Slashdot Mirror
Tony Hawk's Underground - A Worthy Return?
Thanks to 1UP for their review of Tony Hawk's Underground, as the extreme sports title heads into stores for its fifth iteration, and the reviewer seems to approve, mentioning that "cinematic story makes single-player fun again", as well as lauding "user-created content options", including level and animation editors, that "have massive potential." Tragically, you can only play online using the PlayStation 2 version, a major blow for Xbox Live fans, contributing to IGN's rating of the title as "a solid, if not a perfect, outing", and the conclusion: "If you're a PS2 owner, go get it. If you're anybody else, you may want to just hold that thought before diving in." Finally, GameSpot basically approve, directly countering that "most of the game's goals don't tie into the story at all", but still praising it as "another great installment."
I think the series peaked with THPS3 -- 4 was good but it was incredibly, awfully hard, which made it just a smidgen less exciting than 3. Now this one seems like it's going to be more of the same. I liked THPS because it was a game you could pick up, play for 10 minutes or 60 minutes and have an equal amount of fun. Now, with more "RPG" (and I use that term loosely) elements throw in, you probably need to have a fair amount of time on your hands to really be able to enjoy yourself.
Now, if SSX3 hadn't come out last week, I probably would be all over this, but I can see myself spending most of my free time on that game (which is brilliant and addictive) as opposed to THUG.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Activision is essentially telling its Xbox customers to fuck themselves. Yes, they put in some effort on Tony Hawk 2x (new levels, volumetric grass, custom soundtracks), but Tony Hawk 3 was a stop back (the only Xbox-ish feature was 4 player support).
... Now, if SSX3 hadn't come out last week, I probably would be all over this [THUG]" Even the people who say it's bad can't help but buy it. Way to go, Activision -- milk that franchise!
Then they came out with Tony Hawk 4. At a time when every other game came with online features, Tonk Hawk 4 topped out at 2 players and no other features. Talk about lame! Additionally, despite the fact that the Xbox uses DVD9 discs, the music soundtracks are overly compressed on Tony Hawk 4, making it essentially unlistenable on a good sound setup.
THUG not having online support is just a reaffirmation that Activision doesn't care about its users. It's only supporting the Xbox because people will buy anything they put out.
Don't believe me? Read this comment that essentially says, " I think the series peaked with THPS3 -- 4 was good but it was incredibly, awfully hard, which made it just a smidgen less exciting than 3. Now this one seems like it's going to be more of the same.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
So, I'm a designer at Neversoft. A couple thoughts: "Activision is essentially telling its Xbox customers to fuck themselves" Well, not really. As observed above, it's Microsoft's stringent Live guidelines that are preventing you from having your THUG online. Basically, we (Neversoft) refused to compromise on two points: 1. People should have to pay extra to play Tony Hawk online (players pay Microsoft for the privilege of accessing our online vault!?) and 2. Microsoft's Live 'guidelines' mandate certain things, some of which overlap with our online features. And, from a pragmatic standpoint, having our game be Live compatible means an entirely separate submission process for us, meaning the Xbox version would probably ship later than the other two. On reviews: The problem we're having with reviews, from my perspective, is the same across the board. THUG is larger and deeper than any console game has ever been. Now, I don't mean that as a blaring note on my own trumpet; THUG's size is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, anyone who invests in the game could probably play it for a month without running out of things to discover. The downside: effectively reviewing the game in a short time is nigh impossible. Some reviewers see the good (1up); some see the bad (Gamespot). This is not a problem particular to THUG; it's a problem with game criticism as a whole. A single player can only ever offer his or her own experience with a particular game. As a designer you accept that, and you accept responsibility for every player's experience when playing your game. The frustrating part is that a game like THUG is that it must be designed with the assumption that people will invest a lot of time in it. This is not an unreasonable assumption considering the history of the series but it's frustrating as a designer because it means that people can't just pick up your game and have fun with it (see also: game critics). They have to be in it for the long haul. I believe it was Jonathan Baron who observed that playing a game is like reading a novel; you invest much more time and effort than in something like a film or television program and are consequently rewarded with a richer, deeper, and more fulfilling experience (pardon my lazy paraphrasing.) That said, I also think that it's unreasonable to ask an underpaid hobbyist to spend more than a few hours with your game before giving his or her impressions of it. What I don't think is unreasonable is asking said critic to update that review at some point. Now, I agree that playing a game is much more like reading a novel than watching a movie but I think where the analogy falls short is in the relationship between time invested and mastery, specifically in how predicable that relationship is. When you buy a novel you know that regardless of how quickly you read, reading the contents of each page means that you've finished that book. Not so with games (I'm assuming we're talking about reasonably designed games here, not the dregs.) They offer a different experience each time you sit down to play and they're self-canonizing: the more you play, the more learn about the game and the more skilled you become. The better you are at a game, the more fun it is to play. I usually avoid making generalizations but that one is universally true. You must master a game to unlock its full enjoyment potential and must therefore master it to effectively understand and critique it. For example, I've seen quite a few reviews mention the runout/walking addition in passing, as though it really has no effect on gameplay. Forsooth! When mastered it redefines the gameplay. It's an entirely new verb. On the roadmap of Tony Hawk gameplay innovations it lies somewhere between manual and spine transfer, meaning it radically redefines the way in which you play the game. If you've only played the game for a short while this is not readily apparent, especially if you're playing the game the same way you played Tony 4. The runout is basically an infinite backdoor clause to any combo:
Swink,
A few thoughts from a long time fan of the series, owner of the game (picked it up last night) and current frustrated customer with the Activision server that's currently tanking and breaking the "your face in the game" feature.
First, I picked it up for the ps2 but I own all 3 next-gen systems. I hear ya on your reasoning not to be Live compatible but as a gamer, I have just one response: I'm already paying for Live. If the choice is between no online play or subscribing to Live, consider myself subscribed. If it's signing up to Live AND to some Tony Hawk service, that'd be too much. For example, I own several versions of Phantasy Star Online for the DreamCast, Gamecube, etc. I haven't and won't pay to play it online. I've taken their freebie month but that's it. The cost of Live, I've gotten over. I've made that plunge. So from my perspective, Neversoft is really more concerned with your second reason for not releasing a Live enabled version. I'm cool with that, just don't pretend to be protecting me. I don't feel protected. But wanting to protect the brand or whatever, I get.
As for game reviews, I tend to agree with you. I thought about what a douche bag the IGN reviewer was for saying that the running aspect was hard to control. He must not have read the hint on screen or the hint in the manual that the d-pad makes dude walk and the right analog stick makes dude run. What a douche. So we know that his review is *total* bullshit.
My solution for reviewers would be for them to admit how much they played the game. I've had many experiences in the franchise modes of various current football titles that revealed to me problems or bugs that no reviewer mentioned. But you'd have to be fairly deep in a season to find them. So, boom, right up front. Time spent playing: 5 hours. Highest level achieved: Manhattan. That's all it'd take.
I don't imagine that people really think every reviewer finishes every game. So finishing a game obviously isn't a requirement for reviewing a game. As such, it shouldn't be embarrassing to say how much time went into the source material they're reviewing. In the absence of it, we're left to believe that the guy at IGN really is a douche bag and isn't just spending 10 minutes with a preview copy.
My quick thoughts on the game: THPS2x was probably the high water mark for the series in my mind. This is the best game in the series since that one. It might change again as I play more, but right now, I see it as being more fun than 3 and 4. And being able to run around has totally opened up the game.