Some side quests introduce us to party members' family members in the hardest fight of the game. Fun!

So with the recent releases of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Batman: Arkham City, I thought it’d be appropriate to have a discussion on side quests–specifically, what separates the good from the bad? I think we can all agree that when side quests are done well, they unquestionably contribute to a vastly better game experience. In fact, side quests often turn out to be more memorable than main quests for me personally. But why is that?

Well, frankly side quests can sometimes be so boring and tedious that they become memorable for bogging the experience down so much. As much as I like to feel like I’m in a living world full of real characters with their own problems, I can’t say that I’m a fan of them duping me into helping them when it turns out that they’re just too lazy to get off their butts and collect their own flowers/misplaced amulets/rabid space-monkeys (okay, that last one might be cool). I don’t know what sort of bizarro-world these people are living in where they think it’s cool for a total stranger to dish out his personal problems to the first moderately armed person he comes across, but it’s definitely not okay when the relationship ceases to develop right around the prostitute end of the spectrum. I get that all of you weaklings have problems and that you’d have me kill your grandmother for her fine china just as long as I stop asking questions at the jingle of a few coins, but I don’t know you and I have problems of my own. Simple fetch quests or kill quests aren’t necessarily bad things (all game design boils down to those factors at the most basic level), but if my relationship with the quest-giver ends after I’ve completed said menial task and taken my reward, then the quest should be cut from the game. It’s padding that adds nothing to development of an interesting setting, character development, plot development, or mechanical development.

However, I want to make myself clear and say that side quests don’t have to be epic eight hour subplots to be considered good. Some of the best side quests are singular offshoots that are entirely self-contained. A great example of this kind of quest would be “A Brush with Death” in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. What sets this quest apart from typical fetch/kill quests is that it transports you to a unique and engaging setting that’s entirely separate from the rest of the game-world; it’s hard not to get drawn in (ha) to a quest that sucks you into a magical painting and the secret world within that painting. Upon entering this world, the setting looks physically different from the rest of Oblivion‘s world. It’s interesting because it’s novel, much like “The Game” in Fable III, a quest that shrinks you down and makes you the hero of a pen-and-paper RPG, complete with towering, hooded nerds bickering around the game-table in typical D&D fashion. Side quests are a great place to bring in crazy ideas or settings that just don’t fit into the core narrative. And generally, “crazy” is better and more memorable than “trivial.”

But a game-world can only have so many offshoot quests before the threads start coming apart and feel like an incoherent jumble of unrelated ideas. This is where character-building subplots come in. If we take Mass Effect 2‘s loyalty missions as an example, we see multi-quest arcs that don’t really deviate from the core experience in terms of gameplay, but are entirely separate from the main narrative. They’re not necessary to complete the game, but because they focus extensively on the same characters for a chain of missions, they add a greater understanding of the universe and its individual occupants. A similar, more extreme example of this story within a bigger story approach would be guild arcs in the Elder Scrolls games. Some of these side stories could make up entire games on their own, but in the grand scheme of the game-world, they don’t even have to be acknowledged. There’s no arguing that they’re side quests, but they’re so fleshed out with developed characters and plots that experiencing them can radically alter the character you’ve built in your mind by game’s end.

Another kind of satisfying side quest doesn’t have to rely on character development to maintain your interest (although they often have some for good measure). What I’m talking about here are side quests that develop minor game mechanics and features that aren’t a central focus in the main narrative. These are often the most rewarding kinds of side quests because they feel so different from the core action and provide such a welcome change of pace that the game as a whole still feels fresh when the credits roll. Ezio’s parkour abilities in Assassin’s Creed II are generally just a mode of transportation in the main story, but if you choose to pursue optional Assassin Tombs, you’re introduced to precision platforming that feels more like Prince of Persia than the stab-fest of the core narrative. Similarly, The Riddler puzzles in Batman: Arkham Asylum require no stealth takedowns or carefully timed brawling, but the puzzles are developed enough that they’re fun in their own right.

I’d say that nine times out of ten, if a side quest falls under one of these three categories, it’ll probably be good. And what really steps a quest up and makes it more than just good is a sense of player progression. The loyalty missions in ME2 grant invaluable party-member loyalty that can drastically alter the main story’s finale (obviously the best kind of progression), the guild quests in Elder Scrolls games usually reward powerful weapons or armor that can’t be obtained any other way, as do the Assassins Tombs in ACII. Whatever way you cut it, gamers want that sweet, sweet loot like Tobias Funke wants a strapping young man to blast his glutes (shame on you if you don’t understand that reference). The draw of making your character more powerful is enough to make menial tasks like collecting randomly strewn orbs in Crackdown addicting, so there’s obviously a lot of power in this element that can make for truly memorable quests if utilized properly.

