If you don't know about this site, tvtropes.org is something you should check out at some point. It's an awful lot like Wikipedia in some ways, and yet completely different. It's a listing of devices used in media, and while the site began listing ones used in television programs, it has since expanded to include other mediums. Video game tropes make up a large part of their site, and it's really interesting to look through and see just how common a particularly loved or hated plot device has expanded beyond your game.
The title in question is something that has always bothered me since the dawn of gaming. Guide Dang It! is a device that described when a player can only come up with the solution to a problem or the means of obtaining something by using a guide, since conventional and common sense approaches just don't work.
Take Shadowgate, for instance. The old NES classic was not only difficult and threatening, but the sheer abuse of power made this game a frustrating beast for gamers at the time. Should you wander into a room carrying the wrong item on your person, you'd die. If you were stuck at a dead end and there was a device at the dead end needing activation, a player could attempt to go through their item stack to see what presented a solution. Only problem is that the player could be killed by using any of the wrong items. It's just tough to play this game without feeling like a masochist, and that's not even the best example.
Which brings me to the Zodiac Spear. Sure, there were guides and FAQs available for this game the second that is was released. Imagine that you bought this game and headed off to a cabin with no internet, phone, or guide. Would you ever find the Zodiac Spear or know of its existence? Without a guide, and if everyone who worked on the game shut up, would anyone have found it? For those who don't know what the weapon is, it's one of the ultimate weapons in the game, and while there are a couple methods to get it, the widely accepted version of acquiring the item involves you not opening certain treasure chests in the game. Within the game, there are no hints about this.
Which leads me to wonder, what is the point of guides? It's been suggested that guide makers pressure developers to sneak these secrets in to sell guides, but there are too many games (specifically RPGs) that include secret stashes of items or special endings requiring the player to be absurdly obsessive. I consider myself to be a capable gamer with a pretty decent melon, but sometimes I will sit there playing an RPG wondering why it's second nature for me to have the guide before I even begin.
To take this point further, this doesn't bother me so much if the game is completable without a guide. If I can beat the game without a guide and still discover the full extent of the story, then I don't bother unless I'm completely stuck on how to advance in the game (which is rare). If I can advance on my own, I'd rather not use a guide, and as you can probably tell from previous posts, I don't have a fascination with ultimate weapons. Generally, by the time I can get it, I don't really need it anyway. Some game secrets are specifically designed to pair with a guide and meant for only obsessive completists. So, unless there's a huge plot secret or a secret ending, guides don't make sense to me.
That's when it pisses me off, though. It's when developers put these super-secret paths into their games and apply story weight to them that truly pisses me off. If there's some random hidden room that contains the key to the "true ending", or a character that needs recruiting so that you can face the real final boss, sometimes it's obvious to the player, and sometimes it's anything but. I seriously wonder at times why a developer would choose to put something vital in a game and require that the player be insane to have figured out how to get it. I know that selling guides is a factor, but who comes up with some of this stuff expecting a regular player to come up with a solution on their own? Go to GameFAQs and look up secrets for the latest Fire Emblem game and tell me that you know somebody who would have discovered this stuff on their own with no help whatsoever.
It makes me curious, though. How many huge game secrets for legacy games have honestly been discovered by players and not leaked out by the companies themselves? Are there any game secrets that have been left undiscovered? On top of that, there's the reverse question of what would happen if, hypothetically, Squeenix released Final Fantasy XIII without a guide. Would players have any clue about getting ultimate weapons, summons, and side-quests? How would that pan out?
Finally, I'd like to see a game be challenging by avoiding guides altogether. To clarify, I think that someone out there should experiment with a guide-proof game, forcing the player to get creative and to explore the game on their own terms rather than having their hand held. Some players out there rely on guides for survival and completion without using brainpower. I've seen it happen where a friend will get a brand spanking new game complete with guide, and every time that game is played the guide is open. How is that playing a game, and have games become so shady in their structure that guides are a required game tool?
On the topic of how to make a game guide-proof, I've had some pretty good ideas in the past. Randomization is part of the equation, but alone it's an entirely broken idea. If you have to do something at a certain location, then a guide can always help you so long as you can find that location. If an enemy shows up in a different place each playthrough, the strategy will remain the same, so it's not the biggest deal in the world.
What is required is a complex game system that avoids becoming a jigsaw puzzle, and by that, I mean that a game should make sense and not rely on the complexity as the game's sole selling point. Otherwise, the game turns out to be a jigsaw puzzle where you're spending the entire game piecing together the method and order rather than letting the game speak for itself. So, randomization is part of the equation, but there has to be some sense involved. NPC's who have dynamic dialogue can help avert this so that the player can discover things in a sensible fashion within the game world rather than piecing together the game world itself. It's just one example, but I hardly ever see this used in a game. If I go to GameFAQs, I know the exact location of every item, the odds of getting it, the method of getting it, who to take it to and where to find them, and what taking it to that person will do. It just doesn't seem very...satisfying.
Anyway, rant over. Rescuing laundry.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
December 4, 2009
December 3, 2009
Achievement unlocked: Read every page of the history book
I'm still playing Demon's Souls, and it has become a much more impressive beast with each hour I put into it. It just gets better. Yes, I had this the night it came out, but I lapsed quite a bit when about a dozen new games came out that demanded my attention. The time allowed me to reflect and get a fresh perspective on what I could do to survive a little longer, and it has certainly helped. Since I'm not fearing corners anymore, it has given me more time to appreciate the attention From Software gave to their game world, and start to viciously hate some other games out there that avoid this.
Starting with Half-Life 2 as one of the best examples of all time, the concept of the "game world" should be an awful like what is done with movies in that a movie studio doesn't hand out a book with every showing to explain everything that's going on. That's what the two hours are for. It's a studio's job to develop a world and immerse the viewer in it. Blade Runner did not ask that you read the Phillip K. Dick novel, nor did it explain what had put Earth into such decay. Instead, it showed in a few seconds how pollution had accumulated, and some of the most moving passing words in the history if films described the breadth of human colonization. Nowhere did this movie slap speeches or texts to explain things, and left that task to the brilliant visuals that told their own story to fill in any gaps.
Half-Life 2 achieves this beautifully, expecting the player to gain knowledge of the events around them by brief context clues and the interpretation of how the events of humanity came to be. The storyline can, in fact, by summed up briefly by speeches, but 90% of what's going on is left for your senses to complete. It is a world of immersion at heart, and it is a plus for Demon's Souls to carry on with this approach to storytelling. Do either of these games force you on fetch quests or "catch 'em all" achievement lists so that you can understand every piece of the story? Are either of these games pretentious enough to explain more than is necessary?
Failures of storytelling amount to dropping the midi-chlorian bomb in game form. Less explanation, more application.
In a strange twist, I chose Blade Runner for its storytelling strengths when a game largely inspired by it came out in the form of Snatcher. Snatcher is a text game that requires you to investigate nearly everything in the game world, but that world is so freakishly detailed that it even has a database dedicated to educating the player on the past and present of the game world. While it seems as if this would be a complete storytelling failure, it actually works well. Some games can pull it off while others cannot.
It's pretty simple, though. If you're a game devoted to information and brains with a slow pace, then describing more gives a game a novel-like strength. If you're spending most of your time knee-deep in action, than information should be more inferred and shown as creative eye candy rather than taking the pansy route out and dropping pick-ups along the way. While it's true that I had been impressed with the Web of Intrigue within Prototype, it was the introduction of a concept that had me thinking positively, not the way it truly played out.
In games where a lot of visuals are going on, what a developer chooses to show carries more weight than how they usually choose to explain it. Aeris' ghost in the later parts of Final Fantasy VII caused a gigantic wave of interest, while I do not know of any audio log that has garnered any significant attention. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Starting with Half-Life 2 as one of the best examples of all time, the concept of the "game world" should be an awful like what is done with movies in that a movie studio doesn't hand out a book with every showing to explain everything that's going on. That's what the two hours are for. It's a studio's job to develop a world and immerse the viewer in it. Blade Runner did not ask that you read the Phillip K. Dick novel, nor did it explain what had put Earth into such decay. Instead, it showed in a few seconds how pollution had accumulated, and some of the most moving passing words in the history if films described the breadth of human colonization. Nowhere did this movie slap speeches or texts to explain things, and left that task to the brilliant visuals that told their own story to fill in any gaps.
Half-Life 2 achieves this beautifully, expecting the player to gain knowledge of the events around them by brief context clues and the interpretation of how the events of humanity came to be. The storyline can, in fact, by summed up briefly by speeches, but 90% of what's going on is left for your senses to complete. It is a world of immersion at heart, and it is a plus for Demon's Souls to carry on with this approach to storytelling. Do either of these games force you on fetch quests or "catch 'em all" achievement lists so that you can understand every piece of the story? Are either of these games pretentious enough to explain more than is necessary?
Failures of storytelling amount to dropping the midi-chlorian bomb in game form. Less explanation, more application.
In a strange twist, I chose Blade Runner for its storytelling strengths when a game largely inspired by it came out in the form of Snatcher. Snatcher is a text game that requires you to investigate nearly everything in the game world, but that world is so freakishly detailed that it even has a database dedicated to educating the player on the past and present of the game world. While it seems as if this would be a complete storytelling failure, it actually works well. Some games can pull it off while others cannot.
It's pretty simple, though. If you're a game devoted to information and brains with a slow pace, then describing more gives a game a novel-like strength. If you're spending most of your time knee-deep in action, than information should be more inferred and shown as creative eye candy rather than taking the pansy route out and dropping pick-ups along the way. While it's true that I had been impressed with the Web of Intrigue within Prototype, it was the introduction of a concept that had me thinking positively, not the way it truly played out.
In games where a lot of visuals are going on, what a developer chooses to show carries more weight than how they usually choose to explain it. Aeris' ghost in the later parts of Final Fantasy VII caused a gigantic wave of interest, while I do not know of any audio log that has garnered any significant attention. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
December 2, 2009
The times, they are a changin'
A year ago, the PS3 was in pretty bad shape. Black Friday had come and gone, and the PS3 got whooped on in the process. Rock Band 360 bundles were flying off shelves, and there was no way that Sony was going to catch up. There were still high hopes, but some people honestly thought that the PS3 had taken a reeling punch that it would never fully recover from. The library was utter crap, games were too expensive, the hardware was too expensive, the system was a monolith, and the company had no real identity.
Thankfully, Sony didn't tap out, and instead pulled itself out of the gutter with a mixture of guts, timing, and pure luck. They cut the price of the console by 25%, worthy bundles started showing up, and whatever loss they were going to take on Black Friday in system sales they were going to make up for with an install base that is still growing by leaps and bounds. There's no easy way to say this, but once the price of the PS3 was within reach of mortals, there is no question that the Xbox was second on the population's mind. Sales figures prove it, and almost everyone I know that was without a system snapped up the PS3 like it was common sense. Even a few Xbox devoted have ceded that the PS3 is sitting pretty right now, and it's only going to get better.
Before you yell "fanboy", I still think that Sony has problems that they need to sort out. They're still the loser, but all the facts point to a wicked comeback, and that's worthy news. Over the past 3 months, they have managed to keep pace with Microsoft. In August, Sony was behind by 6.4 million consoles. Currently, they are about 6.6 million units behind. For a console that had the "loser" tag on it, it's amazing that they kept up. Cleaning house on Black Friday means that the gap will shrink, and the holiday season isn't even over. We'll find out how strong the PlayStation brand name is over the course of the month, but if last weekend was any indication, they could conceivably bring the gap well under 6 million by the time the year is over with.
The new "it only does everything" slogan in blue seems to be working for Sony, effectively ceding one of the most expensive marketing errors their company has ever produced and returning the console to its roots. Right down to the logo and plastic casing, this system is finally reminding people what owning PS2 dominance felt like. The more familiar look is likely to get a few sales back in Sony's corner, and their Sony "family" is finally getting some real use. Even the media marketplace is finally looking really good, and rumors are heavy that the upcoming backwards compatibility should be a free "thank you" to follow through on promises rather than a paid scam.
To think, all of this good news for Sony and their potential sales, and we still haven't even made it to Final Fantasy XIII.
Yet, there I go, mentioning software like Sony had planned this. No, they got really lucky. A year ago, PlayStation owners were wondering just where their titles were. The shelves were barren of anything worth playing exclusive to the black beast. A year later, everything has changed.
Demon's Souls came out of nowhere to pacify the RPG fans who were about to lose their minds over a lack of truly great games for the genre. Sure, Atlus was certainly surprised enough to reprint the game, but Sony sure as hell didn't expect that kind of attention and wound up with a terrific piece of ammunition for the fight.
Then there were the exclusives. Infamous came out and met expectations. Uncharted 2 blew everyone away. The downloadable hit Fat Princess caught attention when the PSN was notorious for having few exclusives. The future looks to be in good shape, too. MAG and God of War III are on the way, and the Last Guardian was looking like a worthy follow up for Team ICO.
Good multiplatform games then started to swarm. Modern Warfare 2. Batman: Arkham Asylum. Bayonetta. Ninja Gaiden 2. Borderlands. Dragon Age. Assassin's Creed 2.
