Rugby (PlayStation 2) – A Retrospective Review

Author’s Note: Recently, upon searching a CeX store in Dublin, I found a large collection of EA Sports’ rugby union titles from the PlayStation 2 era. Having played and reviewed Rugby World Cup 1995 for this site, I decided to take the plunge upon discovering that four titles were available for a collective price of €4.00. At this price, I could afford to take a gamble; even if all of them turned out to be dogshit, I’d still be down less than the price of a Happy Meal at McDonald’s. I intend to review the first of these titles now, as it has connections with Rugby World Cup 1995 and possibly leave the other titles, developed by a different studio, to a later review.

I have discussed in a previous review one of the early works by The Creative Assembly, widely known for their highly successful Total War series of games. Rugby World Cup 1995 was released by EA Sports for MS-DOS and the Sega Mega Drive in conjunction with the upcoming tournament and indeed, most of The Creative Assembly’s early games were based around sports simulations. The last sports game which the studio developed was Rugby, which was released in 2001 and originally intended to tie in with the 1999 Rugby World Cup before delays led it to be released after Shogun: Total War, the first game in their best-known series of games.

Rugby, in common with Rugby World Cup 1995 and befitting the original intention to tie the game in with the 1999 Rugby World Cup, focuses on rugby union. The twenty teams who qualified for the 1999 tournament are included. In terms of rugby union’s peculiar tier system, this includes all of the Tier 1 sides competing in the Six Nations Championship and the present-day Rugby Championship (then the Tri-Nations, before Argentina’s acceptance into the tournament in 2012), all of the Tier 2 sides aside from Georgia and a few Tier 3 sides whose performance in qualifying was sufficient to make it into the tournament.

While the roster includes the biggest teams in international rugby union and therefore most of the teams from countries where people would have been inclined to buy the game, there is a smaller selection of teams than there was in Rugby World Cup 1995. This issue isn’t helped by the fact that the team selection screen makes it difficult to tell the absolute rating of the teams aside from Uruguay, which is rated substantially lower than even their nearest competitor in Spain; in Rugby World Cup 1995, there were a number of low-ranked teams which had no chance against the top-performance highly-ranked teams, but who were reasonably competitive against each other. This mismatch between Uruguay and Spain in game terms is also questionable when you consider that not only did Uruguay beat Spain in their group, but also beat them in the competitive game between them.

In any case, Rugby still plays to a reasonably simulationist style, with rules and different play styles present for both the free-flowing passing game along with its rucks and mauls, along with the set-piece plays of the scrum, line-out and penalty kick. Several rules not simulated in Rugby World Cup 1995, including the notable omission in the earlier title of the fair-catch rule (also known as “Mark!”), have been simulated in Rugby. As such, Rugby feels like a fairly good simulation of rugby union as it was in 2001, although I was of the opinion that in international rugby matches, the referee or timekeeper stopped the watch during injuries, meaning that as soon as the clock exceeds the length of the half, the next time the ball is put out-of-bounds, play stops, whereas in Rugby, stoppage time is played at the end of each half.

There are a number of new features in Rugby compared to Rugby World Cup 1995 when it comes to contesting set-piece play, rucks and mauls. In the line-out and scrum, you are given a choice of set plays to take before play recommences; these allow you to reposition your players in order to take advantage of different strategies. You can place different numbers of players into the line-out, putting them into several different formations, although this feature is limited by the fact that you can only place a minimum of five players into the line-out in the game, whereas the rules of rugby union allow you to place a minimum of two players into the line-out. The number of set plays that you can choose from is contingent on the team which you choose to play as; the strongest teams, such as France, England, Australia and New Zealand have all eight plays available to them, while the weakest teams have only five of the plays available. This further enhances the strength of the best teams in the game and makes up somewhat for the ambiguity in the statistical display of team power.

Scrums, rucks and mauls are contested in a substantially different way than the other rugby games that I have played. In these plays, each team has a visual display of the strength of the pack. This decreases as you choose to push and increases as you dig in; a successful ruck, maul or scrum is therefore contingent on balancing your pushing and digging in. You can add players to rucks or mauls to increase the strength of your pack and therefore make it more likely to win. I like the concept of the system, but it is somewhat flawed in execution. Occasionally when contesting a ruck, the opposing team will suddenly push back much more strongly than their strength – or your strength – would indicate; this happens most regularly when the opposing team had possession before the ruck, but sometimes happens even when you had possession, leading to a turnover in potentially a dangerous position. With regard to the ability to put players into rucks or mauls, it is sometimes difficult to figure out how many players you should commit; often, it is easier to just bash the appropriate button until the maximum of seven players are committed, even if this leaves you with fewer players for defensive purposes or to exploit gaps in the opposition defence.

