Tag Reviews

PS4 is still riding high.

Sony’s Backwards Compatibility on PS4…is Bad.

Sean Alexander

Sony needs to remember that the PS2 set the standard for native backwards compatibility when they say “No one really uses it”.

 

I cannot fathom what is happening over there now, beyond having enough sales to justify doing whatever they want: The backwards compatibility on PS4 for PS2 games (Which yes does exist), is absolute horrendous.

So I hope it goes without saying, but the PS2 set the standard with native PSone support, and the games ran fine. This was part of the hardware, all was well, this was then followed by the Wii, Wii U, Xbox 360 (Somewhat), DS, 3DS, you get the idea. The standard was set by PS2.

Jump forward to PS3, it had PS2 hardware to run PS2 games in it, but that was later removed to save money, a wise choice under the circumstances. However, the ability to pop your PSone CD in and play away remained, and again, it ran fine.

What the PS3 did eventually allow, was the ability to download PS1 and some PS2 games as “Classics” and play them, only emulated.

151355-sonic-heroes-screenshot

PS2 Classics on PS3 as emulated titles is a mistake. Let’s take Sonic Heroes for instance, which is available as a PS3 download and emulated on PS3. Frame rate problems (More so than the original!) and some errors that I can’t really explain, like boss text not fading away properly. It’s not the best.

But to compound the issue let’s look at PSone Classics, namely the Spyro Trilogy, and we begin with THIS little gem, courtesy of the PlayStation Blog from 2011 (Yes, I remember).

The journey from PSone disc to PSone emulation can be a long one – here’s the short version.
We make sure we’ve got a good copy of the original disk (or discs if there are localised versions), then the game is cleared for publish by our legal department.
Why are some games available on the US Store but not available on the EU Stores?
The million dollar question…
This usually comes down to either publishing rights or bugs that occur within the emulated PAL version that did not occur within the NTSC emulated version. There are several PAL titles that don’t play well with the emulator because of a PAL-only copy protection system that was used in several key releases, and sometimes other bugs occur at random.

Source

tenor

So what do I mean? Well with the Spyro Trilogy we got the American localizations (The system doesn’t hide this fact!). What sucks is this “It needs to be bug free and play well with the emulator” is absolute horse manure.

The three Spyro games on PS3, at least in the UK, have near constant slow down, frame drops, and musical errors. Yet if I pop my PS CD in there and play it from a disk…it’s fine. Flawless. What happened? Is the emulator that bad? Why not just make the games run natively?

Of course even native ports aren’t safe. The HD re-release of Ratchet and Clank 3 as part of the Ratchet and Clank HD Trilogy is a mess, with audio screw ups, either mis-timed or bad loops, and even scripted cutscenes playing out wrong (Just look up the Momma Tyhrannoid fight from 3 for that spectacle!). So when bringing over past games either as emulations of remasters, the track record isn’t great.

 

bullshit

 

Now we get to the big one: The PlayStation 4, the most powerful base system of the time. It outpaces the Nvidia Shield, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox One quite comfortably. You’ll see why I mentioned those shortly.

For reference, the Xbox and Gamecube surpassed the PS2 in performance, PS2 games were nowhere near as demanding or advanced in fidelity or polygon counts.

So this begs the question, why does the PS4, again a powerful system, have issues emulating the PS2, when the weaker Xbox One and Nvidia Shield can emulate the more advanced-than-PS2 systems in Xbox and Gamecube, with no issues?

 

In these two videos you can see frame drops, skipping images, jumping images, it’s all over the place and a total mess.

Sure we get up-scaled to 1080p and trophy support…but if the trade off is a terrible performing PS2 game on a PS4, then what is the point?

I have yet to try Jak 3 and personally I don’t want to, but the original Jak and Daxter was no better, with some moments becoming brief slide shows and one boss fight running routinely below 30fps it felt like.

dafuqdafuq2

 

Now the coup de grace: Both the PS3 releases as part of the HD Trilogy, and these PS2 Classics for Jak, have separate trophy lists, however, I can easily check both from my PS4, mobile app, website…the list goes on. It’s evident the two sets of games, despite being the same games, have separate lists.

