Good Old Reviews: Wing Commander 3 & 4

[loa]

If you think Wing commanders fmv was bad, I can't wait to see what you have to say to lands of lore 2.
The horrid script, the laughable costumes, the acting, it is gloriously horrible.
It even includes eye ravaging early attempts at 3d and 80% of it plays in a jungle where pixelated bitmaps of greenery cover the entire screen.

1 and 3 are decent games in their own regard though, if you know what to expect.

 

[tehroc]

I am sure Andy would not approve of the Tex Murphy games let alone the new one that is coming out soon.

http://www.texmurphy.com/

That looked so gloriously awful that I need to play it.

 

[spiketail]

Ok. First, a question. Why didn't StewShearer review the WC3-4 bundle? He's the one who's been doing the other Wing Commander reviews. It would have been nice to have the same person cover the full series, for consistency reasons.

Exactly my thoughts! After I read the opinion piece, had to look up the byline. Aaaaaand suddenly it all made sense. That's why there was a 180 degree shift of perspective. So, if anyone else made it into the forum comments, forgive Mr. Chalk and wait for Mr. Shearer.

 

[r_Chance]

WC 3 and 4 were fairly good games imo. The FMV didn't really do it for me, but it didn't ruin them either. My favorite of the series was Privateer by far. My favorite game of the genre involved blowing X-Wings to fragments though

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Though clearly in the minority, I *miss* the time when developers could choose to integrate FMV without immediate condemnation from the masses. Of course there were many terrible examples, as with anything, but to this date some of my most immersive, exciting and memorable gaming experiences came from very good actors being able to add elements of subtle storytelling into the narrative. The 7th Guest, GK: The Beast Within, Myst 3 - and of course, Wing Commander 3 & 4 - all excellent examples, in my humble opinion.

Heck, I miss the days when it wasn't a faux pas to have cutscenes, period. Because at least in first person shooters these days, all cutscenes apparently have to be done the way Half Life did them, without ever breaking the first person camera angle or taking control away from the player. Bonus points if your "character" is a boring player insert type who never says a word. If you break from this mold, you're not using the "full potential of the medium," whatever that means. Which is funny, because sticking to one camera type for the whole thing is actually ignoring quite a bit of the possibilities of a medium where everything is rendered on the fly and can be seen from literally any angle you want to show it from.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Ok. First, a question. Why didn't StewShearer review the WC3-4 bundle? He's the one who's been doing the other Wing Commander reviews. It would have been nice to have the same person cover the full series, for consistency reasons.

Exactly my thoughts! After I read the opinion piece, had to look up the byline. Aaaaaand suddenly it all made sense. That's why there was a 180 degree shift of perspective. So, if anyone else made it into the forum comments, forgive Mr. Chalk and wait for Mr. Shearer.

That explains a lot. I did think it was weird I had never noticed that Andy Chalk, who has been working here /forever/ and I could have sworn was an editor, not just one of the newsroom contributors as his forum title says, was doing these reviews before, and I guess that's why. That solves the problem I had with the quality thing -- his frame of reference wasn't the same as the guy who had done the other reviews. I can understand thinking the sounds and graphics are bad if you're more used to modern games. Coming off the first two, though, it's a pretty major step up in that area.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't think "frame of reference" enters into it. I'm not even sure what the implication is; that I lack history or experience? Or do I just happen to not fall into the camp of people who remember these games with great and abiding fondness?

My inclination is to think that varying perspectives are exactly what you want from reviews, whether for the latest and greatest releases or "look-backs" like this one. Wing Commander fans telling Wing Commander fans that Wing Commander is awesome is great for Wing Commander fans, but it doesn't necessarily do much good for anyone else. I agree with Stew's assessment that the first two games are great despite some flaws (and I don't necessarily think that things like wingman perma-death are flaws at all) but the third and fourth part don't even come close unless you're determinedly attached to nostalgia for the franchise as a whole.



I mean, come on.

 

[StewShearerOld]

Ok. First, a question. Why didn't StewShearer review the WC3-4 bundle? He's the one who's been doing the other Wing Commander reviews. It would have been nice to have the same person cover the full series, for consistency reasons.

