Monday, 23 May 2016

Dark Souls 3 Doesn't Suck .... Or Does It?

After the colossal disappointment of Dark Souls II, it would be appropriate to say that I had pretty low expectations for Dark Souls III. Although, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I simply had no expectations for Dark Souls III. Despite all of my criticism against Dark Souls II, I still found it a deeply engaging experience, and I enjoy the core gameplay of the Souls series enough that a single lukewarm experience wouldn't be enough to turn me off from future installments. With Dark Souls III, I wasn't going to expect some sort of grand, transcendent experience like the original Demon's Souls, or even the first Dark Souls -- instead, I was just going to play it and try to enjoy it like I would any other video game.

Reviewing Dark Souls III is a difficult task for me because I have two divergent opinions about it. On the one hand, it feels like the least rushed and most polished of the three Dark Souls games, but on the other hand, it also feels like it's lacking in content compared to either of the previous two games. Despite that, I've put twice as many hours into Dark Souls III than I put into either Dark Souls or Dark Souls II, with 135 hours spanning multiple characters and multiple playthroughs. It was so addicting that I'd sometimes play for eight hours straight without stepping away to eat lunch or dinner, or play until four in the morning when I had to be up at nine the next day. And yet, after all that time, I've found myself progressively more annoyed and disappointed. There's all this extra stuff I still want to do, in terms of builds and playstyles, but I just can't bring myself to keep playing anymore, unless the game gets some serious patches, because the flaws have become almost unbearable.

Before getting any further into this review, I want to point out that I've tried to make this review as spoiler-free as possible since the game is still relatively new. I mention a few minor things here and there, like the names of a few areas in the game, but they would mean nothing to you and so nothing is likely to be spoiled by reading this review. The review also assumes you have some familiarity with the Dark Souls series, or have read my previous articles on the series; this isn't a typical "consumer advice" review that gives an overview on what the game is and whether it's worth getting or not. Rather, it's a slightly more in-depth look at specific gameplay mechanisms, aimed at people who have already played the other games in the series and want to know how Dark Souls III compares to the others.


Story / Characters

I don't really care about the stories in these games, and apparently neither does From Software, so I'm not going to bother going into any detail deciphering the lore or nitpicking weird inconsistencies. As I mentioned in my Dark Souls II review, the only thing I really care about when it comes to these games is the overt story that happens to your character -- what's going on in the world as you play, and why you're doing the things that you're doing. In that aspect, From Software hits par for the course once again by not really giving you any explanation to go off of. Dark Souls III basically just rehashes the tired theme of the Age of Fire waning, and you have to go defeat four main bosses to link the flame and jumpstart a new Age of Fire, or else sever the connection and bring about an Age of Dark.

The unique twist this time around is that four of the five Lords of Cinder -- those responsible for linking the fire in the previous age -- have abandoned their thrones for whatever reason, and you have to get them back on their thrones so that you can link the fire yourself. It's kind of a cool concept that the main bosses in this game were once, essentially, the good guys, but have now turned their backs on their responsibilities, or in some cases, were reluctant to link the fire, or had nefarious motives for doing so. There are a lot of fun storylines one could explore with these ideas -- one of the main NPC questlines you can follow ends with a revelation that he had a close relationship with one of the Lords of Cinder -- but as you'd expect from a Souls game, they simply tease you with these interesting ideas, and then leave everything so vague and unresolved that the fanbase has to create the stories themselves, almost from scratch, considering how little they have to go on.

Talking with Hawkwood, the Sadfallen Warrior.

So you go through the tutorial area, beat the first boss, and wind up at the Nexus Firelink Shrine, where the Maiden in Black Emerald Herald Firekeeper sets you on your epic quest by saying "The Lords have left their thrones, and must be deliver'd to them. The mark of ash will guide thee to the land of the Lords. To Lothric, where the homes of the Lords converge." And you sit there wondering "Why did they leave their thrones? Why must I put them back on their thrones? How do I do this?" It turns out all this really involves is killing each of them, scooping their ashen remains into a dustbin, and emptying it on each of their thrones. It's kind of anticlimactic when you consider how much more they could've done with putting the Lords of Cinder back on their thrones, perhaps by going into their memories like you did with the giants in Dark Souls II, or by turning them into Firelink NPCs you could talk to.

Actually talking to them probably wouldn't feel that satisfying, though, since the NPC dialogue is so generally disappointing in this game. It's always surprising to me how consistently good the voice acting is in these games, considering how little emphasis there actually is on NPCs and the story, but the writing just leaves so much to be desired. The characters, especially those who inhabit the Firelink Shrine, all feel like lifeless robots spouting the same lines of dialogue throughout the entire game. After your initial meeting with the Firekeeper, choosing the "talk" option will always result in her "Ashen one, to be Unkindled is to be a vessel for souls" speech about bringing her souls to level-up, unless you do one of two very specific things to trigger an extra line or two of dialogue. Another NPC you can recruit to Firelink Shrine sends you on a quest early in the game to deliver a ring to a woman (which you quickly resolve), and then for the entire rest of the game, choosing the "talk" option will always result in him telling you to keep the ring.

Rescuing an NPC from a locked cell.

Most of the characters in the game are completely static, never changing, and never reacting to anything you do in the world. I made a point of going back to Firelink Shrine to talk to every NPC every time I advanced to a new area or defeated a boss, and found myself really annoyed how no one except the Crestfallen Warrior, Hawkwood, seemed to care about anything that was going on. You can trigger a few lines of new dialogue with some of the other characters here and there, usually by bringing them an item, but a lot of these lines tend to be totally inconsequential -- just them acknowledging it and saying thank you. If you want any kind of meaningful interaction with NPCs, then you have to pursue the five or six NPC side-quests, but good luck actually following any of them without a guide.

Per the usual, From Software have made a lot of the NPC questlines so obscure and illogical that you probably won't even be able to finish most of them on your first playthrough, unless you're rigorously following step-by-step guides to make sure you do everything exactly right, in the correct order, throughout the entire game. For one NPC, you have to have talked to them enough times in Firelink after gaining a few necessary items, kill a tough enemy that the game expects you to run away from, warp out to reset the level, return, be embered (ie, human form, as opposed to undead), backtrack through a totally pointless area you'd never have any reason to visit again, notice a summon sign on the ground, and stand directly on top of it, instead of just assuming that it's a sign left by another player [because it looks exactly the same] and disregarding it without getting close enough for the message to pop up telling you its from an NPC requesting your assistance.

Talking to an NPC in Firelink shrine.

You're meant to have another special encounter with another NPC in another area, but triggering their event requires you to explore up until a certain point in the level and then warp out entirely, to refresh the area, and then go to a specific spot before passing a certain point in another area of the level. There's a strict order of operations you have follow, or else the NPC just won't spawn at all; I missed it because I chose be thorough and explore everywhere possible before fighting the boss or leaving the area, and was punished for my diligence. In a similar fashion, I completely locked myself out of sorceries in my first playthrough because I waited too long to do something with an NPC, with no warning whatsoever that their services would stop suddenly, and killed a boss before giving another NPC a certain item. If I'd been planning to learn sorceries later on, I would've been completely screwed, all because I didn't have the psychic ability to know that certain characters would simply vanish after certain points in the game progression.

Ultimately, I like the idea of the characters existing independently of you, like they're all fellow inhabitants of Lothric just going about their business whether you're around or not, and that it's possible for you to miss things or fail questlines by not doing certain things or meeting certain requirements. It's definitely a more desirable approach than Dark Souls II's approach, which basically just amounted to summoning every NPC before every boss fight and instantly resolving their questlines. But the execution in Dark Souls III is pretty damn frustrating from a gameplay standpoint. It just sucks to miss out on content (sometimes gameplay-altering content) just because the quest mechanics don't make any kind of sense. I suppose you could argue that it's like that to promote replays via "new game plus mode" -- something goes wrong in your first playthrough, so you learn and do something differently the next time -- but you don't always know why things happened the way they did in the first place to be able to fix them a second time around, without more utterly clueless trial-and-error in a third or fourth playthrough.


Level Design / Exploration

The crappy level design was probably my number one complaint about Dark Souls II, so thankfully From Software have taken that criticism to heart and have vastly improved the level design in Dark Souls III. The levels are incredibly dense and intricate this time, with tons of branching paths, side routes, unlockable shortcuts, and hidden areas. One of the earlier levels in the game, the Undead Settlement, has two totally divergent paths to the boss chamber, meaning you could potentially miss half of the level if you go one way at the start and don't go back to explore the other path. An optional part of the level is behind a locked door, which requires you to get the key later in the level and then backtrack, which is made easier by a couple of shortcuts you unlock along the way. There's also a hidden area with a bonus boss fight and some good loot if you're observant enough and think to act outside the normal confines of the level design.

Everywhere you go, you're always given a choice about where to go. When you warp into the High Wall of Lothric, the very first area after the tutorial, you're immediately given a choice: go left, or right. If you go left, then do you go up, or down? Some of these apparent branches quickly terminate in a dead end, but most of them continue forward in the level and eventually link back up with the main route, often allowing you multiple ways to progress through the level. As a result, you can sometimes spend hours exploring a single level, if you're the type of gamer who likes to explore everywhere and do everything possible in an area before moving on. Most levels also feature a few really tough enemies thrown into the mix, the kind designed to really challenge you at a low level so that you put them off and come back to vanquish them later. That type of thing is great for letting you pick your own level of challenge -- do you tackle this tough obstacle now, or later -- and makes exploration feel that much more rewarding, because you're either going out of your way to access better rewards earlier on, or else you come back later when you're stronger, and feel like a badass for beating that one enemy that gave you such a tough time in the beginning.

