both the historical profession, and the historical experience in which people actually lived.

But let's move on the gameplay itself.  I'm not a hardcore gamer, so much of it boiled down to how easy it was to move, shoot, and not get stuck on the myriad boxes lying around the map.  Uncharted 2 had this problem, as did Black Ops 2.  I refer to them as "sticky" games.  The character, instead of sliding around obstacles, often got stuck on a piece of paper strewn about and was shot dead.  Bioshock: Infinite, fortunately, did not have this problem.  Movement was easy enough, and the much-touted aerial combat was fine, but nothing to write home about. 

The main comment I have concerns their magic system.  Yeah, you can shoot crows and fire from your hand, but calling it a "vigor" instead of a "plasmid" doesn't change the fact that you're shooting fire and crows from your hand.  It's just magic by another name.  As such, it's not really that useful, or even that much fun.  Most of the time I ran around shooting people.  The vigors added very little tactical advantage.  But they were fun to look at. 

My hands are on fire! 

That seems to be the takeaway of the whole game.  The world is beautiful. 

The actual plot?  Just so-so.  Save the girl, beat the bad guy, flee the scene.  The many twists they introduced were fun, but never spectacular, though told in an original and innovative way.  Kudos for that.  But the conclusion left me scratching my head, trying to rectify what I'd learned playing the game versus what I learned at the final reveal. 

It sort of made sense, but only for the final third of the game.  Everything before that seemed to contradict, or at the very least not conform, to the final reveal.  Which is okay, I suppose, but it doesn't lend itself to wanting to replay the game to figure out how the storytellers were able to capture that effect.  It felt . . . lazy. 

So while it was fun at the time, it wasn't a great amount of fun.  The technical wizardy was evident, and appreciated, but couldn't quite make up for the fact that the plot was thin, confusing, and ultimately self-contradictory.  Would I recommend this game?  I'm not sure.  Maybe if you get it on sale, or rent it from a RedBox.  Otherwise, save your money and read a good book instead.

Uncharted 3: Drakes Deception Review

I have mixed feelings about this game.  On the one hand, had I never played the first two Uncharted games I probably would have considered this a pretty decent offering from Naughty Dog.   But since I have played those first two games, and I saw how far they came with the second game, I don't think the third game lived up to them. 

The game begins in the rough and dirty streets of London, where Nathan Drake and his vigilant companion Victor "Sully" Sullivan, are double-crossed in a pub over the ring Drake wears round his neck.  Things go sour, and Nathan and Sully are both shot--cut to flashback of Nathan as a much younger man, and his introduction to Sully.

From that flashback we learn not only how the two met, but how Nathan acquired the ring in the first place, and the key to a treasure Sir Francis Drake has hidden not only from his Queen, but also from the world.  So it's up to our adventurers to go find it, chased doggedly (and providentially) by their foes. 

Other reviewers have commented on the game's lackluster graphics and characterizations compared to the second game, and I tend to agree with them.  I've stated elsewhere that I have no fondness for third-person shooters.  I find them clunky.  But while I could countenance those flaws in the second game because of its phenomenal story-telling--using the third-person as part of the story--the third game simply fell flat.  Yeah, each set felt wonderful, and the game was relatively immersive; nonetheless, it still felt a little underwhelming.  Because this was released as 3D compatible, I have to wonder if Naughty Dog diverted some of its energy from making a great game, and invested it in implementing new technologies.  I haven't seen the game in 3D, so my opinion is colored, but from what I have seen I wish they'd put their eggs in a different basket.

So, while I think it was fun to see Nathan Drake fight never-ending hordes of baddies, and uncover centuries old secrets, it wasn't that much fun.  From the initial chapters, I expected this to be more character driven, offering a sense of why Nathan is who he is.  The danger never felt real, I never expected to have to sacrifice to win, and the threat to the world bit was just . . . not that threatening.  Besides that, the two climaxes are fought via cut-scene, and when you do get to fight, it's an anticlimax that leaves you feeling cheated. 

In the final analysis, I'd recommend this game if you've already played the first two, but I wouldn't recommend buying it (unless you really dig on the multiplayer, which I don't care for). 

As an aside, I really hate how they modeled Elena in this game. 

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves . . . It Stole My Heart

I know.  That is a particularly bad title.  Also, I'm sure you're probably asking yourself why I'm only now getting around to playing this game.  The answer is simple.  This is the first time I've had time, and a Playstation, with which to play it.

Let me go ahead and let you know that while this is specifically a review about the second installment of the Uncharted franchise, it's also more generally a review of the first one as well, since I purchased the Game of the Year dual-pack and played both games sequentially.  Although, why would I have played them in any other order?  Hmm . . . .

Overview

Regardless, I should probably start with my thoughts on third-person shooters.

