Forza Motorsport 2

After getting stuck on Ninja Gaiden II, I switched to the other game I bought the same day, Forza Motorsport 2. I thought it would make a good weekend game with housemates, generally passing the pad and aruging about which car to buy next. It didn't turn out that way - I played it for three weeks straight.

In my eyes, FM is at least the equal of Gran Turismo now. The improvements in this version (and this is less a sequel and more a v2.0) can be split into three types: cosmetic upgrades; small sensible corrections, and attempts to find the killer bullet point that will nudge it ahead of GT in the minds of the public. I think we can score it for the first two, but not the third.

First, it looks beautiful. The game benefits from the spit and polish given to the graphics. Racing is an aesthetic experience, and attention lavished here is well spent. (I haven't yet played this on an HD TV, but it will be the first game tested when it arrives, no doubt.) The user interface and music is tweaked - the animation for a new car is a highlight - and the experience is generally more pleasing. Cars have been updated but the roster is not radically altered, and nor is the track selection. However, the point-to-point races have gone, which I miss, but the game is more focused on track racing.

Second, the difficulty is slightly higher. The game offers you much flexibility in terms of driving aids, but now the "normal" difficulty has stability management (STM) turned off, which affects the lighter cars severely, and a driving line is only given when braking is required, helping you through corners but not holding your hand too much. Full telemetry is now available at any time.

Finally, the game tries to offer a few killer touches, but they feel slightly gimmicky. A detailed photo and decal mode have seen some attractive results, but they sit outside the core of the game and don't stand up well to more specialist tools. However, I appreciate they may appeal to the dedicated racing fan. I've always been more excited by engines and drivetrains than by outer decoration and rims, but my tastes are also catered for.

The greatest failing of Forza is that it assumes you're using a wheel. You can't take certain turns with sufficient precision using an analogue stick, nor can you control your speed accurately with the triggers, both of which will always cost you time. The game does not handicap for this, which it could, either by improving your car, or assisting your steering, or best of all reducing the aggression of the AI - particularly at corners.

Forza probably shouldn't adjust for your control method: it is a racing simulation game. No other racing simulation game has solved the problem, and perhaps it isn't possible to do so. The car is as fast as it is, and turns as it does, and if you direct it with a tiny stick instead of a wheel, that's your loss and not the car's. Forza probably has the best solution, in that you can apply the aids you feel will give you help in the right area. If the AI keeps turning you on corners, turn it down. If you keep turning yourself at corners, turn the STM on. Use a full line, no damage, whatever suits.

I have hit my limit, either due to skill or using a pad, but I've enjoyed Forza greatly and like the first game, I expect it will be re-visited often. Especially when the big TV arrives.

Ninja Gaiden II

I played Ninja Gaiden II recently, and enjoyed it very much. Not a huge leap forward but decent steps, definitely.

The box claims it's suitable for "casual players to the most hardcore", which is half a lie. No game suitable for casual players throws you up against four ninjas in your first fight on the easiest setting (they have ranged attacks and guard-breakers too). That's at first control - the first game let you run about and practise the gymnastics to get a feel for Ryu, but not here. There's an assumption that you've played the first game.

It plays like the first game, but rationalised. Switching weapons and magic can be accessed quickly from the d-pad, a good choice. It looks like there won't be an obvious best weapon for each situation. The moveset has better balance too. You can save at statues with a button press, and they recharge health the first time you find them. There's a neat system in fights where some damage is temporary and some permanent: you don't have to nurse your health between fights, or milk weak enemies for health drops.

Everything good about the first game is still there - the combat is as supple as ever, enhanced by injured enemies making suicide attacks. This gives the game a new texture, as you're not just judging the position and action of enemies but also their status in order to predict what they could do next. You have new "Obliteration Attacks" that dispatch the wounded, so your moveset also changes.