When it comes to passing, kicking and running the ball in the free game, though, Rugby has it nailed. There are separate buttons for passing the ball left and right, preventing one of the situations in Rugby World Cup 1995 where you may end up running in one direction in order to be able to pass in that direction before getting tackled; this system was retained in EA Sports’ later rugby union titles and is probably the best thing to come out of this game. Kicking is done rather nicely as well, with separate keys for kicking into space or touch, up-and-under kicks and grubber kicks; the accuracy and distance that a player can kick is contingent on their kicking skill, which as with actual rugby union, is typically higher in players in the fly-half, wing or full back position. Drop-kicks on goal may be attempted when your players are sufficiently close to the goal, although are rather difficult when you’re under pressure and trying to avoid being tackled.

The defensive game is somewhat more difficult. A lot of it is done competently by the AI, although occasionally, when you see an opportunity to get a player before the AI could, you may want to try a tackle yourself. However, this is made challenging by the fact that manually switching to a player can leave you with the wrong player for the job and that the controls are somewhat cumbersome, lacking analogue control, along with the fact that players in-game have momentum and turning circles that change based on their speed. A lot of the time, it’s better to just leave the AI to tackle the opposition for you and leave manual control to the most dangerous opposition players.

Penalty kicks, surprisingly, have been simplified in some respects from Rugby World Cup 1995 – a change which does not persist to EA Sports’ later rugby union titles. The power/accuracy bar from the previous title is gone, replaced with a simple arrow pointing towards the place where the kick will go. In the case of punt kicks, a circle changes size, denoting the accuracy of the kick at the time it takes place, whereas with kicks to goal, the arrow points towards the goalposts and can be changed in direction or elevation. The simplicity of the system does not mean that it is necessarily easy; punt kicks aren’t all that difficult, but kicks towards goal are more difficult than the system would have you believe and it is challenging without practice to get the ball over the posts.

Rugby has a reasonable set of play modes, from friendly matches to tournaments. Three tournaments are depicted: the Rugby World Cup, which for licensing reasons is called the World Championship; the Six Nations Championship (with the late development of the game allowing Italy’s entry into the Six Nations in 2000 to be depicted) along with the Tri-Nations tournament between the powerhouses of the Southern Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Unfortunately, there is no option to make your own championship for friends or the like, but the tournaments which are present make up the biggest ones in international rugby union even today (except for the Tri-Nations being expanded with Argentina’s entry).

Both friendly matches and tournaments allow you to change the strength of the teams you are playing as, while friendly matches also allow you to change the strength of the opposition team as well. This allows you to play games which will result in expected blowouts, such as a strengthened Australia challenging a diminished Uruguay, or increase the challenge by decreasing the strength of the team you play and increasing the strength of the opposition.

Friendly games give you the opportunity to change weather conditions, the time that the match is being played and the place where the match is to take place; this includes a selection of stadiums from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Unfortunately, the weather conditions do not allow you to pick a random setting, which would not go amiss. There is also no ability to change the pitch conditions to create games, for example, with dry pitches to begin with but which soften up as the rain continues, or soggy pitches which dry up as the sun beats down. Game options are similarly limited, with the ability to change whether replays happen automatically, whether vibration is turned on or off and whether to allow injuries (which I think should be kept on all of the time to give a reason for the substitution system to exist even in shorter matches). The half length can also be changed to a variety of options from 2 to 40 minutes and unlike in Rugby World Cup 1995, the game is a sufficiently good simulation to make full-length 80-minute games viable, even if not desirable for most gamers.

The game is rather challenging, with an AI which will exploit gaps, make kicks into appropriate spaces behind your lines and generally make an effort to beat you. The challenge is enhanced by the complex controls, with the buttons for passing left or right, buttons for different kicks, buttons for sprinting or pushing in the mauls or so on. Thankfully, the game does come with a training mode, with a decent tutorial and the ability to play various elements of the game or a complete match against a team with diminished strength against even the weakest teams in the game, allowing you to get to grips with the controls without the AI harrying you for every mistake.

Graphically, Rugby is nothing special. The graphics are very reminiscent of other early PlayStation 2 games or late-1990s PC games, with very simple character models, scenery which is acceptable but not mind-blowing and the game certainly doesn’t make the most of the capabilities of the PlayStation 2. Nevertheless, the game does do a lot of what it needs to do to work, with nice camera perspectives that work well to depict the action and rather than attempting to simulate television broadcasts, instead works to change the camera angle based on whether you’re attacking, defending or contesting a scrum, maul or ruck.