This is something I can easily check, yet for some reason, despite trophies being a part of my account and Sony being very capable of checking if I already own the games, you don’t get a discount on these facades of PS2 “Classics”. Full price, which is upwards of £30.

To compound this further, the PS3 re-releases I actually bought digitally, and thus is part of my account’s purchase history! Still no discount. Unlike Microsoft, who let you pop a disk in and download it onto Xbox One when available (Something the PS4 could do with your original PS1 and 2 disks!) to see if you bought physical copies, or simply checking your account and giving you the games if you already downloaded them….you need to pay again.

Hell, let’s get really archaic with the Wii. That didn’t even have an account system, your purchases for the Virtual Console were locked to your hardware, but via system transfer, your Wii U can see what games you already had on Wii Virtual Console, and gives you a very sizeable discount on the Wii U versions when available!

discoun

Yes. Even the damn Wii got this right. It was cumbersome, but they found a way to do it. But here, all the data is right there, multiple times over as it happens, in my account and…nothing. Full price please, have some butchered releases.

I don’t like that.

 

To end, I’ll quote my favourite man who should himself hire some PR guys: Jim Ryan! Remember what he said about backwards compatibility?

“That, and I was at a Gran Turismo event recently where they had PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?”

You know what Jim? I have to somewhat agree. Except instead of criticising the graphics, I’ll modify your statement a little.

The PS1 and PS2 games, they ran worse than they did initially, even though it’s far more capable hardware, like why would anybody play this?

That’s the question I find myself asking. Why? There is absolutely no reason for it to be this way. Everything about Sony’s approach to backwards compatibility is wrong, which is a shame as they spurred it into an industry standard.

Plus, Jim Ryan, at the rate you all churn out these maligned releases, for the sheer gaps between releases, for all the effort that clearly goes into these, if this is the resultant quality….keep them.

 

Thanks for reading! What do you think about PS4 BC in this day and age? Is it acceptable? Let me know in comments or on social media, and until next time, Happy Gaming!

 

Impressions: PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds!

Sean Alexander

An exercise in frustration, or an amazing game with a great concept?

 

So PUBG is something I have been aware of for a few months but never got into for monetary and other reasons. I simply had too much to do. But yesterday, live on stream, I played my first few matches.

 

I had only seen sparse footage of the game, or real discussion about it beyond its influence on Twitch and gaming as a whole. I know the story behind its creation, but not much of the actual gameplay beyond what is, on paper at least, an amazing concept.

miramar-b0ea3b5b

Airdrop up to 100 players into a huge map. Have them scavenge for armour, weaponry, tools and upgrades to their equipment…and kill each other. As they do this, the play area shrinks. Fall outside of this, your health is drained. So you have 100 people being funnelled down into a smaller and smaller area, and the last man standing wins.

This is truly an excellent concept…on paper.

Personally the idea of only two maps is a bit disheartening, until you realise these maps are huge, and the high variance of the games means every play will be different. You’ll never have the same round twice. Almost.

 

The execution of this concept is what drives me to a mixed reaction to it.

There are primarily three scenarios for your time in PUBG:

You are not likely to have two matches play out the same, unless you are unfortunate enough to be airdropped in next to someone, or a few people, who quickly find weapons, and bang, you are out of there within two minutes.

That isn’t the most fun aspect of the game. If you get lucky and don’t die immediately (Great! You got lucky!) you now need to find weapons. You can spend a good while running through open spaces (And thus be an obvious target) between buildings that may or may not end up with you defending yourself. Or dying if someone is hiding in one. That can happen too.

Long and short, you can spend a long time not being able to actually partake in the core of the gameplay.

Finally, you can end up in the third scenario which plays one of two ways. You’ll either get extremely fortunate and end up in semi-frequent bouts of combat and win, or die, or end up not finding anyone until the map shrinks and there are about 20 players left, and then come out on top…or die.

As shown above I made it to 7th place in a match…where I got two kills and spent a good 20 minutes sat in a house waiting for stuff to happen as the play area shrank and shrank, until I got blasted from the side.

