xbox 360 quick hits, Part 2: Full Auto

At its best, Full Auto is a tease. For a game that calls itself "the world's most destructible racing game", I guess it's pretty accurate. You can destroy lots of things in this game. Buildings, street-side cafés, fences - well, as long as it's accessible from the race track. You aren't offered much flexibility to drift off of it. And if you were to compare it to Rock N' Roll Racing as I noted in Part 1, it might be a more accurate representation of the style of gameplay that is being offered.

However, while we were playing I couldn't help but reminisce about Carmageddon 2, which was a lot more open in its design. I'd even call it ahead of its time. Free form "races" with multiple conditions for winning (like killing a certain number of pedestrians, or destroying all of your opponents), and all of it doused with a thick red coating of ultra violence. As long as you could suspend your disbelief when you ran over the pedestrians with cubic heads. Full Auto doesn't allow you to simply go after your adversaries and destroy them, because you're in a race. Unless the objectives at the beginning of a mission stated otherwise, crossing the finish line was the only necessary goal to complete.

To be fair, you can do a lot of damage to the environment in Full Auto, but it has no real effect on the way you drive. You can plow through three fuel tankers causing massive explosions and keep going as if nothing happened. This apparent lack of repercussions is even stranger in the face of the detailed damage modelling of the vehicles.

I found that my car was exploding without any real warning beyond the damage indicator on the bottom of the screen, which I rarely checked due to the fast-paced nature of the action. My vehicle may have looked like a scrap heap on wheels, but it didn't drive any differently. It didn't cause me to rethink my strategy to conserve energy or shields - I simply kept driving until I was ultimately destroyed by gunfire, colliding with another car, or simply diving headlong off of the top level of a parking garage.

Though all this can be avoided: the "Unwreck" feature is a Prince of Persia-styled reversing of time to make a jump, avoid a rollover, or even being targeted by an adversary's machine gun. I wondered if a feature like this was even necessary. Is the ultimate point of Full Auto total destruction or winning a race? Carmageddon had an auto-repair feature you could use while driving (depending on how much money you had available). It was equally unrealistic, but was at least suited to the overall theme.

What bothered me was the lack of originality and variation in the weapons available to upgrade vehicles. They're often made up of one forward weapon and one rear, and categorized into "packages" like Assault and Melee. Individual components of the sets can't be interchanged. What's worse, like the other cars in the game, the weapon sets must be unlocked.

The available game modes are pretty straightforward, and actually kind of dull after the initial novelty of driving clear through a brick building with a hot rod wears off. The most glaring omission was the lack of a free for all or arena mode included in the likes of Carmageddon or Twisted Metal. In a game that's bent on providing wholesale destruction, why is it so focused on racing? Perhaps I was simply attributing features to the game it was never intended to have.

Nevertheless, there was something about Full Auto that just felt rushed, as if Pseudo Interactive started with a sound concept that got stripped down to meet the "arcade racing" requirement for the 360's library. I'd call it "Semi-Auto", but that's too obvious. It isn't a bad game. Just an unremarkable one.

xbox 360 quick hits, Part 1

A couple of weekends ago I spent the afternoon with fellow über-gamers Tony and Chris, where we gathered for some quality time with Chris' new XBox 360. I've since had the time to record some of the following impressions. Unrelated: Chris is an excellent cook.

backwards compatibility the order of the day

At long last the XBox 360, Playstation 3, and Nintendo Revolution have been revealed, their specs devoured, and flame wars commenced. Aside from the Revolution being the only one without high-definition support, what intrigues me the most about the next generation is backward compatibility. Indeed, every one of these consoles pledges support for games of its predecessor, though perhaps some more than others. The Playstation 2 boldly started this trend, effectively doubling the library of games available to Playstation 2 purchasers. Sony is continuing this with the PS3, and as a result my current allegiance in the oncoming battle is for this platform. The specs look incredible, and the mindshare is deeply entrenched allowing developers to feel cozy in the thought that their games are almost guaranteed to sell. This is no indicator of quality; rather, it is security knowing that most games will be released for this platform. I missed out on some great games on the PS2 for reasons mostly limited to my own stubbornness, and I'm fully prepared to play catch-up over the next couple of years.