For once, a PS3 owner can feel overwhelmed by the amount of great games out there. It's partially luck that it all happened so fast, but it's also what happens when you put a powerful system out there that no one has truly figured out how to use yet. The PlayStation library is going to get better in a hurry, and we haven't even made it to the point in the current console generation where niche titles start to see the light of day. Atlus hasn't made a major release outside of Demon's Souls, which they only published, so you can count on even better times ahead.
So yeah, they got lucky. They had a lot go right for then in the span of a year that really saved their brand, part of it planned, part of it blind luck, and part of it was also taking that blind luck and running with it. This is Sony we're talking about, so it's entirely possible they may choose to pull off some bonehead move to alienate the populace yet again. For now, PS3 owners can finally smile.
As a final note, to the many Diggers and media boys out there who think that the current generation is on the fade, think with your brains. We aren't even at the halfway point. Both the 360 and the PS3 will peak in the near future, but we haven't even touched on what both consoles are truly capable of. Developers are still learning what they can do with the hardware.Microsoft is sitting pretty with a "stable" piece of hardware with a good lifespan, and they will expand functionality. Sony still wants to make a profit, and their system hasn't even begun to peak. A new system would be a huge flush of cash, partners, publicity, and trust.
Why haven't I mentioned Nintendo? Well, it's obvious that if they really want to stay in the game, they're going to have to go the DSi route and release an updated Wii system, or the "Wii HD" as it has been termed. Third parties familiar with GameCube and Wii experience are already sending games out the door at a blistering pace and would LOVE a boost in power to take advantage of the install base and cheap development costs while seriously competing with the other companies' major titles. Expect Wii Motion Plus to be built in to the Wiimote, better graphical capabilities, 720p, a bigger focus on digital media, and a couple of serious ports (RE5). I'd even go so far to say that they will sneak a camera and a good microphone onto the system and Wiimotes, as well as putting some focus on social media. This would not only give them video chat and an integrated headset, but also evolve their patented motion controls to compete with Natal and the Wand. Expect it.
Thus ends my "state of the big 3" that is customary every other month. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Thankfully, Sony didn't tap out, and instead pulled itself out of the gutter with a mixture of guts, timing, and pure luck. They cut the price of the console by 25%, worthy bundles started showing up, and whatever loss they were going to take on Black Friday in system sales they were going to make up for with an install base that is still growing by leaps and bounds. There's no easy way to say this, but once the price of the PS3 was within reach of mortals, there is no question that the Xbox was second on the population's mind. Sales figures prove it, and almost everyone I know that was without a system snapped up the PS3 like it was common sense. Even a few Xbox devoted have ceded that the PS3 is sitting pretty right now, and it's only going to get better.
Before you yell "fanboy", I still think that Sony has problems that they need to sort out. They're still the loser, but all the facts point to a wicked comeback, and that's worthy news. Over the past 3 months, they have managed to keep pace with Microsoft. In August, Sony was behind by 6.4 million consoles. Currently, they are about 6.6 million units behind. For a console that had the "loser" tag on it, it's amazing that they kept up. Cleaning house on Black Friday means that the gap will shrink, and the holiday season isn't even over. We'll find out how strong the PlayStation brand name is over the course of the month, but if last weekend was any indication, they could conceivably bring the gap well under 6 million by the time the year is over with.
The new "it only does everything" slogan in blue seems to be working for Sony, effectively ceding one of the most expensive marketing errors their company has ever produced and returning the console to its roots. Right down to the logo and plastic casing, this system is finally reminding people what owning PS2 dominance felt like. The more familiar look is likely to get a few sales back in Sony's corner, and their Sony "family" is finally getting some real use. Even the media marketplace is finally looking really good, and rumors are heavy that the upcoming backwards compatibility should be a free "thank you" to follow through on promises rather than a paid scam.
To think, all of this good news for Sony and their potential sales, and we still haven't even made it to Final Fantasy XIII.
Yet, there I go, mentioning software like Sony had planned this. No, they got really lucky. A year ago, PlayStation owners were wondering just where their titles were. The shelves were barren of anything worth playing exclusive to the black beast. A year later, everything has changed.
Demon's Souls came out of nowhere to pacify the RPG fans who were about to lose their minds over a lack of truly great games for the genre. Sure, Atlus was certainly surprised enough to reprint the game, but Sony sure as hell didn't expect that kind of attention and wound up with a terrific piece of ammunition for the fight.
Then there were the exclusives. Infamous came out and met expectations. Uncharted 2 blew everyone away. The downloadable hit Fat Princess caught attention when the PSN was notorious for having few exclusives. The future looks to be in good shape, too. MAG and God of War III are on the way, and the Last Guardian was looking like a worthy follow up for Team ICO.
Good multiplatform games then started to swarm. Modern Warfare 2. Batman: Arkham Asylum. Bayonetta. Ninja Gaiden 2. Borderlands. Dragon Age. Assassin's Creed 2.
For once, a PS3 owner can feel overwhelmed by the amount of great games out there. It's partially luck that it all happened so fast, but it's also what happens when you put a powerful system out there that no one has truly figured out how to use yet. The PlayStation library is going to get better in a hurry, and we haven't even made it to the point in the current console generation where niche titles start to see the light of day. Atlus hasn't made a major release outside of Demon's Souls, which they only published, so you can count on even better times ahead.
So yeah, they got lucky. They had a lot go right for then in the span of a year that really saved their brand, part of it planned, part of it blind luck, and part of it was also taking that blind luck and running with it. This is Sony we're talking about, so it's entirely possible they may choose to pull off some bonehead move to alienate the populace yet again. For now, PS3 owners can finally smile.
As a final note, to the many Diggers and media boys out there who think that the current generation is on the fade, think with your brains. We aren't even at the halfway point. Both the 360 and the PS3 will peak in the near future, but we haven't even touched on what both consoles are truly capable of. Developers are still learning what they can do with the hardware.Microsoft is sitting pretty with a "stable" piece of hardware with a good lifespan, and they will expand functionality. Sony still wants to make a profit, and their system hasn't even begun to peak. A new system would be a huge flush of cash, partners, publicity, and trust.
Why haven't I mentioned Nintendo? Well, it's obvious that if they really want to stay in the game, they're going to have to go the DSi route and release an updated Wii system, or the "Wii HD" as it has been termed. Third parties familiar with GameCube and Wii experience are already sending games out the door at a blistering pace and would LOVE a boost in power to take advantage of the install base and cheap development costs while seriously competing with the other companies' major titles. Expect Wii Motion Plus to be built in to the Wiimote, better graphical capabilities, 720p, a bigger focus on digital media, and a couple of serious ports (RE5). I'd even go so far to say that they will sneak a camera and a good microphone onto the system and Wiimotes, as well as putting some focus on social media. This would not only give them video chat and an integrated headset, but also evolve their patented motion controls to compete with Natal and the Wand. Expect it.
Thus ends my "state of the big 3" that is customary every other month. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
December 1, 2009
As if enough non-related ranting had already happened...
If you've been paying attention to the world of sports this week, you'll notice that Tiger Woods has finally made headlines for something other than his golfing exploits. The dependably clean cut star found himself in a car crash, and he'd rather not talk about it. Police have tried to get a warrant to further investigate the matter, believing the circumstances to be a little more than an "oops" on Tiger Woods' part. As of posting this, police have cited him for careless driving and nothing more.
Since news of the crash came to the media's attention, Tiger has maintained that the matter is private and that he will remain silent to everyone including the police. However, this story has since exploded to epic scandal proportions. Was he on drugs? Was he having an affair? Was there domestic abuse? The facts don't match up the way I like them, something is afoot!
Well, tough.
I'm not a Tiger follower because I'm not a golf guy, so maybe I don't understand where the obsession is coming from to turn him into an evil character overnight. Why everyone is demanding information on this is beyond me, because no one has the right or reason to do so. Even looking at the reports, I don't see why anyone thinks something has to be going on in the background. He got into a car accident and some things happened that seemed weird, but in the end, it was a car accident. You are specifically told by anyone who knows anything about car accidents to divulge only the facts that are necessary when describing the incident. You don't say what you think, you don't say what you feel, and you certainly don't tell people anything more than they need to know.
Seeing as how I have heard this story told second hand a few times now, it sounds like Tiger was mad at something, so he got in his car and tried to cool off, only he was flustered enough to make a mistake and hit something that wrecked him. Have you ever been flustered behind the wheel of a car? If you get pulled over and questioned by your insurance and the cops, do you really think it's a good idea to describe in detail that you were pissed off at something, what that something was, and that you were guilty of something other than a second of bad driving? Of course you don't. You're nuts if you do.
What happened with Tiger happens with people you know all the time, and we tell those people to do the exact same thing Tiger is doing now. Shut up, only tell them the facts, pay the fine, and be happy it wasn't more serious than it was.
If you're still not convinced, go find a guy at your workplace that just got into a car accident. Proceed to tell him that you know the truth, and that he was really just hopped up on painkillers before he got in the car to go sleep with a downtown hooker. See where that gets you.
When your spouse won't stop asking where you got the black eye from, I'm pretty sure it'll just be a misunderstanding that you don't want to talk about.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
I hate America, and you do too
With a title like that, you'd think I'd start spouting verses from some cult pamphlet.
Searching through the mountain of crap that is Facebook just to find out if a friend dropped a message about the Saints/Patriots game, I discovered how much less I like the service when every other friend seemed to have an opinion about God or America that was pretty narrow in scope. Having a belief is not a bad thing, but as I've said before, things are getting to the point where insanity is a gentle way of describing the way humanity has become.
The reason is that all of these beliefs are becoming antiquated, or at least they should be. When I was a child, I believed that the American way of life was the only way to go. Even now, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the hope that if one works hard, one can succeed and reach their desired goals. Our rights should be protected, because we are human beings, but the entire concept of this has gone out the window. "Real American" is a term that actually fights against what we're supposed to believe in. If the "American Way" and our unofficial Christian religion actually had anything to say, then each individual American wouldn't spend their time defending how it is their God-given right to use others as a pedestal. Seriously, listen to these people who get up on their podiums and say, almost exactly, these phrases:
"If the government gets any more control, I will no longer be able to field a company of fat CEO's, and that is un-American."
"You are a traitor if you believe that caring for the well-being of others is a priority of the country."
"It's OK to take liberties away from people, as long as its not me. That would be Socialism/Communism."
"It's OK to cheat people our of their money. Asking me to spare a few bucks from my multi-million dollar bank account to make sure someone doesn't die from a cold is not OK."
"Our President showed respect for another world leader? Well, he must be an evil socialist, because a true american capitalist would have pissed on his shoes."
I could go on for hours, but I don't care who you are, you simply cannot argue that these things have been said. We're not Americans. We're elitist pricks who care nothing of others, so long as they aren't bombing us.
You can save your hate mail for another few minutes, though, because Americans aren't the only problem. Rather, the country is just making obvious what the real problems are, and sometimes it's even nice to be part of a country that is at least willing to tell some nutcase that no, he can't have a mass murder device to play with.
It's people, in general, that are the problem, and it is a problem that I've been dwelling on for years. It hit me like a ton of bricks and has been raking at my brain ever since I read an article about how we haven't found intelligent life "out there" yet. This has everything and nothing to do with alien life. The ideal behind the article is one that has been debated ever since we've seriously considered first contact a real possibility. If there's intelligent life out there, how come they haven't contacted us? Are they smart enough to stay away? Are we egotistical to think that our green time bomb is worth the trouble to a species capable of interstellar travel? Maybe there's nothing out there. Maybe it's already extinct. Maybe we're lucky.
Or, maybe, as the article pointed out, the entire idea of "civilization" is a counter-productive word in itself. Maybe having the brains to create a civilization and the ego to shape it is ultimately what prohibits us from advancing to the point of being star-tourists. When the time comes, are we really going to be able to save ourselves from anything? At this point, no.
People think that communism is evil, but that wasn't always the idea. On paper, communism was the perfect idea that needed a little tweaking, but communism has never existed as it was meant to. Communism is meant to be something along the lines of a zombie survival clan. The team is led by the best brain or two, the guns go to the best shooters, the rest gather resources, and the food and shelter is shared. If someone is cut loose, it's for the greater good and not for greed. Even that doesn't ever play out well, so you can see why communism never worked. People have needs and desires, and these needs and desires will clash. If everything is shared, someone will want more. Communism was always corrupt this way.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is a bunch of people who don't know when enough is enough. There is a girl I know that is the epitome of capitalism. She has never worked hard in her life and has always had everything handed to her on a silver platter. She has never earned anything, but rather, gets on the good side of those who would give it to her for free. She honestly believes that if it came down to it, she deserves health care more than your un-insured mother. Why? Well, despite her supposed belief in sharing, it is also her belief that despite the fact that her name has never been the primary recipient of health care, it is being shared with her in a capitalistic fashion, so that makes it OK. It bothers her that the government would allow someone to have health insurance that didn't work for it, even though the main priorities of her day are makeup and playing with her iPhone, none of which she bought. Though, I do suppose that this description would classify her as a pet more than anything, so maybe my argument is moot.
