Well, Ubisoft’s just rolling out the bad news, aren’t they? According to Gamasutra, we can expect a brand new Assassin’s Creed game little more than a year after Assassin’s Creed 2. As if the rushed development time isn’t enough of a worry, the new title “will be the first in the series to have an online multiplayer mode.” Oh joy…

At first, there was some confusion as to whether this new content would be an entire game or just DLC for ACII, considering Ubisoft referred to it as, “a new episode of Assassin’s Creed.” But it has been confirmed that the multi-player enabled content will be an entirely new game. Few other details were provided, although it is set to release sometime between April 2010 and March 2011 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

Maybe it will turn out to be some fantastically revolutionary game that encourages co-operation and creative thinking, but considering the depth–or lack there of–in Assassin’s Creed II‘s gameplay, I’m not holding my breath. Plus, what other multi-player stealth experience has worked? None in my opinion. The good news in all this? At least we’re getting a new Ghost Recon title in the same time-frame!

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

While it certainly won’t pull me away from Modern Warfare 2, it does look like it could be an interesting change-of-pace game if there’s a decent community. I just hope there’s some more strategic modes than death match to take advantage of the unique capabilities of plasmids. On a side note: what ever engine the BioShock games run on is really bad at making believable looking people.

Share/Save

Take-Two decided to do us all a favor and release some details on the multiplayer component of the upcoming Bioshock 2. Instead of being developed in house by 2K Marin, they are outsourcing the work to Digital Extremes, the developer that ported the original Bioshock to the PS3 and is best known for their recent work on Dark Sector.

Remember those rumors that Bioshock 2 was going to be a prequel? Well, that idea would seem to be manifesting itself within the multiplayer. It will take place before the events of the first game, specifically during the fall of rapture. So that means we’re going to get iconic locations like Mercury Suites and Kashmir Restaurant specially restored to their former glory just for us to destroy them again in our multiplayer matches.

Speaking of destroying things. Some of the specific gameplay features were revealed as well. Digital Extremes will be taking the route of many other multiplayer modes of today by adding an experience system that rewards the player the more that they play. As experience is gained, you will be allowed to upgrade your character with new weapons, tonics, and plasmids.

Since not much was mentioned in the way of actual gameplay and modes there’s not much to say on this. Sure, it sounds like it could be fun, but I still wonder why they found it necessary to add it in the first place.

2K Games Reveals First Details of the BioShock^® 2 Multiplayer Experience [take2games.com via Destructoid]

Share/Save

Remember that “electrifying announcement” that Sony teased last week? Well, as was expected, it invovled the inclusion of multiplayer support in Naughty Dog’s upcoming Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and the announcement of a multiplayer beta. The beta will be in the same style as Halo 3′s in that beta keys will be sold along with the first copies of inFAMOUS. inFAMOUS ships on May 26th and the Uncharted 2 multiplayer beta will run from June 3 through June 28th.

In addition to that wonderful bit of news, it seems as if every major news outlet was able to get a hands on preview of Uncharted 2‘s multiplayer at a Sony Gamers’ Day last week. Both competitive multiplayer and 3 person co-op were available at the event.

There were two modes on hand for the competitive aspect. A standard Deathmatch game type where the goal is to just kill as many of the opposite team as you can, and a capture the flag mode suitably titled “Plunder.”

Deathmatch is, as you may have guessed, standard competitive multiplayer faire, but with an Uncharted twist. Various weapons are strewn about the map as players vie to be the first to shoot their enemy. Players can gain a tactical advantage by taking cover (and thus regaining health), or by doing a little platforming and attaining that coveted higher ground. However, as you climb, you risk completely exposing yourself to enemy fire as you do so.

Weapons included are pretty standard. Pistols, assault rifles, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, and grenades all make an appearance. As does a very powerful chain gun. Said chain gun would seem to be a pretty devastating weapon, allowing you to easily dominate the opposition. There are also various melee attacks that allow you to take out an opponent in a more up close and personal kind of way.

A pleasant addition to this standard multiplayer is the inclusion of a skill system, a la Call of Duty 4. There are various “perks” which allow you to do things such as shoot more accurately while moving, or be more accurate while blind firing. Since that is one of the things that made Call of Duty 4′s multiplayer so addictive, I can see it being a great addition to Uncharted 2‘s.

The other competitive mode, Plunder, has you racing accross the map to grab a golden idol and bring it back to your base. It seems like pretty run-of-the-mill stuff as well. While carrying the idol you move slower and can only use a pistol; if you get into serious trouble you can ditch the idol by just tossing it away, or, in somewhat of a nice addition, pitch it right over to your buddy to take it the rest of the way.

The cooperative aspect of the game’s multiplayer will have three, yes, three, not two, but three, players working together to overcome swarms of enemy mercenaries and complete certain objectives. The co-op will be separate from the singler player campaign and be much more action oriented. Mercs will respawn endlessly in their attempt to stop you from reaching your goal.

There are cooperative platforming elements where you will have to give a partner a boost, or lift a heavy object. You can also help your teammates by reviving them or rescuing them from the grip of an enemy merc.

I’m still a bit hesitant about the whole inclusion of multiplayer, but if the various previews are to be believed, it should be a blast. It all sounds pretty standard, but as if it has been polished to a level so that it will be seen as a welcome additon for those that purchase the game.

Share/Save