Frozen Synapse review

Frozen Synapse is the cure to Starcraft 2. This is a game for thoughtful combat, rather than clicks per minute and speed. It's about outwitting your opponent, rather than rushing him. Extraneous activities to tactics such as resource management and base building have been removed, leaving you solely with your soldiers, the environment and the enemy.

It removes issues such as unit balance by having everyone start with the same units. But it introduces an interesting dynamic in that the levels are not uniform, resulting in some one sided battles. But no battle feels completely unworkable. You're always left with the impression that you could have done something smarter, could have out-thought your opponent in a way that would have resulted in victory for you. The result is a crazy, high speed version of chess.

That description brings with it implications that may not be obvious at first glance. Firstly, you can perfectly predict who will win in a fire-fight given the conditions. This is not a game of real world tactics. A shotgunner, aiming as he rounds a corner, at close range will always out-shoot a machinegunner standing still. This helps solidify the idea that each unit has a place and a use. But it also means that it's not truly real world. Games like X-Com and Jagged Alliance held firm in their depictions of combat that reality was key. In Frozen Synapse, the game is key. The most glaring example of this, more so than the predictable fire-fights, is that rocket troops can't hit people, or more importantly, the ground. This forces you to be very judicial in the use of rocket troopers. This restriction in the system is what makes the game more chess than war game.

The basic mechanics of the game are very simple. You take your squad of men and plan for them to shoot, walk, aim, duck, etc. around the battlefield, all with the express desire to kill off your opposition. Like Laser Squad Nemesis, the twist is that the actions themselves take place in real time turns of 10 seconds. You spend time considering what you're opponent will do, where he will go. You're forced to think a move ahead. But due to the real time nature of what occurs, real world tactics begin to be used, like distracting an enemy with a running unit while a second ambushes him a split second later.

The music is ethereal which suits the visuals perfectly. It compliments the periodic action and the planning stages suitably. It feels like a lot of thought went into its composition, the effect of which is noticeable. This polish is clear through not just the music. The visual aesthetic is clean and clear whilst holding to its style.

The game is buggy however. Issues I've had so far are to do with the game temporarily freezing when reviewing a turn or bringing up the right-click menu. These issues, while annoying, are not detracting from the actual game experience, and I found myself more annoyed that they'd slowed down the experience more than anything else. What I'm saying is that the bugs are minor, and forgiveable given the excellence of the game itself.

Something that I'm sure that Frozen Synapse gets compared to, and probably took inspiration from is Laser Squad Nemesis. But the part that Frozen Synapse does so much better is the method of conveying turns to each other. LSN used emails, but Frozen Synapse utilises a central server that communicated directly with the game. The result is that you end up playing four or five games at once, maybe the single player campaign as well. This system also allows you to watch your own and other peoples games, letting you learn from your horrible, horrible mistakes.

The single player campaign is far more than feels like far more than a primer for multiplayer. There's a narrative taking place, with well defined characters and a general feeling of unease as you become aware that something is decidedly off with the world you're in. Almost like a conspiracy that everyone is aware of except you.

The writing is genuinely interesting. Playing through he single player campaign I actually read through all the text. Compare this with Mount & Blade where I have often ended up accepting ridiculous quests because I couldn't be bothered to finish reading the paragraph of text I was on. And generally, I'm a reader. Maybe that's more a comment on Mount & Blade though...

The missions work well within this narrative, and the A.I. is pleasingly intelligent most times, refusing to walk blindly around corners and into bullets. Though there was one game where it managed to kill almost all its own troops, this seems to be rare, and may well have been the results of it simply trying to murder me by blowing up everything in sight. Not the smartest of moves, but as I said before, this behaviour is rare.

I like to rate video games based on how much I'd be willing to pay for them, and Frozen Synapse would get £30 from, except they'd need to increase the price to get it there. And by the way, you get two copies with that purchase. One to give to a friend. How cool is that?

Branding

During my review of X-Men First Class, I mentioned how Moira McTaggart was not really the Moira we knew of from the comics (or in my case, Saturday morning cartoon show). I wondered (aloud) why they hadn't invented a new character. More recently two games that I know and enjoy are getting remakes/sequels/just continuing the franchise, depending on how you look at it. X-Com and Brothers in Arms were both great games (X-Com was actually superb, but beside the point right now). And now they're getting new games bearing their name.

