I don't talk about video games much around here, in part because I'm rusty, but also because I have other things to discuss, but I've been pushing through some of the lingering titles in my library. This is partly because Christmas is coming, and aside from the geese getting fat, I'm also likely to get a new game (maybe two?) and I dislike having unfinished games sitting around. Considering it's me, that's a touch hypocritical; I have so many unfinished--or completely unread--books sitting on my shelf, I could probably set up an entire year's worth of reading without having to go to a bookstore once. (But what's the fun in that?) Nevertheless, I'm running through games pretty quickly right now. I replayed Batman: Arkham Knight and, though I didn't do any of the sidequests--staying focused on the main story arch instead--I enjoyed my second pass through Gotham. I had put down Shadow of Mordor when what felt like a second map opened up. I wasn't interested in slashing my way through another mass of orcs, so I set it aside. Having finished Batman, I figured playing the Lord of the Rings clone of the Arkham series would be worthwhile. It was. While I'd lost a lot of the story momentum by having about a year between when I last played it and now, I still enjoyed the game and managed to finish it off with a few nights' work. I also finished Mass Effect: Andromeda, which had an emotionally satisfying ending, even if the game was getting too repetitive by the end. I didn't max out much, nor did I pursue all of the backstory elements that are possible, which was a deliberate choice: I was trying to get through the main story. This, too, had been a title I picked up and then set down for some months--mostly because of Overwatch, which is a different topic altogether--and I'm glad I finished it. There were some flaws with it, but, all in all, a solid game. That brings me to my current slash-fest, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate. It's a slightly older entry, but it's something that I have been enjoying quite a bit. See, I've been playing the Assassin's Creed games since the first one came out on the PlayStation 3. In fact, it was the first game we bought for the system. I played through the whole thing, a bit dismayed by the two storylines that it was trying to tell, but enjoying it for what it was. By the time I was on the sixth or seventh assassination, however, I was feeling like there wasn't much to the world. When its trilogy sequels came out, I played them all--and burned out as a result. I mean, the games were about what they always had been. Yes, there were new features and new things that I could do, but the morality of the story that was being told continued to rankle me--just a little bit--as the games unfolded. Add to that the fact that my saturation limit for "Ooh, I'm climbing on [fill in any famous European building]! That's so cool!" had been met partway through ACII and I was going through the story just because that's what I was doing. Almost out of a sense of duty, I picked up a copy of Assassin's Creed III. The game takes place in colonial America, with a Native American protagonist, and while I liked both the idea and the avatar, I couldn't get a lot of momentum with the game. It was…well, they're all the same. The DNA of an Assassin's Creed game varies very little. It's now to the point that the games are less about continuing a grand, overarching storyline and more about giving a bunch of different choices to do similar things, but in sundry places. Would you like to shiv someone in front of the Sphinx? AC: Origins is your best bet. Want to use tomahawks instead of knives? ACIII is the one for you. French Revolution (which should've been amazing but was so riddled with bugs and bad press that I didn't even give it a chance)? Yeah, Unity can scratch that itch. I'm on the cusp of finishing Assassin's Creed: Syndicate (I do appreciate that they've given up on the Roman numeral system, though; it was looking so gauche), and the flavor of this one is right up my (crowded) alley: London. More specifically, the mid-Victorian era--height of the Industrial Revolution--when this story takes place. Because of my unnerving obsession with all things English, this one was a guaranteed buy (though we waited for the price to drop before scooping up a copy). And while the time period is not my favorite (by a long shot), getting to "see" Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament, the Monument, and St. Paul's Cathedral again was delightful. Listening to the accents, running down the streets--it was very immersive and enjoyable to me on a personal level. But what struck me as worth noting was the way that the story worked. Now, all sandbox games have problems with keeping the story cohesive. When you can delay whatever pressing, high-stakes problem the main plot is trying to push on you in order to scour the city for treasure chests, there's a disconnect between the story and the action. "Hurry to the bank!" but you can take literal hours of sidequests before arriving--and everyone is as breathless as if you'd sprinted straight there. Admittedly, RPGs in general have this potential problem--from the Final Fantasy games through Mass Effect--because it's a matter of figuring out how to split the difference between wide, diverse fun and specific, narrow narrative. What AC:S does surprisingly well, is it makes sure that (most) of the things that you do help your character move toward the game's overriding goal of gutting a guy named Starrick. Because the major story can't advance until you've pushed through some of the boroughs of London and reclaimed them for the "good guys", whenever you complete one of these minor missions, there's a sense of getting one step closer to the bad guy. Unlike in novels, where it's easy to fall into the trap of the antagonist's plan being more interesting than the protagonist's response to it (active versus reactive characters), games like AC:S flip the roles. As the protagonists (you play as both Jakob and Evie Frye, and, since you can usually choose which one to be during much of the game, I picked Evie), you are doing things--accomplishing goals, finding allies, forging alliances, and completing necessary missions in order to further that larger goal. The bad guy, meanwhile, sits in his office and gets angry that things aren't going well for him. This is a refreshing change. Even Batman: Arkham Knight suffers from the question of "Why is the Scarecrow's plan waiting around for Batman to thwart?" Despite being a really interesting game, Batman reacts to almost everything. It's rare for him to be the one springing the trap or laying down a scheme. Now, this isn't to say that the game isn't without its flaws; bugs abound (as is common for an AC game), and there are many times when I was bored silly with having to do the same two or three variations on the "kill some people, kill a specific person, move on" formula. That's part of the reason that I left the game alone for a while. Nevertheless, getting a chance to revisit it has been quite enjoyable. As I haven't quite finished it yet, I don't know how it ends. We'll see if it manages to seal off its primary* story well or not. -----
|
AuthorWould you like to support my writings? Feel free to buy me a coffee (which I don't drink, but I do drink hot chocolate) at my Ko-Fi page. Thanks! Archives
July 2022
Categories
All
|