Critical Angle Countdowns: My Top 10 Least Favourite Storytelling Tropes

I'm not ashamed to admit that I am a fan of a wonderful website known as TVTropes. For those who don't know, TVTropes is a wiki page that lists common storytelling devices, or tropes, describing the way they are used and backing them up with examples from across different mediums. The website can be very addictive, so I would recommend only visiting it in small doses. It does, however really get you thinking about stories. It explores the different narrative techniques, structures, plot points, characters, and so many other devices that make stories what they are. But for all the great storytelling devices out there, there are bad ones. These are the ones that can ruin a story, the ones that make you groan when you see them used. So I've decided to offer a list of my top 10 least favourite tropes.

Before I begin, a few disclaimers; yes, I am copying Doug Walker's Top 10 Worst Clichés, but that list was more about devices used in films rather than storytelling in general. I am also coping my sister, who originally came up with the idea, but to my knowledge hasn't written one yet (check out her blog here). However, if she is still planning to write one, her list will inevitably be different to mine, so nobody loses out. Also, bear in mind that this is based on my opinion, which may differ from yours.With all that out of the way, let's begin.

10 - Turning Back the Clock

A terrible tragedy has occurred. One that cannot be reversed. Or can it? Thanks to a conveniently placed McGuffin, our hero is able to turn back time and prevent the tragedy from ever happening

I put this trope on the number 10 spot because I have seen it used really well. Done right it can be an extremely powerful piece of storytelling. The motivations for changing the past can say a lot about a character, the risks they are willing to take and the sacrifices they are willing to make. The problem is, this trope is really easy to use badly. A time reversal plot will inevitably undo part of the story, including any character development that has taken place; only the time-turner will have any recollection of what happened. When this trope is used, it can run one of two risks; either the clock is barely turned back at all, thus eliminating the impact of the tragedy, or is turned back really far, essentially rendering a large portion of the story (or sometimes all of it) completely meaningless. It is very difficult to find a balance between the two, which results in a lot of pointless time changes and ruined stories. It is often used to have a tragedy occur without dealing with the concequences, or to restore the Status Quo, and when used badly, is just a very damaging cop-out.

9 - The True Mastermind

Our hero has vowed to put a stop to the villian who has been terrorising the world for so long, who holds all the power, who has caused them endless suffering. Our hero fights the villian to a standstill, only to learn that they were a puppet to a higher power all along.

A trope very common to video games, but prevalent in other mediums too. Again, this one can be used well, but it generally ruins a villian. If you have someone who has posed a genuine threat, revealing that they were working for a higher power/under mind control/actually a good guy can really destroy a character. It also means that all the hatred that the audience has built up for the villian must now be transferred to someone else. This can be very difficult if the new villian is introduced late in the story. It can ruin everything that made a character interesting, lessen the impact of all their actions, and create a new villian who is bland and uninteresting in comparison.

8 - The Training Simulation

Our hero is in the midst of an epic battle – pushed to their limits but determined not to give up. Things look grim, but then the scene fades away and the training session is over.

I was struggling to find things to add to this list at one point – then I saw X-Men 3 and knew this trope had to make the list. A cheap way to get an action scene early on in the story, this trope sets up an amazing scene, then quickly destroys it by revealing that it was never real. If a writer wants to start on an action scene, they should start on a real one – a genuine training session can be just as effective, only the audience knows it's training. If the writer wants to start on an action scene that isn't in a safe environment, then they can start with an action scene unrelated to our main character, or start the story partway through. A fake opening scene will inevitably end in disappointment, and this is a really bad way to captivate an audience.

7 - The Cliffhanger

The story is reaching it's climax, the moment of truth is upon us, our hero has been thrown into an unthinkable dilemma, and the story ends.

I understand the logic behind cliffhangers – if you leave something unresolved then your audience will be dying to know what happens next, and will continue to follow your series. This works well when the reader has immediate access to the events that follow it – in a book, ending a chaper on a cliffhanger compells the reader to continue onto the next one. I have found, however, that when I don't have this access, cliffhangers just don't work. Resolving the plot allows the audience to reflect on the story as a whole, and remember everything they enjoyed about it. Ending on a cliffhanger keeps your audience focussed on the ending, and anticipating what happens next. When this happens, there is no chance for reflection and the rest of the story lies forgotten. I also find if there is a particualarly long wait to find out what happens next, I'll just lose interest and move on to something else. Cliffhangers may sound good in theory, but I just don't think they work in practice.

6 – The Plot-Convenient Character Flaw

At the start of the episode, it is suddenly revealed that our hero has a flaw that has never been addressed previosly. The rest of the episode focusses on them overcoming this flaw, and supposedly becoming a better person because of it.

At first glance, a story that focusses on a character addressing their flaws and working to improve themselves sounds like good character development. And as I have said before, I love character development. What I don't like is when writers will suddenly give their character a flaw soley to have them get rid of it by the end of the episode. Scrubs is one of the worst offenders I have seen – the characters' belief systems seem to change based on what is needed for the episode. A flaw introduced in this way can often contradict the way the character has previously behaved. When characters are given flaws in this way, they need to be believable, and if they overcome this flaw, this needs to be followed through in subsequent episodes. If the lesson is swiftly forgotten, the story arc becomes pointless and the character feels shallow as a result. Throwing in a flaw soley to get rid of it is not good character development, and is a cheap way for writers to feel that their characters are more complex than they actually are.

5 - The Status Quo

Lessons have been learned, changes have been made, new friendships have been formed, and all this is immediately reversed to restore the natural order of things

One thing I love in stories is development – I love watching characters learn and grow, it's part of what makes them so likable, so compelling to watch. What I hate is when perfectly good character development is thrown out of the window, and any series that relies on the status quo is guilty of this. Cartoons are the biggest offender of this trope. Sometimes it's fair enough, Tom and Jerry couldn't exist if the two of them didn't constantly fight. What I don't like is when the status quo is maintained just for the sake of it. The Simpsons hasn't been entertaining for years because the writers ran out of storylines long ago – there is a limit to how much you can write if you restrict yourself to a certain formula.

4 - Deus ex Machina

Everything is out in the open, difficult choices must be made, now is the time to delve deep and resolve this complex dilemma – only the hero is saved from doing this by a contrived plot point that conveniently resolves everything.

I hate cop-outs. If a writer is going to address a complex issue, they should confront it directly and not just avoid a proper resolution. The climax of a story should be memorable, it should leave an impact on its audience, it should push the characters to their limits and force them to face all the lessons they have learned. When some convenient plot point immediately resolves everything, it often results in a lot of wasted potential. The most well known Deus Ex Machina is 'it was all a dream', but this plot point is so contrived that nobody uses it anymore. This doesn't stop this trope from cropping up – be it through some magic force that defeats the enemy and undoes all the damage they caused, or a character stepping in and somehow resolving every single issue that has been raised. An immediate resolution can also lessen the impact that a story has on its audience – all the struggles and hardship becomes meaningless if everything can be resolved so easily.