In reality, it all comes down to what mankind is capable of if we would just drop these labels. It's sad, but if a republican, a democrat, a communist, and a socialist were driving in a limo with a trunk full of food through the Sahara Desert and they came across a starving toddler....do you really think that there would be any argument as to what happens next? This is what we are capable of. If we took all of the food that this country wasted in the span of a week and tallied it up, we would find that world hunger is quite possibly the easiest thing in the world to solve, but we just refuse to do it. If the top ten most profitable companies in the world decided that they would take half of their yearly profits and were to fund new schools with them instead, then we would make a significant leap forward in our planet's overall education. We won't, and sometimes we can't because of other ego problems. Let's face it, if you start dumping several million dollars of goods in front of a country that hasn't stabilized itself yet, then someone is going to demand control over that for some stupid reason.
Then, there's religion. Please, somebody, ANYBODY, write me and tell me a religious doctrine that includes the decimation of non-believers. I actually don't know the answer to that. It would seem like religions mostly say, "live a good life in this way, live by these rules, and you will be rewarded."
Since when has humanity ever obeyed by those rules? In the average day, and American knowingly breaks at least one religious rule that they claim to believe in. Just owning a TV is grounds for getting thrown into Hell if you pay attention. Religion ultimately makes us go at each other's throats more than anything else when it comes to the grand scheme of things. You'd think that it was the US Armed Forces vs. terrorists, but some people have even spun that into an Americans vs. Muslim cage fight.
And we make weapons. Lots of weapons. We call it defense, but we really just perfect the art of killing. We can do it clean, quietly, and make sure no one ever knew it happened, or we can create the biggest bang in the history of bombs. It all comes down to style and the message you're trying to get across. They don't call it the "business end" without reason.
One day, none if it will matter. A black hole, supernova, meteor, alien death fortress, grey goo, polar shift.....none of those will discriminate. It won't matter what color you are, what race you are, what religion you are, what country you're from, what clothes you wear, what car you drive, etc. It's just going to kill you and bring some peace and quiet to the solar system. Funny thing is, we're entirely capable of handling all of that.
Most likely, we'll kill ourselves off first. Here we are, arguing about global warming, and the entire argument is the most worthless argument ever seriously debated in the planet's history. We're pumping tons of toxins into the air every minute of the day, and nobody in their right minds can honestly say that is a good thing regardless of whether or not it's causing the warming or not. If the world is cooling or warming, shouldn't we also stop arguing about who started it and maybe, you know, use our powerful human brains to decide what we're going to do when it ultimately happens? We're screwed. We're never going to get off this rock. We could, but we don't want to. We're incapable.
Watch Star Trek IV. Kirk winds up in the 80's with the crew of the Enterprise in an effort to save the future Earth because of the destructive sins of its past. In particular, humpback whales went extinct due to excessive and needless hunting practices. Yet, even though this point is pummeled through your brain like a jackhammer, it's something else in the movie that makes even more sense. Kirk gives away a few bills to each crew member, saying that the people of 80's Earth still use currency.
With all of the clamor made about having to start using Chinese currency or joining the EU, think about how things would be if we ditched money altogether. If we actually put ourselves to the test and did what humanity was capable of, we wouldn't need the stuff. It's really up to you to think about the different flavors of good that could be.
You may argue that you are absolutely against a world government. That's fair, but it makes no sense if the government was a good one. You may argue that religions would die out, but I don't see why they would have to. No one ever said that in order to succeed as a race, we had to block out the eastern sun or bulldoze a temple. You may also argue that capitalism would die, but why is that a big problem? You mean to honestly tell me that the value of a person's music or the ability to write "yes" on a sheet of paper makes them worth more than the person who works hard to make sure that their buildings are safe to sit in? I, for one, can't make that judgement. No one can. If music was free, would we have pirates? If we didn't have pirates, would we get spied on as much? If a person had all the resources in the world at their disposal to improve themselves, then how many frustrated people would we lose in this world that potentially could have caused the rest of us harm?
Sure, it sounds like utopia, but we are a species, and we're supposed to be surviving. We're not doing a very good job of it. Surviving means eventually getting off this rock, because it's going to go away eventually. Utopia on Earth would not mean that our species would lack a goal or challenge to push us forward and retain our humanity. We'd find trouble elsewhere, and we'd always have a little chaos on the homefront, but at least our species would have finally done what our parents always told us to do; go out there and be somebody.
Which is funnier when you consider that every politician and pundit whines and cries (see Beck, Glenn) about how their parents don't know anything. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Searching through the mountain of crap that is Facebook just to find out if a friend dropped a message about the Saints/Patriots game, I discovered how much less I like the service when every other friend seemed to have an opinion about God or America that was pretty narrow in scope. Having a belief is not a bad thing, but as I've said before, things are getting to the point where insanity is a gentle way of describing the way humanity has become.
The reason is that all of these beliefs are becoming antiquated, or at least they should be. When I was a child, I believed that the American way of life was the only way to go. Even now, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the hope that if one works hard, one can succeed and reach their desired goals. Our rights should be protected, because we are human beings, but the entire concept of this has gone out the window. "Real American" is a term that actually fights against what we're supposed to believe in. If the "American Way" and our unofficial Christian religion actually had anything to say, then each individual American wouldn't spend their time defending how it is their God-given right to use others as a pedestal. Seriously, listen to these people who get up on their podiums and say, almost exactly, these phrases:
"If the government gets any more control, I will no longer be able to field a company of fat CEO's, and that is un-American."
"You are a traitor if you believe that caring for the well-being of others is a priority of the country."
"It's OK to take liberties away from people, as long as its not me. That would be Socialism/Communism."
"It's OK to cheat people our of their money. Asking me to spare a few bucks from my multi-million dollar bank account to make sure someone doesn't die from a cold is not OK."
"Our President showed respect for another world leader? Well, he must be an evil socialist, because a true american capitalist would have pissed on his shoes."
I could go on for hours, but I don't care who you are, you simply cannot argue that these things have been said. We're not Americans. We're elitist pricks who care nothing of others, so long as they aren't bombing us.
You can save your hate mail for another few minutes, though, because Americans aren't the only problem. Rather, the country is just making obvious what the real problems are, and sometimes it's even nice to be part of a country that is at least willing to tell some nutcase that no, he can't have a mass murder device to play with.
It's people, in general, that are the problem, and it is a problem that I've been dwelling on for years. It hit me like a ton of bricks and has been raking at my brain ever since I read an article about how we haven't found intelligent life "out there" yet. This has everything and nothing to do with alien life. The ideal behind the article is one that has been debated ever since we've seriously considered first contact a real possibility. If there's intelligent life out there, how come they haven't contacted us? Are they smart enough to stay away? Are we egotistical to think that our green time bomb is worth the trouble to a species capable of interstellar travel? Maybe there's nothing out there. Maybe it's already extinct. Maybe we're lucky.
Or, maybe, as the article pointed out, the entire idea of "civilization" is a counter-productive word in itself. Maybe having the brains to create a civilization and the ego to shape it is ultimately what prohibits us from advancing to the point of being star-tourists. When the time comes, are we really going to be able to save ourselves from anything? At this point, no.
People think that communism is evil, but that wasn't always the idea. On paper, communism was the perfect idea that needed a little tweaking, but communism has never existed as it was meant to. Communism is meant to be something along the lines of a zombie survival clan. The team is led by the best brain or two, the guns go to the best shooters, the rest gather resources, and the food and shelter is shared. If someone is cut loose, it's for the greater good and not for greed. Even that doesn't ever play out well, so you can see why communism never worked. People have needs and desires, and these needs and desires will clash. If everything is shared, someone will want more. Communism was always corrupt this way.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is a bunch of people who don't know when enough is enough. There is a girl I know that is the epitome of capitalism. She has never worked hard in her life and has always had everything handed to her on a silver platter. She has never earned anything, but rather, gets on the good side of those who would give it to her for free. She honestly believes that if it came down to it, she deserves health care more than your un-insured mother. Why? Well, despite her supposed belief in sharing, it is also her belief that despite the fact that her name has never been the primary recipient of health care, it is being shared with her in a capitalistic fashion, so that makes it OK. It bothers her that the government would allow someone to have health insurance that didn't work for it, even though the main priorities of her day are makeup and playing with her iPhone, none of which she bought. Though, I do suppose that this description would classify her as a pet more than anything, so maybe my argument is moot.
In reality, it all comes down to what mankind is capable of if we would just drop these labels. It's sad, but if a republican, a democrat, a communist, and a socialist were driving in a limo with a trunk full of food through the Sahara Desert and they came across a starving toddler....do you really think that there would be any argument as to what happens next? This is what we are capable of. If we took all of the food that this country wasted in the span of a week and tallied it up, we would find that world hunger is quite possibly the easiest thing in the world to solve, but we just refuse to do it. If the top ten most profitable companies in the world decided that they would take half of their yearly profits and were to fund new schools with them instead, then we would make a significant leap forward in our planet's overall education. We won't, and sometimes we can't because of other ego problems. Let's face it, if you start dumping several million dollars of goods in front of a country that hasn't stabilized itself yet, then someone is going to demand control over that for some stupid reason.
Then, there's religion. Please, somebody, ANYBODY, write me and tell me a religious doctrine that includes the decimation of non-believers. I actually don't know the answer to that. It would seem like religions mostly say, "live a good life in this way, live by these rules, and you will be rewarded."
Since when has humanity ever obeyed by those rules? In the average day, and American knowingly breaks at least one religious rule that they claim to believe in. Just owning a TV is grounds for getting thrown into Hell if you pay attention. Religion ultimately makes us go at each other's throats more than anything else when it comes to the grand scheme of things. You'd think that it was the US Armed Forces vs. terrorists, but some people have even spun that into an Americans vs. Muslim cage fight.
And we make weapons. Lots of weapons. We call it defense, but we really just perfect the art of killing. We can do it clean, quietly, and make sure no one ever knew it happened, or we can create the biggest bang in the history of bombs. It all comes down to style and the message you're trying to get across. They don't call it the "business end" without reason.
One day, none if it will matter. A black hole, supernova, meteor, alien death fortress, grey goo, polar shift.....none of those will discriminate. It won't matter what color you are, what race you are, what religion you are, what country you're from, what clothes you wear, what car you drive, etc. It's just going to kill you and bring some peace and quiet to the solar system. Funny thing is, we're entirely capable of handling all of that.
Most likely, we'll kill ourselves off first. Here we are, arguing about global warming, and the entire argument is the most worthless argument ever seriously debated in the planet's history. We're pumping tons of toxins into the air every minute of the day, and nobody in their right minds can honestly say that is a good thing regardless of whether or not it's causing the warming or not. If the world is cooling or warming, shouldn't we also stop arguing about who started it and maybe, you know, use our powerful human brains to decide what we're going to do when it ultimately happens? We're screwed. We're never going to get off this rock. We could, but we don't want to. We're incapable.
Watch Star Trek IV. Kirk winds up in the 80's with the crew of the Enterprise in an effort to save the future Earth because of the destructive sins of its past. In particular, humpback whales went extinct due to excessive and needless hunting practices. Yet, even though this point is pummeled through your brain like a jackhammer, it's something else in the movie that makes even more sense. Kirk gives away a few bills to each crew member, saying that the people of 80's Earth still use currency.
With all of the clamor made about having to start using Chinese currency or joining the EU, think about how things would be if we ditched money altogether. If we actually put ourselves to the test and did what humanity was capable of, we wouldn't need the stuff. It's really up to you to think about the different flavors of good that could be.
You may argue that you are absolutely against a world government. That's fair, but it makes no sense if the government was a good one. You may argue that religions would die out, but I don't see why they would have to. No one ever said that in order to succeed as a race, we had to block out the eastern sun or bulldoze a temple. You may also argue that capitalism would die, but why is that a big problem? You mean to honestly tell me that the value of a person's music or the ability to write "yes" on a sheet of paper makes them worth more than the person who works hard to make sure that their buildings are safe to sit in? I, for one, can't make that judgement. No one can. If music was free, would we have pirates? If we didn't have pirates, would we get spied on as much? If a person had all the resources in the world at their disposal to improve themselves, then how many frustrated people would we lose in this world that potentially could have caused the rest of us harm?
Sure, it sounds like utopia, but we are a species, and we're supposed to be surviving. We're not doing a very good job of it. Surviving means eventually getting off this rock, because it's going to go away eventually. Utopia on Earth would not mean that our species would lack a goal or challenge to push us forward and retain our humanity. We'd find trouble elsewhere, and we'd always have a little chaos on the homefront, but at least our species would have finally done what our parents always told us to do; go out there and be somebody.
Which is funnier when you consider that every politician and pundit whines and cries (see Beck, Glenn) about how their parents don't know anything. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
November 30, 2009
A sacrifice for the greater good
So now that the explanation is out of the way, which series need to make like a tree?
Some of our most loved series may be ageless in plot, but unfortunately for them, time passes in the real world and the grey hairs are showing. The next five games you're about to see have seen their time come and go, and while the concepts that they introduced may have captivated us at some point, those mechanics need to find a new home.
Final Fight
Once the definitive arcade beat-em-up, Final Fight lost its luster once games got their third dimension. The original game was given two proper console sequels that lived up to expectations, but in the 14 years since, its been hard to get a good reminder of what it was like to break through the gangs of Metro City without going all the way back to the original.