The bosses are still rubbish. They look great and make a good spectacle but I don't think I can call them fun to fight. There's little to them except pattern recognition. In some cases the pattern is pretty obtuse, and sometimes only one attack leaves them vulnerable to a counter. One boss has stopped my play altogether, which is disappointing. I want to return but even FAQs aren't helping me with it.

If a film was otherwise good but had inaudible dialogue, you'd put it down to a technical problem. It would be a barrier between you and the good content of the film. Why not the same for a game-blocking boss? Just a thought. I'm sure it's turn will come soon, but until then it loses big marks for the bosses.

Audiosurf

I bought Audiosurf last weekend. I resisted buying it for this long on the grounds that when I got it, I wouldn't get anything else done for while. That turned out not to be true - it favours short bursts of play rather than extended sessions.

Some games draw you in for long periods. They tend to be either long games with a lot of story (for a game) and exploration - lots of new content per hour. I call these games "story-form", because even when they don't tell much of a story, they still follow a story arc. The story may be roughly "shoot this monster, flick this switch, another level done" but it's still a story, making sense to videogame aesthetic. There are save points and not too much backtracking - the player expects a reward of content for invested time. I'll talk more about these in later articles.

There are also well-constructed non-linear games. A good example is Football Manager - many otherwise non-gamers will lose about a month of their lives to the hypnotic exchange of matches and subtle tactical and squad alterations available. Yet it's not a story-form game - all the content is available at the beginning, and each player's story is unique.

There is another type of game that is deeply compelling for long periods, but not continuously. The classic arcade game is usually not fun for a very long time - try playing scrolling beat-'em-ups on MAME for hours straight - but sticks in the players mind. After a couple of games the player is satisfied, but wants to play again soon. (The similarity between this and the addiction pattern of narcotics is best left to other writers, I feel). Crazy Taxi is a great example: more than a few minutes of its hyper-bright and furious dashing leaves you sick and exhausted, but a break from the game leaves you wanting to play again.

Audiosurf has this magic property. After half a dozen games I'm pretty tired of playing, but I soon think of other songs I want to put through it. Perhaps the design of the game as a score attack sits badly with the curiosity of turning your music collection into a set of levels. With the choice of every mp3 in existence, why play any of them more than once? Surely exploring the results from different songs is more exciting?

There are other criticisms that can be levelled: the algorithm puts too much emphasis on sharp drums, meaning that snares can dominate the rest of the song. Sometimes this leads to a jerky effect for dance tunes that are supposed to be more sinuous than stop-start. A few more looks and colour schemes would be appreciated too, rather than general filters.

Still, I love it. I'm always tempted to fill five minutes with a quick go, and it always turns into half an hour. I hope that its novelty doesn't put other people off the idea: it looks like a bold development and further work on the song conversion algorithms could lead to even more exciting possibilities.

Advance Wars

Started playing Advance Wars a few days ago. I played it a little a few years ago, but I'd forgotten everything so I started afresh. The tutorial was impressive, introducing new units and aspects of the game with each training level. It reminded me of the "programmed" rules from the original Squad Leader. This approach suits wargames very well, but it's applied to most games in one way or another.

Programmed rules were about the only hope for Squad Leader to be comprehensible. It was a brilliant but demented squad-level WWII wargame . The scenarios introduced new concepts in stages. The first just had infantry, leaders and machine guns, that formed the core of the game. Each following mission introduced a few new counters and a fresh concept (say, radios, and calling in artillery strikes). By the end of the game, there was quite a party happening on the board, but you could understand it because everything was introduced sequentially, in digestible chunks.

Advance Wars demonstrates perfect programmed tuition. Each training mission has you defeating a powerful new enemy unit with specific counter-tactics: usually the starting unit locations give you the edge. The first mission, with just two infantry apiece in the open, works because the computer has one unit lagging so you can double-team each one with your two infantry. The positions also ensure you will get to strike first: guided by your assistant, you cannot lose.