3 - Obligatory Love Story

On first glance, our hero is hopelessly in love with the first attractive member of the opposite sex they see

Love stories can be really captivating. I love watching the interactions between potential love interests, watching their relationship grow, watching their trials, and seeing how the two characters are changed through their love. But this only works if the love story is believable, if there is a constructive reason for its place in the story. The problem is, many writers seem to think that they need a love story, so they tack one on without any thought. This results in a lot of shallow relationships based soley on physical attraction. Give me any chick flick, and I can pinpoint the exact moment that the two characters realise they like each other. One of the reasons I like Hot Fuzz so much is that the writers decided that adding a love interest for Nick Angel would add nothing to the story, so they just gave all her lines to Danny Butterman and focussed on their relationship instead. I fail to understand why more films don't focus on friendship rather than romance. There are so many shallow, unbelievable relationships in stories that would work far better if the characters were just friends.

2 - The Misunderstanding

Our hero walks past and overhears a conversation, or sees something that looks suspicious. Without looking at the facts, or talking to the person concerned, they get into a fight and fall out with a friend or love interest.

The problem a lot of stories have is the need to create drama. Genuine drama caused by real problems really tests the bonds between characters. Some writers, however, do not explore these problems in depth, and instead opt just have the characters get angry over a problem that doesn't exist, as it is easy to resolve. It's an irritating plot point in any story, as it just makes the characters look like idiots. Every chick flick in history is guilty of this trope. Many children's films are also guilty of it. It is a cheap way to create fake, easily resolved drama to add some semblence of conflict to the third act of a story.

1 - Unceremonious Death

I'm not even going to build this one up - I think this trope is pretty self explanatory. Death is an inevitable part of life, something none of us can avoid, and something that is outside our control. So if as a writer in control over the fate of your characters, you choose to deprive one of them of life, you make damn sure you give them a good sendoff. I don't care if it's 'realistic' to have someone die from being shot by an unnamed goon – fiction isn't real. When you have created a character who has captivated the heart of your audience, who has a huge fanbase, or is just a great person to watch, you have to show them respect. If they are going to die, their death has to count. It has to be memorable. It has to have an impact. Sometimes in stories – especially live action, it can be difficult to give someone a proper sendoff because the actor might leave on very short notice, and in these cases, I am lenient, but all mediums are guilty of this trope. I'm not saying that characters should never die – sometimes they need to die for the story to realise its potential, but it has to be done well. Deaths can be really memorable parts of a story, they can bring tears to our eyes, they can show just how awesome a character is, they can spark brilliant development in the survivors. When it is done badly, it is done really badly, and I lose a lot of respect for the writer who did it.

So those are my ten least favourite storytelling tropes. I think the tropes people enjoy or despise can say a lot about what they see in stories, and the kind of stories that appeal to them. I may follow up at some point with a Top 10 Favourite Tropes, but I've found it harder to come up with a list for that one. It's strange, because I'm usually better at talking positively than I am negatively. Maybe it's easier to pinpoint the stuff we don't like than the stuff we do. But for now, rant over.

My Thoughts on E-Books

As I have mentioned several times, I am an English Literature graduate, so have spent many years of my life reading and enjoying books. I own a lot of books – some are battered beyond belief from constant reading, others are annotated to death from school, others I have yet to read. I must have paid hundreds of pounds on books for university alone. But until recently I have had very little to do with E-books. There was one point where I read The Tempest online before a lecture (and my eyes seriously hurt afterwards!). I also found it useful to load up novels online, search for a specific quote, find out which chapter it was in and find it in my copy of the book to reference it properly (seems time-consuming, but much less so than flipping through all the pages). As a student I never really viewed electronic texts as anything other than a practical way to get the information I needed.

I discovered E-books when I got an Android phone, and downloaded the app Aldiko. If you're unfamiliar with it, Aldiko is an app that lets you download books – sometimes at a cost, but many books in the public domain are absolutely free. This gives you access to a whole world of novels at the touch of a button. You can have the complete works of Charles Dickens stored on your phone in a matter of minutes. And even the books you pay for cost less than a book in the shops. The rise in E-books has caused a pretty big divide amongst readers. Some welcome the new technology, others feel it will kill the book industry. Personally, even with the endless supply of novels for free, I would almost always choose to buy a physical book rather than download a virtual one. I have, however, found some uses for E-books.

First of all, my job sometimes requires me to invigilate exams, and anyone who has done this knows just how boring it can get (or depressing, if you actually catch a cheater). So you generally want something to pass the time. It's nice to be able to read a novel instead of sitting and doing nothing, but you need to pay attention to the students – at some point someone will need an extra sheet of paper, or need to be escorted to the toilet. This is where reading on a small screen comes in handy – it's much harder to lose your place in a book when there's barely any text on the screen at one time. You can read in short bursts without reading the same passage over and over again. They are also useful if you lack sufficient light to read normally, such as on a long car ride at night – why should a lack of light prevent us from enjoying a good book?

I've been pretty open-minded towards E-books lately, but to be honest, I don't see myself paying for downloads or buying a Kindle. If I'm going to pay for a book, I would rather buy a physical one than one in digital form. You could argue that I'm a hypocrite, since I've paid to download games from the Playstation Network, but there it's usually to avoid the risk of purchasing a damaged second-hand PSOne disc. A ripped page in a book is a mild inconvenience, while a scratched disc can render the entire game unplayable. There is also a charm to a slightly battered book. I think I still feel the same way about E-books that I used to. I see them as a practical tool for reading when reading a physical book isn't an option. There are however, many people who enjoy E-books, so they definitely have a place in the world.

I think some people are worried that E-books will destroy the simple pleasure of reading. I can see the worry here – in a society that is pretty reliant on technology, it's good to know that we still have a form of entertainment that doesn't have to be plugged in or charged up. If we were to lose this, a power cut would cost us dearly. But I don't think people need to be as scared as E-books as they are. I seriously don't think that people should be looked down upon for choosing to buy a Kindle rather than build up a collection of physical books. Dracula will always be the same text, whether your are reading it electronically or on paper. This new technology has its uses, and if people prefer using an electronic device then there is nothing wrong with this. I don't think physical books are in any danger – practicality isn't always the preferred option, and a list of texts on a screen will never feel as special as a bookcase filled with novels. In the end, if we are all reading great books, who cares how we choose to read them?

The Education System - Good Grades and Job Prospects

It's been a while since I last posted on here, or indeed since I have written anything. I guess I haven't felt very inspired lately. But I have a few more topics in mind so I'll try to get a few more blog posts out over the next few months. This one is a little different, but is something I feel quite strongly about; my problems with education. First of all, a disclaimer - I don't hate schools. My later school years were some of the best in my life, I had the time of my life at university and I now work in a college and still plan to go back to uni and do a Masters at some point. I do think, however, that schools are not always equipping their students with the right skills to enter the working world. I am aware that every school is different, and that my own education experiences will differ greatly from other peoples, but I think what I am going to talk about is a fairly common problem. This post will cover the idea that you need to get good grades in school to get a good job, the problems I have with this motivator, and what impact it can have on students.