It's difficult to want this series to be obsolete, but it is. Any other game could pick up the basic formula and run with it. The series was known for doing one thing extremely well, and its that very same thing that other bigger titles lack. Many gamers long for the days when a good street fight meant responsive controls and predictable behavior from their character without the need for physics to mess up a good thing. Since physics are here to stay, developers have gone the way of lock-on targeting/combos to make a 3-D plane go the 2-D route, and almost any game you pick up will have the basic hand-to-hand system Final Fight gave us.
Guy and Cody are back in Street Fighter, and Capcom is known to re-use characters if the opportunity presents itself, so you won't be seeing the last of Metro City. However, its time for the Final Fight franchise to take a bow.
Should be incorporated by: Grand Theft Auto
Driver
This one goes without saying. Driver did a lot of things right when it was first released, but each installment since has been an effort to do expand the series beyond what it did so well. When it came to feeling like you were truly behind the wheel, Driver was one of the very best on the original Playstation. With each sequel less welcome than the one before it, it's easy to put this series on the list.
If anything, Rockstar has single handedly made this game obsolete. What Grand Theft Auto doesn't do, Midnight Club does. Any sandbox game worth its salt is going to have driving in the mix, and we now know that at least one or two of them are going to do it better than a Driver game will. When you do one thing well, yet another series that isn't even focused on that aspect does it better, you have a good reason to hang it up for good.
Should be incorporated by: Done.
Fable
Probably the biggest shocker on the list, but it really shouldn't be. Fable's main drawing point is that you interact with the world, and in turn, the world reacts to you. The sheer freedom of action addicts many gamers, alluring many of them to seduce entire towns while buying up all their property behind their backs. Even your character's appearance changes depending on how you plan the game, leaving this western-RPG with one of the most interactive gaming worlds every created.
The trouble is that no one can put up a good argument that the story is any good for either game. While the concept is sound, it winds up being boring, leaving many players hoping for sequels that would hopefully improve the whole experience by delivering on false promises made by a certain developer and his big mouth. That day will never come, because Fable is an idea, and unfortunately one devoid of any real direction or execution.
While I hate to refer back to GTA again, San Andreas gave a glimpse as to what would happen if this idea were incorporated into a real game. If you ran a lot, your character would be more fit. Almost any game with an RPG feel could take the mechanics Fable used and put them into a better narrative, and sandbox games could use those same mechanics to beef up general freedoms. Hell, it's already happening. Why do we need Fable?
Should be incorporated by: Grant Theft Auto, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and if Blizzard wanted to be a prick, World of Warcraft
Sonic the Hedgehog
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. On the Genesis, his games were golden, offering blistering speed in a time when games just didn't move fast at all. Even the platforming wasn't all bad for its time. As with Final Fight, 3-D just wasn't too kind to the blue blur, and the games suffered from flaws that could encompass a list 100 entries long. For starters, the plots were just plain bad, made even worse by the fact that the games actually focus on them. To be fair, if one were to buy into Sega's claim that creating hundreds of miles of "track" isn't realistic and that the action needs to be broken up somehow, this makes sense, but the plots don't have to be that bad, do they? Then the plots are voiced over by people who make you mute the TV. If you can bear all of this, you're not even treated to true Sonic speed 90% of the time.
What's worse is that the series has run its course even on the 2-D plane. Even with good handheld games being released, it all feels like a rehash. There was once a way to save this series, but I don't think it can be done anymore. If the Sonic universe had incorporated, say, Super Monkey Ball in between the speed sections, then Sonic would have had something else to offer besides speed that would actually have been good. Diversity doesn't mean sticking 10 other Sonic-clones into a game to serve the same terrible purpose.
Should Sonic himself go? No way. He should stick around and be the fast and badass mammal we all want him to be. Under no circumstances, though, should he ever be allowed to get a full game to his credit again.
Should be incorporated by: Mario, a Sega Universe title, Mega Man (all you have to do is ask)
Ridge Racer
A mainstay for Sony consoles, Ridge Racer has consistently been the marker of a new generation. From launching a new Playstation to showing off what an aging console is capable of, Ridge Racer has always been there to remind us that racing titles can be for everyone while looking damn good in the process.
When I bought my PS3, I immediately went for a trio of racing games to test the console. Burnout: Paradise, Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, and Ridge Racer 7 were those games, and I felt that I was covered as far as my racing needs were concerned. Yet, I never went back to Ridge Racer. The original Ridge Racer and R4 have always been two favorites, but I thought that the series suffered from a couple of miscues outside of that. Little did I know that the series was generally a miscue of its own. It's hard to say it, but Ridge Racer doesn't offer anything impressive any more. If you need insane arcade speed, then you play Burnout. If you want realism, you play Gran Turismo. If you're looking for a sensory overdose, then you play Wipeout. Ridge Racer used to be known for its solid racing mechanics and fun drifting, but the drifting is completely overused to a laughable extent and it doesn't feel like Ridge Racer is fun to play anymore.
Everything that Ridge Racer does well is easily transferable to another game. When it comes to launching a system, then Ridge Racer is really the only game in town to get your racing fix. If you have any patience at all, then you will be rewarded for not spending your money, and while it pains me to say it, that pretty much makes this series obsolete.
Should be incorporated by: Burnout (with a city based in Japan), and Gran Turismo (having a true arcade mode)
So there you have it. Nothing against the characters of these games, because we all want to keep the likes of Guy, Sonic, and Reiko, but their series have nothing to offer anymore. Each game possesses a quality that is great, but would be better served working for another team, because those qualities alone do not make a great, or even good, game. Not that it matters, because at least four of these titles will have another sequel. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Some of our most loved series may be ageless in plot, but unfortunately for them, time passes in the real world and the grey hairs are showing. The next five games you're about to see have seen their time come and go, and while the concepts that they introduced may have captivated us at some point, those mechanics need to find a new home.
Final Fight
Once the definitive arcade beat-em-up, Final Fight lost its luster once games got their third dimension. The original game was given two proper console sequels that lived up to expectations, but in the 14 years since, its been hard to get a good reminder of what it was like to break through the gangs of Metro City without going all the way back to the original.
It's difficult to want this series to be obsolete, but it is. Any other game could pick up the basic formula and run with it. The series was known for doing one thing extremely well, and its that very same thing that other bigger titles lack. Many gamers long for the days when a good street fight meant responsive controls and predictable behavior from their character without the need for physics to mess up a good thing. Since physics are here to stay, developers have gone the way of lock-on targeting/combos to make a 3-D plane go the 2-D route, and almost any game you pick up will have the basic hand-to-hand system Final Fight gave us.
Guy and Cody are back in Street Fighter, and Capcom is known to re-use characters if the opportunity presents itself, so you won't be seeing the last of Metro City. However, its time for the Final Fight franchise to take a bow.
Should be incorporated by: Grand Theft Auto
Driver
This one goes without saying. Driver did a lot of things right when it was first released, but each installment since has been an effort to do expand the series beyond what it did so well. When it came to feeling like you were truly behind the wheel, Driver was one of the very best on the original Playstation. With each sequel less welcome than the one before it, it's easy to put this series on the list.
If anything, Rockstar has single handedly made this game obsolete. What Grand Theft Auto doesn't do, Midnight Club does. Any sandbox game worth its salt is going to have driving in the mix, and we now know that at least one or two of them are going to do it better than a Driver game will. When you do one thing well, yet another series that isn't even focused on that aspect does it better, you have a good reason to hang it up for good.
Should be incorporated by: Done.
Fable
Probably the biggest shocker on the list, but it really shouldn't be. Fable's main drawing point is that you interact with the world, and in turn, the world reacts to you. The sheer freedom of action addicts many gamers, alluring many of them to seduce entire towns while buying up all their property behind their backs. Even your character's appearance changes depending on how you plan the game, leaving this western-RPG with one of the most interactive gaming worlds every created.
The trouble is that no one can put up a good argument that the story is any good for either game. While the concept is sound, it winds up being boring, leaving many players hoping for sequels that would hopefully improve the whole experience by delivering on false promises made by a certain developer and his big mouth. That day will never come, because Fable is an idea, and unfortunately one devoid of any real direction or execution.
While I hate to refer back to GTA again, San Andreas gave a glimpse as to what would happen if this idea were incorporated into a real game. If you ran a lot, your character would be more fit. Almost any game with an RPG feel could take the mechanics Fable used and put them into a better narrative, and sandbox games could use those same mechanics to beef up general freedoms. Hell, it's already happening. Why do we need Fable?
Should be incorporated by: Grant Theft Auto, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and if Blizzard wanted to be a prick, World of Warcraft
Sonic the Hedgehog
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. On the Genesis, his games were golden, offering blistering speed in a time when games just didn't move fast at all. Even the platforming wasn't all bad for its time. As with Final Fight, 3-D just wasn't too kind to the blue blur, and the games suffered from flaws that could encompass a list 100 entries long. For starters, the plots were just plain bad, made even worse by the fact that the games actually focus on them. To be fair, if one were to buy into Sega's claim that creating hundreds of miles of "track" isn't realistic and that the action needs to be broken up somehow, this makes sense, but the plots don't have to be that bad, do they? Then the plots are voiced over by people who make you mute the TV. If you can bear all of this, you're not even treated to true Sonic speed 90% of the time.
What's worse is that the series has run its course even on the 2-D plane. Even with good handheld games being released, it all feels like a rehash. There was once a way to save this series, but I don't think it can be done anymore. If the Sonic universe had incorporated, say, Super Monkey Ball in between the speed sections, then Sonic would have had something else to offer besides speed that would actually have been good. Diversity doesn't mean sticking 10 other Sonic-clones into a game to serve the same terrible purpose.
Should Sonic himself go? No way. He should stick around and be the fast and badass mammal we all want him to be. Under no circumstances, though, should he ever be allowed to get a full game to his credit again.
Should be incorporated by: Mario, a Sega Universe title, Mega Man (all you have to do is ask)
Ridge Racer
A mainstay for Sony consoles, Ridge Racer has consistently been the marker of a new generation. From launching a new Playstation to showing off what an aging console is capable of, Ridge Racer has always been there to remind us that racing titles can be for everyone while looking damn good in the process.
When I bought my PS3, I immediately went for a trio of racing games to test the console. Burnout: Paradise, Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, and Ridge Racer 7 were those games, and I felt that I was covered as far as my racing needs were concerned. Yet, I never went back to Ridge Racer. The original Ridge Racer and R4 have always been two favorites, but I thought that the series suffered from a couple of miscues outside of that. Little did I know that the series was generally a miscue of its own. It's hard to say it, but Ridge Racer doesn't offer anything impressive any more. If you need insane arcade speed, then you play Burnout. If you want realism, you play Gran Turismo. If you're looking for a sensory overdose, then you play Wipeout. Ridge Racer used to be known for its solid racing mechanics and fun drifting, but the drifting is completely overused to a laughable extent and it doesn't feel like Ridge Racer is fun to play anymore.
Everything that Ridge Racer does well is easily transferable to another game. When it comes to launching a system, then Ridge Racer is really the only game in town to get your racing fix. If you have any patience at all, then you will be rewarded for not spending your money, and while it pains me to say it, that pretty much makes this series obsolete.
Should be incorporated by: Burnout (with a city based in Japan), and Gran Turismo (having a true arcade mode)
So there you have it. Nothing against the characters of these games, because we all want to keep the likes of Guy, Sonic, and Reiko, but their series have nothing to offer anymore. Each game possesses a quality that is great, but would be better served working for another team, because those qualities alone do not make a great, or even good, game. Not that it matters, because at least four of these titles will have another sequel. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Law of Convergence
If anybody read the Grand Theft Auto V retort a few days ago, you may remember that I mentioned the Law of Convergence. I'm almost sure that there is a proper term for this, but I'm too lazy to find it and I came up with it a long time ago anyway. Regardless, the idea is sort of commonplace now, and is relevant alongside Moore's Law and Chaos Theory.
The technical explanation? Well, it doesn't even strictly apply to games. The idea is that computing power, as it increases, allows for more complex applications to be processed as time passes. As more powerful applications are developed, the job of the new application is to also perform tasks that, at one point, were standalone applications that used the bulk of that computing power. The most basic example is the calculator. When computers first came around, they had to be the size of rooms to perform basic calculator functions and only that. Years later, a calculator could be written as an application booted by the computer, but the computer could only run one application at a time. Even later, an operating system enabled the calculator task to be performed within an operating system, which in essence, is an application. Now, a calculator is incorporated into any program that uses numbers.
The Law of Convergence also allows for the re-allocation of smaller applications as trends progress. Take AOL, for instance. AOL contained a full suite of internet applications, but AOL was not necessary as an application in itself. As time passed, the functions of AOL such as Instant Messenger and their e-mail service were no longer incorporated into the AOL program, but were broken down into individual parts. Some services become obsolete, and Instant Messenger was given its own lightweight program to be reincorporated elsewhere.
While the idea is applicable to most technology, its most visible use is in social media and gaming. Grant Theft Auto IV, for example, lets you play an arcade game while your character is in a pool hall. This game is your standard puzzle game that could have been, and still could be, sold as a standalone game. It has been converged into a larger game at the most literal level. Grand Theft Auto, as a sandbox game, pretty much exemplifies what convergence actually does for gaming apart from this time waster.