And I’d say those are the keys to a good side quest. If you can think of anything else, I’d love to hear it. I’d also be interested in hearing about your favorite side quests and what makes them stand out to you. And if we could somehow all band together and convince developers to stop padding their games with useless time-wasting quests, that’d be great too, but I have my doubts about that happening any time soon. Now I must return to Arkham City‘s fantastic “Cold Call Killer” side quest.

Share/Save

The “Bonfire of the Vanities” DLC is out now, if that’s your sort of thing. While the trailer does look cool, I just can’t muster up any interest for content that’s ultimately irrelevant to the Assassin’s Creed plot. The DLC takes place before the ending of ACII, so it’s not like it’s going to advanced the narrative or anything. And for that matter, I really have no interest in this new, multiplayer-enabled AC game set for next winter. It stars Ezio…great character and all, but that’s not how this franchise is supposed to work. What’s the point of the animus if we don’t use it? Looking forward to the next real Assassin’s Creed experience, though.

Share/Save

"I've been expecting you."

Well then, I’m your bear. Now revel in the borderline-trivial knowledge I bestow upon you.

No Half-Life 2: Episode 3 until 2011?
BioWare: Hollywood Very Interested in Mass Effect Film
Assassin’s Creed II’s “Battle of Forli” Taken Out Next Week

Share/Save

Is this Fiddy's year?

Another year has come and gone, and despite more delays than I can ever remember in one year, 2009 still saw more great games than I could possibly get around to playing. 2009 also saw me jumping into the whole game-writing thing for the first time (well, sort of). Consequently, this is InsaneBear’s first GOTY feature, and we’re going to try to keep it relatively simple. Maybe next year I’ll throw in some quirky awards meant to recognize specific games, but for now, we’ll just be sticking to the GOTY model. Without further ado…

2009′s 2008 Game of the Year – Well, maybe I’ll throw in one non-traditional award here considering IB wasn’t around for 2008′s games. And yes, I’m totally stealing this award from Giant Bomb, but I just think it’s a good idea to look back and see how time has changed our thoughts on the games we’ve played. In the case of 2008, I would have named Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots GOTY then, and I’m still giving it the honor today. Just think how rare a game like that is. How often does one of the most talented developers in the industry pretty much get free reign to spend as much as he wants on whatever he wants? Hopefully it happens again real soon, because MGS4 is an epically cinematic experience that lovingly caters to its hardcore fans with a story that somehow manages to wrap up 20 years of Metal Gear madness. Plus, you play as an old man, damn it!

The Candidates…

Assassin’s Creed II – Double. Hidden. Blades. That essentially sums up Assassin’s Creed II, a game that takes everything its predecessor did and does it better. From mission design to graphics to narrative to killing dudes, this game improves on every aspect of the polarizing ACI and has earned the right to put nicer adjectives in front of its name. The combat’s satisfyingly brutal, Ezio’s one of the most likable characters I’ve encountered in a while, and the puzzle-platforming of the Assassin’s Tombs is the sort of gaming-zen that will stroke our nostalgic hearts a few years from now. Assassin’s Creed II has got me chomping at the bit for Ubisoft’s third installment in the action-parkour series, so that must mean it did something right.

Batman: Arkham Asylum – Without a doubt, Batman: Arkham Asylum is the definitive super-hero experience in video games. No game before or since has put the player in the shoes of a super-hero quite so well. Maybe that’s because no super-hero game has ever crafted such an authentic and immersive world, full of appropriately goonish henchmen, diabolical villains, and clever collectables that pay homage to the series’ more obscure characters. Then there’s the pure badassery of utilizing all of the Batman’s gadgets and stealthy talents to dismantle a room full of terrified thugs. I don’t think any other game this year is paced quite as perfectly as Arkham Asylum and the story is top-notch. Arkham Asylum makes you feel like the Dark Knight.

Battlefield 1943 – I think it really says something that a $15 downloadable game can compete with full-fledged retail products for this award, but the fact is, 2009 was a banner year for downloadable games. BF1943 may be “just a WWII shooter,” but it’s a dang good one. The shooting feels fantastic and the classes are balanced. The maps are fun too. But what really stands out about this game is just how fun the vehicle element makes the battlefield. The terror you feel as a tank rolls over the trees to your side and opens up fire is unparalleled in most modern shooters and is only countered by the joy of allied planes dropping bombs on said tank from above. This bite-sized FPS is just as fun as the heavy-hitting blockbusters out there, period.

Borderlands – Oh, Borderlands, you steal my heart. Sporting one of the most striking visual styles of 2009, this first-person-looter has an addictive quality that few games this year can match. The shooting actually manages to feel good while weaving enough RPG elements into the game-play to make things feel different. The never-ending parade of new weapons keeps you coming back for more and really encourages experimentation with different guns. And then there’s the incredibly fun special abilities of each character class. Mix this all in with fun mission design and four-player co-op…oh man, I want to go play some Borderlands.