I remember this one time when one of my teachers was having a go at the class, and something she said stuck in my mind. She mentioned something about our future and how we needed to work hard or we would end up working in Tesco. She then said "Any idiot can stack shelves for the rest of their lives." Thinking back, the threat of retail work is extremely insulting. I think the message we were supposed to get from the rant was that we need to work hard to live up to our potential. I agree that we should always try to better ourselves, but classing all supermarket employees as losers who threw their lives away is not the way to go about it. This isn't the only thing wrong with this scenario. Even discounting the offensive nature of the Tescos threat, let's look at reality. You tell your students that they need to work hard in school or they will end up working in a supermarket; you fail to mention that potential employers don't look for good grades, they look for transferable skills. If a child has spent their entire life working hard in school to get good grades, and has never done anything beyond that, they are pretty much unemployable. In this case, they will have a hard time getting any job.

I have been extremely lucky to have parents who understand all this, and encouraged me from a young age to take part in a number of activities outside school, and that doing my best was enough. But let's look at how things could have gone if this hadn't been the case. When I had my interview for Sixth Form I was told that I needed to have extra curricular activities and be a well-rounded person to go anywhere in life. Why had it taken the education system twelve years to tell me that? This is the sort of information that I should have been given much earlier. Now let's look at what happened when I finished University: I spent seven months working in Waitrose – a supermarket. But I had no problem with it. I had no more student loan, and I knew what the job market was like. So I asked my boss if there were any extra shifts going and was lucky enough to be taken on full-time. This meant that I was able to move straight into the working world, and for the first time in my life live entirely off my own earnings. And I loved it. I enjoy my current job a whole lot more, but I still think that without the skills I acquired in Waitrose, I wouldn't be where I am now. But if I had believed that retail work was the profession of failures, doing this straight out of university might feel like hitting an all-time low. At school, you are pretty much taught that you go through school, you go through uni and then you get a job. I feel that the education system leaves out the finer details, which I think results in a lot of straight A students winding up unemployed.

I think the league tables are a big part of the problem. The higher the grades at a school, the higher that school will be on the league tables, and the school will have a better reputation as a result. This means that some schools will make a big deal out of grade averages not for the good of the students, but to improve the reputation of the school. But what impact does this have on the students? There are people out there who have gone as far as to take their own lives over exams, believing that failing an exam or being a bad student means that much. There are people who tear themselves apart trying to get grades that they can't possibly achieve. We have some teachers who worry more about what Ofsted inspectors think than about how good they actually are at teaching.

I think school is an important part of life, and that we learn a lot of valuable skills from our time there. I think these need to be emphasised more. If a cheeky student asks their teacher 'when will I ever use this in real life', the teacher needs to be able to answer. Getting an A in maths won't necessarily get you a good job, but it shows that you are good at approaching problems in a logical manner. Being good at English allows you to analyse problems and see beneath the surface meaning. Understanding geography, history and religion broadens our minds to how our world works, our past, and how different we all are as people. Science is a given; scientific discovery has done wonders for the world, and will continue to do so. All these are valuable things to know - getting good grades is irrelevant in my eyes. I think a good teacher makes their students passionate about the subject, and makes them want to learn more and do well. There is so much in this world that we should try to learn more about, but we need to be doing it for the right reasons. Education is about enriching lives and equipping us with important skills, not about memorising facts that can be coughed up later in a test. There are some wonderful teachers out there who have inspired their students, and the education system needs more of these people. To make school really worthwhile, they need to stop worrying about looking good and start focussing on being good.

I think I've experienced a mixed bag in terms of my education - some years have been really good, while others I would rather forget. So what is the solution? Should children be taught that it doesn't matter how well you do in school - the job market sucks right now so you'll be lucky to get anything? I don't think so. I do think that the focus needs to be more on children's futures and less on the school's reputation, and that schools need to provide more education that will prepare their students for the working world. So what are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with the points I've made? How did this issue affect your education experience? Feel free to leave a comment, or better yet, write a response.

Jak II Review

I've been thinking recently that I haven't really been living up to my name. Most of my blog posts haven't actually been that critical. 'The Analytical Angle' might be a more fitting name, but it ruins the pun, so instead, I will take this opportunity to criticise something that a lot of people like. For this post, I will be reviewing one of the most popular platformers on the Playstation 2; Jak II. My apologies for doing two game reviews in quick succession, but I've been wanting to write this one for a while.

So what is Jak II? It is the sequel to Naughty Dog's first game for the Playstation 2; Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy. And for the record, I'm not using an abbreviation, Naughty Dog dropped Daxter's name from the title for the two sequels. The series is about Jak and his best friend Daxter, who was transformed into an ottsel (a cross between an otter and a weasel, apparently) after falling into a pit of Dark Eco. The Precursor Legacy focussed on their quest to turn Daxter back to normal, and how this lead to them saving the world. The game was famous for being the first open-world platformer; there was no warp room or map screen to take you between levels. The story was simple, and the gameplay fun, if rather frustrating at times. With the sequel, however, Naughty Dog decided to take a different direction. Jak as a character was radically transformed, and the series took a much darker tone.

If any of you follow my Morning Muses, you may know that I posted my first impressions of the game back in November. If you don't, I'll post it here for your convenience:

"A month or so back I found Jak II and Jak 3 (dunno why they changed their mind about the numbering there) in the bargain bin at Game, so I picked them up.  Having just finished the first game, I decided to give the second a go. It seems pretty good so far, the platforming is nice and the controls don't make me want to tear my hair out. One thing I would say is that it's a lot darker and grittier than the first game, it has a RPG/dystopia thing going on, with Jak as an escaped test subject working for the resistance. Oh, and I think Jak and the guy in the resistance he is running errands for are trying to have a grizzly voice contest! None of this necessarily makes the game bad, I enjoy dystopia stories, it's just that I generally expect platformers about fictional creatures to take themselves a little less seriously. Jak II also seems a little linear compared to the first game; right now I'm just running errands for this guy in the resistance and it's basically go to X location, do some platforming , blow stuff up, repeat. I haven't played it for long, so I'm hoping I get a little more freedom later on, and once I get into the story I'm sure I'll love it. I think this game is going to be pretty good, it just depends on how everything plays out."

I included this to show that I went into this game wanting to like it, and was willing to give it a chance despite my scepticism at the drastic changes. After all, so many people had sung this game's praises, even the guy who sold it to me, so I was expecting to really enjoy it. I'll try to keep this review spoiler free, but the same rules apply as for A Crack in Time, so don't say I didn't warn you.

Story

Jak II begins with Jak, Daxter, Keira and Samos activating a Rift Rider and a Precursor Rift Gate, which throws them into the future. Specifically, the dystopian Haven City, ruled by Baron Praxis and under threat by a race of creatures known as Metal Heads. Jak and Daxter are separated from Samos and Keira, and Jak is captured by the Krimson Guard (because poor literacy is kewel). For two years he is subjected to experiments with Dark Eco, until Daxter finally finds him, and helps him escape the Baron's palace. During this time they learn that the Dark Eco in Jak's body causes him to transform into a monster when enraged. After escaping the pair join a resistance movement in an effort to get even with the Baron. Along the way they reunite with Keira and Samos, and meet a number of new allies. Together they fight to free Haven City from both the Baron and the Metal Heads, and try to find a way home.

