New Review Posted: Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Mike Doolittle has a muse, and that Muse's name is Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay:

"I consider myself pretty in-tune to the gaming world, so it was with some surprise that Starbreeze AB's Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay managed to fly completely under my radar until word of mouth hit the internet. Licensed games are notoriously bad, with the notable exception of Rare's Goldeneye in 1997. Usually competence is the most gamers can hope for. But Escape from Butcher Bay is far more than competent—it's innovative and brilliantly executed. It's exceedingly rare that a single game can both build on established concepts and integrate its own innovations to create a wholly unique experience while exuding sheer perfection in execution, but Escape from Butcher Bay is just such a game."

The rest of this glowing review can be found right after this colon: http://www.gamecritics.com/review/riddick/main.php

[Ice Honkey]

Stellar review.

[PeteJ]

The review is written very well and it does get across the undeniable positives of the game, however the review lacked balance. Where were the negatives?

The prisoners of Butcher Bay may have great voice acting, but they are also extremely lifeless and only respond to you 'activating' them. Events are triggered when you cross an invisible line and the whole game is dictated by scripting.

None of these make the game bad, not by any means, but they do get in the way of making it great. It's far too scripted and linear to be a classic as, essentially, it feels very artificial.

Also little niggles such as difficulty in jumping on top of boxes (without having to activate the 'Use' button) feel very restrictive. It is irritating when you are climbing up a ledge and the slow animation causes you to get shot, thus making you fall back down.

I don't want to come down hard on the game, as the production values are fantastic and some of the set pieces are incredibly well done, however to score the game a 10/10 is just crazy in my opinion. I can't understand it at all.

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by PeteJ

The review is written very well and it does get across the undeniable positives of the game, however the review lacked balance. Where were the negatives?

Good question! The only "negative" that ever bothered me in the slightest was the blurred look the graphics take on in a few spots. But it was so rare and insignificant that I didn't feel it detracted from my experience.

The prisoners of Butcher Bay may have great voice acting, but they are also extremely lifeless and only respond to you 'activating' them. Events are triggered when you cross an invisible line and the whole game is dictated by scripting.

I very much disagree that the characters are "lifeless." They have routines and engage each other in lengthy, often informative or funny conversations. Sure, they only talk to you when you cue their attention with the X button... which isn't a bad thing. All the characters will talk to you, even if they have nothing of substance to say.

None of these make the game bad, not by any means, but they do get in the way of making it great. It's far too scripted and linear to be a classic as, essentially, it feels very artificial.

In the RPG aspects, the game allows for a fair bit of non-linearity and player choice. But it's a plot driven action game, so of course it will be more linear than, say Morrowind. Its depth and the flexibility of the gameplay is what make it outstanding.

Also little niggles such as difficulty in jumping on top of boxes (without having to activate the 'Use' button) feel very restrictive. It is irritating when you are climbing up a ledge and the slow animation causes you to get shot, thus making you fall back down.

The "use" button is, logically, the context-sensitive button for most non-combat actions and interactions in the game. Riddick is supposed to be tough, but not superman... he can't just fly over those ledges. The animation is fluid and realistically paced in relation to the other actions in the game. The best way to not get shot off of ledges is not to climb when you're under fire!

[Low Emissions]

I was pretty sceptical at first, seeing how this game did, as you so well put it, slide right under our radar, and then all these people are giving this out-of-nowhere title such high scores. But if GameCritics says it's good, it must be gospel.

I'm going to play it one way or another soon.

[Gene Park]

Although I wouldn't have given it a 10, this game is actually pretty close to perfect as far as I'm concerned. It's not as ambitious as Thief, Deus Ex or Shenmue, but it ties all the unique aspects of those games and delivers a strong package. For me, it's definitely Xbox game of the year.

Although I would argue that the humans in the game aren't life-like. They usually have more than two to three lines of dialogue. I'm not faulting the game for it. I wasn't expecting something as talky at KOTOR, and even if I was that's not the point.

It's actually scary how detailed the other people look. I guess, to take a page out of Ebert's book, the models in the game fall into the Uncanny Valley effect. Developed by Masahiro Mori, some Japanese robot expert, the closer robots resembled humans, the closer the connection... that is until a certain line is crossed. Instead real humans would be just disgusted and repelled by the robots.

It's probably why I spent about an hour and a half perfecting the counter, just so I can slash those freaky looking humans' throats.

Hey doc, the manual says wait until the hands raise for the counter, but I never see any hands raising! I just counter when they attack, but I'd rather get a good indicator. Anything I'm doing wrong?

[Ice Honkey]

Originally Posted by gene_peace

...the models in the game fall into the Uncanny Valley effect. Developed by Masahiro Mori, some Japanese robot expert, the closer robots resembled humans, the closer the connection... that is until a certain line is crossed. Instead real humans would be just disgusted and repelled by the robots.

That's incorrect. The theory states that up to a certain point, the closer robots resemble humans, the more people will empathize with them. The closer to humanity the robots appear, the higher the level of unconsious scrunity and diminishing returns-- the greater the chance the illusion will collapse in on itself, resigning our identification of the creature with the Uncanny Valley.

Appearance isn't paramount here either, movement is as important, if not more so, and both are effected by subtlety as much as striking features.

So, it's possible to cross that line without falling in, Mori just tends to think it's near impossible.

The Uncanny Valley is the absolute bottom of the knowable human identification scale, and the creatures that dwell there are disquieting mockeries of humanity.

Certainly, most video games have somewhat realistic, (and let's face it) terribly animated characters, and while some of them may seem uncanny (like in Riddick), or the majority unappealing, I'd argue there's a long way to go before falling into the Uncanny Valley for 99% of games. (Yeah, I though the Slate article was complete shit.)