This is easily the most fun part of the game. It’s high adrenaline, and goodness knows a grenade or gunshot with headphones on makes you leap out of your skin in what is a quiet world otherwise. Plus the knowledge that combat is inevitable and closing in on you is an amazing feeling.

This is where PUBG works best. Occasional combat instances, good luck finding weapons, and being able to play smart, assuming people don’t snipe you. Of course, you’ve got a 1 in 3 chance of your game even getting that far. More often than not, it feels like it won’t.

 

PostProcessingVeryLow

Of course that’s just the game design. Visually the game can range from alright to almost N64 style in visual quality, even at full resolution, as sometimes models and textures are incredibly poor. Other times not, which is a weird inconsistency. Maybe this a downside of playing on “Medium” settings, while streaming.

It should be noted I had very few network related issues, even when streaming the game and hosting a Skype call at the same time. That much is very functional at least, which is mandatory for a multiplayer game.

In terms of controls, I used both a Dualshock 4, and Keyboard/Mouse.

Keyboard worked fine for what it is, everything is mercifully within reach, just as I have explained before however, it’s not the most comfortable solution for me as a player. The downside of using a controller means some features like underhanded throws and quick switching through weapons, aren’t available without sacrificing other things. It’s a prioritize what you need kind of situation.

Finally, aiming seems a little…weird. Guns have the appropriate kind of blowback, which means you won’t just fire in a straight line. But reviewing some “Death Cam” footage (It happened a lot), I can see players do have a hard time lining up shots or even getting them to connect. I don’t know if that’s a network thing of if the aiming is just slightly off, but it’s a strange oddity.

 

Overall I can say PUBG on PC is something to at least try out. On Xbox One, I don’t know as I can’t test that version, but from what I have seen it’s not as smooth an experience at the moment, compared to the now out of “Early Access” PC version.

But therein lies the problem: The idea of the game is amazing. It’s just luck as to whether it plays out in a way that you enjoy, or if it effectively ends with you in a boring scenario where nothing happens for a good while, or die immediately upon starting.

 

Thanks for reading this Impressions piece on PUBG! It was an interesting experience and you can bet I will be doing more like this in future! If you enjoyed this article or have your own thoughts on PUBG, let me know on social media or in the comments, and I will see you next time: Happy Gaming!

Programmers: The Unsung Heroes

Sean Alexander

This is an aspect of the reception of games that barely gets noticed, but one that is also noticed a lot in a different light: Programming.

 

So this is a discussion close to me, as a programmer anyway, as it is something that I have not only been subject to, but others have around me as well. Not just that, but you will see it regarding reviews of games or other software, or rather, it’s what you don’t see that is interesting.

 

So as I went through university for Game Design, a choice I completely regret (I mean that Economics degree was right there…), I realised we spent very little time learning the bit that makes games…interactive. Programming was barely a footnote amongst the art and writing aspects (And how to make the most money by selling your game piecemeal). I suppose this was the downside of the course focusing strictly on the “Traditional Western AAA methods”. I’ll write another article about the entire issue of the education I had at a later date, because it makes my blood boil.

In terms of programming, outside of the classes on Websites (Which were fine) and “Mobile Apps” (Which were really mobile websites), there wasn’t a lot. In my first year, in 2014, there was a class on “Digital Media and Design”, which from those who took said class, sounded like making games and animations in Flash. Yes, in 2014, I am just as baffled as you are.

flash-player-1024x576

For that first year, all I had to go on was some copy and pasted, not explained, not very well conveyed JavaScript into Unity. The few programmers there were on our own.

Second year had a class on “Games Engine Programming” which was basically C# in Unity. Now on paper this is a good idea. In practice, it was far too fast for anyone there to get anything, and overcomplicated matters without ever explaining the purpose of functions, methods or any other aspects. Just follow along, and we were expected to produce AI, procedural generation and inventory management systems. It was a mess.

Beyond that, programming was….well there is a reason they asked to see who was a programmer at the start of the course. They basically have it set up so the programmers go solo with learning, so they don’t have to, and hope the group work plays out okay.

ogimg

It’s baffling there is a course on making games that barely scratches the surface of making a game interactive, there was actually more classes on micro transactions and the types of story you can tell. Don’t even ask about optimisation, or programming in any other engines that we were required to use like CryENGINE and Unreal Engine 4. That wasn’t touched in the slightest.