The sound is similarly unspectacular. There is a good set of in-game sounds, from the ball being kicked or hitting the ground to players hitting the dirt as they’re tackled, but these are all par-for-the-course when it comes to sports games. There is commentary over the games, provided by the respected and now-deceased Scottish rugby commentator, Bill McLaren, along with former England and New Zealand international, Jamie Salmon. As a result, the commentators at least know how to commentate an actual match and don’t go too hammy for the game, although a limited number of lines for each commentator does demonstrate one of the inherent problems with sports video game commentary in general. At least the developers didn’t choose ridiculous lines that would seem completely out of context when the action isn’t following what’s going on in the game.

Overall, I think that Rugby is really quite a successful game in a very niche genre of video games. It certainly isn’t perfect, with problems showing up in the innovative but flawed rucking system along with unspectacular visuals and sound, but the game does do a reasonable job of simulating the game on which it is based on. The game is sufficiently challenging for it to never be a pushover and has an adequate, if not amazing amount of content. The player rosters may be out of date by this stage, but the core gameplay hasn’t changed by an incredible amount in rugby union and therefore, this game still manages to do what it set out to do.

Bottom Line:Rugby, despite being more than a decade old, is still one of the best rugby union games yet released. Improving significantly on its DOS/Mega Drive predecessor (although this is expected given the seven-year gap), while displaying a more simulationist bent on some issues than later EA Sports rugby titles, Rugby may have some flaws but is still worth playing if you want a very good simulation title.

Recommendation: Any copies of Rugby still available will probably be going for prices akin to the €1.00 I spent for the title; as such, if you have a PlayStation 2, it won’t cost you much to try it out. I’d suggest being a fan of rugby union first, though, as the game is fairly uncompromising.

Advertisements

Doom – A Retrospective Review

Author’s Note: Having been distracted recently, first by the Isle of Man TT, then the 24 Hours of Le Mans, then the FIFA World Cup, I have not had much material to add to my blog recently. The forays I’ve made into my more traditional blog material have been limited to things I’ve written about before, typically racing games in the vein of Tourist Trophy. However, I still intend to keep some sort of schedule, as vague as that may be. I offer a review of a game for which I am perplexed that I haven’t written a review before.

In 1993, the first-person shooter genre wasn’t new, having seen id Software’s original attempt at first-person game dynamics with Wolfenstein 3D, which was, despite several games including BattleZone and Elite which used first-person perspectives, the first game to be described as a first-person shooter proper. However, despite its historical importance, Wolfenstein 3D was somewhat crude in its design; all walls in the game were set at 90-degree angles which limited the architecture of levels, for instance. Still, it was quite a jump from the side-scrolling Commander Keen games that id Software had started on and gave them a basis for a substantially more ambitious project – one called Doom.

In Doom, you play a nameless space marine who has been stationed on Mars as punishment after an altercation with one of his superior officers. He is posted in a security role for the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC), one of the companies doing work on Mars. Part of the UAC’s research on Mars involves the development of teleportation technology with gateways between Phobos and Deimos, the moons of Mars. What is expected to be a dull assignment devoid of excitement takes a sudden turn when there is a report of a disturbance on Phobos. Reports from the UAC outposts on Phobos suggest that things have gone seriously wrong and the player character along with several other space marines are sent out to Phobos to investigate.

The player character is left to guard the perimeter of the outpost when the investigating party arrives, while the other space marines venture into the outpost to investigate what has gone wrong. As the player character waits outside, armed with only a pistol, he hears the screams, yells and gunfire of his colleagues. It doesn’t take long for the space marine to realise that the rest of his unit are dead. Left without an alternative, the space marine ventures inside the outpost himself to try to make some sense of the situation. Before long, he is embroiled in a battle with the forces of Hell as they attempt to invade through the gateways developed by the UAC and must battle his way through not only Phobos, but Deimos and even the depths of Hell itself in order to destroy the source of the invasion.

The plot is rather reminiscent of pulp stories and never gets any deeper than what is described in the backstory. Then again, this was ultimately intentional by the id Software team; despite a more elaborate story design earlier in Doom‘s development (noted in external materials), the id Software team clearly took an approach closer to that espoused by John Carmack, who regards the plot of games as secondary to the gameplay. I don’t believe that a weak plot works against Doom; the game’s design doesn’t necessitate elaborate, intertwining plot strands to work.

Doom uses an early 3D game engine with pseudo-3D (or 2.5D) interactions along the z-axis. There is no facility in the original engine for changing perspective along the z-axis, but shots made in line with an enemy on a higher or lower plane will be adjusted to fire towards that enemy. The character therefore moves and rotates in a horizontal plane; similarly, while levels have areas of different elevation along with stairs and elevators to get between those different elevations, level design occurs on a generally horizontal plane, with no walkable areas on top of other walkable areas. In general, these simply work out as peculiarities of the engine and don’t often affect gameplay, although there are some peculiar circumstances where explosive damage can affect game entities far above or below where the effects of that damage would realistically be expected to affect, or where enemies can attack you or you can attack enemies on planes which you can’t even see.

