Spontaneous Sunday: Battlestations: Pacific

Welcome to another week of Spontaneous Sunday. This will be the final Spontaneous Sunday of 2016 as next week is Christmas and after that, New Year, and this Friday was my last day of semester 1 MA Games Design, so it seems like a good idea to have a break until the New Year!

Today I have played Battlestations: Pacific (2009, Eidos Hungary, Eidos, Xbox 360). This game had been sat unplayed on my Xbox 360 since September 2015, when it was one of the free games available through Games With Gold.

"Battlestations: Pacific is an action and real-time tactics video game published by Eidos Interactive and developed by Eidos Hungary. It is also the sequel to the 2007 video game Battlestations: Midway. It was released for Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360 on May 12, 2009 in North America, and on May 15, 2009 in Europe and Australia."

- Wikipedia on Battlestations: Pacific.

What do I expect from the game?

I knew a little bit about the game before playing it today, such as the premise/concept and the gameplay format, but not much else, and I couldn't remember ever seeing any gameplay footage or anything like that, so I was going into it relatively blind. I expected it to involve aerial and naval battles and taking command of planes and ships in recreated WW2 battles in the Pacific theatre. I expected it to have decent graphics, to be dramatic and action-packed, and to have a certain level of historical accuracy and content.

Being a big fan of all things WW2, I expected to enjoy the game. I haven't played many games involving flying and naval combat - the only ones I can think of right now are GTA, Star Wars Battlefront, Battlefield 2 and Assassin's Creed: Black Flag, though I'm sure theres more - so I was excited to see how Battlestations: Pacific played out.

First Impressions - What did I think of the game in its first few minutes?

The game's front end is high energy, dramatic and visually appealing, with options and a map of the Pacific displayed on the left and clips of in-engine battles on the right that show off whats in store in the game and makes a positive first impression. I was interested by the "tactical library" option so I quickly checked it out. Its a library of loads of information about the Pacific theatre including the different aircraft and ships in service on both sides, and you can also see a 3D view of each vehicle which is pretty cool. This feature really offered a lot of interesting information and I could have spent a long time reading it but it was time to get into the game!

A shot of the 3D aircraft view in the tactical library.

I chose Single Player and decided to enter the "training grounds", assuming that this would be equivalent to a tutorial level, but I was mistaken and after about 15 minutes of failing to understand what I was doing and crashing a few planes, I began to realise that this feature was most likely a practice tool for players who already knew what they were doing. My thoughts at this point were that the UI was quite unclear, and the controls of deploying and managing units was fiddly and awkward, but actually flying was pretty satisfying. I then crashed my plane into an island and clipped through the terrain which caused my Xbox to crash... not a great start!

My first view of the game: the aerial combat training grounds.

First flight, in a Hawker Hurricane.

Undeterred, I rebooted and entered the naval combat training grounds which I managed to complete with more ease and no crash!

At this point I still felt pretty lost so decided to just jump into the US campaign. A cinematic played showing a montage of land, air and sea battles. This cinematic set the scene well and was dramatic. The game does cinematics very well indeed.

I discovered that the first missions of the campaign are, in fact, the tutorial levels. I completed these and gained a better grasp of the core gameplay systems and controls. Then I waged on into the campaign proper.

What do I like about the game? What does it do well?

A shot from the US campaign opening cinematic

After the shaky and confusing start in the training grounds, the campaign was a lot more entertaining and action-packed. I completed 3 of the US campaign missions. Mission one was to defeat some fighter planes and escort some bombers as a fighter plane unit. Mission two was a night time naval mission. Mission three involved both air and naval combat and sinking several enemy aircraft carriers. It wasn't until mission three that I began to feel competent in playing the game and could fully get into it. It is an interesting game concept and the core gameplay is enjoyable. Being able to fly planes and pilot naval ships in the WW2 Pacific is a gameplay experience that I've never had before and it felt new and unique. It is fun and engaging one you settle into it, but this takes a while.

Available missions are displayed on a map.

