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."

My thoughts

[The-Bus]

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.

Re:My thoughts

[bozzaj]

I started playing the game last night, and the RPG elements actually just make the level progression fit into a "story" instead of just "A new level has been unlocked!" In fact, you only need to finish a certain number of the objectives in Story Mode before the story continues. You can go back and finish the other objectives if you want. All in all the new story mode works extremely well.

As for THPS4 being too hard. THUG has a difficulty setting, so it'll actually be much easier for new players to jump in and not have to worry about smashing their controller in frustration.

I'm not really sure I like the "off the skateboard" stuff and the driving cars stuff, but it's really minor to get through to the next story element.

Create-a-trick is another cool feature and the Park Editor allows you to actually create goals for your own park, which makes that a bit more fun as well.

Xbox owners get no loving.

[Inoshiro]

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).

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 [slashdot.org] 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. ... 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!

An educated opinion...

[TheSwink]

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:

I pretty much agree...

[BenSnyder]

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.

Re:I pretty much agree...

[TheSwink]

I didn't know the server was tanked, last I'd heard it was up. Hopefully the usage will level out a bit after the inital push, though it's likely we'll add servers to meet demand.

As far as the Live subscription goes, the concern was primarily for the users who aren't subscribed to Live but who want to play Tony Hawk online. That said, it could be argued (and I did) that anyone who'd want to play THUG online would probably already be a subscriber. So, you're not really in that demographic, being a subscriber. But, being a subscriber you have to appreciate that there the majority of Xbox owners aren't Live subscribers. Either way that was probably the least important of the reasons behind the decision.

The IGN review was actually pretty funny...at the end he talks about 'shopping cart racing' which doesn't actually exist in the game. I wonder what game he was reviewing... ;)

I like your idea about having the game critic be up front about exactly how much they've played each game they review. I think the reason that they don't is that there would be major outcry if people realized how little critics actually play games they review. My perfect review system would include an ongoing blog-style review of a game with a running tally of how much the critic has played the game included in each post. I also think that games as a medium are fundamentally subjective and therefore shouldn't be boiled down to a numeric score, but that's a different rant alltogether ;).

The runout does extend the life of combos past what they were in THPS4 but it does have a constraint, the timer. I won't tell you that it doesn't effect the gameplay pretty radically but in essence it's just another state to transfer to to keep a combo alive, like vert/grind/manual. I guess we'll see how radically it effects scores etc when the scoreheads really go to town.

Swink

Re:An educated opinion...

[TheSwink]

Eh, that's a bit trollish. Point 1: as I said, not a huge factor in the decision, just a contributing factor. Mostly, management objects to players having to pay Microsoft to play Tony Hawk. Also, note that Microsoft does not allow any online Xbox play that doesn't use Live. Point 2: Live does not work with our code. It's easy to say things like "Live has an online framework in place with which you would have to comply, that's an odd thing to complain about..." if you're not the one that has to make it work. Essentially what you're talking about is a complete rewrite of our netcode to accommodate Live, leaving us with two entirely separate code bases to debug and maintain. We have one net programmer. You do the math. Guess what, people expect their Tony Hawk game at Christmas. Every Christmas. And know that the mandate that enforces that ship date comes from the people who employ us: it's not up for discussion. Also, you can be as upset as you want but it's ridiculous to call anyone at Neversoft lazy. I've no idea what you do for a living but I'd wager it doesn't include working 18-hour days for three months. The bottom line is that Neversoft is the only company that can make a game of such size and quality in one year. If I didn't care, why did I post in the first place? We've been saying from the beginning we weren't going to support Live play, I don't know why everyone's so riled. If it mattered so much Live users could have rallied for support back when the game was early in development. No one seemed to care. If you want excuses, look elsewhere. I'm giving you reasons, take them or leave them. Swink