As the series progressed, it started taking on the traits of other games. Driver, for example, was pretty much screwed as a competitor because it only did one thing really well: driving. The physics were great and it was loads of fun to play, but eventually Rockstar took everything that was good about the driving and placed it into their flagship series, eliminating the need for another Driver to ever see the light of day. GTA: SA started to use elements from western-RPG's to promote character growth (sometimes literally), and GTA IV has a rudimentary hand-to-hand combat system that allows for basic combos. Flight is also included in the modern games, as well as boating. Many side missions even encourage you to take a stab at taxi missions and street racing, ideas that still manage to have full games devoted to them.
Basically, Grand Theft Auto will eventually be Midnight Club, Crazy Taxi, Final Fight, Black, Fable, and several other games wrapped up into one title. Unless another game beats Rockstar to the punch, it's going to happen. It's inevitable. It's law.
So there's the explanation. Now, getting on to the application... Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
The technical explanation? Well, it doesn't even strictly apply to games. The idea is that computing power, as it increases, allows for more complex applications to be processed as time passes. As more powerful applications are developed, the job of the new application is to also perform tasks that, at one point, were standalone applications that used the bulk of that computing power. The most basic example is the calculator. When computers first came around, they had to be the size of rooms to perform basic calculator functions and only that. Years later, a calculator could be written as an application booted by the computer, but the computer could only run one application at a time. Even later, an operating system enabled the calculator task to be performed within an operating system, which in essence, is an application. Now, a calculator is incorporated into any program that uses numbers.
The Law of Convergence also allows for the re-allocation of smaller applications as trends progress. Take AOL, for instance. AOL contained a full suite of internet applications, but AOL was not necessary as an application in itself. As time passed, the functions of AOL such as Instant Messenger and their e-mail service were no longer incorporated into the AOL program, but were broken down into individual parts. Some services become obsolete, and Instant Messenger was given its own lightweight program to be reincorporated elsewhere.
While the idea is applicable to most technology, its most visible use is in social media and gaming. Grant Theft Auto IV, for example, lets you play an arcade game while your character is in a pool hall. This game is your standard puzzle game that could have been, and still could be, sold as a standalone game. It has been converged into a larger game at the most literal level. Grand Theft Auto, as a sandbox game, pretty much exemplifies what convergence actually does for gaming apart from this time waster.
As the series progressed, it started taking on the traits of other games. Driver, for example, was pretty much screwed as a competitor because it only did one thing really well: driving. The physics were great and it was loads of fun to play, but eventually Rockstar took everything that was good about the driving and placed it into their flagship series, eliminating the need for another Driver to ever see the light of day. GTA: SA started to use elements from western-RPG's to promote character growth (sometimes literally), and GTA IV has a rudimentary hand-to-hand combat system that allows for basic combos. Flight is also included in the modern games, as well as boating. Many side missions even encourage you to take a stab at taxi missions and street racing, ideas that still manage to have full games devoted to them.
Basically, Grand Theft Auto will eventually be Midnight Club, Crazy Taxi, Final Fight, Black, Fable, and several other games wrapped up into one title. Unless another game beats Rockstar to the punch, it's going to happen. It's inevitable. It's law.
So there's the explanation. Now, getting on to the application... Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Minus the spider
After months of having a "sort of want" view of Infamous (I won't be using inFAMOUS here), a deal too good to pass buy put the game into my possession. I gave a Twitter post reminding of the Infamous/Arkham Asylum/Dark Knight Blu-Ray PS3 bundle for the regular PS3 price of $300, and my intentions played out well in that a friend of mine itching for a PS3 got the system while I got the game at a reduced price for everybody. Hey, the economy demands that creativity be had.
After playing the hell out of Prototype, I felt obligated to make a comparison somewhere down the line, but that feeling has since passed. These games are just too similar, down to wonky controls and side missions. The criticism I slap down on one easily translates to criticism of the other. If you consider that Prototype was heavily inspired by a recent Hulk game and that you could throw a lot of Spider-Man games into the mix, we're talking about a general superhero problem.
What impressed me the most was that the companies behind Infamous and Prototype approached their subject matter in a fresh way. Instead of banking on an already known superhero, the development houses created characters and narratives from scratch to deliver their high ambition games. Short, comic-booky cutscenes littered each game and the player has to learn about what's going on in the background through these plot morsels. It's a good idea, and each game turned out to be a solid effort in the end, so their creativity didn't end up in vain.
The criticism, for the sake of article flow, also begin here. As ambitious as the projects were, I felt that the storylines were a bit of a let-down in some ways. With an entire city available for playground needs, plot becomes scarce and amounts to checkpoints in the game. This is sort of the norm, and there's nothing immediately wrong with that. In an RPG, you generally have time to roam until you choose to approach the next step in the ongoing story, and that's what you get in these games. It is something that I think needs changing, and I was hoping that these games would provide a little of that evolution.
The reason I say this is because they had a golden opportunity to do something truly revolutionary with their storytelling. The gameplay in each game is heavily flawed in many respects, and the storyline should have picked up the slack. Many entertainment houses are trying to cash in on the superhero, and even comic, tag. Heroes, Lost, and Push (hey, I liked it) have all tried their hand in some way at creating new comic book experiences outside of print, and they generally succeeded while introducing something new from a creative standpoint rather than tried and true legacy heroes that litter every aspect of entertainment. Games have lacked this, despite being the perfect venue to evolve the narrative beyond a set story.
Spider-Man 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum were outstanding, don't get me wrong, but they were more fun than evolutionary, and worse, the pinnacle of superhero gaming. Beyond these titles, you get Spider-Man 3 or Web of Shadows, Ultimate Alliance, Iron Man, Superman 64, Turok, etc. Each game varies on the fun-factor scale from good to terrible, but each one was significantly castrated in some way. Even Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, a huge release, amounted to little more than a pseudo-RPG designed around unlocks more than anything, fetching junk, mindlessly and unimaginatively plowing through enemy waves, and trying to be Diablo while having none of its depth.
Thing is, comic books may be devoted to unbelievable stories of skill and superpowers, but they're also about a multi-layered story. Civil War was an event that hit every major title on the shelves, and you basically had to pick and choose what characters you wanted to follow through the whole ordeal or sacrifice a paycheck. That was just for one week of publications, nevermind the saga in its entirety.
So when I say that these games missed a golden opportunity, I mean it. There was a great opportunity here to develop a huge, massive world of characters and motivations that didn't necessarily need to resolve itself within each games' timespan. I understand that there are some exceptions, but those are nothing compared to what could have been done.
Why are games perfect for this? A movie or TV series needs to focus itself to advance a narrative. Comics need to do this as well, but there are multiple opportunities each week to drop a little bit of the complete story across dozens of titles. There's flexibility there. Games don't need to focus themselves so much, and sandbox games such as these designed around player freedom have even less of a reason to provide a singular focus through 100% of the game.
So what happens when a developer half-assedly tries to expand the game world? Fetch quests, the bane of these games and one of the worst flaws that a superhero game can have. I loved the Web of Intrigue idea that Prototype had, but it really amounted to a prolonged fetch quest that I felt had more potential. Each game has too many fetch quests already. Each game had tokens to discover, scattered along the rooftops of each respective city, and you were always chasing something minute down. The problem is that there is such little reward and less imagination involved. You're generally hunting down side-mission markers on a map for some reason or another, and your reward is usually a token, medal, or a mission. While the first two are just unavoidable nowadays, the mission part of each game is terrible. No matter what, you will play the same mission dozens of times before the end of the game. It amounts to a bad ripoff of Spider-Man's "citizen in distress" side-missions.
Yet, you're not doing anything other than collecting. There is a battle for territory going on in both games, but I can't think of a time where I completed a side mission and thought that I understood the game world better. I usually felt the exact opposite, feeling like I was mindlessly grinding until all of the side-missions were done so that they wouldn't be locked away from me when I tried to advance the actual story. Specifically, in Infamous, there is a mission called "Spy Games" where you follow a grunt for a few blocks until he drops off a package. You'd think I'd actually be spying on something, but I was actually just following this grunt to "fetch" his tokens when he dropped them. I didn't spy on an enemy to gain story insight; I spied on him for shiny objects. Prototype doesn't bother to avoid this either, asking the player to do missions involving what you normally do around the city, but doing it in a limited space instead.
Oh, and the controls are clunky in both games. Not unplayable, just clunky.
My real beef is just story related, though. All that I've said doesn't begin to describe what the games could have offered. Sure, each will get its sequel and get a chance to expand the characters, but so much more could have happened. A lot was going on in the background of both games (or at least, a lot COULD have been going on), but it was all related to the immediate story. Where's the imagination to go beyond that? If a developer creates a comic-inspired game, then maybe it would benefit them to, well, actually get their inspiration from comics. Comics aren't just about the superpowers. I appreciate Infamous trying to give Son of Electro a black and white choice on the matter, but a good story begins when you take a character, place him into a situation, and see how he reacts to a situation. Marvel Comics in particular deal with this as their MO. Testuo-Hulk destroying everything is hardly character development. Tthough, Hulk is a hard character to write a story for because of this.
If sequels are going to be made, then I implore both Sucker Punch and Radical Entertainment to drop the crappy side-missions and go read some comic books for inspiration. Even if the depth isn't that interesting, comic books at least have it. These games don't. It wouldn't stop me from recommending them to other gamers, but story depth is the difference between an 80% metascore and a classic game that goes beyond grading systems.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
November 27, 2009
Careful, they bite
Returning from my excursion into hell, or Black Friday as mortals call it, I checked Digg and read up on an article that described the Bulgarian space program as being in constant contact with aliens using crop circles as cosmic "texts". The idea is that aliens are watching us all the time, but they know we're too crazy to actually make real contact with. If they watch what goes on during a typical Black Friday, then I can see why they're choosing to stay the hell out of sight. I hate to turn holiday shopping into some profound moral lesson, but we're absolutely nuts as a species.
After a trampling death was reported last year, you'd think that people would sort of "get it", but they don't. During the "3....2....1..." countdown, some dipshit 20 some year old chick was giggling as she broke through the line and jogged her way to the electronics, despite constant reminders not to run, mainly because that would encourage other people to run to catch up to her. It would have been more poetic had they run, trampled her, then continued with no second thoughts. Sorry, but a girl who thinks she's being cute because she broke the line deserved a clothesline along the way at least.
If it wasn't for the smug look, it might not have bothered me. At least she could have look confused like she didn't know what was going on, or faking a female emergency would have worked, too.
Regardless, I managed to do some covert actions and snagged me the one piece of loot I was hoping to get, and quickly realized that the hounds were descending quickly. I escaped, but not before seeing people's common sense and dignity switches get turned to "off". Shoving happened a lot, and I hate to say it, but there was a clear gender gap when it came to cruelty. Women were so much more likely to shove, steal, and push their way through everything, where men were just trying to survive. One mother in particular was barking orders to her children like they were going to war and threatening to take away Christmas presents if they did not meet a success quota.
Is it all worth it? You know, it's hard to say. All I know is that there's something to be said for random people who have never met before from all walks of life being at a crazy event and just cracking jokes, having fun, and helping each other find the best toys. Not once have I ever gone to a Black Friday opening without taking a few moments to see if I can get my hands on something for a person I've never met before, and it's nice to know that the favor was returned. I always bump into someone that makes me smile, and that part is worth it even if 20 others are probably plotting my doom before the ropes even go down. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
After a trampling death was reported last year, you'd think that people would sort of "get it", but they don't. During the "3....2....1..." countdown, some dipshit 20 some year old chick was giggling as she broke through the line and jogged her way to the electronics, despite constant reminders not to run, mainly because that would encourage other people to run to catch up to her. It would have been more poetic had they run, trampled her, then continued with no second thoughts. Sorry, but a girl who thinks she's being cute because she broke the line deserved a clothesline along the way at least.
If it wasn't for the smug look, it might not have bothered me. At least she could have look confused like she didn't know what was going on, or faking a female emergency would have worked, too.
Regardless, I managed to do some covert actions and snagged me the one piece of loot I was hoping to get, and quickly realized that the hounds were descending quickly. I escaped, but not before seeing people's common sense and dignity switches get turned to "off". Shoving happened a lot, and I hate to say it, but there was a clear gender gap when it came to cruelty. Women were so much more likely to shove, steal, and push their way through everything, where men were just trying to survive. One mother in particular was barking orders to her children like they were going to war and threatening to take away Christmas presents if they did not meet a success quota.
Is it all worth it? You know, it's hard to say. All I know is that there's something to be said for random people who have never met before from all walks of life being at a crazy event and just cracking jokes, having fun, and helping each other find the best toys. Not once have I ever gone to a Black Friday opening without taking a few moments to see if I can get my hands on something for a person I've never met before, and it's nice to know that the favor was returned. I always bump into someone that makes me smile, and that part is worth it even if 20 others are probably plotting my doom before the ropes even go down. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
November 23, 2009
From the only man who ever got the 4th triforce piece
A friend of mine came over when I decided to go through the original Legend of Zelda on the NES. I went through the first dungeon, making my adjustments back to the strict 4-dimensional ways of gaming, when the topic of A Link to the Past came up. The response? He had never played it. The only stories he could relate about Zelda were his Ocarina days.