The game is part straight-up action in that you can control individual aircraft and ships, and also part real-time strategy, because you also have AI controlled units at your disposal which you can deploy and give orders to. This marriage of gameplay formats is interesting and unique and once I'd gotten used to it, it was fun to experience. This really shone in the 3rd mission, where I was in control of both air and naval forces and could command them simultaneous to achieve my objectives.

The graphics and general aesthetic of the game are strong positive points. The graphics are quite realistic for the games 2009 release date. The game is visually appealing and consistent in its aesthetic, thought the UI is not quite as attractive as the rest of it.

The historical setting and content is also a positive point. Medal of Honor: Rising Sun is the only other game that I have played that is set in the Pacific theatre of WW2, which really is a huge part of history and often underrepresented in games and other media. The tactical library feature is really cool and will appeal to WW2 fans like myself. The missions themselves also offer some insight into the events and battles. I always enjoy when a WW2 game offers information - I find that it nicely grounds and legitimises the game.

What don't I like about the game?

So, once I'd gotten the hang of Battlestations: Pacific, it became pretty fun and tactical, and its also a nice-looking game with historical content, but its not without its flaws.

I think that the game isn't very easy to get into on your first time playing. I kind of expected this to be the case when I chose it for Spontaneous Sunday and I was proved right! It is firmly within the category of the more "difficult to grasp" Spontaneous Sunday games. It also lacks a bit of polish in many areas, the UI being one of them. It also must be stated that this is the only Spontaneous Sunday where the my entire console has crashed!

The information messages in the early-game were not very informative and important things were not disclosed, such as the colour of the dots around the reticle signifying whether or not a target was in range of your guns (see picture below). For someone who didn't know what to expect, it was hard to really tell what the game was, because of its joined action and strategy elements. It took me a while to realise that I needed to be commanding my units as well as controlling my own unit at the same time, mostly because this wasn't really explained.

Also, the pace of the game can make it a bit tedious and slow, especially in less action-packed missions such as mission 2, the night-time naval battle, that just involved a handful of ships. A lot of time is spent simply travelling to your target which takes a while. Battles usually take 25-30 minutes to finish. I would have liked if the whole pace of gameplay was increased a bit to make it more quick-fire and frantic, and have less moments of waiting. The slow pace could scare off more casual players.

However, in mission 3, which involved both air and sea combat and many units, the pacing problem wasn't quite as bad, so I suppose it depends on the mission!

Final Thoughts

Battlestations: Pacific is a game with an interesting concept and core gameplay, set in an underrepresented but rather fascinating and very important era of WW2. The opportunity to fly aircraft and pilot ships in recreated sea battles is really cool and as a WW2 fan, there were many moments that I felt somewhat in awe. It's also a good looking game which adds to the realism and experience.

It does have its flaws, such as its lack of accessibility and dense learning process, but having played and gotten the hang of it, I'm sure that in future sessions I will enjoy it more. I think that it may not have been best suited to the Spontaneous Sunday treatment, as it demands to be played for a longer time than I played it for to get the full effect. Because I'm interested in the setting and the unique gameplay, I will definitely be returning to Battlestations: Pacific in the future. 

DE4101 Design Research 1 - Update!

Here's an update on how my work is going for my DE4101 Design Research 1 work. My last DE4101 blog post was a month ago and contained a list of the books that I have gathered for my Literature Review. Since then, I have also gathered 10 websites and 10 journal entries and have finished writing my Literature Review (though I may tweak it further in the days leading up to the submission on January 2nd).

The focus of my Literature Review has been atmospheric game environments and how they are created. The texts that I have gathered are from a variety of sources and authors, including books, websites, magazines and journals written by all manner of professionals, indies and hobbyists. My goal for the review was to learn what methods are used to create atmospheric environments, mostly in games, but I also read a bit about film and stage sets.

Conducting this review has been a lengthy and demanding but ultimately very valuable process. I've plumbed the depths of literature on environment art and have uncovered some very thought-provoking arguments and concepts which will surely help me to further improve my creative process.