While I would have loved to have done all the Wing Commander reviews personally, it just wasn't feasible for me to play that many of them in such a short period of time while also keeping up with my regular news work at the Escapist and WarCry. That being the case, GOG's release of two Wing Commander titles this month provided a natural opportunity to focus in on the series and Andy was kind enough to help me with that. Going forward you can expect a wider variety of contributors to also be taking part in Good Old Reviews, for much the same reasons. Next month, for instance, we're doing classic PC RPGs. Lord knows there was no way in heck I was going to be able to play four of those beasts in one month.

Now concerning Wing Commander 3/4. I like them to a degree, but not nearly as much as the first two games. You can pass some of that off as nostalgia, yes, but it also has to do with a lot of little elements that just didn't work as well for me. I hated the color pallet of 3/4 for instance. The fighters, ships and environments in 1/2 were very vibrant and attractive, imo. 3/4 embrace a much more drab visual look that, while perhaps more realistic, isn't as appealing to me.

The combat too, just doesn't work as well for me. Honestly, I'll admit to being at a loss for why. People have pointed out tangible ways that 3/4 improved on some of the mechanics of the first two games. That said, I never found myself enjoying the combat in 3/4 quite as much as I do in the originals. Maybe the first two games are genuinely superior in some ways, or maybe it's just a weird personal thing on my part. Who knows?

In terms of the story... it depends. I never found 3 all that fantastic. I don't dislike it as strongly as Andy, but it always left me feeling very much underwhelmed. 4 was much better than 3, but still didn't live up to my expectations. Granted, that could also be a side effect of my watching <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUP-VwqeIs>this fairly awesome trailer about a bajillion times before I ever actually played the game. That said, I do think the focus on live action FMVs kind of hurt the games to a degree. There were cinematic sequences in 1/2 but they were much simpler and, as Andy said, didn't suffer from much of the B-level acting present in 3/4. Don't get me wrong, there were actors and performances I loved. Malcolm McDowell is freaking awesome in these two games while Mark Hamill is, in my opinion, a good lead. Many of the other actors are just kind of okay however, with several leaning more toward the crap side of the acting scale.

The best way I can put it is this: Wing Commander 1/2 are simpler stories but they're well told and never made me cringe whereas 3/4 occasionally did. This isn't a condemnation by any means. I enjoy both of these games and appreciated how much further they took concepts like branching storylines, but they've just never done it for the same as 1/2. In turn, I can't blame Andy for hating some elements that others might be more willing to forgive.

 

[wulf3n]

My inclination is to think that varying perspectives are exactly what you want from reviews, whether for the latest and greatest releases or "look-backs" like this one.

I wonder what the purpose of these reviews are in the first place, who is the target audience? Someone who hasn't played WC3 or WC4 isn't going to get much out of this other than "Old games have bad graphics etc" and those who have played them are going to be looking at it through rose tinted glasses.

Note, I haven't read the other Good old game reviews so they might be different.

 

[Andy Chalk]

[I wonder what the purpose of these reviews are in the first place, who is the target audience?

They serve two purposes: They let old-time fans know that the games are now available on GOG, and they inform newcomers about what lies ahead. I look at them as different than conventional reviews (and Stew may have a different take on this) in that these games were already reviewed when they were new, and what I'm looking at is more about how they fare today. Not just "old so bad graphics" because that may or may not be relevant, but how the game as a whole stands up. My last (also first) Good Old Review, of King of Dragon Pass (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass]), actually praises the visuals because even though they're dated, they're very artistic and ideal for the game. Wing Commander 3 and 4, on the other hand, leapt into the FMV craze with both feet and the results, *in my opinion*, are bad.

(And luckily, my opinion is the only one that counts around here.)

 

[Merlark]

[I wonder what the purpose of these reviews are in the first place, who is the target audience?

