Poker is not
a sport. It’s a fun, highly competitive game, but its players are not
athletes.
Therefore,
one would have to question: is there a need for yearly installments of poker
games? Are the yearly changes in the real game so drastic that a new video
game is warranted? More importantly, are the changes in the video game
significant enough to make you drop another $20?
World Series
of Poker: Tournament of Champions answers that question with a couple yeas, a
couple nays, and a couple of things that don’t make much sense at all.
The
Starting Lineup
The
experience of playing World Series of Poker has been improved by a design
change that mirrors the basic setup of World Championship Poker. Whereas
before the default setting had player details (cards, bankroll, amount
wagered, etc.) scattered in an oval shape, Tournament of Champions lines up
all details on the left side. This makes it much easier to glance at your
details, as well as those of your opponents, and make a quick decision.
Normal,
Medium, and Fast speed settings return, making each turn potentially faster
than all other poker games. When the game is set to Fast, your turn is only a
second or two away. You’ll have a slightly longer wait in between tables.
Other than that the game is quick, non-stop playing where you are the
only one who matters.
I also like
the default AI settings. They’re more forgiving, and have certain traits and
play styles that can be observed and used to your advantage. It’s still
light-years away from a real poker experience, but until the day comes when
robots are running the Earth, nothing will beat the challenge of a real
player.
Did That
Guy Just Sneeze?
Yes, he did.
I understand
the difficulty a sound designer has in working on a poker game. He or she must
be thinking, "What are the sounds of poker? Bustling casinos? That’s
boring. Men cursing? That’s not suitable for all ages. Men burping
and farting? No, we can’t include that…"
I admire
their attempts. Including sporadic sneezing was a pretty bold move. Less bold
(and even less amusing) are the weak and overacted performances. Their lines –
whether sarcastic, climactic, or blase after another fold – are immensely
lacking. You can’t expect an RPG-caliber storyline from a poker game. But
couldn’t we at least expect a few lines of decent dialogue from a game that
promotes itself as having a story mode?
On the
bright side, Chris Ferguson’s tutorials are great. They’re on par with the
tutorials from the latest World Championship Poker game.
Poker
Face-Off
Poker games
are very visual, but they don’t have much to work with. In the real world,
poker can be played with a deck of cards alone — you can use anything to
substitute chips. When I was a kid I used POGs and Halloween candy.
Part of the
fun was the look on my friend’s face when I took all of his best candy. (I
ended up giving most of it back, and by the end of the night we ended up with
equal amount of Snickers, Twix, and peanut butter cups.)
We never
folded based on our own hands. We could see each other’s faces, and that was
all we needed.
Tournament
of Champions is partially successful in putting player faces in the game for
online play. You can see your opponents, and they can see you (using the
EyeToy camera for the PlayStation 2 version, or the Vision Camera for the Xbox
360 version).
However, the
in-game characters are way below average. When a player speaks, his or her
mouth twitches up and down to simulate talking. Gestures are stiff and
awkward. Facial expressions are nonexistent.
Players can
customize their own apartment with various pieces they’ve collected
(furniture, carpet, lights, etc.). This would be cool if the engine were more
powerful. But it’s also below average, visually and physically. The textures
and designs are bland, and the setup controls are somewhat cumbersome.
I said it in
my review of
World Championship Poker and I’ll say it again: you’d think that of all
software a poker game would give us something visually spectacular. It’s been
one year since the last version of World Series of Poker. Unless you want
fictitious elements not possible in the real world, graphics are a poker
game’s only possible upgrade. You can make the game faster, but it’s still
poker. For a game like this, presentation is key.
|
|
Gameplay: 6.5
Faster and easier
to decipher, Tournament of Champions is an improvement over last year’s game.
Graphics: 3.0
Without any
knockout visuals to make this 20-dollar upgrade stand out, you wouldn’t be
wrong to ask: why not just play real poker instead? That might sound shallow
coming from a gamer that puts gameplay first. But this is poker. I
don’t have to play a video game to get my fix. I can go elsewhere, and for a
lot less. If I’m going to go here, I want a reason.
Sound: 5.0
The horrendous
commentary is nowhere near as laughable as the visuals, but it’s still pretty
funny. (If you have a sense of humor for this sort of thing.)
Difficulty: Easy/Medium
Friendlier than
World Championship Poker. The AI isn’t as harsh, and the chance of getting a
good hand is much higher.
Concept: 6.5
Better tutorials
and advice from Chris Ferguson are positive additions.
Multiplayer: 6.0
Improved
few-click gameplay gives Tournament of Champions the fastest multiplayer in
the series.
Overall: 6.5
I’m torn. A part
of me likes Tournament of Champions better than World Championship Poker. It’s
definitely the better game if you all want is a quick, uninterrupted game
without any distractions. But that’s as far as the game’s advancements go. The
tutorials should appeal to newcomers, while experienced players will wish
there was a little more to the overall experience.