But this is the facts, a generation of developers is now out in the world….with no knowledge of how to make a game interactive or be coded properly, and the problem is, this means they will be seen.

-1467735391

So my other issue that I brought up mentioned reviews, and this is true. Look at any review for a game. How often does a review mention how glitch free, or well done the collisions are? What about how stable the game is on a technical level? What about AI praise, or so on so forth? Programming in games, especially good programming, goes in-noticed. It’s never going to draw attention to itself by being good. But art, music, visuals? Yeah, people will praise that, and rightly so, if the work is good, praise them. But programmers don’t get that luxury.

Now read some reviews. Look at some bad games. How many mention the programming issues like glitches, or dodgy AI? Yeah, it drew attention to itself. A programmer is only seen and acknowledged when the work is below average. Back in university after clearing a group project and spending many nights building a gameplay style I was told to put in instead of refining other mechanics, I didn’t get to go to the expo to show the game off. The artists, writers, musicians went. Us programmers? Stay at home, put your feet up, your work doesn’t actually sell a game.

It should, because if a game is technically sound, it’s going to be a good game to play and should be fun, right? But your part in that won’t be praised.

1503696681267

For a field as demanding and knowledge based as programming, one has to wonder why the unsung heroes of game development don’t get recognition, at least when their work is good, alongside their peers in development. It’s an interesting situation and one I am not sure I would know of a solution to. Sure they are in the credits, but the actual conversations beyond that, you’d be hard pressed to hear someone praise a game’s programming.

That is just the thing. As programming isn’t a spoken and praised field like art, or writing, or hell even monetization if you look at the industry today, why should it be taught to students? The people of the world won’t notice it unless it’s bad, and they figure (And I know this is the case), that people who want to be programmers don’t need the teaching. Well, we do. We all learn somehow, and there is only so much Google and books can give you without the insight.

 

I sincerely hope in the future as games become more demanding, programmers get the praise they deserve. They are more than the people in dark cubicles who complain a lot. They make the game work. They make your tools. They gave you the software to develop your animations and art. They are there when something breaks and they would rather be asleep.

And this isn’t even mentioning the industry where if a programming job can be found by someone cheaper, a developer will likely take it regardless of quality. That’s a thing too, I suppose. Labour turn-over is a real issue.

 

 

If you enjoyed this rather different piece, share and leave feedback on social media, and I will see you for the next one. Until then, Happy Gaming!

 

 

Behind The Game Update: 2/12/2017

Sean Alexander

Alright guys, forgive me for being quiet this past week, it’s been rough.

 

But now we have some future plans!

 

So, the next full “Behind The Game Article” will be Metroid Prime. I want to take apart the pre-release of that game especially, as it was a very interesting time both from the gamer and developer standpoints.

 

Secondly, our next main review will be Metroid Prime. I just really want to 100% the game for the first time and I’ve been in the mood to sink my teeth into it. I may review a few smaller games before then, but the next big review is indeed Metroid Prime.

 

As for upcoming articles, regarding what Take Two just said about doing all digital confirms my suspicions regarding what I said about them in a previous article, and EA just keeps digging, so be sure I’ll update or write new articles in due course.

 

Outside of any other articles I really want to write, I suppose the next one would be dissecting Steam. I have some bones to pick their. After that, we will see.

 

So thanks for your patience guys, I will keep you guys posted over on Twitter (Link above) and as always, Happy Gaming!

The Unfortunate Obsession with Metacritic

Sean Alexander

The industry has a bit of an obsession with Metacritic scores. Both consumers, and unfortunately publishers, look at the numbers in a way that has proven not only counterproductive, but dangerous in recent years.

 

Metacritic (And similar aggregators) have a simple job: Collect review scores and average them out. Now that’s all well and good and can be a useful source for a range of different reviews on a game, movie, music and so on.

