[Review] Groov

Another XNA Community game up for review today, and yet another twin-stick shooter, although this one is quite different to Weapon of Choice.

At first glance, Groov will remind you of Geometry Wars. As a matter of fact, you might even mistake it for a GeoWars game at first glance. You navigate around a rectangle area with one stick, while shooting at enemies (each with its own different appearance and movement patterns) with the second stick. No, Groov does not shy away from its influences. However, once you actually get to play the game itself, you will see that it holds its own quite well.

You see, more than anything, Groov is as much a music game as it is a shooter. Every single shot your (what one assumes to be a) ship fires adds a certain beat to the music, and each of the enemies you kill with said shots adds another, different sound, depending on the enemy.

Given that this game is a shooter though, you may have already imagined that things become hectic after a while. This combination of frantic shooting action and catchy music bits means that Groov becomes quite the audiovisual spectacle.

Another thing that Groov does differently from most shooters is the fact that there is no smartbomb to save your life during a difficult situation. Instead, you are given the ability to slow down time for a short while, which you can use to escape from a cluster of enemies heading straight for you. While not as handy as the aforementioned bomb, it still works well and makes you feel more skilled.

There’s three different modes to the game, the first of which being the normal mode that plays like any regular shooter as things start off slowly and become progressively harder. Then there is the Remix Hard mode where as the name implies things start off hectic and you only have one life but you also get an upgraded weapon. Lastly, there is the Jam Session mode where it’s impossible for you to die and therefore are left to casually kill things dead.

Things Groov does right:

- Catchy jazz fusion music, a music genre that’s quite unique for this type of game.

- Gameplay that is, by its very nature, quite addictive. The addition of leaderboards means you’ll have a reason to keep playing.

- The Jam Session mode works wonderfully. Without the stress of dying, you are able to manually choose what sounds your weapon and drum modes will make, so you can create your own music (of sorts) at your own leisure.

- At 200 Microsoft points, Groov is one cheap game.

Things about Groov that aren’t that hot:

- At its very heart, it’s nothing more than just another twin-stick shooter with limited game options. If the music aspect of the game does nothing for you, then neither will the game.

- While the game is pretty enough for an indie production, the animation isn’t quite as smooth as in other games of the genre.

- Much like the first Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved, Groov’s main game mode starts off really slow and feels almost like a chore after you have played it several times, as it takes a long while before things get into a groove[*].

Things I don’t get:

- Why are the menu screens so damn dark? I could barely read anything.

In closing, the twin-stick shooters market may be rapidly becoming saturated, but indie games such as Groov still show that there is life in the genre. It’s not the world’s most original game, but it’s honest enough with its intentions and its price to be worth picking up.

The Final Verdict is:
THE GENUINE ARTICLE

TL;DR version:

While it may be true that for some people[*2] any sort of music-shooter game is enough to make them go all “Ooh, shiny!”, Groov is actually accomplished as a game, first and foremost. Not to mention, you can’t go wrong with that asking price.

[*] Would you kindly excuse the horrible, horrible pun.
[*2] Me being one of them.

[Review] Weapon of Choice

(This review is a few hours late due to a connection problem. Sorry!)

Weapon of Choice (WoC for short) is the rather unusually-named game of choice for most fans of the XNA Community. Unlike several other XNA games, which are little more than interactive slide shows, WoC is an accomplished shooter that aims to be a showcase for all independent games on the Xbox Live platform.

That being said, WoC doesn’t differentiate itself much from the contemporary norm for shooters, using a twin-stick control system much like the one found in the Geometry Wars games or Commando 3, and sporting a storyline that is as ridiculous as it is entertaining. On a side-note, the simplicity of its gameplay and the retro presentation would not have been out of place in any early 1990’s game. Yes, this is meant as a compliment.

What does help to differentiate WoC some from every other shooter in the market is its different characters. Instead of a lives system, you are given three different operatives with different weaponry available, each of which only has one life. Once they are critically injured, you must choose a different operative, with the added option of rescuing the downed operative and carrying them to the end of the level where you will be once again capable of choosing them for a level.

You can also do this with hidden characters, which help bring the total of operatives to seven. The ability to choose different characters each time you play the game will remind you of the Metal Slug series, but the differences between each character in WoC as well as the sheer number of them makes the game stand on its own.

