Vive la Différence: How GT5 and Forza 4 Prove the Industry Wrong

We gamers, and this site not least, often lament how modern games have ever less variety- how modern action games are clones of one of Call of Duty, Uncharted or Gears of War. We often complain that seeing something different is far more unusual than it should be, and we get perhaps over-excited when we see something that is- see Watch_Dogs. On the face of it, one might think that racing games would be the most guilty of this- the premise of driving a car around a track is identical for damn near every one of them, right?

Well, maybe. As a car fan without money for cars, I’ve been spending a lot of time with the two biggest names in console race sims- Polyphony Digital’s Gran Turismo 5 and Turn 10’s Forza Motorsport 4, and it turns out that the variation between two outwardly similar games is greater than it appears; it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference in design philosophy, pervading every aspect of the games, that sets them apart from one another to attentive eyes.

GT5 presents a simulation experience, pure almost to the point of harshness, but deep too, with multiple disciplines, a huge range of cars and meticulous attention to detail. Over a thousand painstakingly recreated vehicles make up the roster, and each one drives differently. Real world and virtual tracks are included, all with their own subtle nuances, and the player can race at night, in the rain, or on snow or dirt tracks to their heart’s content. Career progression and menus, however, can be very clunky at times, and AI opponents often seem oblivious to the player’s car- it’s clear that this is a game that is all about the driving simulation, with no room for compromise.

Forza, on the other hand, is a far more player-focused experience, offering a more structured campaign and the polish for the smoothest possible player experience. The career mode is smooth and well-designed, menus slick and car customisation intuitive. The online suite offers the ready usability of a Call of Duty game, and carefully planned DLC offers new cars and tracks that add to an already complete experience. For all its polish, though, it lacks GT’s range and depth of cars and experience, not to mention a little of its character.

Everything from menus (slick in Forza and intimidating in GT) to race physics (with GT’s lending each car more personality but Forza’s superior feedback) to my mind illustrates that these games, supposedly interchangeable, are in fact two very different creations born of very different but equally worthy visions. Which is better? I couldn’t possibly say; Forza seems to represent the console ideal of challenging gameplay accessible to all, while Gran Turismo’s unwavering focus and clear passion are admirable. As a car fan and a game fan, I like both very much; both sold well and received praise from critics, despite taking very different approaches to the same basic formula. Neither game releases annually, either, and both are receiving impressive post release support in the form of patches, DLC and community events.

Why, then, do so many developers seek to follow trends and copy the competition? Here, surely, is proof positive that visionary and talented game creation yields a truly worthwhile (not to mention marketable) product, distinct from the competition. Forza and GT are franchises with unique identity and vision; trends come and trends go, but I believe that a game with that identity can stick around for a very long time.

This article was originally posted on www.invalidopinions.com - check it out- it's great and actually gets updates unlike my stupid goddamn blog.

More Cars I Could Never Afford: Mclaren Reveal MP4-12C Spider

Mclaren last week announced and showed off a new model of their slickly named MP4-12C supercar, this time with up to 100% less roof. Presumably in a bid to silence those claiming the car looked a little tame for a £170,000 all-carbon twin-turbo supercar, the spider looks fucking amazing. Mclaren claim the coupe’s blistering performance is largely intact, thanks to design wizardry and carbon fibre- most cars converted to convertibles as an afterthought end up heavy and lame thanks to the compromised structure and necessary reinforcement, but the MP4-12C’s carbon tub chassis neatly sidesteps these issues, and there’s only a relatively minor 40kg weight increase from the folding hardtop. With the twin-turbo 3.8 litre V8 kicking out 631 horsepower, I suspect you won’t notice. I recall reading that some TT-veteran bike racer reckoned the hardtop McLaren would give a superbike a run for its money- with the roof gone, it might also match the sensory bombardment terror. The spider comes with all the same performance sorcery of the hardtop and will retail for a cool £195,500; pricier than the coupe, but if you’re in the market for one you can probably afford it. 