The plot was pretty simple, and one that we have seen many times before, but in theory was enough to drive the game. The problem is, there were just so many things about the story that really bugged me. The beginning felt pretty stupid; there seemed to be no reason for them to activate the rift gate other than 'we need to get the plot moving somehow'. On finishing the game, a lot of things became clearer, but it felt like too little too late. The story did have some interesting twists here and there, and a revelation at the end that I honestly didn't see coming, but nothing was built up nearly as well as it could have been, and every time I thought something interesting was going to happen, the game let me down.

In my first impressions, I said that the dystopia storyline wasn't a bad thing. This is because it gave Naughty Dog the opportunity to explore the characters in greater depth, tell stories that the first game couldn't have told, and really draw the player into the world. I'm complaining now because they did no such thing. The 'darker and edgier' feel to this game came across as a lazy way to give the illusion of depth to the franchise. Dark and deep are not the same, and it seems that Naughty Dog didn't realise this when they shifted the tone of the series. A Crack in Time's story worked because the shift in tone was subtle, so the series retained its identity despite a more dramatic story, and Insomniac took this opportunity to flesh out their characters. Jak II on the other hand is barely recognisable from The Precursor Legacy, and ended up as a gritty generic dystopia story that completely wasted any potential it had.

Another thing that bothers me is the humour. The writers couldn't decide when to play things straight and when to crack jokes. Yes, I did get some laughs here and there, mostly from Daxter, but a lot of the jokes came off in poor taste. An example of this can be seen fairly late into the game, when Jak and Daxter fight alongside one of the resistance members, and at one point he is standing on an unstable surface just after they had outrun a monster, giving a big speech about the future. You can guess what happens. As it turned out, the character concerned didn't actually die, but it still felt pretty insensitive to make his supposed death the punchline to a joke. Comedy and drama need to be carefully balanced, and the writers need to know what can be joked about, and what needs to be taken seriously.

Overall, looking at what they did with the story, I fail to understand the reason for the sequel's radical change. If they weren't going to utilise the potential for storytelling and character development, then why shift the tone in the first place? They could have just as easily made another game in the style of the first, maybe added a little more story and some new gameplay, and they wouldn't have had to worry about writing drama. Instead, Naughty Dog took a fun, light-hearted premise and turned it into a bland, confusing, mediocre tale that had no idea what it was trying to accomplish. It was trying to be both dramatic and silly, and both simple and complex, and the result was a mess. There is really no excuse for such messy writing, since Insomniac have proven that cartoony platformers can tell a compelling story. And yes, I know that A Crack in Time came out six years after Jak II, but I'm pretty sure the basic principles of storytelling existed back in 2003. It's a shame too, because the story had a lot of potential.

Gameplay

Jak II as a game is pretty different from its' predecessor. The Precursor Legacy was a free-roaming platformer that basically allowed you to go wherever you wanted, as long as you collected enough power cells. Jak II is more of a mission-based sandbox game. You spend most of the game running errands for various people in the resistance, and the missions are pretty varied. Some involve going outside Haven City to explore other areas in a typical platforming style, some take place in the city itself, such as escort missions, or collecting or destroying items in a time limit, and some require you take part in races. It's pretty enjoyable, but I preferred the sense of journey in The Precursor Legacy. In Jak II you were always going to end up back in Haven City. Neither game had a strong story to drive it, but Jak II suffers more because there is less to explore, and I didn't really care too much about the missions from a story point of view.

I also really didn't like how much driving you have to do. In the style of Grand Theft Auto, you can steal zoomers (basically cars/motorbikes) and drive to your next destination. These parts of the game are boring and tedious, since it takes ages to get anywhere, and they add nothing to the gaming experience. Catching the attention of the Krimson Guard is pretty inconvenient, but nothing beyond that, and you're not penalised for endangering bystanders, you just pick a zoomer, follow the map and as long as you don't hit a member of the Krimson Guard you're all good. On several occasions I found myself thinking; "They're building up Jak as a hero, but to be honest, with me in control he's more of a public menace!"

This game also introduces gunplay into the franchise; over the course of the game you acquire four different guns. The Scatter Gun has a short range but is good for taking out multiple enemies, the Blaster has a good range and is pretty effective when used skilfully, the Vulcan Cannon (my personal favourite) has a very good range, is pretty powerful and has a rapid rate of fire, and the Peacemaker is the most powerful gun, but has the least ammo. Unfortunately, the game suffers from the same problem that the first Ratchet & Clank game did; you cannot strafe. This makes it very difficult to aim the gun while avoiding enemy attacks. Then there's the issue with ammo; you're entirely reliant on what enemies drop, making it difficult to replenish your stock. In some cases this keeps the balance, since having ready access to Vulcan ammo would probably make things too easy, but if the game gives your four guns, it seems stupid to only offer one type of ammo for the final boss. This ruined any sense of progression that the gunplay system had, since you were entirely reliant on one gun at the end. Overall, it was a decent idea, but was not amazingly executed, and added to the game's generic feel. I really wish they had done more with the Eco system from the first game, especially since they made a point of Jak's talent for channelling Eco. Using different types of Eco to get different power-ups was a really good concept, and I'm annoyed that they abandoned it in favour of guns.

Speaking of Eco, it's time to talk about the Dark Jak form, activated when Jak has collected enough Dark Eco. This is an interesting idea, but I hardly ever found myself using it. For one thing, you lose access to your guns when you transform, so you're entirely reliant on close-combat fighting. This leaves you exposed to enemies who fight long-range, so was often more trouble than it was worth. It also didn't help that Jak takes a few seconds to change back when the transformation wears off, and this again puts you at a disadvantage as you lose control of the character for a bit. From a gameplay point of view, the Dark Jak form is pretty useless until you get the upgrade that makes you invincible, but this doesn’t happen until very late in. It might have worked if the game relied on close-combat, but since most of the enemies have guns, it hinders the player rather than helps them.

I realise that my next complaint partly comes down to my own ability as a gamer, but it really affected my enjoyment of the game. To put it bluntly, this game is friggin' hard! With the exception of the gun issue, it wasn't a case of fake difficulty, but the game was extremely unforgiving. One thing that hindered my enjoyment of the first game (and caused a Rage Quit that lasted almost a year!) was the lack of checkpoints. Sadly, this game is even worse than the first. The thing about platforming, at least for me, is that it is a trial and error process. After going through the first bit of the level without too much trouble, I am going to fall to my death seeing if I can make that unusually large jump. I'll then die a few more times as I try to find out if there is anything I can land on. It might take a while to realise that I'm supposed to shoot the window and then get out the Jet Board to grind along the now available ledge to the other side, and then I'm likely to fall a few times until I get the hang of landing on the rail, and getting the jump right, since the jet board is a little too sensitive to the controls. The problem is, every one of these deaths would take me back to the beginning of the level, so it got really tedious going through all that again to get back to where I was. There were several points where I had follow a walkthrough to eliminate my chances of dying, because I didn't dare try something stupid and lose everything I had done. This is not fun, it's frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a challenge, but when the game punishes you because you haven't got the hang of that one jump, the challenge stops being rewarding, and the game just becomes tedious. Sure, if I played it again I'd probably be a lot better, but I've played most of the levels so many times that I don't see the point.