A lot of people throw Ocarina in as one of the best games to ever grace a console, and they would be right, if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't even the best Zelda game. It's close, I'll give it that, but it comes out a clear second every time to a game without a 3rd dimension. A Link to the Past, in my eyes, was hands down better than Ocarina could ever hope to be. There's a few reasons why I believe that, but I'll just start out by saying that every standard in the Zelda series beyond the absolute basics began with this game and did it all right.
Later games, post-Ocarina, come off as a bit gimmicky. I know that the gimmicks began with LttP to begin with, but it never felt like you were being asked to do something stupid just to get through the story. As good of a game Wind Waker may be, the fact that you spend half of it sailing takes away from the core experience. That doesn't mean it's a bad mechanic, but it dilutes the purity of Zelda.
When the original first hit the NES, gamers were dropped into a world with a basic idea of what they were doing and a manual to go with it. I still vividly remember the little books that came with it. It took everything boring about the PC RPG and put it on a console with a controller, letting you manipulate everything and rely on skill and reflexes rather than aimless grinding. You earn your stripes in Zelda, having goals to pursue and tools necessary to make the adventure possible. The secrets in this game were many, and gamers were mostly left blind to figure out what to do, which made the satisfaction of beating the game monumental. It was a completely different experience from today's Zelda games, but it's understandable considering that a game like the original Zelda is a hard think to duplicate in today's gaming climate. Yet, the basics were there, and A Link to the Past hit the ground running to create the modern Zelda when it came out on the SNES.
Nintendo knew what made the original game classic, but it also had the task of creating a game that didn't just duplicate, but evolve the series out of blind adventuring. The Super Nintendo was, at the time, a beast of a machine, and to just copy the original Zelda would have been extremely bland and counter-productive. Hyrule became a lush world of bright colors in its "light" form and dreary, decrepit, and twisted in its "dark" form. NPC's roamed the land and a new form of interactivity with the world was invented that would become the Zelda norm.
To begin the game, Link wakes up and immediately starts his quest with an unseen cry for help. The first thing you do is storm a castle to rescue Zelda, with a simple dungeon serving as a tutorial or "warm-up" without actually being on. This idea is lost on later games, and although the complexity has risen since then, it's tough to beat that feeling of "getting on with it" rather than spending a half an hour talking to everyone and their mystical tree just to get your sword and shield. That, and speed is paramount in LttP. I appreciate the 3-D worlds given to us by Nintendo, but they tend to slow gameplay down at times. In Zelda, if you need to get somewhere, you haul ass across an action packed landscape to get to where you need to go, hardly ever needing to slow the pace down to introduce the new creatures you meet to the business end of your sword.
That doesn't mean that brains aren't a factor here, but you'll spend less time looking at an entire room top to bottom in an effort to craft solutions to problems and more time meeting your goals and getting some good loot out of it. The game has just as much equipment as any other Zelda game after it, but it is much less of a headache on the gamer to get them. This particular Hyrule is easy to learn by heart, and the in-game map it comes with it probably the easiest world map to use in any Zelda game ever.
As I mentioned before, the original Zelda left you blind through most of your quest, but the SNES version is very different. Because of the introduction of an in-game plot, you get more clues about where you need to go, giving you the simplest form of direction. Instead of Navi or Midna being at your side constantly to be your portable hint system, you are still left to determine the "how", but thankfully the "where" is pretty easy to figure out. Should you forget, there are places you can go to drop that reminder. Now, I realize that half of the Zelda formula is the dungeons with the other half being Hyrule itself, but this is the one game that really strikes that perfect balance between leaving you alone to figure things out and making it as painless as possible to do so. When people get stuck in a 3-D game, it's 10 times more difficult to figure out what you need to be doing to get past a certain point. With this game, you simply don't get that frustrated, as the answer is always right around the corner and easy to find.
By easy, of course, I mean quick and painless to find out. You still have to know what you're doing, and you certainly need brains and skill at all times. LttP is challenging, and is no walk in the park to figure out if you've never played it before. You need reflexes and effective use of your tools, but thankfully this is the best controlled Zelda game to ever exist. Yes, it's easier to perfect a 2-D system, but that doesn't mean that the game should receive less credit for achieving that. Gameplay ultimately makes or breaks a game, and that's probably why I consider this game to be the best.
It's not the longest game that Nintendo has produced for the series, but it is still huge, nonetheless. It offers up a very good challenge for gamers to this day, and even if you've played it before, it's hard to not come back to this game and have new kids of fun with it. When I played it again, I found myself sequence breaking everything I possibly could by sheer accident, and it added a welcome challenge. For those who never did play it, I urge you to give it a shot. The basics are all there; sound, graphics, and gameplay are excellent. It is the Zelda equivalent to Super Metroid in its perfection, and that's one of the highest praises anyone can give to a game. Lastly, if you're an Ocarina child, you're bound to love this game. It's much easier to pick up and enjoy while still retaining that Zelda-punch that the N64 provided. Don't expect anything archaic here. This game has stood up on its own for almost two decades now as a true classic, and don't expect it to go anywhere in the near future. This is THE Zelda game for now.
100%
Now, I am a devoted Zelda fan. Not to the point where I will gobble up anything Zelda related, but I love my Zelda. I admit that I wish some of this more recent stuff would just go away, as I think that I could not only do without the gimmicks, but also because I sort of liked the vagueness of Link as a hero. Growing up, Link was just a cool looking hero that was the exact opposite you could expect from a sword-swinger on a quest to save a princess. The greatest thing was that the plot-lines were so thin and so little history was given to Link that he sort of had this mystique about him. The Triforce was equally awesome, as only someone who played and loved the game would recognize it, and they would always love the reference. Now, it's everywhere. Link has partners, girls get Triforce tattoos all the time, and the games sort of take away the mystique a little bit. That's just my view, but don't think that I'm bashing the franchise. I'm not, and I know that I'm sort of nostalgic rather than realistic about those views.
That said, the series needs a kick in the balls.
For all of the reasons stated above, Zelda needs to return to its roots. This game, ideally, should start by dumping you into the game world immediately, no apologies. If there's a forced tutorial, then it cannot possibly take itself seriously. I don't even care if the game has an "attract mode" introduction to the story in full cut-scene splendor, but even then, the basics of what's going on will be fine. Besides, it's only going to be "This is Hyrule and Zelda's kidnapped.", so the cut-scene can't possibly be intrusive.
The game should look epic, like a good fantasy movie without the frills. I'm talking gritty 80's here. I don't care what it takes, but the next "true" Zelda game needs to make graphics a priority, because this game needs to have a bite to it. This game should have a threatening vibe without getting too creepy, more in tune with the NES games. NPC's can be in the game, provided that they don't look like cartoon versions of a douchebag like they have been lately. Impa should be in the game, and the old man should come back for fun with some moblins, too.
As far as sound goes, bring back some of the old tunes for authenticities sake. I'm tired of barely hearing the familiar fanfares of games past. While we're at it, a full orchestra is in order. No fake orchestra, no electronic synthesizers...only an orchestra will suffice. As far as sound effects go, I want that shooting sword back with its original sound effect.
In the end, this game would need to be fantastically grounded. I think that the series could benefit from some of its own nostalgia by trying to achieve the results found in pre-CG fantasy effects with movies as a style point. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the tangible nature of those films gave the sense that the fantasy was being lived rather than just existing as eye candy. In modern Zelda games, there's a whole lot of additions that make a "look at my game world" vibe come off a series that never needed to define its own make-up. The funny looking NPC's I run into seem pretentious, but a more realistic game could borrow some of that Jim Henson magic.
Just one game needs to happen that's a zero BS, sword-swinging, pure adventure without the frills and gimmicks. If every Zelda game after that has something to do with a different element, time travel, more masks, or even colors of the rainbow, I could care less and will even applaud them for it as long as they keep doing their series right. It's just that the purest of adventure and fantasy somehow got lost along the way. Drop the player into a gameworld with minimal narrative and let the fantasy do the rest. Don't explain anything. Don't help the player out minus minor cues about where to go. Don't litter the world with useless NPC's. Don't have tutorials. Don't let the player have a companion. Don't include cats. Don't get cute. Don't gimmick the game up with music and masks as a theme. Just get back to the basics for one game and give the gamers one hell of a ride for it.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
November 21, 2009
Foundation
IGN recently put up an outline of what they...I'm sorry..."we" want from Grand Theft Auto V when it happens. It sounds as if the plans for location are already in place, so I'm sure Rockstar was more than keen to change their approach just on their behalf. The list can definitely be expanded upon, as it's too...expected. Nothing in the IGN list is new. They are listing what amounts to the bare minimum required content of a sequel. Let's ramp up our desires.
Incorporation
I can't remember what the theory is actually named because somebody gave it an official name after I did, but the Gaming Law of Convergence should go into effect as of the next sequel. Rockstar has themselves a patented sandbox environment that has worked to their needs so far, but the control scheme is getting too familiar and stale. For the most part, a legacy control scheme is best not toyed with, but in this case its time to make the upgrade. The car physics have always been upgraded with each installment, so I don't see them doing anything less but making them at least a little bit better, but it's time to start making the necessary steals from other franchises.
Steal Resident Evil or Uncharted's combat scheme. The former would tailor well to precision on the run in a much tighter way than we're used to in the GTA series, while Uncharted's controls would make already loose gunfights a little more epic while getting a significant upgrade in overall effectiveness.
Steal in-house from Midnight Club and allow for a very elaborate garage system without getting too close to Midnight Club's authenticity. Something slightly better than Saint's Row 2, but not nearly as deep as an actual racing campaign.
On the topic of parkour, just go with what worked in Uncharted one more time. It may be difficult to litter a city with climbing points, but if you're going all-out already, it's hard to see why this wouldn't make sense. That way, they wouldn't clinging to the freerunning fad and they could still add a new dynamic to the player-character. GTA is also about wrecking things up, and while it's badass to guide your character as he storms a gang's stronghold, I've never gone through a GTA game truly feeling I'm in an 80's action movie. As in, the unlikely duo isn't jumping from cover to cover, making buddy remarks at each stop, and at least looking like they are making the effort to lay siege on the big baddie. I know these options are sort of there, but I just don't get the Way of the Gun vibe during the times I should.
GTA has always been about doing a little bit of everything, but the next game demands that they start taking this concept seriously. Everyone expects GTA to start incorporating other genres. It has to be done, period.
The Playground
Yes, you're in a sandbox, and by definition your MC can explore anything and everything he sees. Launching yourself from the tallest skyscraper in town is great, but we've played enough games to know that there are significant steps that can be taken to instantly double that freedom. The GTA series thinks big, but the problem is that sometimes their design leapfrogs all of the smaller things. Yes, GTA IV has several arguments, but we are allowed to be greedy in our wishes. They are wishes, after all.
The processing power of the current systems should be able to handle, with some trickery, the ability to enter buildings without ever "leaving" the city. I know that this has happened a few times already, but I'd like to see this explored more and even to the point where it would be a rule to exploit this freedom. I'll get to that in a moment, but the previous GTA games, despite the immense freedom they offer, sometimes backtracks on that freedom when it comes to being on foot. IGN had one thing right; there should be more foot chases. How badass would it be to have a car chase, only for the driver to wreck his car and go on foot with you doing a tuck and roll and hot footing it after him? Well, that's child's play, but imagine if you took that chase through a coffee shop, out the back door and back onto the streets, then losing your prey in a crowd only to find him heading into a newspaper tower. The MC gives chase, playing a little bit of catch up, and your only clues to catch up with him is being able to read the frantic chaos he leaves in his wake. Eventually, you are nearly there, tracking him all the way to the rooftop. You run out onto the rooftop and he has a chopper waiting for him, ladder included. You stop, realizing that two gunners now have a bead on you. Runing back into the building, glass shattering everywhere, you try to make it to the elevator on the other side. If all this happened without a loading screen, without a hiccup, and all seamlessly without ever changing the "map" you're on at any given moment, it would be absolutely awesome.
That said, if the architects of the new city took this into consideration, every room of every building would be your personal playground. Imagine being able to set up shop by creating a Sim-Base anywhere you can explore. We've dealt with the pre-scripted ideology the whole time, but being able to pick the island and building a mansion on it would take your criminal empire to a new level. Don't have the money? How about the specific warehouse that meets your needs? Picking any location of your choosing from an entire city and actually modifying that part of the city in real-time without ever separating yourself from the "map" would be priceless. This is also a crime game, so bringing the player into the equation when it comes to the actual planning phase could easily be manipulated with such freedoms.
Graphics
Look, I'm all for a graphical upgrade if the systems can handle all of the above. If they can't, then screw it. Keep the graphics exactly the way they are and advance the actual game. I would love for the city to take advantage of more vivid environments, such as the mentioned neon lights that would be a great Vice City carryover, but that's about all I'd really demand. I may speak for myself on this one, but I wouldn't want the series to create near photo-real graphics and stick to the same damn formula they've been using the whole time. The game dynamic needs to get a boost, and I think that the graphics should only improve to the point where it can keep up with the power required to make all of the above possible. I know it's a pain in the ass to render every room of a skyscraper as well as the entirety of downtown, but it can be done. I'm pretty sure the gamers would be more impressed with truly massive freedom rendered on par with GTA IV.