Silent Hill 2 is a, hell, THE prime example of the Uncanny Valley in video games. Of course, it's done on purpose.

The Suffering tries miserably to invoke the Uncanny Valley, but it's artifice is too obvious.

Check out the original Japanese version of The Ring, Ringu, for an amazing example of the Uncanny Valley near the end of the movie.

And these Shykids dolls... well, I don't think it was done on purpose, at least, I hope not.

Shykids dolls

[Brad Gallaway]

Can someone post a link or give a reference to this Uncanny Valley stuff? i've never heard of it before.

[Ice Honkey]

The Uncanny Valley is the absolute pit of human identification, the theory's a curve with many possible points-- it's not an either/or scenario. My problem with the slate article was that he was referencing characters for the Uncanny Valley that occupied points other than the pit. Just because something looks or moves awkward, dosen't mean it comes off as a nightmarish corpse. But whatever, it's psuedo-science and somewhat subjective.

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Scott Jones also have a thing or two to say about Riddick:

"I hate to be the one to rain on Mike's parade—OK, actually I don't mind at all—but calling this game "the biggest surprise of this generation of gaming" and a "flawlessly executed adventure" is a little excessive. And before I go any further, let's get one thing straight: for the last time, the movie Pitch Black is overrated—vastly overrated. Please make a note of this."

The rest is available here:http://www.gamecritics.com/review/riddick/2nd_op.php

[Boy]

Better than Breakdown!? Impossible!

Hey Scott, you say you've played the game, why not write a 2nd op on it?

[Boy]

Too busy playing games! *runs off to play "brand new" N64 games*

[Mike Doolittle]

I'm glad to see that Scott's review was a counter, since second ops that echo tend to be a bit on the boring side, regardless of where they land on the scoring spectrum.

I wanted to address Scott's criticisms of my critique, though. His own views of the game are okay by me, but I thought I should respond to criticisms of my own views.

"I hate to be the one to rain on Mike's parade—OK, actually I don't mind at all—but calling this game "the biggest surprise of this generation of gaming" and a "flawlessly executed adventure" is a little excessive."

Biggest surprise... well, okay then, *you* name another game with so little hype that's garned such overwhelming praise. And I sure wasn't the only one to call it "flawless." Gamespot said it really well, IMO... "If the actual game itself has any shortcomings, they're minor and worth acknowledging just to temper all of the well-deserved praise."

I think flawless is a relative kind of term in gaming. I think of a flaw being something that significantly detracts from the experience. Nothing in CoR had that effect on me.

"I wouldn't use the words "wonderfully intuitive" to describe the game's first-person hand-to-hand combat system."

Did you go the fighting route in the mines to confront Abbot? Because you basically have to use combos and blocks to get through it. On the hard setting, button mashing gets you nowhere. One could argue, accordingly, that the default difficulty should be higher, but most people are casual players, so the game appropriately gives the option of a greater challenge.

"I wouldn't call the shooting segments of the game "first-rate," not by a longshot."

Porque? You didn't really elaborate here. Because I've played gobs of shooters, and everything felt ultra-responsive and smooth as butter to me. I actually preferred the combat mechanics over those in Halo.

The AI, well, I've never been able to make them shoot each other, save for some of the mechs at the cryo area... But in terms of their defensive capabilities, they were as good as any I've seen. I've never seen AI behave truly human, and there are always things to nitpick, even in otherwise excellent shooters like Halo. What made it outstanding was the narrative context and pacing of the action and the excellent variety of enemies.

"And those reversal moves, those moments when I was able to turn the tables on a guard and force-feed him his own gun—supposedly executed by a "well-time button press," as Mike says—are still something of a mystery to me. Sure, I managed to pull them off, but it almost always felt like luck more than skill. "Well-timed," I guess, means "keep pushing the button until it works.""

This is pretty easy to pull off with consistency with a little practice. I'm to the point where I know exactly when to nail it to disarm them with one button tap. It's definitely not random.

And maybe it's because I'm a jock at heart, but I dig Vin Diesel and I thought the content was awesome. To each their own I suppose.

[Daniel Weissenberger]

As tempted as I am to criticize Scott's criticisms of Brad's critique, I'm just going to hold myself to agreeing with Brad that it's always more interesting when the second op isn't just parroting the first. I spent maybe a second considering writing a review of the game before realizing that there wasn't any point in just heaping more compliments on it, deserv'd though they may be.

The only thing I really can add is this is the first time since Goldeneye that I've played a Console FPS without thinking 'Gee, this would be great if only I could be playing it on my PC'.

[Brad Gallaway]

Uh.. think you have me confused with Mike, Dan... i haven't said squat on this thread except about the Uncanny Valley stuff.

my two cents on Riddick: I see where 'Doc's coming from and it's a hell of a lot better than i expected, but i can also agree with Scott's criticisms. i don't think it's perfect, but i do think it's worth playing and probaby worth buying for most Xbox owners. it's also probably the best use of a film license i've ever played, being both a very good game and a true expansion of the characters/setting rather than a cobbled rehash of a film. i'm not big on Vin Diesel, but still, i do have to give the game some re-re-respek.

BTW, anyone care to fill me in on this "riddick is the messiah" crap that seems to be alluded to in CoR:EFBB? i saw Pitch Black (which as Scott says, is VASTLY overrated.. embarassingly so, IMO) but none of that's in there, and i'm not wasting any money seeing the new film. i mean, what's up with how he gets those eyes? how does he knock out all those guards? who the hell is that voice in his head? seems pretty cheesy based on what's in the game, IMO. I don't like riddick, but i think i liked him marginally better when he was just a tough con, not some uberbeing.