Feature Analysis - Autosave

'Ohh this dungeon is creepy' *Clink* *SLAM* *SPLAT* - Dead.

'I can kill this boss... oh f*** he's tough' *Boom* - Dead

'Oh damn it, game froze, I'll have to crash it'

These situations are annoying enough without ending up half an hours worth of game time backwards purely because you forgot to save or because the game offers no decent auto-save feature. It's likely something every gamer has experienced at least once or twice and many gamers probably have this happen to them more times than they'd like to admit and it's a hell of a pain.

After playing a few different games recently I've noticed the multiple different methods games implement auto-save features. Some are a pain, some are brilliant and some don't even have it! so I'm going to have a look at those I prefer and why.

Firstly Bethesda's system in their RPG's. This system saves the game when entering a new area, it doesn't matter how far in the area you are it will just save at the start of it. While this is a nice method on an easy difficulty, when playing on a harder setting this can be a huge pain. You can spend a good half hour progressing through a cave/vault/barrow barely surviving and then something you aren't prepared for hops out and kills you,  effectively wiping the last 30 minutes of progress. Like I said on an easy setting this is great (because to be honest it's quite tricky to die on easy in both Fallout & Skyrim in my opinion), but when playing on Very hard/Master you need to get in the habit of quicksaving... like every couple of minutes. Fun eh?

Shepard's Game just crashed. He hasn't been quicksaving.

The second system that bugged the hell out of me was Mass Effect 1's auto-save system. To me the points where this would save seemed completely random. Sometimes it would save at certain defining points in the story and at others it wouldn't. Occasionally it would save when entering a new area, but again, other times it wouldn't. I probably lost around 2 hours on my first playthrough purely because I wasn't quicksaving as often as I could and didn't realise how far back the previous auto-save was. However in Mass effect 2 & 3 this issue was resolved with frequent autosaves which was a very pleasant surprise. 

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning also includes a nice and frequent autosave system similar to the frequency in Mass Effect 2, however due to dying rarely in that game (I only played it on normal so far) it's hard to tell if the saves were frequent or I just didn't notice a bad disparity due to a lack of deaths.

One of these was always
a welcome sight in FFVII

Many older games don't even bother with auto-saves and even go as far as only having designated save points... that's right final fantasy, I'm looking at you. Now I'm not sure if this is still the cas in FFXIII and FFXIII-2, but in all the older titles, you are required to visit a save point to save. This isn't as annoying as you would think, purely because it is such an established mechanic in Final Fantasy, and your play eventually compensates for it, e.g. making sure you are stocked up on potions and your group is healed, taking breaks when you get to save points etc.

Many genres of games don't implement autosave whatsoever, RTS games such as Battle for Middle Earth rarely include such a feature in their single player campaigns however death isn't as sudden in these types of games and you can predict when saving is necessary, I guess it would also be hard to define when a good point to save would be in these types of games. Some RTS games do include it but to me it seems like an unnecessary feature in this genre.

In my opinion Autosaves should be included in Action RPG's and FPS games, and they should be frequent. they are only really needed in games where death can be sudden an unexpected, Turn based and many Japanese RPG's will usually put a save point before dangerous bosses anyway. It's good to get into the habit of quicksaving frequently or just saving but with many games I could go without the tedium.

Bitter After Taste - Unexpected endings.

BEFORE YOU READ, BE ADVISED MAJOR SPOILERS WILL BE IN THIS POST. YOU WERE WARNED.

So as most  people who keep an eye on the gaming community know, a lot of people were really disappointed with Mass Effect 3's ending. So much so that there has been a massive outcry from the community calling for a change in the ending, even raising $66,548 (£41,998) so far for charity in a petition for Alternate endings to be added. So what makes some game endings so hated?

Shepard's last adventure is a pretty entertaining ride.

For Mass Effect 3 at least it seems that fans were annoyed by a number of different things. And rather than write a garbled summary of what the majority of fans think - A player has compiled a good, easy to read list of what many think are wrong with the ending which you can find here.