On that topic, I can't see any replay value, or any reason to continue my current playthrough. After the credits rolled, the game plonked me back in Haven City with no new missions to complete. I'm guessing the only thing left to do now is find all the precursor orbs, but I really can't be bothered. When I finished The Precursor Legacy I actually made an effort to try and get some more power cells before I moved on to this game. I didn't get to 100, but I can still see myself trying at some point. Jak II has given me no reason to go back to it, which makes me wonder why they put me back in the game rather than giving me a 'The End' screen like a Final Fantasy game would.

Gameplay overall was a mixed bag. On the one hand, at some points I got really into the game and had a lot of fun. But my frustrations at the difficulty started to overtake my enjoyment towards the end. The game had some good ideas, but nothing that felt particularly special. The controls were decent, with only a few issues with camera angles and the inability to strafe. I found myself referring to walkthroughs more often than I like, and most of the time it wasn't even because I was stuck, but because I didn't want to get stressed out. For me, Jak II had some good moments, but was difficult for the wrong reasons, and this stopped me from really getting into the game.

Graphics

In terms of quality, the graphics are very good, and are an improvement over those of The Precursor Legacy. This is to be expected, as Naughty Dog would have been used to working with the PS2 at this point. In terms of visuals, I'm less impressed. I didn't like the look of Haven City; it was just dull and grey, and felt like a generic city. Compare it to Midgar in Final Fantasy VII, where even the slums are distinctive and colourful (and that was on the PSOne). My favourite areas were the ones outside the city that mirrored the first game. I preferred the look of The Precursor Legacy; it had a lot more variety and was a lot more colourful, but I appreciate the general improvement in quality in Jak II.

Characters

The more I think about Jak, Daxter, Keira, and Samos the more I began to think that Naughty Dog rely heavily on three basic character types; The hero, the tech-savvy girl and the mentor. Jak, Keria and Samos basically fulfil the same roles as Crash, Coco and Aku Aku from Crash Bandicoot. If they prove me wrong when I eventually play Uncharted then I will retract that statement, but so far it stands. There are slight differences; Jak is fairly down-to-earth, Keria is the love interest rather than the sister and Samos is sillier and grouchier than his predecessor. They're still the same archetypes though. Daxter is the only particularly original character of the main four, and I feel he has the most personality, so I'm pretty annoyed that Naughty Dog didn't deem him title worthy this time around.

Jak's change cannot be described as character development, it's more of a 'badass makeover'. Character development is something that should feel natural, and Jak's change from a mute hero to a gritty badass took place during a time skip, making the end result extremely jarring. I'm perfectly fine with Naughty Dog giving Jak a voice; if they were going to do it, this was the best time. Jak still doesn’t get very good development during the game; he's pretty uncaring towards the resistance and kinda a jerk. He comes around towards the end, but it comes out of nowhere and isn't very believable. Like I said earlier, what was the point in drastically changing his character if they weren't going to do anything with him?

Daxter retains his identity from the first game, and he is probably my favourite character. Sure, he's a little annoying, obnoxious and a bit of a coward, but he just has more personality and is more fun to watch. He's also a pretty loyal friend, sticking by Jak through all the dangerous missions he embarks on. In the first game, Naughty Dog took the easy way out in terms of Jak and Daxter's relationship. Making them long-time friends saves time on the writing side, and it was clear from the first game that they wanted to concentrate more on gameplay than they did on story, which is fine. The two had a pretty basic dynamic; Jak was the silent 'straight man' and Daxter was the wisecracking sidekick who did all the talking. Jak's makeover shifted their dynamic, as he became more assertive, and this reduced Daxter's role quite a bit. In fact, after saying that Jak became a generic character, having Daxter as a companion is the only thing that really sets him apart from other gritty heroes. I liked their subtle interactions during cutscenes, but I still feel that they wasted a lot of potential. They didn't need a whole load of drama, they just needed to show that the two care about each other. For example, there is a part in the game where they get separated, and Jak goes through an entire mission on his own before he and Daxter reunite. And Jak just says "Where have you been?". Just something as simple as "You okay Dax?" would have had so much more impact.

The Dark Jak form was another wasted opportunity to explore Jak's character in more depth, and give Daxter a bigger role. Jak has this mysterious power that he can't control, and Daxter could have potentially been the only one who could keep him from losing himself to it. This would have made their relationship a lot more balanced, and been a real test to their friendship. The Dark Jak form barely comes up in the story, making it utterly useless since it was also a useless gameplay mechanic. So as far as the heroes go, Jak and Daxter are decent characters and have a good dynamic, but, as always, if they weren't going to explore this in more depth, why make the changes?

Then we have the supporting cast. This won't take long, because there's not much to talk about. Samos and Keira fulfil the same roles they did last time, and are decent characters, but out of the new characters nobody really stood out to me. The various members of the resistance were just basic archetypes with no real personality. The only characters who stood out to me at all stood out for pretty shallow reasons; Torn is Jak's grizzly-voice competitor who I mentioned in my Morning Muse, and Sig has the same voice as Green Lantern/John Stewart from the Justice League cartoon. The lack of personality from the supporting cast made it all the more difficult to get attached to the new world. We are supposed to care about their cause, and be sympathetic towards their plight, especially since our protagonists need a reason to develop an attachment to this unknown place. I will however say that the voice acting is good; I didn't detect any awkward line deliveries. I know this should be a given, but video games have been notorious for bad voice acting, so I think it's worth pointing out when it is done well.

So overall, some good ideas, but a lot of wasted potential. None of the characters were particularly distinctive, and were pretty interchangeable in terms of their roles. It's a shame, because they didn't need to be well-developed characters, they just needed to stand out a little more. Daxter was the only character who was particularly memorable, and to be honest, he seemed a little out-of-place in this game. There was a lot they could have done, but they just didn't, and I think the game really suffers for it.

Soundtrack

To be honest, I barely remember any of this game's soundtrack. None of it was bad; it sounded fine and nothing grated on my nerves. I tend to prefer forgettable music to irritatingly repetitive music, so I don't really have anything to complain about here. The music does its job, but remains in the background.

Overall Thoughts

Pros

Good platforming

Levels are quite varied

Controls are good

Ideal length for a platformer (I clocked 24 hours)

Cons

Frustratingly difficult

Lack of checkpoints

Travelling between locations is boring

Problematic controls for weapons

Wasted story potential

Generic characters

No obvious replay value

I didn't hate Jak II, in fact I got really into it for a while. It's just that the bad outweighed the good, and when the game got more difficult, I found myself less motivated to play it. I think gamers do one of two things when a game gets frustrating; refuse to let it beat them and persist until they get past the challenge, or decide that it's not worth it and quit. I'm generally the latter. The problem is, this meant that I ended up only playing Jak II in short bursts, and this stopped me from getting really drawn in. It comes down to the game doing too many things wrong; I would have excused a weak story if the game itself was fun to play, and I would have excused some problematic gameplay if the story was compelling. For a while I was the former, but by the end I was only still playing because I thought I might as well finish it.