They serve two purposes: They let old-time fans know that the games are now available on GOG, and they inform newcomers about what lies ahead. I look at them as different than conventional reviews (and Stew may have a different take on this) in that these games were already reviewed when they were new, and what I'm looking at is more about how they fare today. Not just "old so bad graphics" because that may or may not be relevant, but how the game as a whole stands up. My last (also first) Good Old Review, of King of Dragon Pass (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass]), actually praises the visuals because even though they're dated, they're very artistic and ideal for the game. Wing Commander 3 and 4, on the other hand, leapt into the FMV craze with both feet and the results, *in my opinion*, are bad.

(And luckily, my opinion is the only one that counts around here.)

It's not that your opinion of the game is a problem, to each their own. I don't like allot of games myself but there is a difference between not liking a game and then just being ignorant of their technical merit.

Wing commander 3 was the final fantasy 7 of its game, breaking completely away from its original molds.

It was shot in high grade film with green screen effects. the detail was darn good, and while you may or may not think the kilrathi are a bit puppetish they still have a great feel to them in their apperence, less so for hobbes because they stuff him in the terran uniform but the prince looks completely bad @ss.

This was back before mass effect where you didn't really make choices in the dialog that actually impacted the story in any way. With sound taking full adventage of sound blasters new hardware that could be placed on cd-rom.

And my god, the cast, Tim curry was the voice of Melek...you want evil, you got it.

The whole context of the review is silly in my opinion. if your doing it for the new players, that never played it before...that's fine but come on, who goes into a vintage game, from a vintage game site like GoG and wants to talk about the graphics? I think everyone is on this website because they remember or want to experience the classic game play of the 90's and wing commander 3 and 4 was THE space sim and the reason is clear. from customizing load outs to mission branching...its just as fun to lose as it is to win, you know your doing something right.

Wing commander 4 obviously has way more polish then 3 but that's the nature of things. my opinion is the context of the 'review' is just poor. some disagree and some agree, it may be a good thing that FMV is done and buried. but if there was EVER a case where it could be made that it added something to a video game Origin systems wing commander games are exhibit A and B in my opinion. you can see the difference in production value.

Dropping a bomb on Kilrah is like death star trench run awesome. can't ask for a better ending to the Kilrathi sega.

 

[Andy Chalk]

The whole context of the review is silly in my opinion. if your doing it for the new players, that never played it before...that's fine but come on, who goes into a vintage game, from a vintage game site like GoG and wants to talk about the graphics? I think everyone is on this website because they remember or want to experience the classic game play of the 90's and wing commander 3 and 4 was THE space sim and the reason is clear. from customizing load outs to mission branching...its just as fun to lose as it is to win, you know your doing something right.

Wing commander 4 obviously has way more polish then 3 but that's the nature of things. my opinion is the context of the 'review' is just poor. some disagree and some agree, it may be a good thing that FMV is done and buried. but if there was EVER a case where it could be made that it added something to a video game Origin systems wing commander games are exhibit A and B in my opinion. you can see the difference in production value.

Maybe "graphics" is the wrong term for it. Call it "visual presentation" if you like. WC3 and 4 have more technologically advanced graphics but for my money, WC1 and 2 are better-looking games. And sure, WC4 ups the resolution ante over WC3 but the net effect is the same: It's bad writing, bad acting and adds nothing of value to the game. It's like, I dunno, the best episode of Joanie Loves Chachi. (God I'm old.) It's the best but it's still crap.

And not that I enjoy being contrary or anything like that but I'm inclined to think that TIE Fighter, Freespace, possibly X-Wing and even WC1 and 2 rank way ahead of WC3 and 4 as THE space sim of the 90s.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't think "frame of reference" enters into it. I'm not even sure what the implication is; that I lack history or experience? Or do I just happen to not fall into the camp of people who remember these games with great and abiding fondness?

My inclination is to think that varying perspectives are exactly what you want from reviews, whether for the latest and greatest releases or "look-backs" like this one. Wing Commander fans telling Wing Commander fans that Wing Commander is awesome is great for Wing Commander fans, but it doesn't necessarily do much good for anyone else. I agree with Stew's assessment that the first two games are great despite some flaws (and I don't necessarily think that things like wingman perma-death are flaws at all) but the third and fourth part don't even come close unless you're determinedly attached to nostalgia for the franchise as a whole.