Though I’m not entirely sure why I’m qualified as a supercar pundit, I think the Spider is a welcome addition to the McLaren stable. Obviously, no one was questioning the MP4-12C’s pedigree- between the legendary F1 and decades of motorsport excellence, McLaren are assuredly top-flight when it comes to fast cars- but for such an exotic machine, it did seem a little bland (especially when the alternative is the outrageous Ferrari 458). The beautiful new Spider ought to reassert McLaren as a maker of cars that are not only technically marvellous, but impassioned and desirable; they’re going to need that if they hope to give Ferrari serious competition on the road as well as the track. I may have a little trouble securing a test drive, but when I do I’ll be sure to report on it. If any rockstars or CEOs are reading this and fancy picking one up, the first cars are expected to reach customers around the end of the year.

On Motorcycles and Middle-Earth

I can’t stop fucking thinking about motorcycles. Not just any motorcycles, either- 1000cc supersport motorcycles. I find myself obsessing over the engineering balance of the Honda Fireblade, the digital supremacy of the Aprilia RSV4 and the savage purity of the MV Augusta F4R. My father has a Ducati 916, widely regarded as a classic of the class, and took it out yesterday. It took twenty minutes to start and when it did it deafened me and woke the neighbours. But what a fucking thing it is! That styling, that ferocity, that v-twin rumble. This is dangerous; a fat fuck like me, who has never ridden so much as a moped, shouldn’t get any ideas about fast bikes. Cocaine is a healthier vice, and more socially acceptable, too. Fuck it. The heart wants what the heart wants, and my heart wants to race. All that remains is to find some money and negotiate the ever tightening maze of UK bike licensing laws, and I can get myself a cheap shit 125cc commuter bike- a start.

Been reading Lord of the Rings again. I’ve heard people complain and disparage about the books, claiming they aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. While I can see where these people are coming from, I have to disagree. The Lord of the Rings is an unparalleled masterpiece- what it isn’t is readily accessible to the modern reader. Tolkien created not so much a story as a world, one that is fit to burst with depth, richness and melancholy. This, I think, is why we get songs that last four pages about some plot-irrelevant elf-maiden’s favourite tree while the deaths of major characters are done with in a few sentences. I mentioned in my post about the GTAV trailer how the GTA games give the player a beautiful world to lose himself in. Tolkien did the same shit with just text.

It’s also E3 season, with the Microsoft conference starting in about 45 minutes at the time of this writing- I’ll be posting about this one afterwards over at www.invalidopinions.com (HA HA PLUGGING). Hopefully, it won’t be a repeat of the casual gaming Kinect shitfest we saw last year. I’m hoping for some more GTAV content, maybe a new Playstation console, and for the Wii-U not to be completely horrible. As ever, you can bet that lots of stupid shit will be shown and that Half Life 3 won’t.

My Work for Invalid Opinions

I haven't posted here in three weeks; considering past form, that's a miraculously short interval, but I'm still unhappy with myself for it. There is a reason, though- I'm now on board with an independent games journalism site. Invalid Opinions seeks to provide articles and reviews with the unbiased and honest opinions of real video game enthusiasts, disillusioned with the current state of video game journalism and the industry as a whole. We've been picking up momentum pretty nicely, but it has occupied me away from this blog- much of my gaming content will be heading there for the time being, though it should work its way over here after a while. So! Check out Invalid Opinions, but don't stop checking here. I'm sure I'll find some aspect of my incredibly adventurous lifestyle to report on. You can see a couple articles I originally did for Invalid Opinions below.

Starhawk Review

Since the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare way back in 2007, there hasn't really been a lot of room for innovation in the console shooter. Developers have sought to replicate COD as closely as they could to attract the brain-dead masses. For the discerning gamer, like you, dear reader, this is not good. As such, it gives me pleasure to report that Lightbox Interactive's Ps3 exclusive Starhawk breathes some much-needed new life into the sector.

Set in a space-faring sci-fi western universe that owes a lot to Firefly, Starhawk is a third-person team-based shooter  with open maps and vehicle gameplay in the vein of Battlefield, outwardly similar to its spiritual predecessor Warhawk, a decent third-person shooter that was sadly completely overshadowed by being released about 3 weeks before the original Modern Warfare. Two teams square off across a wide, open battlefield in objective based-gameplay, as you might expect, but there's a twist- players can summon structures to be dropped into play from orbit, changing the face of the arena in real time.