I can't really say that this game is worth getting. If you're looking for a platformer with some good variety, you're up for a challenge and you can find this game cheap, then you may as well pick it up. If you liked The Precursor Legacy, then this game is pretty different so you will have to decide for yourself if you like the new direction. If you just want a really good platformer then I would recommend The Precursor Legacy or Crash Bandicoot 3. If you want creative weaponry then play one of the Ratchet & Clank games. If you want a game with a really good dystopia/resistance storyline then play Final Fantasy VII. If you want a cartoony platformer with an engaging story then play Ratchet & Clank (Future): A Crack in Time.

I don't see why people love Jak II so much. It's not deep, it's not involving, it's just a generic game, and just about every aspect of it has been done better somewhere else. I suppose if you had only ever played cartoony platformers like Sonic, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro then this game would have been revolutionary. The problem is, Naughty Dog seemed to have no idea what to do with this new direction, and the end result was extremely jarring.

Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, maybe because I already own it, but I do plan to play Jak 3 at some point. I know it's going to mirror Jak II in terms of style, but I'm willing to give it a try, and see if it improves on any of the second game's issues. What I can say, however, is that if the sequel irritates me, I probably won't be inclined to finish it. I also plan to play Uncharted at some point, since it is supposed to be really good, but given what I was told about Jak II, I will have my reservations. I know Naughty Dog can make good games; I've played them, so I'm still willing to see what they have to offer, and won't let one mediocre game completely ruin my opinion of them.

This is definitely the longest blog post I have written so far, so I hope it was an interesting read. So, does anyone else agree with me about this game? If you loved it, what about it did you love, and why would you recommend it over some of the other titles I have mentioned? (I'm not trying to be condescending, I genuinely want to hear what people have to say on the matter). Feel free to leave a comment, or better yet, write a response.

The Novel Writing Process: Part 1 - From Concept to First Draft

Some people who know might know that I enjoy creative writing, and have actually managed to complete the first draft of a novel (five years after I came up with the idea, but still). Sure it's a complete mess and needs a lot of work before it can even be considered a coherent story, but it's still an accomplishment, and I learned a lot from the experience. I personally feel that if someone has an idea that they think could be turned into a story, that they should go for it. Many people are put off by the writing process, or find they start and then get stuck. I think this is a real shame, since there must be thousands of potential stories out there that never get told. I really want to encourage people to give writing a go, so have decided to write a series of blog posts in which I share my experiences in novel writing. This first part will go through the basics; how to put together and plan a story, how to start putting your ideas into prose, and how to see your creation through to a conclusion.

First of all, a little disclaimer in case you hadn't already figured it out: I am an amateur writer at best. I have never had anything published, so these blog posts will not teach you how to write a best-seller. There are probably far better writers out there who have given advice, so it's down to your own judgement to decide whose advice best fits your style of writing. The purpose of these blog posts is to encourage people to give novel writing a go. It really is an amazing experience, and I think people can learn a lot from the process. I'm not trying to act pretentious or superior, so if I come across that way, I'm sorry. With all that out of the way, let's begin.

The first thing you need is some form of starting point; a premise, a character, a scene, a conversation, something that can be built upon to create a full story. Sometimes these will just come to you, but other times you will have to search for them. J.K Rowling came up with the character of Harry Potter while she was at a train station, and the idea gradually grew into the seven part series. I've come up with various plot ideas while working on the till at my old job. This isn't always the case though, sometimes you will need to look for an idea. They don't always come from nowhere, so you might want to start by thinking about what sort of story you want to tell: a tragic love story? A crime thriller? A fantasy adventure? Take a look at the stories you enjoy, in any medium, and think on what makes them good, or what you enjoy about them the most. Or, think about things that disappointed you about a story; plot points that could have been expanded, characters with wasted potential, how would you have told the story? How will you tell the story?

So now comes the next step: can your premise be turned into a full-length story? Take your premise, and try to branch ideas from it. Think up possible characters and story events, get an idea of its direction, its themes, its tone, its narrative style and your potential audience. I tend to list everything on a word document, but you might prefer pencil and paper, or a spider diagram. When you've got down these ideas, try your hand at writing a synopsis. Describe the rough events for the beginning, middle and end, trying to link up all your ideas. This is where things will get difficult. You may find gaps in the story that need to be filled, or certain story events that just don't fit. Some plots will have to be dropped, and some events will have to be added. It's best to try to fill as many of these gaps as you can, or you will find yourself stuck later down the line. The synopsis is not necessarily set in stone; it should serve as a guideline to keep you on track, and prevent you from running dry halfway through. If you find that you cannot come up with enough material, you might be better off turning your premise into a short story; it's probably better to tell a short story well than a novel badly. Hopefully this won't be the case, but you want to know now rather than later.

So now you have your synopsis, it's time begin. I have found getting started was the hardest part (why do you think it took me so long to put something on this blog?), but others have disagreed with me. If you are like me, the best advice I can offer is not to worry about it being any good. Just get the events down and try to establish your characters. Remember that this is a first draft, and not the finished piece. Your style will improve over time as you get into the story, and you start to figure out exactly how you are going to write these characters, and what sort of narrative voice you want. The next thing to remember is quantity over quality; the first draft is about getting everything established so you have material to work with for your second draft. You should also avoid editing as you go; there is no point writing and re-writing your opening chapter if you never carry on with the rest of the story. If you think of changes that need making, it's best to make a note of them separately, and go through them at the end when you are planning your second draft.

If you have never tried writing a story, you will probably think I am crazy for this next bit. I can promise you, however, that this is true. Stories have a mind of their own, and can often go in directions that you never imagined. There is a chance you will surprise yourself with what you write. It could be something like a character reacting differently to a situation than you had down in your synopsis, or someone who was supposed to be a one-shot character getting a much bigger role. To give an example, the writers of Friends have stated that they didn't originally plan for Ross and Rachel to get together. The main couple of the series was going to be Monica and Joey. As they wrote the story, it turned out that the Ross/Rachel pairing just worked a lot better. I find it difficult to imagine what the show would be like if they had gone with their original idea. If you find that this happens to you, and you think it improves the story, don't be afraid to run with it. You might need to revisit your synopsis to make sure everything fits together, and edit future events if they don't. Be careful about how you do this though. You could end up with a complete mess if you don't put a lot of thought into the changes. The best thing to do is remember what inspired you in the first place. What sort of story did you want to tell, and what sort of story are you telling now? Which is better? Just make sure you think things through, and try to find a balance between what you want to do and what the story wants to do.

If you persevere, you will eventually find that your story is drawing to a close. The ending is really important, and you should try to put some effort into it and try not to rush it to get to the next draft. It's a funny feeling to finish a novel, to close the final chapter and step away from your creation. I think it's important to wait a bit before writing the second draft, you will want to look over the first draft with a clear head, and decide what needs to be improved. It will most likely be quite messy, so now you want to tidy everything up. Make a note of all the changes you want to make, rewrite your synopsis to reflect this, and try to make everything a lot more solid this time around. But again, remember your roots. Don't try to change too much, or you will lose sight of what you originally set out to do.