The game is also secretly showing you something else: concentration of force. Bring two units to bear on the enemy's one, while denying him the same chance, and you will win. It's a principle of military strategy, one of the most basic.

At the end of the tutorial, you'll know how every unit works - which you'll need, because knowledge of the unit relationships and hierarchy are essential to success. Not knowing whether a "B Copter" can attack a "Medium Tank", or the potency of that attack, will hamper your success. With about twenty different units available, it's testament to the tutorial that it successfully teaches you all the information you require.

Metroid Prime (and Meta Ridley)

I've been meaning to record what I'm playing in this blog, including when I start and stop playing long story-form games. I've just finished Metroid Prime, but I nearly gave up before the end due to Meta Ridley. That stopped me on my last play-through.

All Metroid games follow an amazing design: near the end of a game you feel like you know the game-world inside out. (My friend used to think of the map like the London Underground - "Take the Overworld line, change at Chozo Ruins West"). I love it, but I've never finished a game because somewhere there is a boss so infuriating that it makes me quit. Meta Ridley is that boss in Prime.

From the nearest save-point, it's two minutes before I can fight him. The fight always takes at least ten minutes, usually longer. (When I first beat him, the second part of the fight took nine minutes alone.) He is a classic multi-attack boss: a big metal dragon with an area-effect smash, a sweeping laser, a bombing run. There's a counter-move to each, and as long as you spot the cue it isn't difficult, just laborious. With perhaps a quarter of his energy left he switches to his ground stage, introducing his special pause-and-charge - my big gripe with this boss.

There is a signature movement that warns you that a charge is coming - a bull-like duck with his head. Early on, it's best to move soon: the quicker you dodge, the more likely you'll escape. Later, the tactic changes: you must move at the last second. Moving early won't help because he aims at you later. His head movement doesn’t change.

Let's get this straight: all bosses are about learning cues and reading them to land counter-blows against their massive attacks. Meta Ridley throws out the cardinal rule: he gives the same clue, but the trick you've practised, optimised against him, because ineffective. The better you got at it, the less effective it becomes! Brilliant.

There are other niggles - the many attacks that can only be dodged with no opening (the bombing swoop is a particular offender, taking an age), the inconsistent escapes from other attacks, and the lack of a save point immediately following (Yes! I beat him once but didn't survive to a save point. Thanks for that) amongst them. I don't understand why people rave about it. It reminds of people's tendency to over-rate very long books because they've managed to finish them. I think people rate Meta Ridley because it puts them through the emotional wringer, for all the wrong reasons.

I am particularly angry because I expect this bullshit from bad games, or arcade games designed to prise coins from your pocket (hello, Time Crisis). I have loved playing through Prime, and not only were many problems suggested by the switch to 3D (how will jumping work? The Morph Ball?) answered comfortably, but several innovations were introduced by this game (The HUD, the visors, scanning for story details). One horrific design mis-step near the end of the game almost denied me the chance to finish it.

Hey! Presto!

I saw Wall-E last night (amazing), but the short beforehand reminded me of something. In Presto, a magician has two hats, and what goes into one exits the other. In attempting to entice his resistant rabbit on-stage with the hats, physics-bending hilarity ensues.

They've played Portal. It's not really that much like Portal: more of a Looney Tunes cartoon using the same idea. I'm more impressed with how Pixar have taken a cue from a game. It's promising that such a high-profile animation syudio draws on a game for inspiration - on a game mechanic for inspiration.

Mirror's Edge (and a note on aesthetic)

Mirror's Edge looks amazing because it doesn't resemble anything else. Its visual aesthetic is different from any other game I can think of, let alone the major titles currently in development. At a glance, I find it hard to tell Dark Void, Dead Space and Gears of War 2 apart. I always recognise Mirror's Edge.

We should be exploring more interesting looks for our games. This point was made when Jet Set Radio was released and nothing changed. Let's learn something from this one, eh?