Nintendo's shrinking set-top console library since the N64 could have used this tactic, but their insistence on using archaic forms of media denied this possibility. Comfortably secure in the handheld market, however, Nintendo has smartly allowed compatibility with Gameboy games on all future versions of their handheld hardware (including the DS). The Gamecube has been home to some fantastic games; perhaps the Revolution will assure enough high-calibre titles for gamers to invest in the platform and realize what they've overlooked. According to this press release, the Revolution will also have access to downloadable Nintendo classics from the N64, SNES, and NES, no doubt making up for previous lost opportunities. It is unknown what this is going to cost, though charging $19.99 for a 19 year old game certainly worked for them on the GBA.

Microsoft is taking a different approach with the XBox 360, stating that this new hardware will be "backward-compatible with top-selling Xbox games." Though what this actually means is anyone's guess. Microsoft being who they are you could assume this means Halo 1 and 2 and consider the matter closed.

Backwards compatibility is a good trend to continue, because nobody wants to accumulate old hardware just so they can play the classics. It's also a great way for gamers to educate themselves on a bit of gaming history - there's nothing more annoying than reviewers falsely proclaiming originality, and consumers being none the wiser. Though all this talk about backward compatibility as a "new" feature makes me wonder where everyone's been for the last 15 years. Once again I'm back to lamenting the neglect of the PC. Console manufacturers would never admit that's what they're trying to emulate, but that's the way it's going (and the price is going up to match). Online gaming capabilities, its inherent abilities as a media center, its graphical prowess, backwards compatibility - these are all things that the PC has always done, and has for a long time. I fail to see why marketers insist on labeling consoles as "entertainment" systems, when in fact all they're selling you is an over-designed computer.

it seems so out of context

the XBox 360 is not the point

I think it's time to put aside the heckling and realize what that "special" (read: commercial) for the XBox 360 really means, because we're only going to get this chance once. Indeed, the Spike TV awards were collectively acknowledged as a huge waste of time - but at least it was 3 hours long (or whatever, I never actually got through it). This XBox 360 commercial was hyped even on Canadian television, all for what I gather was equivalent to a short segment on the home shopping network. Screenshots and specifications and superficial interviews by pop stars mean nothing to me right now. What I'm concerned about is gaming's new image. Quite frankly, it's embarassing.

What happened in the last couple of years? I mean, besides game culture going mainstream and Franz Ferdinand playing in the background of PSP commercials. This is a very dangerous direction for the industry to be heading. Focus grouping is not the answer to good games! This whole scenario absolutely reeks of market research and target demographics. How a blatant product placement on a channel full of product placements can be seen as otherwise is a testament to our culture. I don't want to hear about Halo sequels and polygons for the rest of my life as a gamer, which to be honest is being tested at this very moment. As I said in an earlier post PC gaming has taken a hit because of this newfound interest in catering to an entertainment-driven market. It's not as easy to market the type of games that thrive on the PC to people who want third person action or can actually stomach playing a FPS with a gamepad. The XBox 360 can play DVDs! Fantastic! I finally have an excuse throw my DVD player off my balcony.

I can't help but feel bitter at these developments. Gaming has always been a big part of my life, even if it meant getting my ass kicked in the locker room after gym glass. Now the ass kickers are playing video games. Will the hardcore be remembered after these turbulent times? Will the opinions of gamers who actually played Doom matter next to Halo's star on the walk of fame? It's extremely scary to think my hobby is being driven into the ground by gamers who care little for gaming history or its acceptance as more than a diversion. Do you want to be playing commercials in the next five years? Go ahead and pick up that copy of Madden. It won't hurt you...yet.

Oh, and The Killers? Give me a fucking break.

makes me want to give mankind a beating