You can get a lot out of writing a novel; it can teach you a lot about yourself, and really change the way you think about stories. It can also be a cathartic process. By following your creations through their trials, you experience them too, and watch them grow from each experience that you write them into. My intention with this blog post was to encourage people with an idea to give it a try, and not to be put off by the writing process. I really hope that somebody who reads this is able to find the drive to tell a story, and gets a great experience from it. I do wonder how other people approach the planning and drafting process, so if you have a way that varies drastically from the advice I have given here, leave a comment or a response.

Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time Review

As I said when I first started this blog, I wanted to alternate between my various interests. As such, for my second post, I've decided to write a review of a game I recently completed. This game is from one of my favourite franchises; Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time. Before anyone comments, I know that this game had been out for well over a year, but I only just bought a PS3, so I'm going to be behind the times.

To start off, here is a brief synopsis for anyone who is unfamiliar with the series (if you are familiar, you can skip this paragraph). Ratchet & Clank follows the adventures of a Lombax (a cat-like creature) named Ratchet and his robot buddy Clank, as they thwart the schemes of each new villain who crosses their path. The platforming series is famous for its wide variety of creative weapons and gadgets, and its fun but engaging storylines. The series ran for four games on the PS2 (and two on the PSP) before making the jump to the PS3. With its new games, Insomniac decided to tell a longer running story under the Ratchet & Clank Future title (although the 'Future' part was dropped for the European release). The story began with Tools of Destruction, continued in the downloadable mini-game Quest for Booty and comes to its conclusion in A Crack in Time.

I'll try to keep this review relatively spoiler free, but since this is a game review, I need to talk about the gameplay, and this will require me to give away certain plot elements. I also cannot talk about this game without giving away the ending of Tools of Destruction and Quest for Booty. I don't think I've said anything that could be considered a major spoiler, but read at your own risk.

Story

A Crack in Time picks up where Quest for Booty left off. After finally discovering Clank's location after his abduction at the end of Tools of Destruction, Ratchet heads off in search of his missing friend. Meanwhile, Clank finally comes to and finds himself in The Great Clock; a complex designed to maintain the balance of time throughout the universe. Assisted by Junior Caretaker Sigmund, Clank begins to learn more about the clock and how he is connected to it. While Clank explores the Great Clock, Ratchet finds an ally in Alister Azimuth, a rebel with ties to the Lombax's past. Together they search for Clank and The Great Clock. Ratchet and Clank both learn that their old enemy Dr Nefarious plans to use the clock for his own evil deeds, and must each work to protect it and put a stop to Nefarious once and for all.

The PS3 RaC games place a lot more emphasis on the story than their PS2 counterparts, and are a little darker and more dramatic. Ironically, the 'Future Saga' concentrates more on the past, exploring the origins of our two heroes. I would say that while Tools of Destruction focussed primarily on Ratchet's past, A Crack in Time is very much Clank's story. The obstacles that the two have to face make for some really good character development, the story is well-paced for the most part, and unlike other games I've played, opportunities for drama are never wasted.

I will admit that some of the plot points are a little hard to swallow. Insomniac have had to do some retconning to incorporate the origin stories. I think everything fits rather well, but you can tell it wasn't planned from the beginning. Funnily enough, my biggest problem is Clank's real name. In the first game he tells Ratchet that his serial number is B54296... (Ratchet cuts him off and says he'll call him Clank for short) but according to Orvus, Clank's original name was XJ0461. If Orvus actually chose that name, he's got a pretty cruel sense of humour! It just seems like a silly thing to miss, since they could have checked that detail with a simple YouTube search. The other thing that bugged me a little was that some plot points introduced in Tools still weren't resolved. Since it was possible that A Crack in Time would be the last game, it seemed wrong to leave these plot threads open.

Overall, the story succeeded in being a little more serious, while at the same time maintaining the silly and comedic aspects that the franchise is known for. I liked the alternating storylines, although it did make the game less 'Ratchet & Clank' and more 'Ratchet & Azimuth, Clank & Sigmund'. The separation for the majority of the storyline does however, make the later scenes all the more moving.

Gameplay

A Crack in Time is structured a bit differently to previous games. Normally you play as Ratchet for most of the game, using a combination of weapons, gadgets and platforming, with a few Clank levels here and there, which are generally more puzzle-based. Since A Crack in Time alternates between our two protagonists, there is much more Clank gameplay this time around.

Ratchet's levels are the classic 'shoot stuff, smash boxes and use gadgets to get places' style that the series is known for, and it works just as well as ever. I was a little disappointed with the weapons selection; it didn't really feel like there was anything brand new. There were some good ideas here and there; I liked the customisable weapons and the fan-created Spiral of Death, but for the most part the weapons were recycled from Tools, or twists on previous weapons. It's a shame to think that Insomniac are running dry, since the series has always been famous for it's creative arsenal. I did like having the gadgets assigned to the D-Pad rather than the Quick Select; it made things a lot easier. The first of the new gadgets are the Hoverboots, which are basically a combination of the Charge Boots and the Heli-Pack. Very useful for getting around places quickly, compensating for Clank's absence, and the hoverboot courses were a lot of fun. I do wish that they had included hoverboot races, since it's been a while since they did racing sidequests. The next gadget was the Omnisoaker. While I originally assumed it was just the Hydrodisplacer from the first game, I was impressed by how versatile a gadget it was. It's used to collect water which can be used to cool hot surfaces or fatten up plants so you can jump on them (it makes sense, I swear!), to collect nectar to distract certain enemies, and to collect oil to grease rusted bolt cranks. I wish there had been more gadgets, but at least what was there was good.

I should also mention the spaceship sections. In previous games, the journey between planets has been used as the loading screen. The loading screens now show 'Galactic Trivia', which gives little humorous facts about certain locations or characters in the game. You are now in control of Aphelion, and can move between planets, visit various moons to collect treasure, and help out people for extra bolts. You can also upgrade the ship by collecting Zoni, which is necessary to get to some locations. This is a nice touch, but I think the time spent making these sidequests could have been spent making a main levels a bit longer. My favourite aspect of the space levels has to be the radio stations, especially the adverts (I would totally watch UniCop!).

One of the best things about this game is the Clank levels. As I said before, Clank gameplay has always been puzzle or strategy based, and it was nice to see more of this. The first thing I'll mention is the Heli-Pack. Normally, Clank barely uses it, which always bugged me. You would think that he could stay airborne a lot longer when he's not supporting Ratchet's weight. A Crack in Time finally addressed this, allowing Clank to perform up to three 'boosts' in the air, covering a lot more ground than before. The next new item in Clank's arsenal is the Chronoscepter: A staff that allows the little robot to manipulate time. You can throw time bombs that slow down time in the particular area they land; very useful for some platforming parts. The Chronoscepter can also be used for smashing things and fighting monsters, much like Ratchet's wrench, but can also be used to fix things – so now violence really does solve all your problems! The strongest part of the Clank levels has got to be the Time Recording puzzles. It's a little difficult to explain exactly how this works, but basically, Clank can record his actions on up to four Time Pads in order to press the right switches to open a door. There are some extra optional puzzles later on that reward you with Gold Bolts.