I mean, come on.

The frame of reference would be for what was technically feasible at the time. WC3 came out in 1994. For comparison, that's the same year as the original Doom. I have no nostalgia for the third game, when I finally get around to it it'll be for the first time[footnote]In fact, I didn't even get into the Wing Commander series until highschool, over a decade after these games came out. I was vaguely aware of the games as a kid, but it was the Xwing/Tie Fighter series I grew up with[/footnote]. But I mean, even that picture you embedded there, first of all it's not showing the flight engine, but second that's what space sims were like. The X-Wing series was similar, except Lucasarts waited until the very last game to have a story that involved actual characters, instead of just doing kind of a birds eye view of how a mission's success or failure affected the war as a whole. So instead of a named character like Hobbes, you'd be clicking on some random officer.

I guess my point overall is, don't criticize the technical side unless you have a solid grasp of what's going on there. Criticism of the gameplay, fine. Even criticism of the whole FMV thing, I can understand that. But saying the graphics and sound are weak is way off. It was a technical marvel, and while you can argue that side of it may not have aged well, I can guarantee you it's aged better than pretty much any of its contemporaries.

 

[wulf3n]

[I wonder what the purpose of these reviews are in the first place, who is the target audience?

They serve two purposes: They let old-time fans know that the games are now available on GOG, and they inform newcomers about what lies ahead. I look at them as different than conventional reviews (and Stew may have a different take on this) in that these games were already reviewed when they were new, and what I'm looking at is more about how they fare today. Not just "old so bad graphics" because that may or may not be relevant, but how the game as a whole stands up. My last (also first) Good Old Review, of King of Dragon Pass (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129001-Good-Old-Reviews-King-Of-Dragon-Pass]), actually praises the visuals because even though they're dated, they're very artistic and ideal for the game. Wing Commander 3 and 4, on the other hand, leapt into the FMV craze with both feet and the results, *in my opinion*, are bad.

(And luckily, my opinion is the only one that counts around here.)

That's fair enough. I did like the part discussing how the installation and execution holds up on modern machines, a big concern when buying older games even on GoG or Steam.

It just felt that overall there was very little information given on the game itself, how it plays, what sort of missions are there, ship variation etc. I understand that information can be found in older reviews but it still felt like a crucial element missing here. I guess to keep with the theme of the review the gameplay could be discussed in a way that compares it with newer incarnations, like the King Of Dragon Pass review.

 

[Product Placement]

Agreeing with the past few posts. Other than that, I don't have much more to add on, what I haven't already said apart from that I think you're punishing these games a bit too much for having FMV sequences. Seriously, if you want to see bad FMV games, you can check out some of these Spoony reviews [http://spoonyexperiment.com/category/game-reviews/fmv-hell/]. Like it or not, WC3-4 are actually one of the good examples of FMV games, not the classic ones. That first sentence of the article is, for the lack of a better word, an outright lie.

(And luckily, my opinion is the only one that counts around here.)

Careful. That's a dangerous territory where you're treading now.

I fully understand that this was meant as a joke but it comes off as a bit of a elitism. See, there's a difference between writing a random post, on a random forum, saying that your opinion matters and being able to write a featured article on a high traffic site where, in this case, your opinion actually matters. Making statements like that, when you're in an influential position is pompous and arrogant. This is the reason celebrities are always complaining about having to walk on eggshells, all the time.

 

[Product Placement]

That's fair enough. I did like the part discussing how the installation and execution holds up on modern machines, a big concern when buying older games even on GoG or Steam.

It just felt that overall there was very little information given on the game itself, how it plays, what sort of missions are there, ship variation etc. I understand that information can be found in older reviews but it still felt like a crucial element missing here. I guess to keep with the theme of the review the gameplay could be discussed in a way that compares it with newer incarnations, like the King Of Dragon Pass review.

Here's a review that goes in much more detail about how the games play. He also praises the games far more, despite pointing out that he didn't like the quality of the FMV sequences.