The action in Doom is known for its fast pace compared to contemporary first-person shooters. As the player character has a high resilience towards a lot of the damage in the game, with many of the more powerful individual attacks requiring specific evasive techniques to be used to avoid critical damage, the damage system promotes run-and-gun tactics in a way not frequently seen in more recent first-person shooters. The limited objectives, largely amounting to collection of keys to allow you to progress further within the level, the lack of cutscenes within the game itself and the sheer fun-factor of zipping through the levels also contribute to the fast-paced action of Doom. Indeed, as there is a timer at the end of the level which tells you how long it took to complete the level, the game doesn’t disguise the fact that it’s meant to be played at speed. There have been long-running speed-run competitions based around attempting to complete levels or episodes of the game as quickly as possible and the nature of Doom makes it an especially suitable game for this sort of competition.

Starting out with a puny pistol which takes several shots to kill the weakest of enemies, your arsenal grows as you progress through the levels, incorporating a pump-action shotgun, a chaingun, a rocket launcher and two powerful plasma weapons which can be found from the second episode onwards, the plasma rifle and the BFG 9000. Similarly, enemies begin from the start of the game with the reanimated corpses of your former associates, armed with pistols or shotguns and progress onwards to the gigantic Barons of Hell and the even more powerful Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind. As your arsenal grows, the least powerful enemies simply become roadblocks, while the more powerful enemies can be hazardous at any stage.

Doom is interesting for its large spread of difficulty levels, from the lowest difficulty level which would only pose moderate challenge to even a neophyte to the highest difficulty level which is excruciatingly difficult and was originally designed to be a challenge to cooperative multiplayer groups and which only the most experienced Doom experts can battle their way through without dying regularly. My own preferences now lie with the second-highest difficulty level, Ultra-Violence, which is still a substantial challenge and comparable with many of the most difficult contemporary first-person shooters.

While Doom‘s multiplayer capabilities are laughable by today’s standards, it was probably the first first-person shooter to really promote multiplayer support. There are two modes, with the cooperative campaign where up to four players join forces to play through the game and the deathmatch mode where the players fight each other. The limit of four players in multiplayer restricts the scope of deathmatch games, especially compared to contemporary first-person shooters, but the core gameplay is still fun, even if the fast-paced multiplayer action of Doom has been displaced and improved upon by successive generations of Quake and Unreal Tournament.

Graphically, Doom could never stand up to a modern game, but then again, the limited graphics help give the game such flexibility when it comes to source ports (discussed below). Nevertheless, the graphics are not embarrassing considering the age of the game; designed before polygonal designs became common, the graphics don’t suffer from the more significant aging of early polygonal games on the PC and late fourth/early fifth-generation games consoles – i.e. the SNES with the Super FX chip, the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64. Some of the enemy sprites do suffer from the lack of ability to rotate them effectively as you sidestep around them or so on and all of the moving enemy sprites have limited numbers of frames, but I believe that Doom holds up better than its age dictates that it should.

Ultimately, one of the highest accolades that I can grant to Doom is that it’s still fun more than twenty years after it was first released. The gameplay is exciting and fast-paced, while still providing a challenge today. It has absolutely none of the pretensions of realism that are present in most of today’s first-person shooters and retains its fun factor because of this; it isn’t trying to be something that it’s not. Unlike many other games from its time period, Doom is remarkably easy to play on today’s platforms. Aside from the original MS-DOS version, official ports have been released on platforms as diverse as iOS and RISC OS and the Xbox 360 and the Atari Jaguar, while the release of the game’s source code under the GNU General Public Licence has led to unofficial ports of Doom on nearly any platform that can handle it. Many of the unofficial ports on PC platforms come with a host of additional features, including graphical updates, the ability to play the many, many additional campaigns developed by the Doom community and fixes for bugs found in the original engine. In any circumstance, Doom is readily available to today’s players – and probably even more so than it was when it was first released. Not a bad sign for a game more than twenty years old, is it?

Bottom Line:Doom remains a pinnacle of the fast-paced, action-packed first-person shooter that existed long before the rise of Call of Duty. While dated in several areas, it still packs a punch even today.

Recommendation: Given how easy it is to find Doom, whether you purchase it on Steam or buy it off the App Store, the only reason not to give it a try is if you don’t like first-person shooters at all. Pretty much anybody else is recommended to give it a go.