A bonfire within sight of another bonfire. Why is this necessary?

Unfortunately, a few design elements from Dark Souls II made their way over to Dark Souls III, like the free, unlimited warping from bonfire to bonfire from the very beginning of the game, and the overabundance of bonfires around practically every corner. I really miss how the first Dark Souls forced you to get everywhere on foot for the first third of the game, because it made you become a lot more familiar with the level layouts, it made shortcuts feel that much more rewarding, and it added a lot of tension when you fell down a hole and got stuck somewhere in unfamiliar territory. Plus, it was just really cool having all the starting areas so tightly-wound around Firelink Shrine. Dark Souls III needs warping from the very beginning, but that's only because its levels spread so far out from Firelink that it would be way too hard to make it make it back any time you wanted to level up or do some shopping.

Like with Dark Souls II, the constant bonfires and free warping from the beginning of the game makes a lot of areas utterly pointless once you've been through them the first time. Transitions between areas are often devoid of any kind of meaningful structure; they're usually just a linear path with a handful of enemies, with another bonfire shortly ahead. In a lot of cases, you beat a boss and unlock a new bonfire, then walk a short distance fighting zero enemies and unlock another bonfire. Then you walk a little further, fighting perhaps a few basic enemies, and there's another bonfire. There's even one instance in the game with two bonfires within clear sight of one another, a mere hundred yards away with zero obstacles between them. All of these bonfires often defeats the point of shortcuts; instead of using the level to your advantage, following paths and finding efficient routes, you just warp to the latest bonfire and start there every time. There's also practically zero risk of ever losing your souls, because you're always just a short walk from a bonfire.

The linear progression through the game, starting with the Cemetery of Ash.

Also, whereas Demon's Souls and Dark Souls both gave you a lot of options in terms of what order you'd complete levels and thus how you'd progress through the game, Dark Souls III has a generally linear route from the opening tutorial to the final boss. See the chart above for an example of what I mean -- paths marked with a red X are blocked until you clear the first three Lords of Cinder. You have to go through a lot of the game in a very specific order, usually completing two or three areas in sequence before you get any options. Even then, it's usually only a choice of two different areas, one of which will terminate in a dead end once you finish it. This has an extreme consequence on replays and new game plus mode, because it means you basically have to go through the entire game in the same order every time you play it. In addition, the sequence-locked progression means a lot of special items are inaccessible until much later in the game; if you want to make a new character with an alternate build, you have to play through serious chunks of the game before you can get access to items and equipment critical for your new build.

If there's one thing Dark Souls II got right, it was that it made new game plus worth going through because of how much stuff it changed. It added a ton of completely unique weapons, rings, and armor sets, changed the enemy placements, upped the number of enemies in addition to just buffing their stats, added whole new enemies never seen before in the first playthrough, changed boss fights (one, in particular, ambushes you way before you expect to fight it normally), and so on. In Dark Souls III, new game plus mode is exactly the same as it was the first time around, except it's drastically easier because the enemies haven't been buffed enough to compensate for your own higher stats. The only changes in new game plus are a few upgraded versions of rings that were already in the first playthrough, none of which make a dramatic impact on the game unless you're an avid PVP'er looking for every little advantage you can get.

Everything you see is about 50% of the Profaned Capital.

Meanwhile, the latter half of the game feels a little empty and underdeveloped. The main goal of the game is to defeat the four Lords of Cinder so you can gain access to the Kiln of the First Flame and link the fire. The journey feels pretty satisfying until you beat the second Lord of Cinder, but once you reach that halfway point, the number of remaining areas drops significantly, and about half of the remaining areas are so short they're over before you even realize it. The Profaned Capital is particularly disappointing -- Yhorm the Giant is the last Lord of Cinder shown in the intro cinematic, so you go in there expecting this grand, climactic fight in the capital city. And then the area is just a single, short path to the boss chamber and a side-route that links back to a previous area. The Consumed King's Garden is basically two large rooms and the boss chamber, and the Untended Graves has almost nothing in it -- some basic enemies, a boss chamber, and a few black knights.

Finally, there's not a whole lot of aesthetic variety between areas; the bulk of the game seems to take place in castles/fortresses, cathedrals, and swamps, with the few stand-out areas just being rehashes of places we've already seen in previous games. Archdragon Peak is reminiscent of the Dragon Aerie from Dark Souls II; Irithyll Dungeon is a rehash of the Tower of Latria from Demon's Souls; the Catacombs of Carthus is a rehash of every catacomb from all of the previous Souls games; Smouldering Lake is Ash Lake and Lost Izalith from Dark Souls; Farron Keep is every poison swamp from every Souls game; Cathedral of the Deep is the Undead Parish from Dark Souls; The Grand Archives is the Duke's Archives from Dark Souls; and so on. I've not played Bloodborne, but I'm told the Undead Settlement is a lot like some of the levels from that game. This being the fourth game in the Souls series (fifth if you count Bloodborne) there's obviously going to be a lot of retreads and overlap, but it's just kind of disheartening to play through Dark Souls III and feel like you've already seen and done everything before.


Combat / Enemy Design

Much like the bland and uninspiring area aesthetics, the vast majority of enemies in Dark Souls III feel reminiscent of stuff we've already seen in the previous games. Very, very few enemies in the game offer any kind of new surprise that catches you off-guard, or instills a sense of dread or fear in you, or makes you extra cautious because of how weird and unfamiliar they are. The giant spider caught me by surprise the very first time just because it dropped in from out of nowhere (literally -- I looked up immediately before and it wasn't there), but then once I realized what it was, I shrugged it off and was like, "whatever, I've killed giant spiders before in these games." The first wretch you encounter is kind of creepy, but once you start fighting them they're not all that different from other enemies. The ninja skeletons that turn invisible while they roll made me panic a little the first time I fought one. The hand ogres were completely grotesque. Otherwise, it was just a handful of enemies here and there that intimidated me only because of how difficult they were.

Likewise, there aren't a lot of truly unique bosses, which is especially weird because of how much fewer there are this time around. Dark Souls had 22 bosses before DLC; Dark Souls II had 32 bosses before DLC; Dark Souls III has 19 bosses. I know I trashed Dark Souls II for having so many bosses that a lot of them felt pointless, but it at least had some interesting, memorable bosses with unique mechanics. Consider the Looking Glass Knight, who could summon NPCs or even other players to fight against you, or the Flexile Sentry, where the arena progressively filled with water until you were eventually slowed by it, or the Lost Sinner which you had to fight in almost complete darkness. In Dark Souls III, almost every boss is just a standard one-vs-one fight against large melee-fighting or magic-casting humanoids in a generic, empty arena. The most unique things we have going on in Dark Souls III are: a False Idol / Pinwheel clone, a constantly-respawning mob enemy where the boss soul keeps switching between enemies, and a one-versus-two where the second boss heals and resurrects the first.

Vordt, boss of the first full level after the tutorial.

On the bright side, From Software have at least realized that treating the Dark Souls combat system like Dynasty Warriors, where you mow down enemies by the dozens, like they did with Dark Souls II, does not work. Only seven of the 19 bosses in Dark Souls III feature multiple enemies, but only three of those pose any kind of real threat. For the most part, it's always a one-on-one where you just have to focus on the one enemy, watching its moves, learning its tells, and reacting accordingly. These fights are generally quite satisfying because success is more about playing intelligently than being able to dodge countless barrages from hordes of enemy attacks like in Dark Souls II. The levels themselves, likewise, are made more difficult by making individual enemies stronger and more aggressive, instead of just pasting more of them into the level. In most instances, you're only fighting two or three enemies at a time, which is enough to challenge you within the confines of the target-lock combat system, but not enough to overwhelm you.

Combat in Dark Souls III is a little faster than it's been in previous games, perhaps on par with or even a little bit faster than Demon's Souls, both in terms of its physical speed the level of enemy aggression. You move faster and attack faster, but so does everything else. As a result, combat now feels less like a game of wits and more like a game of reaction speeds. Mainly, it's because all of the enemies have become relentlessly hyper-aggressive; most enemies attack with fast, flailing 3-5 hit combos that tear you to shreds if you get hit at the start of it. If you try to rely on roll-dodging, then you have to perfectly time 3-5 rolls all in a row, and if you try to block it with a shield then you lose a lot of stamina, and might possibly get your guard broken. Either way, you're left very low on stamina to initiate a follow-up attack, and the enemies have such short recovery times that you'll only be able to get one or two hits in before they launch into another 3-5 hit combo. And if you try to run away, they'll chase you to the ends of the earth with faster run speeds than you.

In From Software's most brilliant trolling work to date, they seem to have figured out what players' natural reactions and tendencies to enemy attacks are, and have designed the enemy AI and attack patterns specifically to exploit your own instincts. When you see an enemy draw its sword over its head and start charging at you, you might wait a moment and then roll to the side, knowing he'll whiff and leave himself exposed for multiple counter-attacks; when you try that in this game, he'll keep charging and turn perfectly to keep up with your roll, unleashing a barrage of attacks on your smug ass while you get chain-stunned into submission. When a dog lunges at you, you might raise your shield, knowing it'll bounce off it and become stunned momentarily, allowing you to attack and kill him; when you try that in this game, it recovers instantly and backsteps, dodging your attack and launching into its own counter-attack that hits while you're stuck in your recovery animation.

Fighting a giant crab in the swamp.