I really don't like them.  I find them clunky, unwieldy and aesthetically unpleasing.  Why would I want to spend the next 10 or more hours staring at someone's backside?  You know, unless it was a really nice backside. 

Motion Capture

Naughty Dog, the game developers, went to a lot of trouble to make me want to stare at another guy's back-side for well over 20 hours.  The motion capture in general is flawless, and all the more nuanced in the second game.  Furthermore, this game includes a lot more freedom in movement than many third-person games I've played before.  The camera rotates easily, and the cinematic feel of the game provides that you have more than ample opportunity to look at more than just Nathan Drake's backside.

Gameplay

Overall, the gameplay was remarkably smooth and enjoyable.  A few times, even though a particular puzzle was not difficult to solve, making the character perform the requisite actions was excruciatingly ponderous.  These were few, but noticeable (particularly in the first game, Drake's Fortune), but they hardly detracted from my enjoyment of the game once I resigned myself to dying a few times.

Game Design

As for the game design itself, it was beautiful.  I can't review it glowingly enough.  Each set felt immersive and the level of detail was simply stunning.  My only complaint was the seemingly illogical construction of some of the sets.  While I recognize that this is an action-adventure fantasy, many of the puzzles and locales simply didn't make any sense.  Of particular note is the puzzle which requires you to point a beam of light at specific points to activate ancient machinery.  While this might work with modern technology, I had a really hard time suspending my disbelief that a five-hundred-year old civilization had the know-how to get this up and running.

Monsters?  Really?

Also, there are monsters.  This was handled much more expertly in the second installment, but rather indelicately in the first.  In a game more-or-less grounded in the real world, it felt like a betrayal to find out that Incan gold really is cursed.  While they explained it (sort of) in game as some kind of infection, the more glaring plot holes (such as where all the infected people came from, or were we to assume that they were well over three hundred years old?) were never adequately filled in.  In fact, the plot holes were so offensive that I stopped playing the game for nearly a week until my ire had subsided.

The monsters in the second game make a little more sense.  Tied as they are to the abominable snowman (or yeti) myth, since the game is set in Tibet, I forgave the designers more readily.  However, they handled their monsters much more adroitly, so my pique was short and quickly assuaged.

Brass Tacks--Story and Characterization

The story, however, and the characters, are what truly make these games phenomenal.  Another developer could have gone a completely different route, and paid lip service only to a full fleshed out plot; or they could have invested less effort in voice and motion capture.  The level of investment that Naughty Dog displayed is truly remarkable, and adds a level of believability, and ultimately, playability into the game.

In each game, you play Nathan Drake, who, in the first game, is a loveable rogue searching for the mystery of his forebear, the eponymous Sir Francis Drake, of privateer fame.  The mystery, basically, is that Drake died childless--yet family history leads Nathan to believe he is his descendant.  Tied to that, is the mystery of El Dorado, which Francis Drake seems to have discovered.  So basically, you're on the hunt for the Golden City, plagued by baddies and trying to save both the day, and the girl.

The second time around pits Nathan against a warlord and a friend who betrayed him.  The story deepens, however, by the introduction of a new girl in Nathan's life, and the absence of the female lead from the first story.  In the second game, Drake is on the hunt for the lost treasure ships of Marco Polo, which lead him eventually to Shangri-la.

Morality?  In a Video Game?

I suppose one of my major complaints about these two games are the moral ambivalence that each displays.  Certainly, I'm not going to blame violence in video games for violence in the real world, but these types of games are woefully disinterested in the morality of wiping out thousands of people in the course of the adventure.

What is all the more worrying is the flippancy of it.  Perhaps you can make some sort of an argument for self-defense, as the bad-guys probably shot first (but certainly not always, and your character often takes the killing hand-to-hand), but the game designers make very little effort to explain why the character is there at all.  Beyond a nebulous sense of greed, that is.  Because, ultimately, he is a treasure-hunter.  A tomb raider; in the first game it is explicitly stated that Nathan Drake is killing people for the money.  He wants the goods.

The violence inherent to most games has never bothered me.  Modern Warfare is an example of a game that I love, the violence of which makes Uncharted pale in comparison.  Yet, I assuage my moral sense with the belief that there is some sort of moral continuum.  The bad guys are terrorists, the good guys are the forces of order.  But even then, the terrorists have some sort of goal. They're part of a complex moral order that has been aggrieved.  And while I probably disagree with their reasoning, at least they have one.  Nathan Drake's moral order is unbridled avarice.  And that bothers me.  Monsters?  Kill 'em.  Aliens?  Mow 'em down.  But human beings?  I'd like some nuance with my carnage, please.

Conclusions

Basically, I like these games.  They're not perfect, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons and I would never hesitate to recommend these to a friend.  Or even a perfect stranger.