But my DE4101 work is not over yet! I will soon be getting started on the contextual review, which will cover non-textual sources such as videos, images, games and so on.

Watch this space for more DE4101 updates!

Spontaneous Sunday: Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition

Welcome to another Spontaneous Sunday, this week I've played Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition (2014, United Front Games, Square Enix, Xbox One). It is an updated, current-gen re-release of Sleeping Dogs, which was originally released in 2012 on last-gen consoles. It is one of the free games available through Games With Gold on Xbox Live this month.

"Sleeping Dogs is an open world action-adventure video game by United Front Games and Square Enix London for PlayStation 3, Windows, and Xbox 360 platforms. Set in contemporary Hong Kong, the single-player story follows Wei Shen, an undercover Hong Kong-American police officer on assignment to infiltrate the Sun On Yee Triad organisation. Definitive Edition was released in October 2014 for Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One. It features improved gameplay, setting and audiovisual quality."

- Wikipedia on Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition

What do I expect from the game?

As Sleeping Dogs is an open world action-adventure game with crime themes, I expect it to have obvious influences from other games of this genre such as Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row etc, and borrow some features and systems from these games to an extent. Sleeping Dogs is a fairly well known and high profile game so I expect it to be good, though I have never really heard or read any reviews of it. I'm particularly interested in the setting - modern day Hong Kong - as I think it will be an interesting setting and not like any setting I have seen before in a game. In terms of gameplay I expect that it will be mission based, with side missions and collectables scattered throughout the city.

First Impressions - What do I think of the game in its first few minutes?

The game's front end

The game's front end is simple but effective and has an aesthetic that is in fitting with its setting and themes. I started a new game and an intro cutscene played, in which the game's protagonist - Wei Shen - is conducting some manner of shady deal at a docks, before police show up and raid it. The player then takes control of Wei Shen and attempt to escape the police by sprinting, running, jumping and climbing - this acts as a quick intro to the games movement mechanics. This sequence lasts a couple of minutes, with short cutscenes and gameplay flowing seamlessly into one-another as you try to escape through fish-packing plants and apartments before eventually being surrounded and arrested. This is a high-energy intro to the game and also a good way of teaching basic movement.

The next scene sees Shen in a holding cell where he meets with a childhood friend and criminal, as credits play showing the game's array of voice actors which includes such people as Emma Stone. Then Shen enters an interrogation room and speaks with some officers and its revealed that he's actually an undercover officer himself. Theres something very cinematic about the opening sequence and it did a good job at drawing me into the story.

The first few missions involves meeting a gang-boss and running some odd-jobs around a market area, buying new clothes and fighting a fair few thugs. I was instantly impressed by the authenticity of the game world. There's a lot of detail and a lot going on. The environments look and feel authentic and its full of many varied NPCs that have a lot to say and perform various actions in a lifelike way.

The player is introduced to the combat system early on and it feels fluid and easy to grasp; you can use combos, grab and throw enemies etc. After a few missions in an enclosed area, you are given free reign to explore the city, completing missions for the gangs, police and also doing favours for random people.

What do I like about the game? What does it do well?

There's a lot of positive points about Sleeping Dogs. As an open-world game, the game world is obviously important and the developers did a great job with it; the game-world is an attractive and interest place to explore. The variety and detail that has gone into it is impressive, its exactly how I would imagine Hong Kong to be, and the graphics are also very strong - the developers definitely made good use of the Xbox One's graphical capabilities when updating the game from last-gen.

The hand-to-hand combat is a really good system. It feels fluid and fun and theres a few cool mechanic such as grappling and throwing enemies and using the environment in combat. The game also features a parkour-esque movement system that allows you to run, jump and climb around the environment and this often plays a part in missions.