Basically every area in the game has some type of enemies that are just tedious, over-powered, and borderline broken. Giant crabs are impossible to get behind and can attack from all angles, so there's no safe space anywhere around them. Pontiff knights perform seemingly infinite attack combos that close insane distances, so you have almost no time to recover stamina or chug an estus flask. Some of the ordinary hollow soldiers turn into giant blobs of black pus and flail about wildly, all the time. The large, heavily-armored cathedral knights have seemingly infinite poise and constant hyper armor, meaning they will never be staggered by any attack, even from a fully-charged R2 heavy attack from a +10 ultra greatsword. If you're using a light, fast weapon, then you have no choice but to roll dodge constantly (because they have seemingly infinite stamina and will just keep attacking constantly) and poke it once or twice every 5-10 seconds, and if you're using a big, slow weapon then you have no choice but to trade blows with it because it will always be able to attack you during your own attack animation.

It's particularly frustrating that enemies get poise, but you don't. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, poise is a mechanism introduced in the first Dark Souls, which allowed users wearing heavy armor to absorb hits and take the damage without their actions being interrupted. Poise is an official statistic in Dark Souls III, with a value attributed to every piece of armor and your total poise shown in the statistics screen. There's even a ring whose only function is to increase poise. And yet poise does nothing at all, because it's turned off in the game files. Just like Demon's Souls, heavy armor is therefore completely useless, because it doesn't give you enough damage reduction/absorption to offset the weight penalty or vitality investment required to use it if you're not going to get poise. Poise is a prime example of why combat can feel so annoying and unfair at times, because the enemies aren't playing by the same rules you are. I like how the current system, without poise, puts a strong emphasis on positioning and timing because you'll get punished hard for making mistakes and getting hit, but it's way too easy for the big, slow weapons to get interrupted by faster weapons, even with hyper-armor (frames during large weapons' attacks when you can't be interrupted). 

Another thing that Dark Souls II got right was its implementation of dual-wielding, which let you equip a different weapon in each hand and use their full range of attacks. Additionally, if your strength and dexterity were 50% higher than your weapons required, you could "powerstance," which unlocked a new moveset that used the two weapons together. In Dark Souls III, when you equip a weapon to your off-hand, you only get access to basic light attacks and a crappy, useless block -- no rolling, running, jumping, or heavy attacks. Powerstancing, likewise, has been completely removed. In its place, we get a handful of weapons designated as twin weapons, which occupy one slot and are equipped to your right hand; you dual-wield them by two-handing the weapon. You can equip twin daggers, twin curved swords, twin straight swords, twin katanas, twin spears, twin hammers, and twin axes. Each set of twin weapons has its own unique moveset, but there's generally only one type of each twin weapon set, most of which you can't get until near the end of the game. The twin weapon sets are a lot of fun, but I really, really miss being able to combo any two weapons I wanted.

Killing a villager in the Undead Suburb Settlement.

The new addition in Dark Souls III is weapon arts, unique special abilities assigned to individual weapons, which you can trigger by pressing L2 while two-handing the weapon, or while using certain shields that enable one-handed weapon arts in exchange for not being able to parry or shield bash enemies. Each class of weapon generally has its own ability: katanas put you in a stance which can let you do a lunging quick-strike or a weapon parry; axes let you do a warcry which boosts your damage for a time; maces let you boost your poise for a time (the only instance of player poise actually doing something); curved swords let you do a spin slash; and so on. Unique weapons, including boss weapons, appropriately come with their own unique arts: the moonlight greatsword can fire magic projectiles; the winged knight halberd lets you chain spin attacks until your stamina is depleted; the wolf knight greatsword gives you a spinning jump attack; Wolnir's holy sword lets you cast wrath of the gods, an AOE knockback attack centered around yourself.

All of these weapon arts cost focus points to use, represented by a blue meter between your health and stamina bars. Essentially, it's a return of the mana bar from Demon's Souls, with weapon arts and magic spells drawing from the same energy pool. This is one of my favorite things about Dark Souls III, because I absolutely hated how Dark Souls I & II restricted magic by arbitrarily restricting the number of times you could cast a spell before resting at a bonfire. It felt incredibly cheap and artificial. In Dark Souls III, you get (in addition to your regular estus flask) an ashen estus flask, which replenishes focus points upon consumption. At the start of the game you can only have five total flasks, but you're free to choose your own ratio. If you're a melee fighter, you'll probably take more healing flasks, whereas a mage would stock up more heavily on mana flasks. Additionally, if you want to be a pure spellcaster, you can even level-up your attunement stat, which increases your pool of focus points and thus your total number of spell casts.

I love the new mana system, because it lets you decide for yourself how much you want to be able to cast your spells, and at what cost you're willing to trade for that ability, since putting a ton of points into attunement comes at the expense of putting those points into health or endurance, and carrying more mana flasks means you have fewer healing flasks if you get hit. As a melee fighter, it's also kind of nice to have to think about whether you want to dump some points into attunement so you can use your weapon arts more often. Unfortunately, the whole magic system is still really boring to me, because it still just amounts to hanging back, locking onto your target, and pressing R1 a few times to safely kill your target at range. Mages also seem to require much steeper investments before becoming viable, as compared to a melee character. On a level 43 character focusing almost entirely on faith, I didn't have enough health or stamina to be an effective melee fighter, and my faith wasn't high enough for my faith-scaling weapon and offensive miracles to do any kind of serious damage. Whereas a melee fighter can get their strength or dexterity up to 40 and be set for the entire game, mages don't start seeing reasonable returns on their faith or intelligence until they get up to 60, and by that point the game's almost over.


Online Components / Multiplayer

In stark contrast to Dark Souls II, where invasions were incredibly scarce outside of covenant-designated gank-zones because you could only get a limited quantity of cracked red eye orbs until later in the game, Dark Souls III gives you a few cracked eye orbs right at the start of the game, and quickly rewards you with a full, unlimited-use red eye orb. The White Soapstone, used for summoning friendly phantoms, can be purchased as soon as you get to Firelink Shrine. You're also able to join four of the seven covenants within the first three areas of the game, including the Warriors of Sunlight (friendly co-op) and the Mound-Makers (chaotic phantoms who can be either friendly or hostile) in the second area. You can become a member of the Way of Blue (Blue Sentinels are summoned to defend you if you get invaded) before clearing the first area, and you can join the Blue Sentinels immediately after clearing the second area. So, Dark Souls III does a good job of letting you get involved in the online pvp and co-op scene early on.

Sadly, it's not a complete and total improvement from Dark Souls II. I really liked how Dark Souls II let you be invaded after defeating the area boss, or in certain areas of the game even while hollowed. In Dark Souls III, you cannot be invaded, ever, while unkindled (ie, hollow), which means you can completely avoid invasions from the Watchdogs of Farron or the Aldrich Faithful, two covenants designed to defend their home turf like the Bell-Keepers of Dark Souls II. I really liked how hard it was to get through the bell towers in Dark Souls II, and so it's kind of lame in Dark Souls III that you can just opt out if it's too difficult for you. Likewise, being able to opt out means there's a smaller pool for watchdogs and faithfuls to invade, and since it's based on automatic summons (you equip the covenant items and stand around waiting to get summoned) you can potentially get stuck waiting around for a while, whereas invasions were constant and instantaneous in Dark Souls II.

Getting ganked by the Aldrich Faithful.

The Blue Sentinels and Darkmoon Blade covenants are just straight up broken. Both of these covenants are designed for you to be summoned to help a host running the Way of the Blue fight off invaders, but there's some sort of glitch or design flaw that prevents a lot of people from ever getting summoned. I sat around for an hour-and-a-half with the Blue Sentinels covenant item equipped, broken up into several 10 and 15 minute chunks, and never got summoned once. And yet, after sitting around for 10-15 minutes getting nothing, I could switch covenants and instantly invade somewhere as a red or purple phantom by using the red eye orb. Similarly, I could put down a sunbro sign and be summoned within minutes. People have figured out that it has something to do with your Steam account; by making an entirely new account, family sharing Dark Souls III to that account, and transferring your save files, players who were going hours without getting summoned were instantly being summoned left and right. It's almost as if the older your account is, the lower priority you are for being summoned. Which is pretty much bullshit if that's the case.

It's also really frustrating how the matchmaking system works for invasions. Invasions are prioritized based on how many phantoms a host has summoned; a host with two friendly phantoms is put higher on the priority list to be invaded than an embered host running around by himself. Therefore, as an invader, you're almost always put into 2v1 and 3v1 situations (or 4v1, if a blue shows up), often against teams set up specifically to gank invaders; they set up near a bonfire and just sit around waiting to be invaded, and if any of the phantoms die, the host hangs back and re-summons them. So, as an invader, you're basically always out-numbered, you have less health than the host, and half as many estus flasks. The only possible advantage you have is that mobs will attack the host and his phantoms, but even this can be turned against you if the host pops a Seed of the Giants (which are pretty easy to get), turning the enemies hostile to everyone, including invaders. Every single odd is stacked against you, and it's just not very fun to spend an entire evening invading into situations you're basically guaranteed to lose.

The most horrifying 2v1 ever: Debt and Responsibilities.

I also hate how nearly every single invasion becomes purely a matter of attrition, because of how easy it is to use estus flasks in the heat of a fight and how difficult it is to punish people for doing so. As both an invader and a host, I'm almost always able to roll away, chug a flask, and then dodge the next attack without any consequence; when I manage to land a few hits on someone and get their health low, they're almost always able to roll away and chug a flask while I'm stuck recovering from my own attack animation, or I'm too low on stamina from attacking to sprint and hit them while they're healing. I learned to carry undead hunter charms, which can be thrown to prevent another player from healing, but every time I do that, the other person just runs away until the effect wears off. In a 3v1 situation, which is basically every invasion, I'd get one person down and then get chain-stunned or interrupted by the other two while the person with low health runs off to heal. So basically, in an end-game situation where everyone has a maximum number of estus flasks, it's your seven flasks versus the 29 of the host and his two phantoms.