Turrets, vehicle spawners and fortifications are all available from this so called "Build & Battle" mechanic, and this is what sets Starhawk apart from the crowd. It demands more thought from players than the average shooter- correct use of it is vital for both team and individual success. You spawn with an assault rifle and a handful of grenades. This is fine for fighting some other punk that just spawned, but to mount a serious assault on the enemy base, or a concerted defense of your own? No chance. Call in a a siege tank depot or a supply bunker, though, and maybe you can have a go at it. Building is done with a straightforward radial menu, usable enough that it doesn't get in the way, and can be done by anyone- there's no commander or support role in charge of it. And it works, even in an uncoordinated public server team- walls go up, turrets placed strategically and vehicle structures placed where they can be readily accessed. I'm impressed that a mechanic like this has ben made to work as well as it does in the notoriously anarchic console shooter environment, probably down to the design devotion of the developers- improvements have been made from beta, and more are promised.
The broader gameplay is pretty good- while unmodified infantry combat can be a little flat, things get much more interesting when structures and vehicles are involved. Genuine excitement comes from the constant shifting of a match's dynamics as buildings are alternately erected and obliterated- you gotta keep on your toes. Infantry weapons are pretty standard- general purpose assault rifle, close range shotgun, sniper rifle, rocket launcher- but all have their uses. Vehicles play a big part- the firepower of tanks and aircraft is needed to break a siege and the speed of jeeps and jetbikes to whisk the flag away- and handle well.

To my surprise, there is a singleplayer, and even more surprisingly it doesn't feel completely divorced from the multiplayer. Story hinges around the precious so-called "Rift Energy"- space-crude-oil, essentially. Out in the space frontier, there's a constant battle between Rifters (roughneck space cowboys) and Outcasts (once-men mutated and consumed by the energy). Our player-character is somewhere in between; a rifter with just a hint of outcast glow. It's a pretty decent space western, with colourful characters and animation cutscenes, but nothing earth-shaking. Starhawk does, however, buck the shooter trend once more by using largely the same mechanics in singleplayer as multiplayer- success rides on the use ofbuildings and vehicles just as much in both  cases. This lends a good chunk of player choice to what might otherwise be a fairly dreary campaign. The setting is really cool, though, with a real frontier vibe and great artstyle.

One thing that does strike me about Starhawk is the amount of really neat design features incorporated; I get a feeling that a lot of love went in from the designers, who were dedicated to do the shooter thing a little differently. Instead of just popping on to the map as if by magic, players drop in from above in a pod, able to make subtle flight adjustment to land exactly where they please. It's not just show, either- land your pod on an enemy player or vehicle for an instant (and hilarious) kill. Bunkers have team-exclusive doors and one-way shields on the firing ports to allow occupants to fire out safely- to take them out requires serious firepower or a daring dash up the external ladder to drop in and butcher those within. The "Hawk" aircraft is suited not only to dogfighting as is so often the case with air vehicles in shooters, but bombing as well, and can transform to a walker form to really take part in the ground fight. These things and more are real sparks of creativity and are very welcome indeed in the stale shooter market.

It's so easy to make an average shooter in today's market- just copy Call of Duty. Starhawk shies well away from this approach and does its very best to do something very different from the norm, and manages it, providing a unique action experience with its unconventional design approach. I like it quite a lot, but there are a couple issues I must mention; were it not for the dynamicism offered by the building mechanic, I don't think the shooter gameplay would work- it doesn'y play as well as a conventional shooter as a good conventional shooter does. Additionally, there are a few balance issues lingering still, particularly with vehicle spam- every player on a team can build himself a heavy tank, and if they all do it stops being much fun for the enemy. Nonetheless, Starhawk is living proof that different things can be successfully done with console shooters- take note, developers.

This article was originally posted on www.invalidopinions.com - check it out, it's totally awesome. 

The Perils of Kickstarter

Kickstarter funded game development is happening more and more. After the “Double Fine Adventure” project received over three million dollars of a relatively modest $400,000 goal, a great many people have been trying to get in on that sweet croudsourced funding. Projects that might never otherwise have seen the light of day, like Wasteland 2, are suddenly becoming viable by reaching out to the gaming community for support. Great, right? Yes, obviously. But I’m a little wary of this trend- what are the consequences of doing without publisher support?

Game development is a pain in the ass. It’s a complicated, challenging and costly process, and always has been. It’s not at all uncommon for games to be delayed, undergo radical changes or to be cancelled outright during development. Big projects from big developers aren’t immune- where is Rockstar’s Agent, for example? Even if a game does manage to come out on schedule and within budget, there’s no guarantee whatsoever that it’ll actually be any good. This isn’t really a problem; it’s merely the nature of the beast.