I managed to play through ME3 this weekend and personally, I didn't think the ending was terrible. I Just thought it lacked substance, and left me with far too many questions as to what happens next, I like detailed epilogues at the end of games and Mass Effect 3's was all too brief, there was no description or anything showing what happened to everyone else after the war. Also, it seems the choices you make throughout the game have very little to no effect on the ending which seems rather different from the previous two titles. That being said, ME3 for me was a very enjoyable game, sure the ending was a bit of a let down but the journey to it was amazing.

I definitely felt a tad less manly after playing through
FFX-2, at lest there was a bit of virtual eye-candy.

There have been other games that have also let me down in terms of an ending, Final Fantasy 10 being one that springs to mind. However I think this let me down because I was expecting a happier ending for Tidus (main character). After the effort he puts in throughout the storyling to save not only Yuna (love interest) but Spira (the planet he's on) as well, I would have thought there would be a chance he wouldn't dissapear. I wouldn't call it a bad ending. I think it just took me by surprise.

However a couple of years after a sequel was released giving players a chance to continue Yuna's story in Spira. Personally I bought it and played through purely for the story. The game itself was no where near as entertaining as it's predecessor and had a 'Teen Girl' feel to it as your levelling system was pretty much dressing up the 3 female (and only available) characters for different abilities, with a happy and colorful world and cutesy cut-scenes. I only powered through to see if it was possible to change Tidus' fate (and you could for an 100% clear or 'perfect' ending). While it was nice to see that ending, I felt that FFX-2 was a very disappointing sequel.

Fallout 3 was another one that had a peculiar finish to it. Resulting in your player (apparently) dying from radiation or sacrificing another to do it in his stead. However, during the storyline you acquire a super mutant follower which could have done the task without death but it wasn't an available option. Many fans were rather disappointed by the death of their player, so Bethesda released DLC that gave closure to what happened after your character after this scene. That's right, they bought your player back from the dead. And many fans happily paid for the DLC.

Broken Steel allowed you to continue the story after that which was released with the vanilla version.

So this made me think that DLC's and unexpected sequels are a great (albeit somewhat underhanded) way for gaming companies to squeeze some extra cash from you, and with games that you invested a lot of time in, many players won't even think twice about spending £10 to find out if their beloved character has a future. To be honest I won't be surprised at all if extra ending related DLC is released for Mass Effect 3 - and personally, I'd probably buy it in the vein hope Shepard is ok. It seems that most players tend to want their characters to survive, and it's only really in games with endings that your character dies or disappears that gamers seem to get their feathers ruffled about.

I don't get that annoyed about sad endings, but I honestly much prefer the scenario where my hero saves the world and gets to see the fruits of his labours in a new happy future. So what about you guys? Do you get annoyed when your character dies a hero? or are you happy he managed to complete his task? what is your Ideal ending?

Nostalgia - Rose-Tinted Gaming Goggles

Most long time gamers have those ghosts of gaming past in cupboards, away in storage or up in their loft, and occasionally we get the urge to play through them again hoping to re-live the exciting memories and hope for fun that once was. But sometimes we all look at something with rose-tinted goggles.

This was most certainly NOT a barrel of laughs when I
was young

The first game that would spring to mind for me would be Sonic & Knuckles Collection - My very first PC game. Recently after seeing it go for cheap on Steam I went ahead and re-purchased it. I was rather excited, as I used to spend hours on this game although I never did actually complete it (Gimme a break I was 7), so I sat down put on my headphones and began and for the first few Minutes - It was glorious!

However after that initial 'I remember this! I remember that' wore off, I began to notice that It wasn't as great as I remember. The first few zones were easy... I mean really easy. Within less than 20 or so minutes I was in the Carnival Night Zone, and I met my nemesis from my childhood - that god-damn barrel (pictured above), but I figured it out soon enough, you simply press up and down... Anyways, after that annoyance dealt with, I continued and managed to complete Sonic 3 within an hour. Sure there were some parts that were a little tricky, but the experience of hours of play in my youth and having more common sense now made the game a whole lot easier and, well, a bit boring.