When you aren't getting ganked by 3v1 fights, you're usually invading a world just as the host triggers the boss fight, or hosts who disconnect immediately, which boot you out of the world as soon as you arrive. I got so tired of it that I just stopped completely, and vowed I would only PVP in 1v1 duels. That, of course, was a lot more fun, because you're on a completely even playing field when fighting another phantom in a designated fight club; winning is purely a matter of personal skill, not who has the most allies or the most estus flasks. But even then, the PVP suffers quite heavily from poor game balancing leading to over-powered tryhard metas. Estocs and straightswords are basically god-tier weapons that do good damage, have a fast rate of attack, catch people coming out of rolls easily, use a small amount of stamina, and have almost the same reach as an ultra greatsword. As an ultra greatsword user, my attacks do more damage, sure, but they use a lot more stamina, and are a lot slower and therefore easier to dodge and interrupt, even with hyper armor preventing interrupts on the second half of the animation.

Getting the host with a critical attack after guard-breaking him.

The meta is so brutally imbalanced that you can actually win duels while blindfolded, just by spamming the light attack button with the right weapons. And if you have a greatshield, especially with a weapon like an estoc that can attack from behind the shield, you're basically invincible. There is no counter for an estoc / greatshield user. Hell, if you two-hand a great shield, you can keep your guard up all the time and use the shield bash skill to attack. If you run into a player running these types of builds, you stand no chance of winning, and may as well quit to find someone else to fight. But with how little skill these builds take to use, combined with how effective they are, you run into them a lot, and it just gets tiring having the same uphill battles every single day.

Shoddy netcode and latency issues make PVP even more frustrating to deal with. All weapons in the game have slightly longer hitboxes than their actual model suggests, and in online fights the game registers your own hitboxes for getting hit based on where you were about a half-second prior, so it often looks like you're getting hit by attacks that were clearly out of range. If your opponent has a higher-than-usual ping from a poor internet connection or from being on the other side of the planet, then you run into extra problems with lag extending the range even further. I can't count the number of times I deliberately backed away from a jumping attack, only to watch my opponent's sword plunge into the ground three feet in front of me as I took full damage from the attack. I also ran into a bunch of issues where other players got stuck in a T-pose gliding around the place, so I couldn't tell when they were attacking, rolling, blocking, switching weapons, or anything.


In Conclusion

Typically with these games, I come to play the PVE campaign, and then stick around because of the online scene -- making alternate characters to help people through the game in jolly cooperation, or setting a character at a specific level with a specific build to invade and troll players in certain areas, or engaging in fight clubs on my main character at the end-game meta. With Dark Souls III, I found myself drawn into both the PVE and PVP aspects of the game, more so than any other game in the series -- maybe even more than my beloved Demon's Souls. And yet, when I ran through the campaign a second time on another character, and a third time in new game plus mode, I started to realize how disappointingly linear the progression through the game actually is, and how quickly the entire second half of the game goes by. The PVP scene was fun for a while, but I got tired of constantly getting ganked during invasions, and got tired of the imbalanced meta during duels. Maybe in a year, everything will be properly balanced, and some DLC will round out that underwhelming feeling of the second half, but until then, meh.

The most scenic area in the game, Irithyll Valley.

So how do I feel about Dark Souls III overall? Obviously, I must have liked it a lot to sink 135 hours into it across multiple characters and playthroughs. The whole time, I kept thinking to myself how much more I was enjoying Dark Souls III than I enjoyed Dark Souls II. Those two facts are probably all you need to know, really. But I should also warn you that Dark Souls III doesn't bring a whole lot of truly new stuff to the table; almost everything in the game, literally, is reminiscent of something From Software has already done in one of their previous games. A lot of things are straight rehashes, direct references to Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, as if From Software are pleading with their audience, "remember those two games you really liked? This game is just like them! Please like our game!"

Playing through Dark Souls III, I felt no grand sense of elation, no euphoria from discovering something new and unexpected, and barely any thrill of beating a tough challenge. The game is mechanically as good as the series has ever been -- better in a lot of ways, with lots of good quality-of-life improvements and streamlining, and just as difficult as you'd expect -- but it's become so routine by this point that I just don't get excited by it anymore. According to the designer, Hidetaka Miyazaki, Dark Souls III is supposed to be the last of the Souls series; if that's the case, then I think I'd be alright with that. Let's try something actually new for a change, and put it on a platform I can actually play, please. 

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

STALKER: Call of Pripyat - Review

STALKER: Call of Pripyat is the third game in the STALKER series, a trio of open-world survival-horror FPS games set in the irradiated "Zone" around the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, following a fictitious second blowout in 2006. As a result of all the radiation (and other mysterious forces), the Zone has become an inhospitable place full of violent mutants and dangerous scientific anomalies -- small, localized spaces that defy the laws of physics, like gravity wells that pull you off the ground and rip you to pieces, or spots of earth that shoot fire when you step on them. Some of the mutants have even developed powers of telekinesis, invisibility, and mind control. The only people who venture into the Zone are scientists looking to study the anomalies, and treasure hunters known as "stalkers" hoping to find valuable "artifacts" contained in and around anomalies, which bestow their carriers with special powers like accelerated blood clotting or extra strength.

Call of Pripyat follows the events of Shadow of Chernobyl, in which you, as an amnesiac stalker known as the "marked one," managed to disable a device called the "brain scorcher," which had been keeping people from reaching the center of the Zone. With the demise of the brain scorcher, the Ukrainian government launched a series of helicopters to survey the area in preparation for a large-scale military raid on the CNPP. All five of the helicopters crashed in the Zone before reaching the CNPP. You play as Major Degtyarev, member of the Ukrainian Security Services, on an undercover reconnaissance mission investigating the helicopter crashes. You begin the game on the outskirts of the Zone in the Zaton swamps, before advancing to the Yanov Railway station and Jupiter manufacturing plant, and eventually, reaching the city of Pripyat itself.

I'm a bit of a STALKER veteran, having played Shadow of Chernobyl twice and Clear Sky once, but it's been about five or six years since the last time I played either one, and I'd almost forgotten how vague and unforgiving these games can be. Call of Pripyat's introduction gives you next to nothing in the way of tutorials explaining how the game actually works -- there's no message that pops up telling you "these are anomalies, and they will f**k you up," or NPCs telling you "this is how you use a detector to find artifacts." It doesn't tell you how important different resistances are, how "handling" differs from recoil or accuracy stats on weapons, or that equipment can deteriorate to the point that their stats decrease and weapons start jamming. You either have to know all of this stuff already, either from playing previous STALKER games or by actually reading the manual, or else figure it out on your own. Even having a lot of previous experience with the series, it still took me a little while to get the hang of things again.

An easily visible fire anomaly in Pripyat.

STALKER's almost complete lack of hand-holding is one of the ways it sets itself apart from a lot of other shooters. The Zone is supposed to be a brutally harsh and unforgiving place, after all, so it makes sense that the game would do you no favors and be generally indifferent whether you succeed or fail. As an open-world survival-horror game, that feeling of being alone and vulnerable, left to your own devices to figure out how to survive in this dangerous world, plays a key role in setting the game's unique tone and atmosphere.

The Zone is divided into three explorable hubs, each with a centrally-located "town," which acts as a safe zone for buying and selling goods, storing your loot, resting, and picking up quests. The areas outside of town are completely open, allowing you to set off in any direction towards any other location you like. Major locations are marked on your map, but there are plenty of interesting things to discover if you take the time to explore between the main map markers. As with any open-world game, you're free to complete quests and explore the map in any order and fashion that you like. Once you advance the main quest sufficiently in each region, you open up access to the next hub area, which offers you a brand new map to explore. You're always able to travel between hubs, as you desire; sometimes it's even required to return to a previous hub to complete a quest you picked up in a newer hub.

There's a very natural, organic feeling to the way you pick up and solve quests in this game. You're not just talking to every random person you find hoping to trigger game content; you're usually going up to established people like merchants, doctors, and mechanics asking them for work. It makes sense in the context of the Zone, and doesn't feel like you're picking up a traditional quest just for the sake of accessing content -- you're just doing what's necessary to survive by gaining resources and people's trust. Likewise, when you're interacting with less authoritative figures in the Zone, like other random stalkers, you're doing so because you found them in an unusual area in unusual circumstances, or because you over-heard their conversation in the bar and wanted to know more. Sometimes, it's because other stalkers approach you and ask for your help.

Me about to get obliterated by the oncoming wave of a nuclear blowout.

The quests themselves are usually pretty interesting and engaging, as well. In the starting area, you work with a hunter who's looking into a bunch of deaths believed to have been caused by bloodsuckers -- humanoid mutants that can turn invisible, and drink the blood of their prey -- because no one ever sees the victims die, and their bodies are always drained of blood. You visit an abandoned power station with the hunter, descend down an elevator shaft, and find yourself trapped underground in the heart of the bloodsucker's nest, while they're all sleeping, leaving you to sneak your way out without alerting any of them. The hunter says he has some ideas about how to exterminate the nest, and that he'll contact you in a few days once he's explored some options. A few days pass, he calls you on the radio, and you go to meet up with him, only to find that he's been killed by the town doctor -- a hemoglobin addict who's been killing the other stalkers for their blood.

A lot of quests involve some form of decision-making, usually in terms of whose side you take in a conflict, whom you give a limited resource to, or how you go about solving a problem. If you special order a unique weapon from a merchant, you'll be confronted by someone else on your way out of town claiming that new weapon of yours is the one he lost a few weeks ago -- do you give it to him to avoid confrontation, or keep it for yourself, knowing that he might try to get back at you later? When two stalkers are trying to rescue their friend who's being held hostage, do you suggest negotiating for his release, or suggest an armed raid on the bandit camp? These decisions give you a strong feeling of influence over the Zone and your place within it, since you have the power to effect change in the environment, and the Fallout-style ending makes sure to showcase how all of your decisions affected everyone's lives and the future of the Zone.