The thing is, the games themselves have seemingly little to do with the original game. Brothers in Arms was a tactical shooter where you commanded a squad of airborne troopers. It was based upon the exploits of real soldiers, had incredible detail and historical knowledge, and was one of my favourite shooters. Except the third one. I hated the third one. But all of them were about the horror of war and dealing with the loss of your comrades. The new game is, as one commentator put it, "Inglourious Basterds: The Game".

He's not wrong. The E3 trailer showed a completely different tone to the game. It's still based in WW2, and you still fight on the Allied side. That's pretty much the entirety of the similarities. The rest is the Tarantino movie. I've got nothing against that, except the name. Why keep the Brothers in Arms name? What does this new game have to do with the old ones? Is it the psychotic hallucinations of one of the main characters? Because that I could understand. But beyond that, I can't imagine the two living in the same world.

I'm told branding is the cause. But I don't understand this. Branding, as a tool, is supposed to work by associating a proven, good product with a new product. And it's a powerful force, the cause of sequels to great films bringing in incredible profits even if the film itself is bad (see Spiderman 3 vs. Spiderman 2, or the top ten animated movies in the UK by profit, they're almost all sequels). If the previous thing in the series was good, the next thing will make a lot of money.

But is this true if the next thing is completely different? Anyone aware of a brand will be able to see that the next thing is so completely changed from the thing they loved, they'll have to judge it by it's own merits. So maybe by using the brand, they're not catering for those who loved it the most, they're catering to the people who have heard the name but know next to nothing about it. But those guys would have heard the name from the first lot. And the first lot will now be complaining about it.

By taking a brand and producing something nonsensical with it, the publisher is creating bad publicity. The game now has something to prove. It has to be great or it will get eaten alive. Fallout 3 is an example of this. When information about the game first began to trickle in, hardcore Fallout fans were appalled (at least the loud ones were). There were a lot of complaints about the change. But, and this is important, it kept the original setting and feel of the first two games. It still felt like Fallout. And the reviews were very positive. They were plenty of faults with it on a core level (combat's general shittiness is my personal pet peeve), but it was still a good game. And it was still a Fallout game. This new Brothers in Arms game is not that.

For the purposes of clarity, I'm going to refer to XCOM as the 2K game coming out sometime soon and UFO as the original Enemy Unknown. This case is right between the two. XCOM is a brand new take on the UFO IP. It's so different that I don't even recognise it as UFO. It could, to me, be made under a different name and I wouldn't feel any different about it. Actually that's not true. If it were under any other name, I would probably be more excited about it. I'd have no expectations of it, other than it's a good looking game and an interesting premise. Currently it looks like a shooter version of UFO, which is harmful to my soul.

Publishers seemingly fail to realise that branding comes with baggage. They want the good stuff of increased profit margins from goodwill towards that brand without the bad stuff of higher expectations of an evolved version of the previous. X-COM Enforcer was a great way to fuck that up. It's probably too harsh an example, as it was a shit game stapled onto a great brand. Once the new XCOM is released, it'll probably sell well. If it's a good game, it'll probably sell very well. But would it sell better or worse than if it was branded under a new name? The setting is so far removed from the original that they'd have no problems doing this legally. And it's not as if they have serious competition (name another triple A, aliens invade Earth, turn-their-tech-against-them-while-they-infiltrate-the-very-organisations-funding-us game out there). I'd bet that if they had put this together under a different title, UFO fans would be clamouring to them. They'd be creating positive buzz talking about it on forums and in comments. They'd be telling their friends about it. Instead they're complaining to everyone about it. When a brand has been clamouring for a comeback from it's fans, they flock to anything that plays like it. the UFO:Aftermath series of games, the fan based creations, I'm sure they get plenty of support from the Enemy Unknown community. XCOM gets virtually none. And they paid handsomely for the privilege to use that name.

And here I was hoping for, at the very least, the western version of Valkyria Chronicles...