Dragon Age: Origins – The age of dragons has begun and I hope BioWare keeps it going strong for years to come. Dragon Age creates a believable world full of racism, religious tensions, cut-throat politics, and age-old prejudices that are all dealt with in mature and meaningful ways. The core-quests are truly memorable, the boss fights are rewarding, and almost all of the NPC party-members are interesting in one way or another. But the thing that stands out most to me is that for once, I was actually role-playing in a WRPG. BioWare made the very wise decision to do away with the arbitrary and judgmental morality meter, instead opting for individual party-members’ approval. This design allowed me to actually get into character and play without worrying about achievements or morally specific powers/talents. Oh, and there’s that whole origin stories thing were there are multiple beginnings and endings to the game. I’ve put more time into this title than any other game of 2009.

Halo 3: ODST – Like Halo? Me too. Like suspenseful stories that manipulate chronological order for more dramatic effect? Me too. Like Nathan Fillion? Yeah, me too. Put those three things together and you’ve got yourself a little game called Halo 3: ODST. This latest entry in the always superb Halo series takes the intense combat of previous titles in the franchise and transplants it into a moody and atmospheric world driven by an innovative mission structure that has you playing flashbacks of other characters memories while trying to piece your own story together. The game’s more personal, band-of-brothers sort of narrative also manages to provide some nice background for the Master Chief’s epic quest. Then there’s the extremely fun Firefight mode, which sees a group of players co-operating together to fend off hordes of deadly enemies.

inFAMOUS – I have to throw out the disclaimer here that I haven’t actually played this game and that I’m basing this assessment off of Ryan’s review, but from everything I’ve heard, inFAMOUS absolutely deserves to be on this list. This is a game that shines where it counts most–the game-play. Tight controls allow for fluid motion and precise combat that make getting from one mission to the next a joy. The magical properties of electricity allow you to grind along electrical wires, glide through the sky, and leap from building to building in a way that changes the definition of parkour gaming. You can also upgrade your powers depending on whether you want Cole to be a destructive bad ass or a disciplined paragon, so morality actually has game-play ramifications here. This is a game that just flows well and keeps the fun coming.

Modern Warfare 2 – No FPS on the market has shooting that feels as right as Modern Warfare 2 does. It strikes the perfect balance between arcade and tactical and then forces you to constantly apply those shooting skills to a plethora of finely-balanced weapons in a non-stop roller-coaster ride of a campaign. And of course there’s the infinitely replayable multiplayer mode, which has even more perks and equipment augmentations this time around. The multiplayer is something that’s so finely tuned that you’re forced to constantly be evolving and changing up your strategies, and it’s a blast the entire time. There’s always a counter for your play-style and class set-up, which is the way competitive multiplayer should be designed. But even more fun than all those online frag-fests is the Spec-Ops mode, a collection of 23 challenging missions specifically designed for a tag-team approach. These missions feature excellent game-play variety and are extremely rewarding. This is a game that’s hard to pull yourself away from.

Street Fighter IV – The fact that a fighting game is on my Game of the Year list in the year 2009 is astounding, but that just speaks to the awesome quality of Capcom’s revival of the premier fighting franchise. This game hits all the right notes, looking fresh enough to avoid the “rehash” label while feeling familiar enough to jump into after years of not playing Street Fighter. It’s accessible enough to draw in casual players but somehow has enough depth to satisfy hardcore world-champion players. Every character is balanced and fun to play as, new or old. Most importantly though, Street Fighter IV revives the killer instinct of one-on-one competition in a deceptively simple arena, both online and in the traditional local setting. Capcom’s fighter is just plain fun.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves – What a thrill ride! Set-peice for set-piece, Uncharted 2 can compete with any game put out in 2009. There’s a nice variety of shooting, puzzling, and platforming, and everything looks absolutely amazing along the way. Nathan Drake’s second outing is most certainly one of, if not the best looking game ever made, due in no small part to the sublime motion-capture and animation. The voice acting’s even better though, and it heavily contributes to Nate and friends being some of the most believable, relatable, and flat-out likable characters ever to grace the land of video games. Nolan North deserves just as much credit for Uncharted 2‘s success as the developers at Naughty Dog, because it’s the Indiana Jones-ish personality that he brings to the character that makes this game so endearing. Definitely one of the funniest games of the year. Oh, and then there’s a robust multiplayer mode and a separate co-op campaign, complete with top-notch cinematics.

'Cause we're the two best friends that anyone could have...

Honorable Mentions (Or more accurately, games that should be in the running but never found their way into my disc tray)…

Demon’s Souls – It won GameSpot’s GOTY and it’s innovative use of community co-operation sounds very appealing to me.