Picking dialogue options to determine the next path of a quest.

The game includes a PDA system with GPS tracking for quests with obvious destinations (like when a stalker uploads specific coordinates to your PDA), but a lot of quests go completely unmarked, leaving it up to you to explore and figure things out for yourself. When you're given an objective like "find this missing person," or you come to a dead end in a quest with no idea what to do next, the amazing and utterly mind-blowing thing is that you can almost always talk to the random, ambient NPCs for suggestions or advice. They don't always know the solutions to your problems, but they can usually point you in the right direction or give you some ideas. This is what I mean by the quests feeling natural and organic; when you're presented with a problem, you do what you'd do in real life -- ask someone for help -- and solve your problems entirely through the context of the game world. I only needed to consult a guide on two or three occasions, because I could usually count on my own logic and determination to solve any issues.

As with virtually any open-world game of this nature, about half or more of the Zone's NPCs aren't there to serve any specific purpose -- they're just there to flesh out the Zone and make it seem lived-in. Random stalkers hang out in town and provide for atmospheric ambiance with their idle chatter and guitar-playing, while others patrol the Zone, sometimes engaging mutants and zombies in combat. The random NPCs can therefore be completely ignored, but they also serve useful functions if you're out in the wilderness and need some assistance. Besides just asking for help with quests, you can usually pay a stalker to escort you to a specific location (basically a fast-travel system) or trade goods with them, both useful if you're low on ammunition or healing supplies and don't want to risk continuing on in your current state. But really, it's their somewhat random, unscripted behavior that makes the Zone feel so alive and lived-in.

NPCs hanging out.

For example: once I made it to the first town, in the starting area, I went around talking to important NPCs, picking up quests, selling loot, putting things in storage, and so on. As I went about my business, I started to hear gunfire in the distance. I ran outside and found two groups of stalkers fighting one another. As a neutral party, I had no stake in who won, but like a true scavenger, I wanted to snag the guns and equipment off the dead before the survivors could, so I was frantically running through the brush dodging bullets and ripping the guns off the dead, before heading back to the outpost to make inventory. Meanwhile, packs of mutants randomly wander about the Zone, while any random stalkers who get caught in one of the power plant's periodic blowouts will get turned into a mindless zombie.

Survival is a major element in Call of Pripyat, as it is in the other STALKER games, with death around every corner and behind every tree. You not only have to contend with living threats, such as mutated monsters, bandits, and gun-toting zombified stalkers, but the environment itself is even out to get you -- take one wrong step and an electrical anomaly may char you to death. You have to be mindful of every step you take, and watch yourself everywhere you go, because you put yourself at risk every time you step out from town. If you want to fare well out in the Zone, then you need to make sure you pack your supplies well, setting out with enough guns, ammunition, food, medkits, and drugs to tide you over until you can make it back to town. These items all have weight values to them, and you can only carry so much weight, so you have to maintain an ideal balance on everything. And if you run out of one resource, like ammunition, then you may find yourself relying on crappy weapons left by the dead and scrounging for every last bullet.

That's not to say Call of Pripyat is some brutally harsh survival simulator like Day Z, Rust, Nether, or any of these other post-apocalyptic survival games that pop up on Steam every other week. Rather, Call of Pripyat is more about traditional open-world action, adventure, and exploration, with a post-apocalyptic survival-horror theme tying it all together. In truth, surviving in the Zone really isn't that difficult compared to other, more strict survival-horror games; you're usually able to find enough of what you need if you explore thoroughly and conserve resources when you need to. I, for instance, had a near constant supply of backup weapons and ammunition, and frequently had more money than I knew what to do with.

A hidden supply cache, tucked in a recess on top of this train.

That's not to say that it's easy, either. The Zone has been occupied for a few years by the time of Call of Pripyat, so most of the obvious loot has already been picked clean -- you won't find valuable goods just lying out in the open. In order to get ahead, you have to work for it, either by doing jobs for merchants, risking your life hunting for artifacts in anomaly fields, or by searching really obscure out-of-the-way places for hidden stashes of loot. The stashes, in particular, are hidden so discreetly by other stalkers that you're unlikely ever to stumble upon them randomly, which makes it feel more rewarding to find them because it took clever observation for you to notice something and think "this looks like a good spot for a supply cache."

Likewise, there's a lot of cool stuff that you can find in the unmarked spaces between major landmarks, if you're the inquisitive type of person who likes to explore everywhere just to see what's out there. At one point I was wandering along, following a GPS coordinate for a quest, and I noticed an interesting train off to the side with an electrical anomaly running up and down its length. I go to check it out, run all around it, and find there's no way to get inside. I notice, however, that it's stopped under a bridge, so I jump on top and find a hatch to drop into, which then traps me inside the train, forcing me to advance up the entire length of it dodging the moving electrical anomaly. At the front of the train, I find a set of tools, which I can give to one of the mechanics in town so that they can apply higher tier upgrades for my weapons and armor.

The train with the electro anomaly.

Then, I'm wandering along and notice an odd side path on the road, with what appears to be an underground station access. I go inside, kill a ton of zombified stalkers, find a hole in the wall hidden behind some destructible crates, and find myself deep underground in some kind of sewer system connected by tunnels everywhere. I wander around for a while before coming to a long, open hallway with several rows of pillars spaced down its length. I continue pressing forward for several minutes, constantly finding myself back at the entrance to that room, when I suddenly realize I'm stuck in a loop, and that I'm supposed to walk through the correct series of pillars to unlock access to the next area. A few more minutes of trial and error later, and I find that I've accidentally wandered into the Oasis, a fabled healing spring of immense power that most stalkers believed was only a rumor. I'd been asking nearly every stalker I came across if they'd heard of the Oasis or had any ideas about how to find it that I was in complete awe when I actually found it.

The game's rich atmosphere is what sells this rewarding feeling of exploration and discovery, because everything just feels so immersive; everything has some kind of meaningful context, and the open-world simulation makes it feel natural and unscripted, like anything could happen at any time. Constant combinations of random events, like running for cover during a nuclear blowout and being ambushed by a hidden mutant throwing telekinetic projectiles at you, leads to some of the most atmospheric and memorable moments you'll ever experience in any game. When faced with a minefield between me and one of the crashed helicopters I'm supposed to investigate, I was literally holding my breath, nervous with every step I took, cringing in preparation of a mine blowing up in my face, as I slowly advanced forward tossing bolts out and listening for the tell-tale "click" of a mine in front of me. It's so immersive that I even find myself moving in my chair, reflexively jerking my head back when I'm about to walk into a corrosive bit of foliage dangling from the ceiling, or hunching closer to the screen during combat and juking my head left or right when a bullet whizzes past my face.

As with the other STALKER games, combat is another one of the subtle ways in which Call of Pripyat sets itself apart from other shooters. Bullets in Call of Pripyat have realistic travel times, and drop over long distances, which requires you to make estimated guesses as to how far you should lead a moving target, or how much higher you should aim to account for gravity -- it's not just a simple matter of "point and shoot." The guns also have meaningful recoil, which requires you to pay closer attention to how your gun is behaving and adjust accordingly. The guns feel pretty satisfying to shoot, and there's an RPG-like feeling of progression as you start out with crappy worn-out AK47s that fire wildly and jam up all the time, and progressively work your way up to pristine military-grade stuff like the H&K G36.

Shooting a zombie with a pistol.

Guns have other stats, too, like damage, accuracy, rate of fire, handling, and durability, in addition to various attachments and upgrades. There are tons of different weapons within the same class (e.g., 10 pistols, 11 assault rifles, 5 shotguns, etc) which all function differently in noticeable ways, and there're a lot of different types of ammo for the same class of weapon, depending on the gun's manufacturer. Even within the same class of ammunition, like say the 9x18mm pistol rounds, you encounter several variants like standard hollow point, full metal jacket, pressurized rounds, or jacketed-soft-point, which you can use in different situations for different purposes. Each gun also has unique upgrade trees that let you follow specific tiered upgrade paths, choosing one of two possible upgrades for each slot. With all of these options, you have a ton of creative freedom to come up with your own desired, optimal loadout. There's so much room for customization that I actually spent two hours trying out different combinations of equipment and upgrades near the end of the game, just trying to find my own perfect loadout.

Human enemies behave with surprising intelligence; if they're safely behind cover, they won't just pop in and out waiting to die, they'll stay behind cover and pin you down with suppressing fire or flush you out with grenades while their comrades circles around to flank you. If enemies are alerted, but don't know where you are, they move cautiously and deliberately, or else move into safe, defensive positions and try to entice you to come to them. There's also a surprising amount of tension in combat, because in a lot of situations, you don't know how many enemies there are, or where they are, and with death able to descend on you as quickly as it takes a bullet to travel through the air and puncture your heart or lungs, you tense up checking your surroundings at all times. You have to be really spontaneous, reacting quickly and making quick improvisational decisions, and the game will actually reward you for using the environment to your advantage or out-smarting the enemy.

Mutants behave a lot differently, and mix things up depending on what you're fighting. Most of the more common mutants, like dogs, boars, and fleshes will just charge straight at you. Bloodsuckers activate a form of invisibility and try to circle you, attacking you from your blind sides unless you can spot their faintly glowing eyes or hear them coming, first. Snorks and chimeras jump around a lot, requiring precise aiming and quick dodging to take them out. Psydogs use a type of psychic projection to make it seem like you're being attacked by an entire swarm of them, when in reality only one of them is real, and you have to keep track of which one that is. Burers use telekinesis to throw objects at you, as well as to yank weapons out of your hand or drain your stamina, effectively paralyzing you for a few seconds. And controllers possess your mind, pulling you in and knocking you back with a psychic force that disrupts your vision and disorients you.