Enough with theory though, how does WoC fare on the dreaded Intentionmeter?

Things Weapon of Choice does right:

- While axioms don’t always work, despite their claims to the contrary, sometimes they are right: The best things in life are simple, and that is the case with WoC’s gameplay. It’s intuitive enough, the twin-sticks control scheme is so often copied because it works great, and shooting everything that moves until it does is always fun. Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

- The few new things that the game brings to the table work well. The secondary fire option in every character’s arsenal helps with some tight spots, and the Deathbrushing system (where in the few moments before your character dies, time slows down, bullet-time style) also helps a lot when it comes to getting out of said tight spots.

- The sheer wealth of available characters adds extra replayability to the game, and games of this genre were always meant to be replayed to begin with.

- At 400 Microsoft points, it’s very competitively priced compared to most other shooters available on the Xbox Marketplace.

Things about Weapon of Choice that aren’t that great:

- While I am not one to berate an independent game over its graphics, I must make an exception here. WoC’s graphics are often too muddled to be able to tell what is happening on-screen, with enemy sprites and backgrounds almost blending together. In a game where you rarely have the time for second guesses, this is a pretty big deal.

- Enemy designs feel like something out of a bad acid trip. While that is not necessarily a bad thing in game where you are supposed to kill everything dead, it makes the aesthetics of the game look a bit too trippy.

- For a game that looks as simplistic as this one, there are a few occasions where the game slows down to almost a crawl. It’s forgivable for an independent game, but it inarguably still looks bad.

Things I just don’t get:

- The complete lack of a scoring system and a leaderboard is a mind-boggling, head-scratching omission. The sole purpose of this kind of games, especially back when they were almost too difficult to ever complete, was to attain the highest score out of all your friends and/or everyone at the local Arcade. A shooter without a scoring system therefore sounds almost like an oxymoron.

While perhaps not the tour-de-force that the XNA games need so badly, since Weapon of Choice is held back by mostly budgetary issues, it still remains a very fun game at a highly competitive price.

Final Verdict:
CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR

TL;DR version:

Weapon of Choice is seriously as close as you’ll get to ever playing a Psygnosis shooter again, aside from trying to get your old Amiga to work after all these years in the attic. Certain omissions and design choices will make you wonder “What gives?” but it’s certainly not bad for a first try from a new developer.

[Review] Assassin's Creed

How many times have you watched a movie simply because it was directed by one of your favorite directors, or because one of your favorite actors/actresses were starring in it?

Games, as you may very well already know, are no exception; many people will play a game simply because it’s the latest project of their favorite creator. Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Peter Moore, and so on and so forth.

Assassin’s Creed was a bit different in this respect in the sense that the main figure behind it was not a widely-known creator prior to the game’s release, but rather a (fairly easy on the eyes) woman by the name of Jade Raymond.

Ms. Raymond was hardly the first woman to lead a project such as Assassin’s Creed since Roberta Williams (King’s Quest series, Phantasmagoria) did it almost twenty years earlier, and Jane Jensen (of Gabriel Knight fame) did it better, but it was the first time that the media made such a big deal out of it.

The game itself was released in November 2007 in the midst of a lot of hype promising a revolutionary experience, yet no demo was released to the public prior to its commercial debut. While early word of mouth and sales were good, there was a significant backlash against the game before long, with a significant amount of people denouncing it as a terrible game.

The more level-headed types out there would eventually agree that Assassin’s Creed is flawed yet still entertaining enough, stuck in the limbo between a glorious masterpiece and a horrible mess of a game.

How does then Assassin’s Creed stand the test of time and post-release aftermath? Onwards to the pros and cons list for the answer!

Things Assassin’s Creed does right:

- The game’s graphics are simply beautiful, even almost eighteen months after it was first released. Character models are detailed and well-animated, textures are of high quality and the areas are huge in scope.

- Each of the real-life cities that the protagonist, Altair, must visit is richly detailed and has a great number of places to visit and people to interact with. Furthermore, all of them feel like a place where life would go on even without the player’s presence there.

- Voice-acting is solid, which is an important part in a game where the story plays such an important role. A few accents here and there seem off-place, but it’s nothing unforgivable.