Forza Motorsport 3 – The undisputed cream of the racing crop. This series’ ability to offer enough depth to satisfy simulation freaks whilst maintaining the accessibility to bring in casual racers is astonishing.

Killzone 2 – Ryan tells me it’s terrible, but he’s never played a single match of multiplayer, which is this game’s main appeal. The progressive, class-based online mode sounds like something with more depth than most shooters today.

Left 4 Dead 2 – It’s Left 4 Dead, but improved in every way. Plus, I hear that Valve somehow managed to create a cast that’s just as memorable as the first game’s.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii – Remember when you and your brother would sit in front of the TV taking turns with Super Mario Bros. 3? Well, this is pretty much that, but with co-op, so you don’t have to take turns.

Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time – This is the sort of game your inner 12-year-old would make if it had the chance. I mean, come on! You can use a belching fish as a weapon! This game is the epitome of fun.

Red Faction: Guerrilla – It takes all the destructive goodness of the old Red Faction games and ups the ante, throwing it into a third-person perspective in the process. I’ve heard a lot of good things about this game from a lot of different people, and when sledge-hammers can be used as weapons, I’m inclined to listen.

Shadow Complex – This won Giant Bomb’s Xbox 360 GOTY, which is pretty impressive considering it’s a $15 downloadable title. But is it really that surprising for a flawless face-lift of the classic “metroidvania” style games to be so popular? I know I want to find out what all the fuss is about.

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories – The deeply personal and subtly creepy narrative of this game honestly made Brad Shoemaker wake up in the middle of the night screaming out loud. Enough said.

Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II – I’ve heard this game described as a western take on the small-scale strategy of games like Final Fantasy Tactics. Whatever the case, Dawn of War II is unlike any other western RTS on the market and many players prefer the personal nature and progression inherent in the micro-unit style of war.

Runner-up – Modern Warfare 2

2009 Game of the Year – Dragon Age: Origins

So there you have it. Keep in mind that these are all based on my personal thoughts and aren’t meant to be an unbiased, authoritative voice on the matter. I’d love to hear everybody else’s choices in the comments. And if you have any special awards, like best biceps or something, please share!

Share/Save

And according to Kotaku,”The Battle of Forli” and “Bonfire of the Vanities” will run you $3.99 and $4.99 respectively. They look alright, I suppose.

Share/Save

Can’t get enough Assassin’s Creed II? Ubisoft hears you. According to 1UP, two packs of downloadable content are on the way for January and February.

The first pack is titled “Battle of Forli”. While Ubisoft hasn’t provided any details besides the January release window, 1UP has speculated that “the ‘battle’ may refer to the infighting that followed the death of the lord Pino III in 1480. It’s also notable that Forli was ceased by Visconti in 1488, and by Cesare Borgia in 1499.” And if memory serves me correctly, those dates indicate that the content will be filling in some years that the retail game glossed over.

And come February we’ll get to sink our wallets into “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” which happens to be the name of an even that took place in 1497. “It refers to the burning of thousands of objects that were thought to promote sin, such as cosmetics, art and books, by the supporters of the Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola,” says 1UP. And it’s probably a safe bet to count this one in for a February 7th release, as the date marks the 512th anniversary of the purge.

Personally, I guess it’s cool that Ubisoft is supporting their game post-launch, but I don’t see myself going back for more ACII anytime soon. Unless the DLC packs are heavily story-driven and fairly lengthy, the core gameplay just isn’t enough to justify a purchase for me. But that shouldn’t stop you from killing more 15th century bad guys!

Share/Save

Ezio, doing his best Vamp impression.

When Assassin’s Creed came out in 2007, its insanely fun free-running parkour mechanics were so revolutionary that they essentially created a new sub-genre. However, the repetitive and incomplete nature of the game polarized gamers everywhere and the title was really seen as more potential than product. Now we fast-forward two years, and I’m happy to report that Assassin’s Creed II has addressed almost every issue gamers had with the first title in the franchise. Unfortunately though, it doesn’t really do much beyond that, and with other games in the sub-genre innovating further and offering more diverse packages, ACII feels more like what the first game should have been than what the sequel could be. So once again, we’re left dreaming of the awesome potential in this franchise instead of a simply awesome game.

ACII picks up right where its predecessor left off with Desmond and Lucy escaping the Abstergo corporation’s grasp and making their way to an Assassin safe-haven. Desmond’s parts actually feel just as good as the rest of the game now, so it’s sort of disappointing that we don’t get to play as him for more than a half-hour or so throughout the course of a 25 hour game. Putting the clunky controls aside, I rather enjoyed the mysterious nature of Desmond’s sleuthing activities in the first game, but maybe I’m alone there.