Catching a glimpse of a bloodsucker's eyes, while he's invisible.

As good as the game's open world structure is, a lot of its best moments occur during more scripted levels and missions. Like Shadow of Chernobyl, a lot of these occur in underground research labs, and it's here where the game turns the spacious, open world structure on its head by putting you in dark, claustrophobic corridors where all kinds of strange, paranormal anomalies and mutant monstrosities lie in wait between you and the exit. These sections are a great change of pace since they completely invert the usual gameplay formula, and they force you into more intense situations where you have to press forward into known (or unknown) danger, usually against the game's more sinister mutants. The game doesn't show you all of its tricks up front, so as you play through the game you're constantly being put in new situations against new enemies who do new and different things, so you never really know what to expect up ahead, and the more linear, underground lab sections can be downright spooky and terrifying because of this.

It's hard for me to believe, just because I remember when I was hyped about this game coming out and it didn't feel like it was that long ago, but Call of Pripyat is now over six years old, having been released in North America in February of 2010. Sadly, some of its technical designs haven't aged that well, and some of them, frankly, were never that great or polished to begin with. The game plays at a default, unchangeable (at least, not without file tweaks and console commands) FOV of 55, a lot of the graphics look pretty shoddy these days (2D tree foliage, flat walls of grass, bland skyboxes, low detail on long draw distances, etc), and it, along with Shadow of Chernobyl and Clear Sky, was pretty buggy at the time of release, needing a ton of patches (both official and unofficial) to get the game working properly. At this point, certain mods -- "Call of Pripyat Complete" -- are absolutely required (or at least, strongly recommended) to get the best experience out of the game. Personally, I found that the game ran smoothly, without any major bugs or crashes on my modern system, and ran only a few graphical mods -- "AtmosFear." "AbsoluteNature." and "AbsoluteStructures."

If this is the first you've heard of the STALKER series, then you should know that everything I've mentioned about Call of Pripyat basically applies to the series in general, though there are some notable differences between games. If you're interested in trying the series out, Call of Pripyat would be a fine place to start, since it's the most streamlined and modernized game in the series, but Shadow of Chernobyl -- the first game from 2007 -- is, I believe, the bigger, better, more epic game. It's got more maps to explore, more underground research labs, a much better story, and more unique, memorable moments in it. Clear Sky is, unfortunately, somewhat rubbish and should be avoided unless you've already played Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat and want more STALKER. Even then, you'd probably be better off just installing an overhaul mod for one of the two better games than playing through Clear Sky.

Sunday, 6 March 2016

My Top 10 Favorite First-Person Shooters

In my recent review of the No One Lives Forever series, I made the comment that those games were among my favorite first-person shooters of all time. That's how I felt when I first played them ten years ago, and replaying them a few weeks ago reminded me of just how much fun they remain, even to this day. That got me thinking: where would I actually rank them among the dozens of FPS games I've played in my lifetime? Thus, after some thought and consideration, I came up with this list of my top ten favorite first-person shooters. Spoiler alert: No One Lives Forever and Doom will be somewhere on this list.

The games that made it on to this list, as well as their relative rankings, are based on the following criteria: (1) How good do I feel the game is, (2) How much of an impact did the game have on me as a gamer, and (3) How interested would I be in replaying the game right now. I also wanted to include only games where FPS gameplay is the primary, defining element; a game like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines would rank higher than a lot of games on this list, but it's an RPG first and foremost, so I had to exclude it. And as much as I wanted to include Metroid Prime, it's really not an FPS at its heart, even though FPS gameplay is a major part of it. Spoiler alert: Vampire Bloodlines and Metroid Prime will not be on this list.



#10: Painkiller

Released in 2004 by People Can Fly, Painkiller is a rare game where "style over substance" actually works in its favor. While the industry was shifting towards more realistic military and special forces shooters like Call of Duty and Rainbow Six, in which players had to think about things like cover, positioning, and suppressing fire, while fighting against squads of other armed humans, Painkiller rose from the ashes of an older generation of shooters like Doom and Quake, which were all about putting the player in outlandish environments to run around frantically murdering demons and monsters by the hundreds with an arsenal of powerful guns.

Painkiller was a reminder of just how much fun an FPS can be when it focuses purely on the frenetic action. It deliberately eschewed all of the modern FPS trends like cover systems, escort missions, and vehicles in favor of embellishing the core experience with unique weaponry, varied enemies, and exotic environments, while emphasizing a much faster pace of run-and-gun shooting. I mean, the shotgun causes ridiculous knockback on enemies and can be alt-fired to shoot a freezing blast that encases enemies in ice, which then shatters if you hit them again. The chaingun alt-fires rockets. There's a gun that shoots giant wooden stakes that pin enemies to walls. Another gun shoots shurikens and lightning. It's an immensely satisfying game, just on a purely mechanical level, and the visual design of the enemies and environments lend it a lot of fun flair.


(1) How good is it? Painkiller is possibly the best "old school throwback" FPS I've played, that came out after the heyday of shooters from the mid-to-late 90s. It's tremendous fun when you just want to shut your brain off and release some cathartic tension shooting tons of dudes.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Not a lot, I suppose, since it deliberately tries to mimic older games, but it did show me how much fun a game can be when the development team gets creative and breaks out from the cliche FPS standards, in terms of its utterly unique weaponry.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? Honestly, I've played it enough times over the years that, if I wanted to play a game like this again, I'd rather try something I haven't already played. While I probably won't be replaying it any time soon, I can almost guarantee I'd get hooked and play it all the way through if I were to start it up again.



#9: Perfect Dark

Rareware's 2000 followup to GoldenEye, Perfect Dark took the successful formula of GoldenEye and improved it in every way: better enemy AI, better level design, more weapons, more unique weapons, more enemy types, and vastly expanded, fully customiz-able multiplayer options, complete with bots. Perfect Dark packed so much extra, higher-quality stuff into the lauded GoldenEye experience that it actually required the 4MB expansion pack just to run the game. It was, in essence, a perfect (spiritual) sequel to an already-legendary game.

Perfect Dark was one of the first games that I ever became truly obsessed with; I played it for several hours every day, meticulously working through the main campaign on all difficulties and frequently dabbling in its other modes (like cooperative and counter-operative). But mostly, I played the hell out of the multiplayer, feverishly working on different achievements to unlock extra options and customizations, and convinced all my friends to come over as often as possible to play it. When I couldn't play with other people locally, I participated in an online role-playing game on GameFAQs, called the Perfect Dark Battle Arena, which became the basis of a lot of my online friendships in the early days of mainstream home internet access.


(1) How good is it? I think Perfect Dark is easily the best console FPS of its generation. It wasn't until the following generation of consoles that FPS games really took off, and Perfect Dark still rated highly compared to newer games coming out in the years following its original release. I still feel like it's a better game than Halo in a lot of ways.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Of all the games on the list, Perfect Dark had the greatest impact. I played it religiously back in the day, and it was the one game (after Doom) that really sold me on FPS games. Furthermore, my time with the Perfect Dark-themed online role-playing game helped hone my creative writing skills tremendously. Or at least, got me started down that path.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? Very little. I played the hell out of this game back in the day, to the point that I still remember where to find all the hidden cheese easter eggs. I feel like there'd be nothing new remaining for me to discover, but really, I just have no desire to go back to that archaic N64 controller. Perhaps if I had an Xbox and could play the remastered version on XBLA.



#8: Borderlands 2

Released in late 2009, right when Call of Duty: Modern Warfare fatigue was just starting to set in, Borderlands was a breath of fresh air in an industry that was becoming a little too enamored with the "gritty realistic military shooter" fad. Borderlands offered something completely different: a semi-open world with RPG-style quests and character progression, and a Diablo-style loot system wherein enemies randomly dropped weapons with randomized stats and effects. It was a great idea that was, admittedly, a little stale and repetitive, but that didn't stop me from becoming addicted to the leveling and loot systems, grinding out hundreds of hours across multiple characters and replaying it in new-game-plus mode, trying to hit the level cap and acquire all the best legendary loot.

Its sequel from 2012, Borderlands 2, was a major improvement in basically every way. It was as a sequel should be: retaining all the best elements of the original game, while polishing up its rough edges and adding some fun new features to the mix. Borderlands 2 added a lot of variety to Pandora's wastelands, both visually and mechanically, and tightened up the quest structure and main storyline so that the pacing flowed at a much more engaging clip. But as with the first game, the thing that kept me coming back to Borderlands 2 for 339 hours across multiple characters and playthroughs, was the thrill of joining up with a bunch of different friends to work through the main campaign and to tackle tough epic bosses together, in addition to leveling up to try out new skill combinations, and constantly finding newer and better weapons to play with. Plus, the games actually have a fairly old-school vibe to their combat, which makes the action fairly intense and exciting.


(1) How good is it? Borderlands 2 stands out mainly for its uniqueness, more so than its overall quality. Each of its primary elements (open-world exploration, randomized loot, RPG-style character progression, FPS combat) has been done better in some other game, but Borderlands 2 is a rare combination of all of those elements where everything just meshes into one solid, coherent experience.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? I don't think I ever experienced any grand revelations playing Borderlands, apart from the realization that variable reinforcement can be tremendously addicting, hence why people get addicted to gambling so easily. Being one of the most recent games on this list, my tastes and interests were already developed by the time I played it.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? I sunk so much time into Borderlands 2 (it's currently my second-most played game on Steam) that I'm basically worn out on the idea of playing the series any more -- hence why I never felt any interest in The Pre-Sequel. That said, I don't have much experience playing some of the other classes, so it could be fun to give them a shot some time further down the line, in a few more years.