Nominally, the job of the publisher is to tame that same beast. They’re supposed to bankroll multiple projects from multiple developers, providing support and resources as required, and using business know-how to turn raw creative output from the developers into a marketable product, thus making money for everyone involved. Ideally, the developer-publisher relationship is one of mutual service and benefit, and while today’s publishers may be primarily concerned with shoving DLC down our throats, they have to at least try to do it right to stay afloat.

Making a good pitch for a game is easy; making a good game is hard. Imagine that instead of an angry unemployed asshole, I’m a new studio with a vision for a game of massively multiplayer vehicle combat and racing in a persistent online wasteland, with high emphasis on loot, customisation and the unique specification of your personal ride. Sounds great, right? Trouble is, I don’t know how the hell to actually put such a thing together- I’m an ideas guy.  Ordinarily, this is where a publisher comes in. They look at my pitch, ask me some questions, and, if they think I can deliver the goods, they give me resources and a schedule to bring my vision to reality. However! If I decide instead to fund myself with a Kickstarter, I’m losing out on the publisher assistance, which (should) go beyond the financial.

While it is by no means impossible to find success in independent game development, it does place the burden of financial and business stuff necessary to make a game not on the guys in grey suits at a publishing company, but on the creative types actually making the game, who could easily be woefully ill-equipped to deal with such things. Like I said, making games is hard, and there are often complications. What if a key designer falls ill? What if there’s a fire or an earthquake or a Godzilla attack and vital code is lost? What if the project runs over budget, and the Kickstarter cash is all gone? These are the sort of things the publisher is supposed to handle.

When a conventionally-published project goes down the pipe, it’s only really the publisher that loses out. When one funded by a Kickstarter does the same, it’s you and me- the real life gamers who put up the cash for its development, who are taking the hit.

Don’t get me wrong- I do like the Kickstarter funding thing, and I wouldn’t dream of suggesting it stopped. What I will suggest is that when you look at a Kickstarter page, you bear in mind the unique perils of this approach to development.

This article was originally posted on www.invalidopinions.com - check it out, it's totally awesome. 

Short Thought on Fixing Things

Nobody fixes their own shit any more. Your car ain’t running right? You take it to the dealer and he fixes it. Your iPod won’t turn on? Fuck it, buy a new one. There’s no room for stuff that doesn’t work right in today’s world, and if something breaks down, chances are it’ll be discarded and replaced rather than nursed back to health. I’ve been trying to fix up my old bike the last couple weeks, and I’m starting to see why this is. Every fucking effort I make is resisted at every turn by the infernal machine- nuts are seized, cables jammed, bearings are fucked up beyond belief. I don’t have any money, though, so replacement or professional repair is out of the question, and I toil on. The whole thing raised some questions, however- why has the modern human so little tolerance for wear and tear on his things?

I read a book recently that addresses this. In ‘The Case for Working with your Hands’, Matthew Crawford explores the effect of office work in an information economy on peoples’ aptitude for and interest in manual work, and asks repeatedly why his work as a motorcycle mechanic is so much more satisfying than his work leading a university think-tank. It’s a real interesting read, and one issue raised really connected with me- the author notes that fixing a machine not of your own design serves as a lesson in interacting with the wider world. The universe does not exist for your convenience, as it turns out, and it has patterns and machinations of its own. To get what you want from it, you must consider not only your self and your wishes, but how these figure in the world at large. 

Mankind did not make it to the very top of the food chain by having a world that meekly submitted to its will straight off the bat. Man had to learn how to rub sticks to make fire, how to build shelters that would resist the weather, where to stab tigers to stop them from eating him. We are manipulators, and over the course of human history we have manipulated our environment to suit us as best we can. We’ve got so good at it that an illusion of control has developed whereby we start to think that the world around us does exist solely for our own bullshit and conforms to our every whim- the bike breaks, you can summon a new one within the hour. But you can’t magic away that sabre-tooth. When you sit down to fix your bike, think of it as jamming your spear between the bastard’s ribs; it’s nasty and messy, but that’s how the fucking world works. If I get down to it, my bike should be ready to ride by next weekend.