Anyways, it’s not long before we find ourselves in a fully-realized 15th century Florence and in control of a complete bad ass. The graphical upgrade this sequel offers is subtle, much like Gears of War to Gears of War 2, but the difference really is pretty substantial. The world of Assassin’s Creed II is a sprawling and seamless one with citizens that organically go about their business, a day-night cycle that features one of the best looking moons I’ve seen in a game, and superb lighting effects to boot. Every building has as much detail as the last and repeated geometry is masked well enough that I didn’t really notice it until around 20 hours in. For all intents and purposes, the famous Italian cities that constitute this game-world come together to form what could be the best looking sandbox game ever.

But while the game-world may look great, character models aren’t quite as fantastic. True, the body-animation is the best out there if we forget Uncharted 2‘s other-worldly animations, but the models themselves are a significant step below the likes of MGS4, Resident Evil 5, and of course, Uncharted 2. It’s not a big deal, but worth noting. What is a big deal though, is just how bad facial animation and dialogue in general looks. For a game that relies so heavily on its characters, it just seems strange for them to look so ridiculous every time they talk. The alarming amount of texture pop-in is a little jarring as well.

The same could be said for the quality of the writing in dialogues. The voice acting itself is actually quite good throughout, but the lines the actors have to work with are either dull or total head-scratchers. I think a completely unnecessary and totally boring interactive sex-scene early in the game gives one a good idea of where the dialogue’s heading. There’s also a few too many repeated lines constantly spewing from citizens’ mouths, albeit with some infrequent comic master-strokes.

The sounds we hear most often though are the entirely serviceable grunts of intense climbing, the clangs of steel swords parrying each other, and the echo of stone shingles under Ezio’s swift feet. All of these audio effects resonate realistically without standing out too much. The score falls into the same anonymous boat as the rest of the audio too–it’s all good and forms a cohesive whole, but there’s nothing really striking to stand out. Overall, the sights and sounds of Assassin’s Creed II are pretty good.

But without a doubt, where ACII stands head-and-shoulders above its precursor is in the department of gameplay/mission variety. Gone is the repetitive sequence of “view tower, eaves-drop, interrogate, assassinate”. This time around, the story-missions flow into each other seamlessly without the requirement of any secondary activities and manage to provide a fair amount of variety along the way. Ezio’s story is also more fleshed out than Altiar’s and gives the player a reason to go forward, as thin as that reason may be. It’s also a much lengthier campaign that even has a few set-pieces sprinkled in here and there. The set-pieces aren’t very good (sorry Da Vinci, but your flying machine blows), but they do serve as a nice change of pace. I wish there had been more to break up the rather mundane action of stabbing everything in sight.

This was an alright set-piece.

But that’s what the side-missions are for! Assassinations, races, courier assignments, fist-fights, and Assassin Tombs all serve to spice things up along the way. Most of these secondary activities are poorly fleshed out and quickly grow tiresome with an utter lack of overarching context, but the Assassin Tombs are truly brilliant. There are six in the game, and they task the player with traversing epic platforming challenges in the vein of the Prince of Persia games. The mazes are well-designed and strike a perfect difficulty level, unlike the rest of the game, which is far too easy and unpunishing. And there’s a worth-while reward for players who persevere through every tomb, so they’re definitely the high-light of the game. In addition to the tombs, the search to discover 20 hidden messages in the game-world and decode them through some pretty contrived puzzles offers up a nice mystery to follow, although the end result is just as disappointing as the conclusion of the main story. And as if all that isn’t enough, there are also 100 collectable feathers that garner a stupidly infuriating reward. Plus, there’s an in-game economy!

The economy concept is pretty typical at first–players can upgrade weapons and armor (of which there’s a great variety) as well as buy health and so on at local shops, but it gets really interesting when Ezio’s family villa is introduced. We have the option to slowly rebuild the run-down mansion and surrounding village with our own hard-earned blood-money, and it’s actually pretty fun. I really enjoyed watching the town transform before my eyes as I poured money into re-opening brothels and churches, invested in local shops, and collected fine art for my imposing mansion. The whole process gives a nice sense of progression that isn’t as prominent in the rest of the game.

But for as many words as I’ve devoted to all these interesting secondary mechanics, the core gameplay of ACII remains the same as it was in ACI–we parkour our asses around town and stab stuff in brutally satisfying ways. The free-running stuff seems pretty much unchanged from the first game, which is all good and well other than the fact that the contextual controls frequently misinterpret what I want Ezio to do. I didn’t take issue with the controls as much in the first game because it was relatively new territory, but this time around there’s no excuse for not refining them. I was yelling in frustration all too often as my character leap to his death through no fault of my own. The chase sequences of the game also suffered from the imprecise controls, and it’s really too bad. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that the joystick on my controller tilts slightly upwards, so that may have contributed to some of my frustrations, but it hasn’t really caused any issues in other games I’ve played, so I think it’s safe to blame the game on this one.