#7: Killing Floor

Man, that cover does nothing to impress upon you what kind of game Killing Floor actually is. That's a shame, but I guess box art wasn't much of a consideration for a game whose main selling platform was on Steam. Killing Floor -- a co-op shooter in which you fight against waves of increasingly-stronger genetically-altered zombie-like specimen known as "zeds," stopping at a trader between rounds to buy better and better weaponry before facing the boss at the end of the final wave -- began in 2005 as an Unreal Tournament mod, and found its way to a stand-alone commercial release in 2009. Developer Tripwire Interactive continued to support the game for years after release, updating the game with new weapons, new classes, new maps, new enemies, and even a new game mode.

Killing Floor was consistently one of Steam's most actively played online shooters over its lifespan, and even though the release of Killing Floor 2 has drawn a lot of the playerbase over to the newer game, a lot of people are still actively playing KF1. It's no wonder, because the gunplay in KF1 is top notch, with the heavy recoil animations, sound effects, and looking down the 3D model of the gun as you line up shots (along with the satisfying crunch and pop, followed by a spray of blood when you decapitate an enemy) making it feel like you're firing actual guns with realistic weight and response. That wasn't the only thing that kept me playing for 700+ hours over the span of five years, though -- it was also the game's rewarding difficulty progression.  As you leveled up your perks, you got stronger and gained new passive abilities, which allowed you to move up to higher difficulties where the challenge got even stronger, and where you had to learn different tactics and work together as a team much more closely to be successful.


(1) How good is it? I've played a fair amount of online shooters over the years, and Killing Floor is one of very few that managed to hold my attention for any serious amount of time. It still holds up pretty well, and is a great way to pass some time and blow off some steam (or a zombie's head).

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Killing Floor was one of the first games I ever played where I actually felt like I was looking down the sights of an actual weapon, instead up just lining up some kind of overlay on my target. It made it difficult for me to appreciate how the guns felt in a lot of other shooters.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? I've been playing Killing Floor 2 on and off since April 2015, while it goes through Early Access, and I still occasionally boot up KF1 for a match, because some of the mechanics from that game are actually better than what's on offer in KF2.



#6: No One Lives Forever

I'm lumping both of the No One Lives Forever games into this slot, because it's too difficult to pick just one, and because they complement each other so well that, if you're going to play one of them, you should really also play the other. Released in 2000 and 2002, the NOLF series follows secret agent Cate Archer attempting to thwart a villainous criminal organization from rising to power in the 1960s. The games are heavily story-driven, and offer a blend of stealth gameplay and action shooting, with a lot of fun spy gadgets and occasional vehicles thrown into the mix. As a spy, you spend the bulk of the game breaking into secured facilities, searching the environment for intelligence items, and fighting the badguy's henchmen.

The NOLF series does a really good job of making you feel like a spy, with all of its highly thematic objectives: blending in with civilians on the streets, meeting up with informants, going undercover to interview a suspect, attending mission briefings and debriefings, visiting Santa's workshop to get your new spy gadgets, etc. The level design also offers some of the most unique and memorable level sequences of any game, ever, with you skydiving out of an exploded airplane and battling henchmen to get hold of a parachute, scuba diving through a wrecked freighter fighting off sharks with a harpoon gun, riding a rocket up to a space station, breaking into a laser-secured vault, and so on. And, as story-driven games, the NOLF series (the first one in particular) has one of the more engaging stories of any FPS.


(1) How good is it? No One Lives Forever is like a blend of Half-Life, GoldenEye, and Deus Ex, all considered to be some of the best FPS games of their time, and NOLF ranks right up there will all of those games. It's actually better than them in some ways.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? This was one of the first PC-exclusive shooters I ever played. I don't think No One Lives Forever brought anything new to my experiences as a gamer, but it was one of the game series that helped convert me into a PC gamer.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? I literally just replayed both games in this series, so I don't think I'll be playing them again any time soon. But, the fact that I replayed them so recently, and enjoyed both games immensely nearly 10 years after playing them originally, says a lot in their favor.



#5: System Shock 2

Hailing from 1999, System Shock 2 is one of the oldest games on this list. It is, essentially, the grandfather of FPS-RPGs, and it established a lot of techniques that would become common place in science fiction and horror games for years to come. In System Shock 2, you play a military soldier on board the Von Braun, an experimental faster-than-light space ship setting off on its maiden voyage. You go into deep space hibernation and wake up some time later, after some kind of catastrophe has struck the Von Braun, killing most of the crew and turning many of them into mutated alien hybrids. With the ship falling apart, its security systems working against you, and the remnants of its mutated crew mindlessly roaming the halls, you have to find a way to stop the catastrophe, and find a way off the ship.

What made System Shock 2 such a momentous game, besides its great space-horror atmosphere, was its inclusion of RPG-style leveling systems and skills. You were rewarded for completing objectives, solving challenges, and exploring hidden areas of the ship with cyber modules, which you could spend at stations on the ship to improve your hacking abilities, your weapon proficiency, your ability to modify and repair equipment, or even your psionic abilities (which function like magic spells in a fantasy game), among other skills, in addition to increasing your stats like your strength, endurance, agility, and so on. With its emphasis on open-ended character development, it was one of the first FPS games that was designed to allow for multiple ways to solve a problem, which is a large part of what makes it so satisfying and rewarding to play, because it offers players a lot of meaningful choices that will alter the way the game plays out.


(1) How good is it? The fact that I played it for the first time a mere year ago, and that it checks in at number five in this top 10 list, should say enough about how good I feel System Shock 2 is. This ranking isn't inflated by nostalgic memories or anything -- I just feel like it's a legitimately good game.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Like with Borderlands 2, I played this one so recently that it had no chance to influence my tastes or interests in games. I wasn't that fond of the BioShock games to begin with, but after playing System Shock 2 I'm more convinced than ever how thoroughly mediocre they really are.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? I just played it for the first time a year ago, so I'm in no rush to play it again. However, there was a lot of content I missed out on in my first playthrough, so I'd be eager to try different character builds and see how the gameplay changes.



#4: FEAR

Monolith earns special recognition as the only developer with two games on this list: No One Lives Forever, and FEAR. Released in 2005, FEAR is a visceral FPS with psychological horror elements. You play as the nameless point man of a special forces group known by their acronym FEAR, which supposedly stands for First Encounter Assault Recon, on a mission to retrieve and/or eliminate an escaped research subject named Paxton Fettel, who took telepathic control of a group of super soldiers and is now loose in the city. Two things set FEAR apart from the bulk of other FPS games; one is its "reflex time" feature, which lets you slow down time to fire bullets with pinpoint precision a la The Matrix or Max Payne, and the other is its moments of scripted horror, when the pointman experiences frightening hallucinations or is attacked by Alma, another escaped research subject with psychokinetic and telepathic powers.

The horror sequences in FEAR were some of the most unnerving and, at times, startling moments I'd ever experienced in a video game. Things like walking down a hallway, and suddenly finding yourself in another hallway with blood pooling up on the ceiling, or having Alma suddenly appear behind you as you descend a ladder, were really creepy at the time. It's hard to feel truly scared during these moments because you're usually not vulnerable to anything -- they're just weird things happening around you -- but they create a great atmosphere for the game and do a good enough job of putting you a little on edge. The combat, meanwhile, is still some of the best I've ever experienced in a FPS. The enemy AI was really advanced for its time, with enemies moving intelligently throughout the level trying to flank you and flush you out with grenades or pin you down with suppressing fire. This, combined with the level design, ensured that you could save the game before a fight, play it two or three different times, and have vastly different outcomes. This lent the game a strong tactical feel to it, while the slow-motion bullet-time effects were just downright awesome.


(1) How good is it? Few games I've ever played have had gunfights as good as the ones in FEAR, which are both mechanically and aesthetically satisfying, offering a lot of atmospheric punch with clever enemies and level design that encourages you to think and use the environment to your advantage.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? As with NOLF, FEAR was one of the first PC shooters I played when I bought my first PC, and I was blown away by how much smarter and more sophisticated it felt compared to anything else I'd played at the time. Plus, it was, at one point, one of the scariest horror games I'd ever played.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? Of all the games on my list, this is the one I'd like to replay most. I've replayed everything else at least once before, but I only ever played FEAR once in 2006, about a year after it was released. Hopefully I haven't become so jaded by horror cliches that I would still be able to appreciate its atmosphere and scary moments.



#3: Doom

Released in 1993 by id Software, Doom was the game that basically created the first-person shooter. There had been other games before it, certainly (namely, Wolfenstein 3D the year prior, also by id Software), but it was Doom that popularized the concept of "modern" FPS games. It was Doom that became the basis on which virtually all FPS games in the years to follow would model themselves, spawning years upon years worth of "doom-clones" before Half-Life came along in 1998 and changed the formula. Doom's place on this list is partly out of respect for its historical context, but I played it a lot as a kid in the mid 90s, once in high school, and once again in college, and I feel like it's held up tremendously well every time I've played it.

I played the hell out the shareware version of Doom back in the day. I was only about six or eight at the time, so I recall mostly playing on easy ("I'm too young to die") and enabling cheats like invincibility, infinite ammo, and unlocking all guns, so I could go around blasting everything in sight with the rocket launcher or BFG. I also remember being amazed at all the hidden areas I'd sometimes stumble into, and went out of my way trying to find new secrets. As the oldest game on this list, you can definitely tell how much it's aged -- crummy keyboard controls and no vertical aiming stand out worse than the pixellated 2D sprites -- but it's still a highly functional and enjoyable game, even to this day. I didn't play the full version with all three original episodes, or the sequel Doom II: Hell on Earth until much later, and I had a blast going through all the new areas without the benefit of nostalgia.