The game generally has a good balance between typical Ratchet gameplay and the Clank levels. My main criticism would be that the game is very linear. I miss the PS2 days when you had more freedom to choose which planet you went to next, and which missions you completed first. While most of the planets have multiple missions, they have to be done in order, and I'd rather it was a bit more free-roaming. The main distractions are the moons and the Agorian Battleplex, where you can compete in tournaments for extra weapons, items and bolts. The other criticism I have is that the game is just too short. I cleared it in about 11 hours, and I just wasn't ready for it to end. I really wish they had included more levels once the pair were reunited – maybe some areas that could only be completed with Time Bombs, or some places that could only be reached if you had both the Hoverboots and the Heli-Pack. They only got a few levels together, and one of them felt tacked on as if the developers decided “Whoops, the game is going to end too quickly. We should probably put in an extra level”. I'm not complaining that they did, because it was a good level. I just wish it wasn't so forced.

Overall, what was there was good. Many of the issues I had with Tools were improved upon control-wise (barely any Sixaxis use in this game!), and it was a lot of fun to play through, but pretty much every aspect of the gameplay needed to be drawn out more. It feels like Insomniac were rushing to get the game out on time. This was especially evident after viewing the Insomniac Museum (unlockable after you complete the game); most of the rejected concepts were cut for time rather than gameplay issues. I wonder if it would have been better if the time spent making Quest for Booty was dedicated to A Crack in Time's development. I like to think that they will learn from this, and allow enough time in the future to put out something really good.

Graphics

Several reviewers have said that the PS3 RaC games make you feel like you are playing a Pixar film. I would have to say I agree. The games have always had amazing visuals, and since making the jump to the PS3 they look even better. I don't really know what else to say, I have no complaints.

Characters

The franchise has always been known for its colourful cast of characters, so I feel it's only right to talk about them a bit. Let's start with our protagonists; Ratchet and Clank both go through a lot of development in this game. Throughout the series, Ratchet has changed the most, going from an uncaring jerk to a brave hero and a loyal friend. Clank has gone through less development, being your typical 'do-gooder', but this game is the first time his way of thinking has been challenged. The events of this game really put their friendship to the test, and the tough decisions they make show just how much they have grown.

Stepping away from deep characters, Captain Qwark is as hilarious and goofy as ever, existing, as always, for comic relief. Dr Nefarious was also a joy to watch; just as crazy and hammy as he was in Up Your Arsenal. I absolutely loved every scene he was in, whether he was taunting our protagonists, rehearsing his epic play “Night of the Living Squishes”, or phoning a radio station to complain about the ending of his favourite soap opera. And then there's Lawrence, who is awesome (although I have yet to figure out why he's working for Nefarious). I was disappointed that Talwyn didn't make a reappearance, although Cronk and Zephyr's dialogue during the credits was a nice touch.

So now we come to the new characters. Sigmund was a lot of fun, he was silly, and a bit of a suck-up, but very loyal to both Orvus and Clank. Then we have Orvus; the creator of The Great Clock and Clank's 'father'. He is also a very fun and memorable character, even if we don't technically see that much of him. The hired assassin Vorselon serves as another over-the-top villain, with a personality that has just the right balance between menacing and comical. I really wish he's had a little more screentime; the levels involving him seemed rather short. The Valkyries for the most part were pretty forgettable, although I liked the dialogue between Cassiopeia and Nefarious in the Valkyrie Citadel. I wouldn't normally be as bothered by their lack of screentime, but since they re-used Nefarious for their main villain, I feel they really needed to show off their new villains. Previous side-villians such as Thugs 4 Less, Courtney Gears and Captain Slag really stood out, so it's a shame that Vorselon and the Valkyries weren't in the game more. The new character with the most development is definitely Azimuth. His backstory and motivations are interesting, and it's a change to see a competent character serve as a mentor figure for Ratchet.

So overall, an extremely varied cast of characters, from the silly and fun, to the endearing, to the maniacal, Insomniac continue to make us care for this world and the colourful creatures that inhabit it. The voices are also spot on and the dialogue well delivered. Some of the characters were underutilised, which I think also boils down to rushed development.

Soundtrack

I should mention that this game brings in a new composer; Boris Salchow. His score is more orchestral than the previous soundtracks, and sounds pretty good. I have always liked the music in the RaC games, but have never found anything to be particularly memorable. The same can be said for this score. It fits with the game, there are some nice tunes here and there and nothing is particularly repetitive or ear-grating. I never really ask for much more.

Overall Thoughts

Pros

Good traditional Ratchet gameplay

Strong Clank gameplay

Well-designed gadgets

Controls are improved over Tools of Destruction

Strong focused story

Excellent character development

Cons

Too short

Very linear

Weapons are mostly recycled

Many gameplay aspects are underdeveloped

Side villains needed more screen time

Several plot point are left unresolved

Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time is a good game, and I had a lot of fun playing it. It's certainly not the best in the series; that honour still goes to Up Your Arsenal, but it's still a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Pretty much every complaint I have comes down to it needing a longer development time. What is there is good, it just needed more of it. If you've liked the series up until now, I would recommend picking it up. If you didn't like the direction that Tools took, chances are this game isn't for you. If you haven't played a Ratchet & Clank game before, I would recommend either playing them in order, or at least playing Tools of Destruction first. I was personally very pleased with it, and think it served as a good conclusion to the Future story.

Thoughts for the Future

With the 'Future Saga' over, I wonder what the future holds for the series (no pun intended). The next game in the franchise is Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, a 4 player co-op game. I have a soft spot for Ratchet: Gladiator/Deadlocked's co-op mode, since it was the first game I played in the series, so I'm really looking forward to this title. From what I've seen, it seems to be taking a step back from the dramatic storylines of the Future games. I think it's a good thing for the series to take a break from the drama for a bit, so I hope my assumption is right. If I get an enjoyable co-op experience from this game, I'll be happy.

I liked the Future games, and would like to see more RaC games in years to come. I am a little concerned for the franchise, however. They are no longer at their peak, and I'm worried that if the series continues, the games will focus too much on dramatic storylines and forget that they are supposed to be fun, creative platformers. I would hate to see the series end, but I'd rather it finished on a high note than get dragged out to a point where I hate it. Part of me thinks they should do one last game after All 4 One; a game to wrap up all the unresolved plot points, bring in the best aspects of all the games that came before it, tell an epic story that leaves the player with a smile on their face, and give the series a really good send-off. We don't know what, if anything, Insomniac have planned after All 4 One. If they choose not to make more games, I will respect that decision. If they decide to tell one final story, I will be happy provided it is well-excecuted. If they carry on making new games, I will continue to play them unless I stop enjoying them. Not much more to say, except that Ratchet & Clank is awesome, and I hope it stays that way.

I realise that I've been a bit analytical in this review. Maybe I'm looking too deeply, but I do believe that video games can be a legitimate medium for storytelling (a blog post for another day). If something gives me material to work with, I will utilise it. So what are your thoughts? Do you whole-heartedly disagree with anything I've said? What sort of experience did you get from this game? What are your thoughts on the Future games and the future of the series? If you're not a gamer, has anything I've said made you think anything other than “what a geek!”? Feel free to post a comment, or write a response.