Seamless Online Play
Remember the system Demon's Souls used? It's nice to jump into a multiplayer match with your buddies, but it is indeed a match. There's Free Mode, but there's no mission to go on. Open up that cellphone to include other multiplayer options, too, such as teaming up for a mission, and even dedicating a large number of additional missions towards this mechanic. You're supposed to be living the criminal lifestyle. Invite your buddies to see your tailored stronghold and your island home with several boats parked there. Plan a crime together and carry it out. Do several missions together and part ways. It should no way be a requirement to complete the game, but as dependent as games are on the internet these days, it seems natural that there should be a good hundred missions you can tackle with a friend or three. I can already envision several missions where this would be, how you say, epic.
Basically, just as Demon's Souls, Rockstar should make the online part seamless. Every once and a while, as long as you're connected online, other players should be wreaking havoc in your city without inviting you to the party. There shouldn't be many players in your game, but while you're floating around the bay, you should see an explosion in the distance or something on the radio that makes you curious. Or, it could go quasi-City of Heroes. Say that you approach an area that another player crafted a stronghold out of. Before you even see the building, it loads up in the background, and when you turn the corner you'll suddenly realize that the boring warehouse on 57th and Kennedy looks like it got a facelift. Storm the place, if you can, and steal a briefcase that can be sold to a well-know info buyer in town, and you just raked in a hundred-grand. If someone does the same to you and fails, then you can claim a bounty on his head for having such an impenetrable crib.
Once again a reminder of a criminal lifestyle, "gang-wars" could easily start with this kind of system. Say that you got to the source of the explosions downtown, and a member of the BRAH clan is doing the damage. Well, a BRAH killed you a couple days ago when your back was turned, so it's time for vengeance. Get on the phone to your buddy playing across town to get him in on the revenge. Why do AI gangs always have to be the only threats? Start your own grudge match and incorporate that into your story.
While I understand that a full fledged on/offline campaign would be a legendary undertaking, we're not asking for that much. These extra touches don't demand that kind of attention but would add so much to the experience.
All I'm saying, IGN, is that you're wishing. When you wish, get greedy and as for some truly impressive things. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Incorporation
I can't remember what the theory is actually named because somebody gave it an official name after I did, but the Gaming Law of Convergence should go into effect as of the next sequel. Rockstar has themselves a patented sandbox environment that has worked to their needs so far, but the control scheme is getting too familiar and stale. For the most part, a legacy control scheme is best not toyed with, but in this case its time to make the upgrade. The car physics have always been upgraded with each installment, so I don't see them doing anything less but making them at least a little bit better, but it's time to start making the necessary steals from other franchises.
Steal Resident Evil or Uncharted's combat scheme. The former would tailor well to precision on the run in a much tighter way than we're used to in the GTA series, while Uncharted's controls would make already loose gunfights a little more epic while getting a significant upgrade in overall effectiveness.
Steal in-house from Midnight Club and allow for a very elaborate garage system without getting too close to Midnight Club's authenticity. Something slightly better than Saint's Row 2, but not nearly as deep as an actual racing campaign.
On the topic of parkour, just go with what worked in Uncharted one more time. It may be difficult to litter a city with climbing points, but if you're going all-out already, it's hard to see why this wouldn't make sense. That way, they wouldn't clinging to the freerunning fad and they could still add a new dynamic to the player-character. GTA is also about wrecking things up, and while it's badass to guide your character as he storms a gang's stronghold, I've never gone through a GTA game truly feeling I'm in an 80's action movie. As in, the unlikely duo isn't jumping from cover to cover, making buddy remarks at each stop, and at least looking like they are making the effort to lay siege on the big baddie. I know these options are sort of there, but I just don't get the Way of the Gun vibe during the times I should.
GTA has always been about doing a little bit of everything, but the next game demands that they start taking this concept seriously. Everyone expects GTA to start incorporating other genres. It has to be done, period.
The Playground
Yes, you're in a sandbox, and by definition your MC can explore anything and everything he sees. Launching yourself from the tallest skyscraper in town is great, but we've played enough games to know that there are significant steps that can be taken to instantly double that freedom. The GTA series thinks big, but the problem is that sometimes their design leapfrogs all of the smaller things. Yes, GTA IV has several arguments, but we are allowed to be greedy in our wishes. They are wishes, after all.
The processing power of the current systems should be able to handle, with some trickery, the ability to enter buildings without ever "leaving" the city. I know that this has happened a few times already, but I'd like to see this explored more and even to the point where it would be a rule to exploit this freedom. I'll get to that in a moment, but the previous GTA games, despite the immense freedom they offer, sometimes backtracks on that freedom when it comes to being on foot. IGN had one thing right; there should be more foot chases. How badass would it be to have a car chase, only for the driver to wreck his car and go on foot with you doing a tuck and roll and hot footing it after him? Well, that's child's play, but imagine if you took that chase through a coffee shop, out the back door and back onto the streets, then losing your prey in a crowd only to find him heading into a newspaper tower. The MC gives chase, playing a little bit of catch up, and your only clues to catch up with him is being able to read the frantic chaos he leaves in his wake. Eventually, you are nearly there, tracking him all the way to the rooftop. You run out onto the rooftop and he has a chopper waiting for him, ladder included. You stop, realizing that two gunners now have a bead on you. Runing back into the building, glass shattering everywhere, you try to make it to the elevator on the other side. If all this happened without a loading screen, without a hiccup, and all seamlessly without ever changing the "map" you're on at any given moment, it would be absolutely awesome.
That said, if the architects of the new city took this into consideration, every room of every building would be your personal playground. Imagine being able to set up shop by creating a Sim-Base anywhere you can explore. We've dealt with the pre-scripted ideology the whole time, but being able to pick the island and building a mansion on it would take your criminal empire to a new level. Don't have the money? How about the specific warehouse that meets your needs? Picking any location of your choosing from an entire city and actually modifying that part of the city in real-time without ever separating yourself from the "map" would be priceless. This is also a crime game, so bringing the player into the equation when it comes to the actual planning phase could easily be manipulated with such freedoms.
Graphics
Look, I'm all for a graphical upgrade if the systems can handle all of the above. If they can't, then screw it. Keep the graphics exactly the way they are and advance the actual game. I would love for the city to take advantage of more vivid environments, such as the mentioned neon lights that would be a great Vice City carryover, but that's about all I'd really demand. I may speak for myself on this one, but I wouldn't want the series to create near photo-real graphics and stick to the same damn formula they've been using the whole time. The game dynamic needs to get a boost, and I think that the graphics should only improve to the point where it can keep up with the power required to make all of the above possible. I know it's a pain in the ass to render every room of a skyscraper as well as the entirety of downtown, but it can be done. I'm pretty sure the gamers would be more impressed with truly massive freedom rendered on par with GTA IV.
Seamless Online Play
Remember the system Demon's Souls used? It's nice to jump into a multiplayer match with your buddies, but it is indeed a match. There's Free Mode, but there's no mission to go on. Open up that cellphone to include other multiplayer options, too, such as teaming up for a mission, and even dedicating a large number of additional missions towards this mechanic. You're supposed to be living the criminal lifestyle. Invite your buddies to see your tailored stronghold and your island home with several boats parked there. Plan a crime together and carry it out. Do several missions together and part ways. It should no way be a requirement to complete the game, but as dependent as games are on the internet these days, it seems natural that there should be a good hundred missions you can tackle with a friend or three. I can already envision several missions where this would be, how you say, epic.
Basically, just as Demon's Souls, Rockstar should make the online part seamless. Every once and a while, as long as you're connected online, other players should be wreaking havoc in your city without inviting you to the party. There shouldn't be many players in your game, but while you're floating around the bay, you should see an explosion in the distance or something on the radio that makes you curious. Or, it could go quasi-City of Heroes. Say that you approach an area that another player crafted a stronghold out of. Before you even see the building, it loads up in the background, and when you turn the corner you'll suddenly realize that the boring warehouse on 57th and Kennedy looks like it got a facelift. Storm the place, if you can, and steal a briefcase that can be sold to a well-know info buyer in town, and you just raked in a hundred-grand. If someone does the same to you and fails, then you can claim a bounty on his head for having such an impenetrable crib.
Once again a reminder of a criminal lifestyle, "gang-wars" could easily start with this kind of system. Say that you got to the source of the explosions downtown, and a member of the BRAH clan is doing the damage. Well, a BRAH killed you a couple days ago when your back was turned, so it's time for vengeance. Get on the phone to your buddy playing across town to get him in on the revenge. Why do AI gangs always have to be the only threats? Start your own grudge match and incorporate that into your story.
While I understand that a full fledged on/offline campaign would be a legendary undertaking, we're not asking for that much. These extra touches don't demand that kind of attention but would add so much to the experience.
All I'm saying, IGN, is that you're wishing. When you wish, get greedy and as for some truly impressive things. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
November 20, 2009
Where I stand
With the previous article out of the way, I'd like to immediately fall into the trap by expressing my opinion of a game that I've been hearing a lot about lately: Chrono Cross. I'll be straight; I did not like this game. Before anyone tramples my e-mail address saying that I do not understand what happened in the plot-line, you are wrong.
Chrono Trigger was one of the best games ever published, and no one can argue that fact. Some even consider it to be the best RPG ever made, and that is debatable, but it makes a very strong case for itself. There's almost nothing wrong with the game, and anyone willing to look past the very childish, so-so nature of the opening will find one of the deepest, intellectual, and arguably dark RPG's that have ever graced a console. I say dark because the game is all about the very serious "end of the world" scenario, except the difference is that you actually see it first hand. Should you lose, you are reminded that your failure causes apocalypse to rain down from the skies. What's even worse is that the thing causing it is at your front door the entire game, and there's very little you can do about it until later on.
The plot itself is very solid, and I think that one of its strengths is that it tends to avoid confusion, playing safe and keeping things simple while hammering home its points. Pair that up with a chilling, epic, "ticking" soundtrack, and you have yourself a story theme that's hard to forget.
So with all of this perfection floating around, the game presented the then-Squaresoft with a double edged sword. Obviously, they followed up with its popularity and money making potential, but they had the capability to get in-house and borrowed top-tier talent to create one of the few legendary sequels ever. Or, they could have failed miserably and sullied the upstart series.
Let's get this out of the way: neither happened. The game was not legendary by any means, though it carries too much perfection to be considered a failure. I prefer to see this game the same way I would imagine Kobe Bryant showing up drunk during game seven of the NBA Finals.
Everything about this game, aesthetically, screams perfection. The soundtrack was more subdued than the first, but it nonetheless became as memorable as the first. While you may find that there are few epic tracks to be found, the same sense of "ticking" could be found, thankfully preserving the theme from the first game. The graphics are outstanding for a PSX game (because I refuse to use the PS1 title), and the controls do anything to hurt the already patented RPG methods. What's most surprising is how well the oft-bashed battle system works out. It has several shortcomings, coming across as a stamina-based card battler at times rather than using a turn-based, menu driven system. Anyone coming over from Chrono Trigger one has the right to curse, but I have to give a little credit for its attempt at innovation.
The troubles begin with this "attempt". Once you've discovered the intricacies of the battle system, it's very hard to look at it and think that things are at all upgraded. Say what you will about how this system works and defend its uniqueness all you want, but the system is terrible when compared to the big boys. Can you do techs in Chrono Cross? Well, yes, except they are extremely rare, and with the sheer number of characters in the game, odds are high that your particular group won't have one available to them. Techs were second nature in the first game, and part of its innovation was that things were moving on the battlefield, affecting the way you used your skills. Not only do enemies not move in this game, which is completely understandable, but techs are never once second nature to the player, thus removing a good part of nostalgic charm and replacing it with a color wheel.
On the topic of characters, think back to your standard RPG. Even in the good ones, you meet a character with an important place in the storyline of the game. In almost every instance (Suikoden aside), these are NPC's with little use to you except being the bearer of an important sidequest, or the catalyst for the next story arc. Maybe it's not even that important. It could be that drunk old man that's hiding out in the corner of town that happens to have more dialogue than most of the narrow minded world you're in. Well, this game encourages you to stick them all in your bag-of-tricks. There are over 40 acquirable characters in the game, and very few of them have any real significance to your story. Some of them don't even have stories.
Case in point: Starky. You find this alien crash landed on your planet, and he eventually joins you with the pretty predictable wish of getting his ship repaired so that he can leave the cursed rock. That's it. At the end of the game, I thought I did something wrong, because I didn't learn anything about him. Turns out, that's exactly what the developers meant. He serves as more cannon fodder for the team, and his personality doesn't go beyond that. Here I was hoping that he was going to bring this tearful story about being from a previously destroyed planet that Lavos had been to at some point, or some alien viewpoint about what's going on, or even just an investigator wondering why this planet was so effed up all the time. No, none of that.
Trouble is, there aren't many characters that progress much further than Starky. Only a select few get their moment of fame, and the developers' gimmick was to taunt you with the interesting potential of the rest, then leaving you high and dry. What is the point of introducing that many characters if there's really no good reason for them to be in your party anyway? There are some reasons, I suppose, but they all sound like bad excuses. I barely remember half the characters I used (and didn't use), and yet another character drove me absolutely insane for just being there. What's worse is that I'm not sure why Squeenix even bothered to give some credibility to this character with their DS remake of Chrono Trigger.