Really Capcom? Wow.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/27677673/SSF4:AE_PC_ONLINE_QUESTION&post_num=99#497069701

I am honestly surprised at Capcom's reaction to the legion of unfavourable fan responses they got across the intertubes. Actually reaching out to fans and saying "if not this, then what else?", as a marketing tool, can't be beat. Personally, I like this guy's take on it:

http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/27677673/SSF4:AE_PC_ONLINE_QUESTION&post_num=102#497071529

And that was something like the third response to Sven's original posting.

I am really hoping that Capcom takes on board these suggestions, because if they truly choose to Ubisoft themselves, it's going to end badly. Last I checked (a week or so ago), RE5 and SF4 were STILL in the top ten most played list on GfWL. Actually I think they were in the top 5, but I'm not certain. The point is that their games are loved by PC gamers, including myself, and opening a dialogue could be the start of them really moving into the "big leagues" of this platform I do so love.

I was overwhelmed by the (mostly) intelligent and reasoned out responses by the fans on the capcom-unity board where all this took place. I agreed with a lot of them, and all of them understood that they want Capcom to feel secure in releasing their software. Hell, the guy I linked to above suggested handicapping any non-network authenticated copy to two characters on a vs. mode, or even just the benchmarking tool. Without SSA authentication, the game would be completely useless.

This kind of talk I can get behind, as it slaps pirates in the face as best they can, whilst avoiding damage done to legitimate customers. I think one of Valve's guys mentioned that the ideal pricing system is one that charges sociable people less, griefers and trolls more. With DRM, what we need is a system that restricts pirates WITHOUT restricting legitimate users. Unfortunately, like the pricing structure, we've not yet come up with the how for that system.

Obviously I'd prefer it if I had absolutely no DRM on my games. But then again, I would also like it if I had no locks on my car door. And while you can argue that the consumer is losing when a car is stolen, and the developer/publisher when software is pirated, the point I am trying to make is simple. In order for my property to be secure, I have to accept the loss of some liberties. Capcom wants the same, but unfortunately the only way to do so is if the consumers lose that liberty. At least, so far as we've seen. Hopefully a better method of fighting piracy will come about eventually.

CD Projekt, meanwhile, continues to sell The Witcher 2 like hookers at a sex-addict relapse convention. Does that metaphor make sense? I've been listening to a lot of Yahtzee recently (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation). This despite the fact that they are removing the DRM with the latest patch from all copies of The Witcher.

Really Capcom?

http://www.capcom-unity.com/sven/blog/2011/05/25/stuff_you_want_to_know_about_ssfiv:ae_for_pc

Really Capcom? Reallllllllly?

I used to like Capcom because they made good games. And that was it. That's all it took for me to like a video game company. It's the same reason I liked Bullfrog, way back when. But times have changed. Or rather, the internet has landed.

Politics plays a much bigger role in my loyalty to a company. I use dabs.com for computer component purchases because their returns policy is incredible. I buy Corsair branded anything because their behaviour as a company shows they put their customers first. And I'm seriously considering not buying Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition because of the DRM Capcom has decided to add to it.

I stopped buying Ubisoft games when they started with their nonsense, and now I'm faced with Capcom trying something similar. I guess the issue stems from wanting to profit from their work, and I don't begrudge them that. Hell, I know several struggling indie folks in various industries (including games) and they all have the same fear. But is DRM the answer?

I can see why you'd think there's no other option. You have to have someway of stopping illegimate copies from running. But hobbling legitimate players can't be the best solution to this problem. It's just the only one Capcom has thought up. There are some nice parts to it; with the not being thrown off as soon as you lose your connection. But compared to actually being able to play a game you bought without having to deal with that? We in trouble baby.

I mean, when it comes to things like this; punish the pirates and the hackers, not the legitimate players of the game. And I was a big proponent of getting Capcom games on the PC. I wrote letters to Capcom asking about SSF4 on the PC, about RE5 DLC, and was gleeful when I read a blog post about how Capcom is taking PC gaming more seriously. Unfortunately, more seriously seems to mean something different at Capcom HQ than it does for customers.

Still... I want to play SSF4:AE. I want to get good at it. I want to kick my friend's asses with it. And mostly, I want to encourage Capcom to keep putting games out on the PC. I suppose the best outcome, from a consumer perspective is for it to have great sales and for it to be pirated ravenously. Here's hoping I guess?