(1) How good is it? Objectively speaking, Doom is probably the worst game on this list because of its age, but it was the best thing you could possibly ask for back in 1993. The fact that I still enjoyed playing it in high school and college should speak volumes for its overall quality.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Doom was probably the first non-educational video game I ever played, save for maybe X-Wing. It gave me frightening nightmares as a kid, and yet I still eagerly came back to play more of it the next day. The fact that it's so high on my list is mainly because of the impact it had in getting me started with video games.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? Like others on my list, this is a game that I've replayed so many times that I don't feel like there'd be much point in doing so. Doom II is much less fresh in my mind, so I could possibly see myself replaying the sequel sometime in the near future.



#2: Deus Ex

Considered a spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, with its blend of FPS and RPG gameplay and its cyberpunk theming, Deus Ex was released in 2000, having been developed by many of the same people who worked on the System Shock series. In Deus Ex, you play as JC Denton, an agent for an anti-terrorism organization known as UNATCO, who's been augmented with cybernetic enhancements. After preventing a group of terrorists from blowing up the statue of liberty, you proceed with the rest of your mission assignments and eventually discover that your older brother Paul, a fellow augmented UNATCO agent, has been working with the terrorists all along. You soon realize that you're part of a widespread government conspiracy, and can trust no one but yourself in bringing it down.

Deus Ex was my introduction to the FPS-RPG hybrid. I was already a fan of both FPS games and RPGs, so it was a great pleasure to see the two genres blended together. A first-person shooter with a great story and emergent gameplay that let you decide how you wanted to play the game, with stat point allocation and active skills? It was phenomenal. The RPG system alone offered a lot of potential replay value, with you being able to focus on different skills and take different augmentations that would alter your gameplay, but the game also had branching paths and decisions built into the level design and story -- you had a completely different experience if you took the rooftops to the NSF compound instead of the alleys, for example, and the story and gameplay scenarios changed slightly if you killed or let certain NPCs live. And I'll never forget that moment when I realized the game had actually betrayed me, that the game had been playing me for a fool all along, when I walked out of the Majestic 12 prison facility and found myself at the locked door in the UNATCO headquarters. That was just masterful storytelling.


(1) How good is it? Deus Ex feels a little clunky these days, and there are times, particularly early on, when the RPG mechanics clash with the FPS mechanics a little too strongly. But the amount of interesting, meaningful choices you have in this game is absolutely astounding, while the story and immersive atmosphere make it one of my favorite games of all time, regardless of genre.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? Quite a lot. As my introduction to FPS-RPG hybrids, it was Deus Ex that made it so difficult for me to appreciate simpler FPS games.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? I replayed Deus Ex (for the third time, I think) a few years ago in anticipation of Human Revolution. I probably wouldn't want to play it again for a long time, because I've played it enough at this point that I think I'd just be repeating a lot of the same decisions. If anything, I'd like to give Invisible War a shot.



#1: STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl

Released in 2007, STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl is an open-world post-apocalyptic FPS with RPG elements, set in the irradiated zone around Chernobyl, following a fictitious second nuclear blowout in 2006. As a result of all the nuclear emissions and lingering fallout, the Zone, as it's known, has developed all kinds of scientific anomalies -- small pockets of space that defy the natural laws of physics, that contain things like intense gravity wells or electrical storms -- and has even mutated most of the local wildlife, even bestowing psychokinesis, mind control, and powers of invisibility to some of its more monstrous mutants. The only people who go into the Zone are scientists looking to study the anomalies, or treasure hunters known as "stalkers" who wish to profit off the rare Artifacts, which imbue their carriers with special traits like increased health regeneration or an electromagnetic field that can reduce the impact of bullets or grenade shrapnel.

The STALKER series is easily one of the most atmospherically immersive games I've ever played. The Zone is a harsh, cruel place to be in, with the constant threat of anomalies ripping you to pieces, violent mutants trying to kill you, radiation poisoning and psionic emissions slowly weakening you until your eventual demise, and the occasional bandits who just want to steal your stuff. The fact that it's a somewhat open world, allowing you to explore where you want, with RPG-style quests, inventory, and character progression, along with a lightweight survival system that requires you to carry first aid kits, bandages, anti-radiation stims, and food with you everywhere you go (in addition to scrounging for ammunition when you inevitably run out, since all of your items have realistic weight and you can only carry so much when you set out from town), all makes you feel so heavily engaged in every moment of the game. The gunplay is a lot of fun, too, with realistic, meaningful recoil on weapons, in addition to things like bullet drop and bullet travel time, all of which makes hitting your targets a lot harder (and therefore more satisfying) than in most other games. More impressive than any of that, though, is how alive the Zone actually feels, with all of its unscripted events unfolding with complete disregard to your presence.


(1) How good is it? There's really nothing else like it. The only thing that comes close is Metro 2033, which is completely linear, and the modern Fallout games (3, New Vegas, and 4), which are more RPGs than shooters, and don't focus nearly as much on the survival-horror element. Short of the Gothic series, the STALKER games just might be my next favorite series of all time.

(2) How much of an impact did it have on me? I remember walking into a GameStop in early 2008, saw this on the shelf, brought it up to the register, and had the employee try to talk me out of buying it, saying that I absolutely needed to play Half-Life 2 instead. I'm glad I didn't listen to him, because while Half-Life 2 is fine and all, it's got nothing on STALKER. This was probably one of the most important games I played in college, in terms of shaping my identity as a gamer.

(3) How interested would I be in replaying it right now? Immensely. So much so that I installed the third game, Call of Pripyat, and have been playing it while working on this article. With the vast amount of mods (and total overhaul mods) available to all three STALKER games, I imagine there will always be something new out there for me to try, whenever I get the urge to play a STALKER game again.



Honorable Mentions

As with any "best of" list, it's usually worthwhile to talk about games that just missed the cut. For me, these are two games I was considering putting on the list, but I just couldn't find enough room for them.


TimeSplitters 2 + 3

I was a Nintendo kid growing up, which meant after the N64 had run its course and it was time to get a new console, the GameCube was the natural choice. Unfortunately, the GameCube didn't have a lot of FPS games to fill the void in my gaming habits left by Perfect Dark. 007: Nightfire came close, but it was TimeSplitters 2 that stepped up and offered the kind of fun single-player campaign, with all kinds of varied scenarios and environments as you basically Quantum Leaped through time to solve different problems, as well as a deep multi-player system that I'd been missing on my new console. TimeSplitters 3 came out towards the end of the GameCube's lifecycle, so it didn't get as much playtime for me, but it was a strong improvement in a lot of ways. Neither game made the cut in my top 10, mainly because neither of them could top Perfect Dark for time played, overall enjoyment, or general fandom. And even though I had a lot of fun playing them, back in the day, I'm honestly not sure I'd care to replay them again.



The newest entry on this list, Ziggurat came out in late 2014; I played it for the first time almost a year ago, in April of 2015, and enjoyed it quite a bit. Ziggurat is a fast-paced, arcade-style action shooter, in which you play an apprentice wizard ascending to the top of a Ziggurat as part of your trials to become a full-fledged wizard. Each floor features a randomized layout of rooms with different combinations of enemies and special encounters. You find and equip a bunch of different magic wands, staves, spellbooks, and alchemical weapons, which offer a lot of fun variety from typical FPS weaponry, and the enemies you fight are so varied that it's a lot of fun learning how they all behave so that you can get better and take them out. In terms of "old school" action shooters, Ziggurat is one of the most enjoyable I've ever played, but I had a hard time putting in the list at #10 over Painkiller, just because Painkiller has stood the test of time for me and been a bigger part of my life's journey as a gamer. Maybe in time Ziggurat will supplant it, but it wasn't going to be this year.



Notable Omissions

You may have noticed a few high-profile games missing from my list, that likely would have made it onto any mainstream "top 10" list. Games like Halo, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Crysis, and Farcry (among countless others) were all left off the list because I just haven't played any of them. I've played various Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor games, but only in multiplayer mode, so I really don't have enough of a foundation with any of those games to rate them fairly, and obviously not enough experience for any of them to make the cut in my list of favorite FPS games.

The one omission that I feel somewhat bad about is Half-Life, because it's such a highly regarded PC game that it seems like sacrilege for me not to include it. But honestly, I was never that into Half-Life. I played it a little bit in the early 2000s and it didn't catch my interest enough for me to keep playing. Then I gave it another chance in college, playing it all the way to completion, but it felt a little too dated at that point to stand out, and the ridiculous architecture and level design annoyed me to no end. I played Half-Life 2 (and both of its subsequent episodes) shortly thereafter, and while they were fine games in their own right, I didn't feel all that impressed by them, and never felt the urge over the past 6-8 years to replay them. In short, they don't hold a special place in my heart like the games in my top 10.



In Conclusion

One interesting thing to note about these selections is that very few of them are traditional, typical FPS games. Most of them are on the list because they have something else going on in them -- RPG mechanics in System Shock and Deus Ex, an open world survival element in STALKER, randomized loot in Borderlands, horror sequences in FEAR, stealth gameplay and gadgets in No One Lives Forever, and online coop and leveling in Killing Floor. Perfect Dark, Doom, and Painkiller are really the only "traditional" shooters on this list, and even then, Painkiller sets itself apart with its highly atypical weaponry and uber-ginormous boss fights. I'm not sure if that means I just don't care for "regular" shooters much, or if I just like RPGs and survival-horror games more, which therefore leads me to liking FPS games with those elements in them as well. I guess it's probably more of the latter.