Another game that I have recently played from my younger years is Rollercoaster Tycoon - a game I spent a lot of time on back in the year 2000. And this had the opposite effect to sonic, I enjoyed re-playing it so much I ended up buying Rollercoaster Tycoon Two (plus x-packs) from amazon, for a steal of a price. However I still couldn't help but be critical on the the game and definitely thought it could do with some added features.

Shut up and spend your money guest 2326!

Firstly, including a 'speed up time' feature would be a god-send, too often I found myself staring blankly at the screen waiting for cash to come in and too many times, I had completed my objectives but had to wait 3 years of game time to finish the park (which also makes me think once your objective is complete you should finish that park anyway...). Also a few times I found it difficult to navigate and a full dynamic 360 view would be welcomed.

But after I thought of these points I had to laugh at myself. I was critiquing an old game for features it didn't have and maybe couldn't even support back when it was developed. and for what it was, it was a damn good game.

However some games always remain timeless classics in the mind of the player and for me the only thing I'd ever change about the following three titles would be the Graphics - Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy X (sorry FF Fans, VIII was good, but I didn't enjoy it as much as the others). When I found these games again, I decided to get hold of an emulator and play them on my PC. The memories just came flooding back, and I diligently played each game through until the end.

If  dated graphics don't offend you, play through FF7.
NOW!

Admittedly, I didn't play them as I did when I first played them. I was replaying them more for the story rather than unlocking all the secrets and spending hours doing tedious stuff (Lightning dodging in FFX anyone?). I did do a few things though, such as training gold chocobo's in 7 & 9, and getting the more secret of Aeons in 10. I think I wouldn't change these games (except graphically) because of the time I had poured into each title. I'm fairly sure that with each one I probably spent near 70 hours playtime when I went through them the first time.

But looking back and playing through these games shows me just how much the gaming  industry has changed, titles now are easier to get into, easier in (default setting) difficulty, and have a plethora of more features. Think of the tutorials you get in games nowadays - usually a whole level devoted to teaching you, whereas sonic's tutorial was the manual you had in the box and FFVII's tutorial was speaking to NPC's and slogging through a lot of text.

Also, these older games don't have multiple difficulty settings, if you were stuck at something you had three choices - The path of the Hero (get better and keep trying), The path of the Rogue (try and find cheats if your parents will let you use the dial up internet connection, at least for those my age) or The path of the Coward (ragequit). Now if things are tough you can just dial down the difficulty in the options. A good example is Skyrim, on the hardest difficulty - Dragons can very quickly kill you dead and are scary, but on easy they are about as much of a threat as one of the rabbits you see running across the landscape.

And yet gaming hasn't just changed for the worse, as technology progresses, so does the ability to implement options and features of convenience. You'll hear a lot of 'pro' gamers go on about how things were better 'back in the day'  but in honesty if you gave them a game now that doesn't include things such as auto-save, level select, difficulty settings and game over meaning game over, they would criticise the game into oblivion.

It is strange to take a trip down memory lane and look at these games that don't include so many features we see as standard now. It shows you how gaming is evolving and the progress it has made over the past couple of decades. Some titles have lost their way and others have shone through and are still going strong, but it's always fun to have a look at where they began.

Feature Analysis - Equipment in Games

So, in an effort to get up to speed with the Mass Effect franchise so I can get on to ME3 as soon as possible, I downloaded (legally! through steam) 1 and 2 on Friday and had a big ol' gaming session this weekend, completing ME1 (albeit I kinda rushed that) and making headway into 2.

However playing these titles made me think about something. Gearing up your characters and how different games do it. There are some systems I like and others that just become tedious to deal with. So I'm going to have a look at what makes a gear and equipment system good or bad.

Variety, in my opinion, always helps a gear system along, if multiple choices of armour or clothing are available you can customise your character well and that tends to help with immersion and connection to your character. Too little to choose from and you can occasionally be restricted to pick one generic choice, too much to chose from and it can become confusing and trivial. 