The story is another strong point of the game and also the way that it is delivered. The story seems mature and well-thought out and there seems to be slightly more substance to it than there is in a lot of other games. The game feels cinematic to an extent and the voice actors and script help contribute to this too. The story is revealed at a good pace, with references made by characters to mysterious events in Wei Shen's past that made me want to keep playing and reveal more about the story. The scenarios in each mission are also well thought-out, even the "favours" that you can do for random people could probably have gotten away with being simple "fetch" missions but there's more to them than that - one involved talking to a woman who distracts you while her accomplice robs you and you have to chase him down, and another involved driving around the city taking photos for a clothes vendor to print on t-shirts.

You can also upgrade and customise your character through buying clothes and accessories and earning XP that can be used to improve skills and abilities, which adds another dimension to the game.

Character customisation.

Upgrade system.

Despite my initial thought that the game would be clearly influenced by other open-world crime games like GTA and Saints Row, I think that it does enough to set itself apart from this by means of its interesting setting and its unique mechanics and this works to its credit.

What don't I like about the game?

I don't have many complaints about the game as its pretty solid in most ways and I only have minor issues with it. Firstly, the free-running movement system is good but outside of missions that are specifically designed to make use of it, there aren't many real opportunities to use it. In missions designed for it, you are directed through routes that make good use of it, but in free-roam, it doesn't see much effective use, which is a shame because its a fun mechanic.

The driving physics aren't the best and it can be quite fiddly to drive around the city, for motorbikes in particular. Though with that said, there is a really good mechanic when driving which is the ability to ram which involves pressing X to swiftly swerve sideways which can be used to attack other vehicles and is unique and really fun in practice. Finally, a rather minor but noticeable issue is that the engine audio of the cars is really high pitched and loud and it sounds like you're always travelling at high speed when you're just cruising around. The vehicle audio doesn't gel with the visuals and its jarring and a bit annoying!

Final Thoughts

Sleeping Dogs: Definite Edition is a strong open-world action game in an interesting setting with some interesting and unique mechanics, and a fairly well-written story. I played for about 3 hours and I feel like I've barely really gotten into it, I didn't even get any guns! So I'll definitely be returning to it in the future to play some more. There's no serious issues with it that I have found which may be due to it being a re-release; the developers probably identified the issues from the original release and rectified them for the Definitive Edition.

That's all for this weeks Spontaneous Sunday!

Spontaneous Sunday: History Channel - Great Battles Medieval

Welcome to another Spontaneous Sunday! It feels good to be back after taking a break last week, and this week I have played History Channel - Great Battles Medieval (2009, Slitherin Software, Xbox 360). I bought the game a few weeks ago in Cex. I played History Channel - Great Battles of Rome a few years ago on the PS2 and I enjoyed that, so when I saw that there was a medieval game too, I had to buy it and give it the Spontaneous Sunday treatment!

"The History Channel: Great Battles Medieval is based on the story of the Hundred Years War. It features a completely new graphic engine and a totally new game play system that will allow the player to be in complete control of massive armies. From the thunderous charge of the knights to the men-at-arms fighting for their lives in hand-to-hand combat, the game recreates the epic feel of medieval battles, featuring thousands of characters simultaneously."

- Metacritic description of Great Battles Medieval

What do I expect from the game?

Having played Great Battles of Rome on the PS2 years ago, I expected Great Battles Medieval to be similar in many aspects. Great Battles of Rome was a fairly solid strategy game that allowed you to take control of and customise your army. It had a story-driven campaign mode and I distinctly remember it being pretty difficult. I expect the game to be historically accurate in terms of soldier types, settings, and how the battles work due to it being affiliated with the history channel.

First Impressions - What did I think of the game in its first few minutes?

Great Battles Medieval is a strategy game set during the 100 years war between England and France during the 14th century. I'm a big fan of history and strategy games, especially Age of Empires so it seemed perfect. I launched the game and reached the front end which had an interesting menu system with all the options arranged in a circle that could be cycled through. I instantly liked the aesthetic and felt that it was suitable "medieval". I decided to jump straight into the tutorial campaign.