 

[StewShearerOld]

[I wonder what the purpose of these reviews are in the first place, who is the target audience?

They serve two purposes: They let old-time fans know that the games are now available on GOG, and they inform newcomers about what lies ahead. I look at them as different than conventional reviews (and Stew may have a different take on this) in that these games were already reviewed when they were new, and what I'm looking at is more about how they fare today.

That is generally how I approach them. I'm trying to look at them at them from the perspective of a modern gamer (granted, one who also loves retro games) and give the best opinion I can on "is this still worth playing?"

Edit: It should also be noted (as some have brought this up) that I have very little in the way of technical prowess or knowledge and little desire in making them bullet points in my reviews. If I know something was revolutionary or pertinent to the review (i.e. it runs poorly) then fine, I'll mention it, but I'm coming into this as a layman. Part of the reason I like GOG's retro offerings so much is the fact that I was too much of a dope to get most of this stuff working when I was younger.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I guess my point overall is, don't criticize the technical side unless you have a solid grasp of what's going on there. Criticism of the gameplay, fine. Even criticism of the whole FMV thing, I can understand that. But saying the graphics and sound are weak is way off. It was a technical marvel, and while you can argue that side of it may not have aged well, I can guarantee you it's aged better than pretty much any of its contemporaries.

But the fact that it's a technical marvel of its era isn't relevant. I used to shit my drawers when I was an infant but that doesn't mean I walk around with a loaded diaper on my head today saying "OH MY GOD THIS IS SO GREAT!" Technology is only relevant in terms of the experience it provides and in the Wing Commander games it's little more than a big, flashing sign saying "CHRIS ROBERTS WANTS TO MAKE A MOVIE." And since it's also the big selling point of both games, I don't think it's unreasonable to focus on that aspect of them.

As for the weak sound thing, all I can say is that I experienced volume issues with both games: almost inaudible music in WC3, volume level issues between cut scenes and gameplay in WC4 and unimpressive SFX all around. That last complaint may be a matter of opinion, but the first two are what they are.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I guess my point overall is, don't criticize the technical side unless you have a solid grasp of what's going on there. Criticism of the gameplay, fine. Even criticism of the whole FMV thing, I can understand that. But saying the graphics and sound are weak is way off. It was a technical marvel, and while you can argue that side of it may not have aged well, I can guarantee you it's aged better than pretty much any of its contemporaries.

But the fact that it's a technical marvel of its era isn't relevant. I used to shit my drawers when I was an infant but that doesn't mean I walk around with a loaded diaper on my head today saying "OH MY GOD THIS IS SO GREAT!" Technology is only relevant in terms of the experience it provides and in the Wing Commander games it's little more than a big, flashing sign saying "CHRIS ROBERTS WANTS TO MAKE A MOVIE." And since it's also the big selling point of both games, I don't think it's unreasonable to focus on that aspect of them.

As for the weak sound thing, all I can say is that I experienced volume issues with both games: almost inaudible music in WC3, volume level issues between cut scenes and gameplay in WC4 and unimpressive SFX all around. That last complaint may be a matter of opinion, but the first two are what they are.

Okay, if the music in WC3 was almost inaudible, something was wrong on your end. And in WC4 you didn't install everything you needed to, see that link I gave you about codecs. Part of PC gaming is troubleshooting, you can't just treat it like a console game.

You're reviewing these games like a modern console game. I really don't see how you can give /any/ old PC game a positive review with the kind of criteria you're using.

Edit: Also, you're so hung up on the FMV sequences you're ignoring the actual gameplay. /That/'s what I'm saying was a technical marvel, and frankly it's still pretty impressive today. Full 3D in 1994 that looked better than a lot of games I was playing two or three years later. That's saying something. Like I said above, if you think these graphics aged so poorly that they actually need criticism, you're just not cut out to review old games, because they really haven't. Or at least they have to a much, much lesser degree than their contemporaries, which means if you can't stomach this you can't stomach old 3D games, period, and you're turning a general complaint into a specific one.