In the past I have
opined that there's not really any such thing as 'playing it wrong.' If a lot of people don't like a game and people say they're just not playing it properly, that is almost always because the game did not communicate to the player well enough how it wanted to be played.
It was somewhat disheartening, then, to see Tim Schafer - one of my video gaming heroes, no less - post up what appeared to be a
rather defensive guide on how to get the most out of
Brutal Legend, how it isn't best played as an RTS and how it ought to be played for the best possible experience. It's something that
hasn't passed unnoticed and I must concur that if you give a player a set of tools that looks a lot like an RTS, teach them to use them in the manner of an RTS then you shouldn't be surprised when people continue using them in such a way.
The problem is quite subtle, I think. The game does do a good job of introducing the various gameplay elements, the first couple of hours of the game spent in encounters that gradually uncover more and more of the strategic parts of the gameplay. There's never much doubt as to what tools are in the box, that's for sure - the game is clear at every step about what you can and can't do. Where the difficulty arrives is in the precise manner in which it teaches you to use them.
For example, the first time you set up the stage for a battle, you are on the defensive. There is another highly defensive battle in the mid-game where the aim is just to stay alive. While these missions change things up a little, they also muddy the waters because after a while it becomes apparent that the full-on stage battles reward extremely aggressive tactics which would probably be considered reckless in other strategy games. The game wants you to move in hard, fast, to cut off the enemies' supplies before they get a chance to build up a force in early, daring raids. The experience of doing so can be utterly exhilirating. If instead, however, you choose to do what the game taught you to do at first - defend your stage, keep your resources guarded you will find yourself getting into in a war of attrition which is much, much harder to win and far less fun.
In fact, it's like playing a completely different game. In one battle fairly late in the game I unwisely took the attrition approach and was beaten by an AI that was just better at being on the ball with what units to buy and when, and where to send them. It was a slow, soul destroying defeat. The next time I played I decided to be ultra-agressive, going for quick, early strikes to capture all but one of the enemy's fan geysers (basically the 'gold mines' of the game). I spent most of my time on the ground hacking at stuff and felt like I was leading from the front. As a result, it was over within ten explosive, action packed minutes that were well in keeping with the mood of the rest of the game.
Why the game doesn't do a better job of teaching you 'aggressive strategy' I've no idea. Granted, it's a hard balancing act to teach because there certainly
are moments in the game where it's worth holding back and building up a force. But I can only concede that it is a problem with the game, a flaw that I believe has contributed majorly to some of the (slightly!) more negative reviews that have appeared.
BUT... (that 'but' in the title had to crop up eventually)
I can't stay mad at it. I just can't. I thought it would be a problem for me - I was nervous as I sat down to play the game. But after figuring out how the game really wanted me to play it, and a couple of hours of finger-wagging ('Bad Schafer. Naughty Schafer. You should have
told me that's what you wanted from me!') I was left with classic Schafer. A brilliantly realised world that
bleeds imagination, from a man who knows how to build 'em and surrounds himself with people who bring it to life wonderfully. Truly excellent writing, characters and comic timing. Finally, gameplay that is solid (above bitching aside), thematically sound and just damned good fun enough to support everything else that is good about it.
Here's the real test: Tim Schafer said that he hoped the game would make people who previously weren't into Heavy Metal like it. Well, I admit there are a couple of classic metal tunes I found myself unexpectedly enjoying but I don't think I'll be browsing the Metal section of my music shop any time soon. However, it's a testament to how well the game transports me into its world that from the moment that I press start to the moment that I quit for the evening, I can honestly say that Metal is my favourite genre of all time.
I used to think that I liked Metal, then this game made me realize that I haven't really listened to Metal. Motorhead and Sabbath (pre-Dio) is awesome though.
I played the RTS sections aggressively from the get-go and never had TOO much trouble as long as I stayed in the air. The A will target you specifically if you are down there and you will die quickly. I did have to change the difficulty for the last one or two fights. The crow tree is an instant death.
The RTS levels didn't bother me at first because they didn'y draw attention to themselves; they mainly just served to give the combat a larger scale.
It's toward the end of the game that they started to bother me, when they're complete gameplay hogs. Did anyone who was waiting for Brutal Legend really want this? The first two trailers showed an action adventure game in a unique setting. Halfway through year, we were suddenly told the game would be an RTS-Action hybrid. Sorry, what?
@Burgandy and stuff like the crow tree is only circumvented through trial and error. There's no way of telling when the enemy is going to zerg you with a spontaneous mass of enemies. Sometimes it's controlled by scripted events, and you have no way of telling it's coming. It's not really fair.
The thing is, they aggressively marketed this to the general public with "Jack Black wackiness!" and putting him on the Jimmy Kimmel show.
How is the public supposed to know that "they're doing it wrong"? The entire marketing campaign was disingenuous, as was the demo: the demo SHOULD have had a stage show.