The tutorial campaign consisted of 3 missions that covered movement, combat and a demo battle. I didn't think that the tutorial was terribly informative and it threw me in without a lot of instruction and this left me feeling a bit lost, but by the 3rd level - the battle - I had managed to grasp how to play, though it did take me a few defeats to get to that point. I liked the look of the game, it looked and felt authentic and the developers went to great lengths to make sure that the battles played out in a realistic way. The tutorial wasn't brilliant but it did the job. Having completed the tutorial I started the English campaign.

What do I like about the game? What does it do well?

The overall look and feel of the game is really nice. It's got a great medieval aesthetic that is established by all the elements of the game such as the graphics, the settings, the music and the way in which medieval battles and tactics are portrayed. It's all consistent and well tied-together. Levels are chosen from a moving 3D map of France, with soldiers walking around on it, ships at sea and little buildings. This was a really nice touch in that it contextualises and breathes life into the setting. Theres even a short movie before each level that is part CGI and part live-action and they work well and add to the aesthetic.

Pre-mission movies

The unit movement system is solid enough but occasionally a bit awkward though I'm sure with a few  more hours of play I would master it. The camera system during battles is really good and it allows you to zoom far our to see the whole battle, or zoom right down to ground level and see the action up close, and the game looks just as good at both extremes. Control of the camera is important as there is always a lot going on in the battles and you'll want to keep track of the action; the battles are intense, tactical and fun.

The scale of the battles is impressive and there can be several hundred units on screen at any time. Great Battle of Rome was also grand and dramatic but the series came even further after that and looks even better. The new engine and graphics system used in this game is probably to thank for this. The campaign starts out with pretty small scale battles and takes a while to really get going in terms of battle scale, but the game also offers another mode - Skirmish mode.

An example of a large scale battle.

Skirmish mode allows you to play stand-alone battles and levels and you can tweak settings and customise the scenarios. There was also a Skirmish mode in Great Battles of Rome but there wasn't much content to it, so I didn't expect too much from Medieval's Skirmish mode, but I was pleasantly surprised by how fleshed-out the Skirmish mode is. This mode allows you to jump straight into large scale battles without having to work through the campaign and it allows the game to show how large scale it really can be. It also offers a welcome distraction from the campaign which can get very difficult and make you need a break from it! The game really shined in Skirmish mode.

Squad customisation.

Another good feature is the squad customisation feature. You can level them up, buy new weapons, upgrade skills and make cosmetic customisations. You find yourself learning each squads strengths and weaknesses and how best to use them to win battles.

What don't I like about the game?

Great Battles Medieval is a good game and I enjoyed it, but as always there was a few issues that I found. Firstly, there was the lack of direction in the tutorial campaign. It is a rather hard game to grasp and the lack of instruction in the tutorial didn't help this fact. Had I not played Great Battle of Rome, I would have had a harder to time to get to grips with it.

The first tutorial level.

The game's audio is fine and it does the trick, but it gets noticeably repetitive after a while. The looping of the music is particularly noticeable, though it does suit the game just fine.

The game is pretty difficult and it does not hold back in terms of difficulty - I failed the 3rd level of the campaign about 5 times before deciding to play Skirmish mode and come back to it later. However, the difficulty level is not frustrating like other games (specifically Dishonoured, my previous Spontaneous Sunday game that I was not a fan of!). The game is punishing and you sometimes have to try and win battles that seem almost impossible to win, outnumbered and outgunned, but the fact that its tactics that eventually wins you the battle gives a great sense of achievement, so the difficulty isn't a huge problem.

Final Thoughts

Great Battles Medieval is a solid strategy game that is a bit difficult to get started on and even harder to be good at, but its definitely enjoyable and it looks and feels authentic, and it feels rewarding when you win a battle that you've fought several times. I'm a fan of medieval history and RTS games so I enjoyed the setting and being in control of big medieval battles.

The only issues I had with the game were the tutorial and the difficulty, but I'm sure that the more I play the better I'll get and the more I will enjoy the game as a result, so I'll definitely be playing it again soon!