Personally, I think a strong gear system is in place in Fallout, there are multiple clothing and armour choices to pick from and you can easily discern what is best for your character; stealthy assasin: light armour such as leather or recon armour and for close combat or front line kind of action: Combat armour, power armour or something similar. Fallout's system is good as you can pick and change what you need for different tasks and the bonus' are easy to understand. The weapon system is easy enough too, find weapons you like? keep 'em in good condition in your inventory. Others you can store in your players home.

Dragon scale Armour in Skyrim is the most damage resistant
 of light armours available

Skyrim (also from Bethesda) has quite a nice gear system too, you can enchant your gear for different tasks and purposes and use different sets for different styles of play, a little more variety would have been nice though. 

A system where variety got a bit too much for me though was Mass Effect 1. Whilst on the surface it doesn't look too complex, being an avid RPG player I tend to explore each possible way and gather all I can, so I was constantly picking up new stuff. Armour had three different stats and slot(s) for mod(s) all of which became a lot to take in. Damage reductions against certain types of damage, health regen, shield boost, shield regen... it all got so much that I just picked armour to wear that had the highest damage resistance and just whacked on a health regen mod on most squad members. Weapons were also a pain to deal with with the obscene amount of mods, whilst picking a weapon was easier than picking armour, modding it wasn't. So overall dealing with your teams equipment became a chore rather than fun, I'd often find myself spending a good 15 minutes on sorting out three members and then another 5 just turning unwanted stuff into omni-gel.

However Mass Effect 2 effectively headed off this issue with a simple and elegent system, a little more choices in what you can dress your squad up in would be nice but Sheperds choices and customisation was aesthetically pleasing. You can choose the colours, patterns and armour types of Shepherd as pictured on the left.

Availability also plays a big part in the gear systems, now I don't know about you guys, but for me earning or unlocking a decent weapon feels a hell of a lot better than buying it. Being able to get the best gear available through a shop fairly easily seems a bit anti-climactic. For example, in the Final Fantasy series - looking back at the older titles such as VII and IX here - killing a boss usually meant you would get something decent, a good example would be Cloud's ultima weapon in FFVII obtained by killing, well, the Ultima Weapon, which can prove to be a rather tricky fight.

Now this is one pricey sword, 

However, buying weapons isn't always too easy, and sometimes saving up enough gold or whatever currency the game requires can feel like quite the achievement, such as buying The Solus Greatsword (pictured on the right) in Fable, which takes a whole lot of questing and work to be able to afford, and it's damage is, on the most part, better than any of the other weapons available throughout the game.

Another nice way to acquire gear is unlocking it through achievements and progress in a game, such as call of duty, where as you progress through the multiplayer ranks, more weapons and customisation options are made available to you. 

Some games also Include crafting to create your arsenal or armoury, Kingdoms of Amalur having one such system that I really approved of - one that stops you making the best stuff too early. Many crafting systems in many RPG's and other games can be considered broken. In Skyrim for instance, by creating a few hundred Iron Daggers (the easiest thing to make) you can find yourself in the best armour available in next to no time. In comparison, KoA: Reckoning limits the player well, as a pre-requisite to creating armour is salvaging parts and materials from pieces already gathered - and what you acquire from enemies is very dependent on your level. Imposing these sort of barriers is a good idea in my opinion as you are more appreciative of new weapons or armour when you get them.

Don't you just hate it when someone shows up at the battle
wearing the same thing as you...

Having different options on how to acquire gear is always nice, though. Most modern RPG's and MMO RPG's give you all of the explained options to acquire gear; killing Enemies, Buying or Crafting and in large, well funded games such as World of Warcraft and Skyrim, each one brings their own flair to each method.

So in conclusion, what I think the Ideal gear system should Include? Well Ideally I'd love to see the below:

- Top stat armours with multiple different appearances. e.g: Multiple aesthetically different armours with the same stats as Daedric Armour in Skyrim

- Simple to understand stats, enchantments etc.. e.g. don't overcomplicate items saying they will protect you from x and not from y

- Artificial barriers preventing the player from acquiring amazing gear too early e.g.: implement stat, level or crafting restrictions

- Include the different methods for acquiring gear, however I think the best stuff should be won in monumental battles, through quest completions or through boss kills.