I disagree - I don't think there should have been a demo.
I do agree that the stage battle side of it was really downplayed until the very end though. I'm not sure whose idea that was but it was probably a mistake.
Doesn't stop me from having an absolute blast with the game, though.
Oh it won't stop ME either.
I'm just referring to the insane marketing campaign that COMPLETELY left out any trace of RTS elements to the public. If you were to watch Jimmey Kimmel, they marketed Brutal Legend as "Jack Black: The Game. A silly action game romp where you just meet crazy people and Tim Curry." They pushed the fact that it was family friendly with the censoring options, and again, the only thing they ever mentioned about the RTS gameplay was in a very small sentence on some random Gamasutra/hardcore gamer website interview: not in any of the commercials or popular ad.
Now, do I blame them? Fuck no: what casual gamer likes RTS games? But still, I know at least 10 people personally that are returning the game because it was falsely represented in it's advertising material (demo included: it doesn't matter if it shouldn't have came out, it did, and didn't include a stage show, which is most of the game's crux).
This is not to invalidate others' experiences with the game, but I really didn't find the RTS bits to be all that difficult or un-intuitive. I think there's a certain amount of expectations that follow when we hear the term RTS, and the consoles just can't accomodate those expectations yet. Even Halo Wars, which had the most intuitive RTS control scheme for consoles so far (IMO), only sold well because of the Halo name and backstory (IMO).
I played through the game on the default difficulty setting and had no issues with the final few stage battles. I personally was more disappointed with the escort missions. Regardless, every gamer's experience with Brutal Legend is valid, and Tim only made it all worse by mounting a defense.
I don't know that it's most of the game, either. The first couple of hours of the game don't include any stage shows at all, there are only 7 missions in the game that are arguably stage shows - two of which, including the first, are just defense missions, and the other five qualifying as 'full' stage battles. I'd say that I've probably spent between two and three hours of gameplay inside a stage battle as some of them are rather short.
By contrast I've spent a whole lot of time roaming the open world landscape, doing the various missions in between the stage battles, helping patrols out with their skirmishes, finding solos or other collectibles in the world and running the occasional side-mission.
Obviously the stage battles are a major part of the game, moreso as it goes on. And of course, they are what makes up multiplayer but I still think they're a long way from the whole story, or even 'most' of the game.
I haven't played it, but I would say based off watching my friends play, and hearing people talk about it, that if you break the game into "action scenes", "cut-scenes", and "stage shows", that stage shows would be the most played section. Especially since they can be 40 minutes long, and if you die, you have to do them all over. Also, I'm not counting optional world exploration content in this assessment, because I'm talking about casual gamers here, who would normally just beat the game and be done with it.
Basically, a lot of people have said "I made the game easy for the stage battles", which really shows a huge design flaw: that shouldn't have to happen.
I could be wrong on the amount of time spent stage battling, as I've just gathered that information from various reviews and such. Long story short, I'll be buying the game, but I can see how the "6" reviews were warranted.
@Magnalon
Well, my last word on that is that I agree, there is a subtle but significant flaw in the way that the game teaches you the stage battles (obviously, since that's the bulk of my post). And it's true that the game sort of centres around these stage battles - the major plot points and power shifts of the game happen around the battles and the structure of the main story mode is going from stage location to stage location on tour (although plenty happens in the in between times), so it's easy to think that the stage battles are most of the game.
But I'd still say I only spend a small amount of time actually doing the stage battles compared to everything else. If the game really wanted to focus in on the stage battles, it'd have put more of them in in, and either got rid of the open world aspect or included minor stage battles as side quests, too (which it does not)
Do you have it for 360 by the way? That's the version I plan on getting, and I'd like to hit up a few stage battles with you whenever I get it. My GT and PSN ID are in my profile.
Magnalon - I do indeed. I haven't tried them online yet - I'm right at the final, final battle but I'm interested to find out how it plays VS humans. My name is SurplusGamer everywhere.
Haven't gotten it yet, but from I've seen and heard, it seems the RTS aspects are the only real iffy parts. Everything else is getting heaps of praise, but not the RTS segments since they seem to either be too hard, not well designed, or simply jarring.
I mean I guess if BL was a straight up action adventure, we as gamers would say "okay, this is cool, but it's just an action adventure, why not add in some large scale battles, and let us control them... hell, why not add in some RTS elements!" Well that's what Double Fine did, but it seems it's working is many different ways for the image of the game.
Totally agreed. The stage battles are problematic for me on Brutal difficulty, and while they might be a lot more manageable on the lower difficulties, I'm not ready to switch down just yet. I'm still waiting for a stage battle to give me that great sense of accomplishment, but any time I've won one, I more felt like I got lucky than that I did something really awesome. Then again, I am playing Demon's Souls at the same time.