Metacritic though has become a focal point. The vaunted goal, the barometer of what’s worth buying, and even what determines developers getting bonuses. Yes, Metacritic alone has become a huge part of the industry, and while it does a job that is needed, namely collecting reviews into one place for convenience, how it does it and the impact of that, is the problem.

Metacritic

First, the rise of competitors such as OpenCritic have raised awareness that Metacritic seemingly acts selectively with getting reviews from places, requiring verification. Further, it also reaches very slightly different averages, indicating that some reviews are weighted more than others. Weighting is in fact a key point that we will come back to later.

Another issue is review scores, because that’s what Metacritic uses for an average, will be based on different criteria. A 7 from one site is a different set of criteria from a 7 elsewhere. But for Metacritic, a 7 is a 7. The reasoning behind the number could be completely different, but the context behind that number is ultimately lost.

The idea that Metacritic and other aggregators can give a consensus is a bit foolish. ure, it will say “Generally Favourable” or “Mixed” or whatever other word of the times it chooses, but is that accurate, when the context behind those numbers is lost? The average number is just a basis from generalisation.  A game could come out with 80/100 and be “Generally Favourable” only for the reality underneath to be…well mixed. This is especially prevalent with mixed or divisive games, as outliers skew the data, and in statistics, significant outliers are anomalous. But Metacritic doesn’t care about anomalies and their context, just the number. More pull is assigned to the lower end of the scale, so even if a game has by all accounts more “Positive” reviews than “Mixed”, the “Mixed” weight it down. On top of THAT, not every game will have the same number of reviews, further skewing data.

original

 

I’m going to keep bringing up that number, because just like on this site and our refusal to score reviews (Again, context is key), that number in recent years has become the most contested aspect of any game.

The 4 point scale, admittedly nowadays more like 3 point scale, is a problem. Undoubtedly so in fact, to the point where now, a game below an 8/10 is considered bad. Yes, really, and I wish it wasn’t the case. A key factor in this is in fact aggregators have weighted (There is that word again) the averages.

Say you have a 10 point scale, in this case 1-100. If that was to represent a range of values from terrible, to bad, to average, to great, to excellent, why would 50% of that scale be assigned to “Negative” and below? Why is 50%-75% the range for “Average”? Why is the range for “Good to Excellent” only the upper 25%?

MTIyNDU3OTcxNzE1MzEwMTgy

This doesn’t make any sense. The cream of the crop would stand out regardless, so why is there a significantly larger range for games to be considered bad, than the other 2 general ratings? Why is the general bar for “Okay” around, of all things, 75-80%?

This extends to the issue regarding the 4 point scale. As the averages are locked to this upper half of the board, and most games fall in that range, it starts to push the minimum for what gamers call “Acceptable” up and up over time. Once, it was 7. It’s closer to 8 now and heaven forbid it hits 9/10.

These scores, and the uneven distribution and attribution of values given to the scores, is simply nothing more than fuel for a fire, of my game is better than yours, and so on so forth, amongst gamers, or even attacks on developers. It’s okay to have high standards, but average is not 7/10.

untitled5

Finally we are going to come to the other obsessed group: Publishers. Companies like EA and a handful of others, are known for tying bonuses for developers to a Metacritic score. Get a certain score, or no bonus. This is the dumbest, most disrespectful thing imaginable.

Sure, you should get a bonus for doing a good job or working extra hard. That is true of any industry. But developers go through crunch time, unpaid overtime, without union support. Worse to that, if the game has great visuals, and those artists, animators and modellers did the best they have ever done, but the programming leaves the game a mess with a low score, those visual development staff won’t get a bonus, even if it is their best work.

This is of course, assuming they still have the job afterwards, due to high turnover in the industry as well. Bonuses for a developer should be based on the work of the individual, and not held behind an arbitrary and without context number that a publisher wants to see, that can be broken down by a completely separate part of the development staff.

 

 

The industry has manifested a culture of abusing developers and not giving them their dues, based on what other people think. Not their work individually, not even what the publisher thinks, but what the rest of the world thinks, and the obsession with every increasing standards and a shrinking scale of what is acceptable means that this culture will only hurt developers in the end.

 

As always if you enjoyed this, give it a share and let me know what you think on social media. Until next time, Happy Gaming!