But on the bright side, the combat in this game is even better than the last. I absolutely love the movement and counter-based system Ubisoft uses here, as it feels so much more real than any other sword fighting games out there. It also helps me feel like a total bad ass without having to memorize ridiculous combos. Everything just feels right, and the presentation is delightfully gruesome. The huge arsenal of weapons really keeps things fresh too, although the exclusion of a bow still perplexes me.

"..And if you call in the next ten minutes, we'll throw in this second blade for free! Twice the deadliness, half the price!"

And unfortunately, true stealth has managed to somehow render itself invisible in this game, just like the one before it. I simply don’t understand how someone can make a game about assassins and boil the essence of stealth down to hiding in groups of four people or more. Where are the disguises? Where’s the lurking in shadows and sneaking around patrolling guards? There’s not even the ability to press up against a wall and peek around the corner for crying out loud! The path of least resistance in this game is to just kill every bad guy, and that’s not what being an assassin should be about. This franchise would really do well to take some tips from a game like Hitman. I want an actual choice as to how I take down my target. I want to be able to plan out the entry and exit points, the weapon of choice, and how much discretion to use. As it stands now, the core gameplay amounts to climbing over a big wall, killing all the guards, and then stabbing the target with Ezio’s hidden blade. Duke Nukem could be stealthier!

So I guess what I’m trying to say is that while this game is packed full of variety compared to the first one, it’s all skin-deep and gets just as repetitive. With the exception of the Assassin’s Tombs, there’s nothing that really feels new. I think this franchise would benefit greatly were it to adopt some RPG elements to help flesh it out, because stabbing guys, as great as the diversity of enemies is, just gets old and tiresome after a while. That can’t happen with a 25 hour game.

The longer campaign also helps to establish some likeable characters this time around. Ezio’s story is much clearer and more driven than Altiar’s, but I do feel that it reveals a little too much at times. The mysterious nature of the first game, largely because of Desmond’s segments, really appealed to me. ACII‘s story is more conventional and easier to follow, but it doesn’t have that curiosity factor. Or at least it doesn’t until the end when everything hits the fan and Desmond, voiced by Nolan North, sums things up perfectly when he exclaims, “What the fuck!?!” I won’t spoil anything, but the story sort of takes a radical turn that I don’t think is nearly as fun as the conspiracy-charged Templar vs. Assassin arc. Guess we’ll find out more with Assassin’s Creed III.

Daniel Faraday should explain to Desmond how special he is in ACIII.

As for the value of this package, I suppose it’s up to the individual. There’s probably 30 hours of gameplay if one does everything, and there’s actually a free-play mode after the credits roll, so no more reloading memories like in the last game. However, I don’t necessarily think I’ll be returning to the world of Assassin’s Creed II any time soon–I’ve got my 1000 gamer points, the side-missions are too boring to care about, and there aren’t enough thrills in the main story to warrant a second play-through. I guess it comes down to how much fun one derives from running around the world and killing stuff with no real objective.

All and all, Assassin’s Creed II was a bit of a disappointment for me. It’s certainly a good game, but as someone who really fell in love with the potential of the original, I had hoped there would be more to the sequel. Instead, we got a game that corrects most of the first game’s problems but doesn’t take it to the next level and do anything new. But hey, they’ll have to change the game-mechanics if they move into an era with guns, right? Right? Oh god, they’re not going to turn this franchise into a third-person-shooter, are they?

Share/Save

This guy's probably penetrated more genres than anybody else.

So I’ve been playing a lot of Assassin’s Creed II this past week, and as you might know, it’s got me thinking about game genres and what defines them. It seems that the lines between genres are becoming less and less defined these days, but there’s still a pretty stark difference despite the blending. So let’s start off by taking a look at what traditionally defines the major genres of today’s market.

“First-Person-Shooter” typically describes any shooting game that puts the player in the first-person perspective. The central goal of these games usually involves moving through a linear path and killing all enemies along the way. A strong competitive multiplayer component is generally part of the experience as well, and in some games, is a stronger focus than the single-player aspect. The FPS is a very inclusive genre that constitutes a large portion of the market, although there are a few cases of games that are first-person but don’t necessarily fit into this genre (Portal, Fallout 3, BioShock).

“Role-Playing-Games” have split into several distinct sub-genres, but all RPGs still share the same core attributes. The genre is most broadly exemplified by stat and skill progression, among other character upgrades. Japanese RPGs tend to be more linear than open-ended Western RPGs, but both are solitary experiences that are heavily story-driven. Massively-Multiplayer-Online RPGs are relatively new, and exchange the narrative of a single-player game for the social dynamics of an organic online community. There’s a pretty rigid consensus on what games fall under the category of RPG, even if sports titles like Madden follow the core stat-progression mechanic.