- The actual assassinations are wonderfully designed with many ways to approach each one of them. This is the heart of the game, obviously enough, and each one of these missions require skill and concentration to pull off successfully, regardless of whether you decide to carefully plan a sneaky attack or just ruthlessly murder all of your target’s bodyguards before getting to him.

- The combat system works well enough to be enjoyable and not much of a chore, with a few flashy counters being especially impressive from a visual standpoint. Things tend to get a bit messy when there are too many enemies around, but it’s hardly as broken as some people claim it to be.

Things about Assassin’s Creed that aren’t that hot:

- Every assassination mission has a certain number of prerequisite missions that you need to complete before gaining access to the actual assassination itself. The problem is that not only do these prerequisite missions deter you from the heart of the game itself, there is only a handful of different mission types available so you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over again. It sort of feels like what one person described as “Grinding in World of Warcraft, minus the guild chat.”

- The storyline, while it starts out interesting enough, gets too meandering and downright weird at the end, with a couple of pretty obvious plot holes. Oh, and the usual conspiracy theories-related nonsense rears its ugly head again.

- The in-game cinematics that appear every so often in all chapters (and especially after a successful assassination) are not only overly long, but they is also no way of skipping them. This is unacceptable in any game, let alone in one with such lengthy cut-scenes, and it makes subsequent playthroughs feel like a chore.

- The main character and eponymous assassin of the game, Altair, lacks any real sort of charisma. To be completely honest, he feels as too much of a prick to ever relate to, even if he does go through the usual “fall and eventual redemption” trope, which feels neither fresh nor all that interesting.

- There are several bugs and clipping issues that plague the game throughout, such as guards getting stuck in scenery. It’s understandable with a game so huge, but it doesn’t make the fact look any less silly or, frankly, ugly.

Things I just don’t get:

- UNSKIPPABLE CINEMATICS. Who could ever think of this as good idea? I understand in taking pride in your narrative and not wanting people to just press a button and skip through it in a heartbeat, but you know what’s a good way of ensuring that? Making a strong narrative, not punishing them with cut-scenes of increasing tediousness.

- I also could never understand why walking slooooowly never catches the guards’s attention, while running tips you off to them immediately. It’s incredibly arbitrary and unrealistic.

Assassin’s Creed has some great ideas behind it and they are executed rather well yet it is held behind by some rather obvious flaws. It’s rather unfortunate that these flaws weren’t attended to more carefully, as it could have been a very special game otherwise.

The final verdict is:
CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR

TL;DR version:

While the fact that Assassin’s Creed was produced by a good-looking female is perhaps what it’s mostly known for, and even though it sports a few highly questionable design choices, there is something about killing fools silently and stealthily that never gets old, and this game is perfect testament to it.

Your willingness to overlook its few yet obvious faults will be directly proportionate to how much fun you will get out of it.

[News/Rant] Reflecting on the XNA community games

(No review today either thanks to a head-splitting headache that prohibits me from spending too much time in front of a screen.)

Following their disclosure of the sales figures for the XNA community games, Gamasutra's Patrick Klepek has written a lengthy and detailed article on whether or not Microsoft's support of independent games has been a success or not. You'll have to read the article for yourself to find out, however.

Personally, I have to say I've been fairly underwhelmed by the entire concept so far. As the creator of arguably the best community game so far, Weapon of Choice, mentions in the Gamasutra article, it's almost impossible for someone not familiar with the Xbox Live Marketplace to even find the community game they want in there.

Hell, I'm a big fan/supporter (an afficionado, if you will) of all sorts of independent games, and I've often found myself unable to care about finding out which of the community games are any good. There's too many of them, with no way of finding out what is what unless you download the trial version and try them for yourself, a process that becomes tedious before long.

The fact that Microsoft does not seem to promote any of the games either (with the obvious exception of Dishwasher: Dead Samurai that became a full-blown Arcade title, part of the prestigious "Days of Arcade" line on top of that) doesn't really help either.

Taking a look at other communities built around independent games, an inclusion of a way for users to rate games seems obvious. Even if it's something that can be abused, good games should still gather a positive buzz. A way to award games on a regular basis (perhaps monthly?) could also help.

TL;DR Version

For one, however, these articles have finally managed to convince me to stop being cheap and buy Weapon of Choice. Hopefully, we'll get more of those in the future rather than massage simulators.

(Don't ask).