(to clarify, I find that the stage battles can be immensely satisfying, but only once you figure out how the game *wants* you to play, instead of how it seems to be *telling* you to play, and there's the flaw)
You didn't include pics of the RTS parts. This blog is deceiving!
Just beat it. Glad I rented it instead of buying it. The RTS elements were what made me just rent it. Gotta say that the world design and art was incredible and I loved driving around looking at things. Shame that the RTS elements and shitty driving controls annoyed me. I'll buy it used in a year or two when it's priced at what I think it's worth.
I just ignored what everyone said about this game before it came out. All I saw is great presentation, and great voicing, and great source material... and I went on that. While playing the game, it did a great job explaining to me what I should be doing, how things were going to play out, what everything was, and etc... I wasn't lost at any point. So I don't know if that speaks about me as a gamer, or the game it self. But I'm surprised that so many people were caught so off guard that Schafer actually had to tell them "you're playing it wrong" and explain how the game works. I wonder how closely what he wrote is to what's in the game booklet (I haven't read a page of it).
p.s. I'm totally on the same page with your post... dunno if I came across otherwise
I'm sure someone else pointed it out, and you touched on it, but my only complaint with Brutal Legend is the amount of self-discovery you are meant to engage in. It's like retro games in that sense, but it feels weird in a modern game. I got lucky with the stage battles because my normal RTS style is to quickly take over enemy resources to choke them off.
Besides the "be aggressive" style that's intended for the stage battles, you also need to figure out on your own that you release serpents by holding X, run by pushing in the left thumbstick, and red flower grow where there are relics to raise. I think the flower thing is told, but somehow I missed it and didn't put it together until later.
Hey, entrager, I have a question for you. But please, don't get offended right away. Here is the question, do you think that your complaint you put forth could be a problem with you and not with the game?
"While these missions change things up a little, they also muddy the waters because after a while it becomes apparent that the full-on stage battles reward extremely aggressive tactics which would probably be considered reckless in other strategy games. The game wants you to move in hard, fast, to cut off the enemies' supplies before they get a chance to build up a force in early, daring raids. The experience of doing so can be utterly exhilirating. If instead, however, you choose to do what the game taught you to do at first - defend your stage, keep your resources guarded you will find yourself getting into in a war of attrition which is much, much harder to win and far less fun."
Ummm...
Actually early harass and early expand are staple RTS elements, turtling usually gets you crushed by a skilled opponent. Especially in an RTS game where you don't have towers. I mean, what's the point in being defensive when you don't have towers? I don't get it. The reason why you are defensive is because towers are usually more cost-efficient then units in terms of power but are immobile. There are no towers here. All your units are mobile. So why wouldn't you move them?
You really don't really even turtle in Starcraft. Most of the early game consists of early harass vs early expand (Zerg vs Terran/Protoss) or map control and containment (Terran vs Protoss or Zerg mirror). Perhaps people played too much BGH and stuff of that sort. I didn't keep up with all the re-balances of Warcraft 3, but early game hero rushing was always a vital strategy and you generally stayed in as long as possible in the no upkeep zone.
So if you are just building units at your stage until you hit the unit cap and the going, you're not just playing Brutal Legends wrong, you are playing a RTS wrong.
@Deny Everything
Way to miss the point entirely. But hey, lucky we have experts like you around to tell us how we should be playing our games.
Perhaps you should have read my post from I linked to at the top of this one, the one where I rail against anyone who tells anyone else 'you're playing it wrong'.
I think we've drawn a clear line between functional gameplay and having a game properly guide us to discover that gameplay. It seems that the concern is that Brutal Legend is not doing well with the latter. While that may be true, it doesn't deter from the former. Personally, I think the reduced amount of hand holding is nice, as discovering the "winning strategy" is part of the excitement. If the game held my hand, then I would not have discovered "the easy way" on my own, and the battles would be much less meaningful.
It was mentioned that the game "taught" the player to be defensive. Well ok, let's go with that. How do you defend? You need something to stop the incoming force right? Ok, so you build units. But the enemy has more units, what now? They can probably build more because they have more fans, meaning more geysers. Hmm, should really take care of that. Well now that I have that settled, I can crush the enemy right? Well there you go.
I think people misinterpreted "keep your base safe while concentrating on destroying the enemy" with "keep your base safe, uh and fap till something happens". Because while being aggressive IS important, it also IS important to pay attention to your stage and geysers in the back as the enemy will often sneak through and may kill your fan income unnoticed.
@Kojukinator
The issue is that enough people were not figuring out what the game wanted from them that Tim Schafer felt the need to write a blog post telling them how to play the game properly. And a lot of people rightly said 'well, why didn't you find a way of showing that in the game itself, rather than in a blog post a couple of days after release?'
I can't deny that it's a fairly major failing, but it is one that it's possible to get past and once you do it's pretty clear sailing.
Very much agree. Good write up :)