“Action-Adventure” games make up perhaps the largest genre of video games today because of just how broad the label is. These games are essentially any third-person titles that take the player through an “adventure” that involves plenty of conflict, or “action” throughout. So really, this genre almost seems like it was created to absorb any game that doesn’t neatly fit into the other, more specific genres. One could really take any survival-horror game, stealth game, sandbox game, or platformer and put it in this all-inclusive category. I’d say the core similarity is a third-person perspective–it’s really that broad.

Random chart about game genres!

Now obviously there are countless more genres, but those are really the big three in today’s market. And one could easily point to cross pollination between these supposedly distinct genres–Deus Ex may be an FPS, but the strong focus on story and stat building make it easy to confuse for an RPG. Not only does Madden feature the persistent stat progression found in RPGs, but the very act of calling a game makes it strikingly similar to Real-Time-Strategy games. And if we were to compare Grand Theft Auto IV with Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted 2, I’m fairly confident that nobody would say they’re similar knock-offs of each other, yet they all fall under the “action-adventure” title. There’s so much blending between traditional genres these days that it’s becoming hard to peg a given game into one category.

I think it’s worth taking a different kind of look at how we define game genres for a moment. Mind you, this is going to be a rather broad examination with plenty of room to narrow categories into more specificity, but I think these polarized perspectives offer some good insight into the kinds of games we play.

One of the most interesting qualities to study in a game is whether it’s a solitary or social experience. A lot of people these days feel like the single-player game is a dying breed. Uncharted 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and BioShock 2 are all seen as games that traditionally shouldn’t need multiplayer components, yet there they are. And it is a widely held fact that a significant portion of the people who buy games like Halo or Call of Duty never bother to finish the single-player campaign despite hundreds of hours spent in the online environment. It’s quite clear that people make a definite divide between solitary and social experiences. Most traditional RPG players aren’t particularly huge fans of MMOs, yet both sub-genres share the same core-mechanic.

I think the phenomenon of MMOs has had an interesting effect on the industry. If we look back far enough, single-player and multiplayer games were typically separated. Half-Life and Counter-Strike were separate products. Doom and Unreal Tournament occupied separate audiences. Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 served different purposes. But as time went on, it became common practice for a single game to contain both aspects of gameplay. But recent titles like Warhawk, Left 4 Dead, and MAG may be spear-heading a revival of segregation. Developers are realizing that if the majority of their customers are only interested in one aspect or the other, then it only makes sense to save costs on the less-heralded portion of the game. It’ll be interesting to see where this movement goes, if it goes anywhere at all. But the point is that there’s a clear-cut divide between solitary and social games. The loners among us generally prefer a good RPG, while those who game for the socialization gravitate towards competitive shooters.

Can you imagine this guy in a Call of Duty pre-game lobby?

Another really distinct way to label games is with a “first-person” or “third-person” tag. Rainbow Six and SOCOM are pretty much the same style of game to a tee, yet they feel completely different and cater to different crowds. Mirror’s Edge and Assassin’s Creed both rely on free-running parkour as the core gameplay, but they’re seen in very different lights. The Elder Scrolls franchise and Final Fantasy franchise are both single-player fantasy RPGs, but they’re never spoken of in the same sentence. As we can see, perspective really make a big difference when we’re playing a game.

Drawing on my own personal experience, my library of games is pretty heavy on first-person titles, Shooters, RPGs, Puzzlers, Survival-horror, and so on. For me, the first-person perspective is just so much more immersive than its third-person counter-part. It feels less like I’m watching something and more like I’m experiencing something when I see the game-world through the eyes of my character. Conversely, I tend to grow more attached to characters I play as from the third-person view. That’s not to say I enjoy the story more, but I am more invested in the characters. The surrounding world and NPCs can paint a beautiful picture in first-person games, but they can never replicate the empathy I feel for Snake in the microwave tunnel of Metal Gear Solid 4. And when I think of Fallout 3, I think of what I did in the world, as opposed to Mass Effect, where I ponder Shephard’s story and motivations.

A game’s point-of-view seems to have severe implications on its story and characters. One offers up a blank-slate for the player to occupy and drive through their own personal story, while the other calls on a player’s emotions with a more traditional character-driven story. Both have their pros and cons, but there’s no denying the drastic difference between the two macro-genres.

"Who am I again? Oh, God, explosions!"

But the previous two classifications really can’t substitute for this one. A recent blog I read divided games into two experiences–short, high-intensity games and long, low-intensity games. The first category is sort of like the sparks of a fire–it’s a tight, fast-paced, and heart-pounding experience full of set-pieces that stick with us long after the credits roll. The second category is more of a simmer–there may never be individual moments that send adrenaline coursing through our bodies, but the overall experience lasts longer and ultimately gives satisfaction through a sense of progression. Another good way to look at it is that the sparks cater to our primal and animalistic desires, much like sports do, while the simmer nurtures our more cerebral, conceptual half, sort of like literature.