You meet someone in the game that looks like someone you're VERY interested in having in your party, except even Square said that even though they wanted it do be, it wasn't the droid you were looking for. They flip flopped for a while, but in the end it didn't matter, as even if it WAS the character you were desperately hoping to recruit, he didn't do anything important or advance any fanwanks. Basically, Square half-developed a character to the point where he had the most basic of personalities, then tried to figure out what they wanted to do with him, and when they couldn't, they left him at blah and called it a day.
If that doesn't clue you in to the quality of the plot, then I shall enlighten you. 80% of the plot, a very generous number, is utter crap. The ending is the only thing that merits it being in the series, and unfortunately, the entire premise of the ending is dumped onto you all at once like a garbage truck emptying its payload. "Bond-monologue" doesn't even begin to describe it, mainly because the plot gave you so few connections to the revelation by that point. It's really hard to connect the dots when you aren't given dots to start with. Yes, things happen in the plot about the Frozen Flame, but it still doesn't make sense why they approached it in the way they did.
My theory on this is the exact same one that I gave that certain character. Squaresoft had a game on their hands that was meant to be standalone, and they developed it up to the point where the plot was barely passable. Somebody decided to slap the Chrono label on it, and instead of tailoring the game to be a true part of the series, they just slapped a few extra areas, a monologue, and an end boss to link the two games and called it good. What's troubling is that because of this, I can't recommend the game as a standalone, because the game relies so heavily on these thrown in plot-points that a newbie wouldn't get what was really going on. The only way to recommend the plot to a series fan is to tell them to load up the game 80% of the way through and start fresh from there. Sure, they'll be confused at first, but a couple people step in and explain everything in the most long-winded ways possible, so it works out.
That's why I have a very hard time with this game. It is quite possibly the most perfect bad game to ever come out. If it wasn't for 80% of the plot, this game could be a worthy heir, because everything else about the game is done with extremely high standards. From the opening scene and the accompanying music to the ending, this game has greatness written all over it. Yes, the ending is great, because what you ultimately buy the game for (its link to Chrono Trigger) is worth experiencing despite the reasoning for it being shoved down your throat. The rest of the plot just keeps hacking away at the credibility of it all.
Also, in the first game, there were several moments of true badassery. Remember Crono and the Mammon Machine? You'll find none of that here.
As promised:
78% Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Chrono Trigger was one of the best games ever published, and no one can argue that fact. Some even consider it to be the best RPG ever made, and that is debatable, but it makes a very strong case for itself. There's almost nothing wrong with the game, and anyone willing to look past the very childish, so-so nature of the opening will find one of the deepest, intellectual, and arguably dark RPG's that have ever graced a console. I say dark because the game is all about the very serious "end of the world" scenario, except the difference is that you actually see it first hand. Should you lose, you are reminded that your failure causes apocalypse to rain down from the skies. What's even worse is that the thing causing it is at your front door the entire game, and there's very little you can do about it until later on.
The plot itself is very solid, and I think that one of its strengths is that it tends to avoid confusion, playing safe and keeping things simple while hammering home its points. Pair that up with a chilling, epic, "ticking" soundtrack, and you have yourself a story theme that's hard to forget.
So with all of this perfection floating around, the game presented the then-Squaresoft with a double edged sword. Obviously, they followed up with its popularity and money making potential, but they had the capability to get in-house and borrowed top-tier talent to create one of the few legendary sequels ever. Or, they could have failed miserably and sullied the upstart series.
Let's get this out of the way: neither happened. The game was not legendary by any means, though it carries too much perfection to be considered a failure. I prefer to see this game the same way I would imagine Kobe Bryant showing up drunk during game seven of the NBA Finals.
Everything about this game, aesthetically, screams perfection. The soundtrack was more subdued than the first, but it nonetheless became as memorable as the first. While you may find that there are few epic tracks to be found, the same sense of "ticking" could be found, thankfully preserving the theme from the first game. The graphics are outstanding for a PSX game (because I refuse to use the PS1 title), and the controls do anything to hurt the already patented RPG methods. What's most surprising is how well the oft-bashed battle system works out. It has several shortcomings, coming across as a stamina-based card battler at times rather than using a turn-based, menu driven system. Anyone coming over from Chrono Trigger one has the right to curse, but I have to give a little credit for its attempt at innovation.
The troubles begin with this "attempt". Once you've discovered the intricacies of the battle system, it's very hard to look at it and think that things are at all upgraded. Say what you will about how this system works and defend its uniqueness all you want, but the system is terrible when compared to the big boys. Can you do techs in Chrono Cross? Well, yes, except they are extremely rare, and with the sheer number of characters in the game, odds are high that your particular group won't have one available to them. Techs were second nature in the first game, and part of its innovation was that things were moving on the battlefield, affecting the way you used your skills. Not only do enemies not move in this game, which is completely understandable, but techs are never once second nature to the player, thus removing a good part of nostalgic charm and replacing it with a color wheel.
On the topic of characters, think back to your standard RPG. Even in the good ones, you meet a character with an important place in the storyline of the game. In almost every instance (Suikoden aside), these are NPC's with little use to you except being the bearer of an important sidequest, or the catalyst for the next story arc. Maybe it's not even that important. It could be that drunk old man that's hiding out in the corner of town that happens to have more dialogue than most of the narrow minded world you're in. Well, this game encourages you to stick them all in your bag-of-tricks. There are over 40 acquirable characters in the game, and very few of them have any real significance to your story. Some of them don't even have stories.
Case in point: Starky. You find this alien crash landed on your planet, and he eventually joins you with the pretty predictable wish of getting his ship repaired so that he can leave the cursed rock. That's it. At the end of the game, I thought I did something wrong, because I didn't learn anything about him. Turns out, that's exactly what the developers meant. He serves as more cannon fodder for the team, and his personality doesn't go beyond that. Here I was hoping that he was going to bring this tearful story about being from a previously destroyed planet that Lavos had been to at some point, or some alien viewpoint about what's going on, or even just an investigator wondering why this planet was so effed up all the time. No, none of that.
Trouble is, there aren't many characters that progress much further than Starky. Only a select few get their moment of fame, and the developers' gimmick was to taunt you with the interesting potential of the rest, then leaving you high and dry. What is the point of introducing that many characters if there's really no good reason for them to be in your party anyway? There are some reasons, I suppose, but they all sound like bad excuses. I barely remember half the characters I used (and didn't use), and yet another character drove me absolutely insane for just being there. What's worse is that I'm not sure why Squeenix even bothered to give some credibility to this character with their DS remake of Chrono Trigger.
You meet someone in the game that looks like someone you're VERY interested in having in your party, except even Square said that even though they wanted it do be, it wasn't the droid you were looking for. They flip flopped for a while, but in the end it didn't matter, as even if it WAS the character you were desperately hoping to recruit, he didn't do anything important or advance any fanwanks. Basically, Square half-developed a character to the point where he had the most basic of personalities, then tried to figure out what they wanted to do with him, and when they couldn't, they left him at blah and called it a day.
If that doesn't clue you in to the quality of the plot, then I shall enlighten you. 80% of the plot, a very generous number, is utter crap. The ending is the only thing that merits it being in the series, and unfortunately, the entire premise of the ending is dumped onto you all at once like a garbage truck emptying its payload. "Bond-monologue" doesn't even begin to describe it, mainly because the plot gave you so few connections to the revelation by that point. It's really hard to connect the dots when you aren't given dots to start with. Yes, things happen in the plot about the Frozen Flame, but it still doesn't make sense why they approached it in the way they did.
My theory on this is the exact same one that I gave that certain character. Squaresoft had a game on their hands that was meant to be standalone, and they developed it up to the point where the plot was barely passable. Somebody decided to slap the Chrono label on it, and instead of tailoring the game to be a true part of the series, they just slapped a few extra areas, a monologue, and an end boss to link the two games and called it good. What's troubling is that because of this, I can't recommend the game as a standalone, because the game relies so heavily on these thrown in plot-points that a newbie wouldn't get what was really going on. The only way to recommend the plot to a series fan is to tell them to load up the game 80% of the way through and start fresh from there. Sure, they'll be confused at first, but a couple people step in and explain everything in the most long-winded ways possible, so it works out.
That's why I have a very hard time with this game. It is quite possibly the most perfect bad game to ever come out. If it wasn't for 80% of the plot, this game could be a worthy heir, because everything else about the game is done with extremely high standards. From the opening scene and the accompanying music to the ending, this game has greatness written all over it. Yes, the ending is great, because what you ultimately buy the game for (its link to Chrono Trigger) is worth experiencing despite the reasoning for it being shoved down your throat. The rest of the plot just keeps hacking away at the credibility of it all.
Also, in the first game, there were several moments of true badassery. Remember Crono and the Mammon Machine? You'll find none of that here.
As promised:
78% Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
November 19, 2009
Where they stand
I've recently become fascinated with the masses' ability to go beyond the levels of rage when it comes to their opinions of how the video game world "should" be. In some cases, I think they are wrong, as evidenced by my own criticism of Modern War 2's boycott movement. In some cases, they are very right to bash whoever they feel like. Take, for example, the douchey Squeenix exec Shinji Hashimoto saying that "If people want a sequel, they should buy more!" in reference to a Chrono Sequel.
Got news for you Shinji. They bought lots of copies and they loved them. You may want to consider your qualifications if you can't translate a basic sales number or meta-critic score. You've also released the original Chrono Trigger three times already. Chances are fairly high that I don't need a third copy of a game I already own twice over. I'll come back for you later, Squeenix.
There's just so much rage going on right now that it's hard, even for me, to avoid becoming too political when it comes to basic gaming. If a game gets a score that doesn't seem right, people go nuts. If a feature is toyed with, boycotts happen. For the purposes of narrowing the focus of this article, I'll be sticking with review scores for this go.
Video games are very difficult to quantify. Movies are a different beast, because however difficult pinning down a score might seem, all that the reviewer ultimately needs to determine is whether or not the movie is worth watching. It comes down to a movie being a "must-see" 5/5, or a 3/5 aimed at people who are fans of a specific genre or just have some free time and need to spectate. Games, on the other hand, are hampered by a million major and minor things that all have to add up. Some elements are passable and some are not, and that also determines on who reviews the game. If Braid receives a 95% and Uncharted 2 receives a 90%, then one would assume that Braid is a superior game. However, that doesn't take into account that Braid is a simple 2D platformer, that Uncharted has an expansive multiplayer campaign, the platform in question, and the general fun a user will have playing it. Price and replay value are also factors, but you wouldn't know this from a score. We're also assuming that if the same reviewer handed out both scores, than he could easily be biased to a certain platform, genre, or anything really. Money could even be a factor.
So scores shouldn't be that important, but in a way, they are the most important thing you don't realize. If I walk into my local GameStop and see a game that interests me, I will look the game up before buying to see if it stands up on its own. If the game registers at 72%, my first misguided instinct is to lean toward the "don't get" side of the spectrum. Millions of choosy gamers don't have the kind of patience I do, so when 72% shows up, immediately they drop the notion of buying the game at all. What if that game was Devil Survivor, a game that is considered an excellent entry in its genre, but a game that some people would outright hate? While nothing can top being informed, it would truly suck if gamers who loved the game saw the sequel potential fly out the window because 10,000 people who would have loved the game never even consider buying it because of a numbered rating? At the very least, that score was powerful, even if the actual numerical rating isn't all that important.
I tend to read my reviews a little differently. I do glance at the score, and if the game isn't thrashed at the 1/5 or sub-30% range, then I check the text. It's important to get together your impression of a game, but equally as important to know what to expect and look for all the cues. Ghostbusters: The Video Game would be a good example, because I can easily this game being reviewed anywhere from 60-to-90%. The game has everything you want if you're looking for a Ghostbusters game, but the lack of replay value and the short story are deal-killers to some people. So seeing a solid 75-80& score doesn't tell me what I need to know. I wanted to be a Ghostbuster in HD glory, and I got that. I was willing to buy it. Other's would not
So, when I read a review, I look at what the criticism's are and what the praises are. I know, going into the review, what my expectations are. That includes failures. I rented Eternal Sonata and read a couple of reviews for it, and while the game received generally favorable marks, no positive that I saw matched the positive's that I needed to see. I like my RPG's to be either insanely fun or truly epic, and the impression that I got was that the game was a solid RPG based on a gimmicky story...exactly what I was afraid of. Knowing what to look for in a review can save you from buying a 90% POS vs. a 70% gem according to your tastes.
Ultimately, it all boils down to whether or not a game is fun or not. Most reviewers tend to forget this as a rule. The graphics segment of any review is outright bullshit, usually, except for cel-shaded games and first party Nintendo titles, where journalists conveniently forget their own code of conduct. I've seen writers nitpick on graphics and drop the game's rating down at least 5% because the graphics weren't advanced enough for their taste while the game remains fundamentally awesome.
So the moral would be to simmer down on bashing game ratings, because it's never going to be close to a perfect approximation of "fun". By all means, continue to bash for logically screwed up things that reviewers do, but remember that a bad score isn't the end of the world. Reader averages and Wikipedia "second opinion" lines do wonders already.
This is probably why I'm a fan of Zero Punctuation, though. It's actually refreshing to start from the standpoint that a game is utter crap until proven otherwise, and to also hear what a developer doesn't do to advance a genre. Or attempt to, and fail.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)