If we look at things in this light, it becomes much easier to classify games and determine whether or not they’re for you. Let’s go back to the games that just don’t fit and see where they line up. Fallout 3, BioShock, Deus Ex, and Half-Life may reside in the realm of a traditionally intense genre, but they’re really geared more towards an intellectual experience. And not only in the sense of story, but stat progression too. Progression is a sort of gratification for hard work. It’s not an impulsive thing to think, “If I do this now then I’ll be rewarded down the line.” None of these games really “live in the moment.” Portal is a little harder to classify, as its puzzling mechanics typically give a less intense feel than shooters, but I feel like the humor that drives the plot is geared towards a simplistic desire to laugh. It is a game that is very “in the moment”, despite its brain-teasing puzzles. Madden and other sports titles fall clearly into the less-intense, longer-lasting genre when played alone, but when put in a competitive environment, they become intense battles of primal superiority. MMOs deal with the basic desire to socialize while the satisfaction of traditional RPGs is found later in the game through major plot events or steady stat progression (which, of course is also found in MMOs, but is really just something to do while players talk amongst themselves). And in spite of the difference in perspective, Mirror’s Edge probably shares more in common with Uncharted 2 than Assassin’s Creed II.

"Let's just pause and think about this for a minute, guys."

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. There are games that live in the moment and those that delay satisfaction for a later date. Neither one is better than the other, they’re just different. And there’s some cross-pollination to be found in these polar-opposites as well, although I’d argue less so than with traditional game genres. But it’s very apparent that there are two major game experiences, those that excite our more primitive side with jaw-dropping set-pieces and non-stop action, and those that take us along at a more leisurely pace, slowly building the tension until it culminates in a deeply satisfying finale. Which one do you prefer? Do you see a disparity in value? Do you plan to tear this article apart with an equally unthought-out post?

Share/Save

So I’ve been playing my share of Assassin’s Creed II over the past week, and I keep having this recurring thought that I want to get off my chest–the next game in this franchise needs to be an RPG.

The thought first popped into my head during a side-mission–I think it was some random assassination to be exact. I thought to myself that while ACII is bursting with a variety of different things to keep you busy, there really isn’t a whole lot of depth to these things. Beyond a sentence or two giving you your objective, these side-hits have absolutely no context. I thought to myself, “Wouldn’t it be snazzy if there were full-fledged side-quests with arching plots?” I mean, killing dudes and racing dudes and delivering letters to dudes and so on is fun and all, but it begins to lose its luster after a while. I found myself doing side-missions if they happened upon me, but I never sought them out.

When I first thought about it, the story-driven side-quests were just a fleeting desire. But as I pondered it more, I realized that the Assassin’s Creed universe is really tailor-made for RPGs. It’s a story-driven game with lots of focus on characters and mystery. It’s a lengthy experience that’s fun throughout, but lacks the heart-pumping intensity of a good set-piece in Call of Duty or Uncharted. One of the best new features in the game is the ability to purchase increasingly better armor and weapons that improve Ezio’s stats.

So why not take it all the way? Why do RPGs have to be confined to fantasy worlds with turn-based combat and mana meters? There are no technological restrictions to an open-world, parkour-action-stealth RPG. The stat progression could allow the player to specialize in alternate gameplay styles and in return allow a little more freedom of approach to some of the game’s situations. As it stands now, I find that the easiest path in AC games is to simply murder everything. I’d like to see a little more variety there.

If Ubisoft made it so the player could invest in combat stats, climbing/stealth stats, or persuasion stats that would allow them to obtain secret info, enemy uniforms, and so on, well then every player would be able to build the assassin that best suits them and everybody would have different stories to tell with the game. If it’s not going to have the ultra-intense moments of a brisk, high-octane experience, then it should probably extend its value with systems that make the player feel like they’re always progressing. Because no matter how awesome a double-hidden-blade assassination is, murder just gets a little old after 25 hours.

So yeah, I don’t really expect this to happen, as Ubisoft probably thinks turning such a high-profile franchise into an RPG would scare away half the audience, but I feel like if Assassin’s Creed is ever going to live up to its potential, it has to happen. Every time I play one of these games I’m left thinking how awesome it could be, and not how awesome it is. The fun core gameplay is already in place. The deep world, story, and characters are there too. All this franchise needs is a little redirection with its mechanics and it could be truly masterful.

Share/Save

If November 17th just isn’t soon enough to quench your thirst for blood, then perhaps this mission walk-through of Assassin’s Creed II will tide you over. I’ll try to hold my excitement back for fear of soul-crushing disappointment, but from the looks of it, there will actually be a variety of different ways to approach missions and it will be awesome. Plus, free-style parkour is the funnest game mechanic since shooting dudes.

Share/Save