So it looks like another Goldeneye is on the way sometime next year. Good news? Well, remember the last time we were given a Goldeneye branded product? It just wasn't the same. Capturing the magic has been difficult for any game trying to follow up on the N64 classic, but there might just be a sliver of hope this time around.
In the article there is information about who is staffing the house in charge of building this game, and it happens to be a few ex-Free Radical developers. Timesplitters 2 was a personal favorite of mine, and it's faster-paced take on the FPS genre had everything to do with Goldeneye. It was a smooth shooter that didn't provide an homage to Goldeneye as much as borrow everything it could. As I said, the pace is ramped up, but the game is fundamentally the same. Objectives change with difficulty just like Rare's game, the health bar looks practically the same, and the gameplay is virtually identical with the exception of free-shooting with the second analog stick (PS2 version). It doesn't hurt that Free Radical was staffed by people who worked on Goldeneye itself.
On top of that, all of the quirks that made Goldeneye fun were in this game for the most part. I don't ever remember getting into proximity mine battles, but the character selection is massive and it even provides you with the option to select, in essence, Oddjob. The award system for multiplayer is still intact, and if you choose Oddjob's successor, the monkey, there's even an award and in-game statistics that track your usage of the cheap character. Basically, think Super Goldeneye 2 Turbo, and you have Timesplitters 2.
That's not to say that the game took away from the charm of the original. The battles felt more Quake-like at times, mainly because of the speed of the game, but also due to the fact that no weapon had a memorable feel to it. That's not to say that the weapon set was horrible, because it wasn't, but many people loved Goldeneye because it was more precise than games have become. If you did a spray and pray in Goldeneye, someone with a well aimed pistol could take you out with ease just due to sheer patience or skill. With Timesplitters and many fast-paced FPS's around that time, you were encouraged to blast away with a quickness.
When it comes to developing the game, I truly hope that the crew put together for this game puts their experience to use, because Timesplitters worked very well as a spiritual sequel to our favorite console shooter. Not that I'm handing them praise for staff alone, because I'm not. I've seen enough promising games get released in terrible condition, and the Bond franchise has had a very hard time getting the pure-fun part down. Even getting Sean Connery involved didn't make the game we were all wanting, so a few programmers certainly doesn't send me into a craze.
If you're going to take any suggestions, Activision, then you should pay attention to what is going on in the gaming world today. If you want to bring the magic back, then you need to know what the magic was.
Goldeneye 101
Graphics:
If I'm leading a team heading into a Goldeneye sequel, then my first thought is to make the game look good. At the time, the graphics weren't revolutionary considering that everything the game did graphically was on par and commonly inferior to its FPS contemporaries. Quake 2 was out in 1997 as well, so the blocky nature of Goldeneye could have been a detractor. It wasn't. While nothing in Goldeneye was graphically amazing, the game was grounded in several ways that made it one of the most "grippy" FPS's ever.
Characters moved, and I hesitate to use this word, "realistically"...or at least they moved more realistically than most characters in shooting games did. Explosions were much more realistic than other games at the time, and there was a limited part of the environment you could interact with.
Yet, a lot of us scream "polygons" and "frames per second" at this point, and rightfully so. This game was not fast paced at all, even if the intensity made it feel that way, and while the game had its smooth parts, there is a lot of room for improvement. How do you solve this problem?
If you want to use photo-realism or something close to it, now would be a good time to try it. Goldeneye never needed 256 players in a server, or even a jump button for that matter. Make the game look damn good. The game shouldn't chug, but whatever GPU you're using should spend more time on the stability of a good looking game than to crank out 60fps of crap. If you need to lock the game into 30fps, do it, but keep the realism intact. I remember easily identifying my nemesis back in the day because of their look. I, personally, would like to return to those days rather than 16 players with no personality or recognizable features.
Gameplay:
Firefights were very intense due to the perfect sound effects and the, once again, "grippy" nature of the guns you picked up. There was truly a feel to each gun, and getting hit during a gunfight made it appear as if you were reeling even if you just got grazed. There was a constant reminder that there was an oomph to everything that happened. Once again comparing fast-paced games to Goldeneye, there's something to be said for weapons that mean something in a game. Even in some really good modern games, I find myself picking between pistols, rifles, SMG's, and heavy guns with no real personality to them apart from what class of gun they are. On top of that, you always knew what the enemy was shooting you with. If you were running into a narrow corridor with the Walther and you ran into the guy with the SMG, you knew well enough if the guy had an AK or a P90.
The game also handled blindfire and precision in careful balance. It's almost impossible to find a game after Goldeneye that makes walking into a room and laying out all three people in it as easy and seamless as holding down a button. If there's one feeling I would like to get back, it's the feeling of being a badass spy. It's way too satisfying to be able to aim exactly where you want to in a split second and having it feel smooth and scripted. Yes, you had to really aim the gun in order to achieve real results, but aiming became instinctual and never detracted from the flow of the game. Yes, we've been given an analog stick to do that for us, but it always feels like you're running and gunning rather than taking the split second to do it right, and when you do aim in modern games, you're broken from the general flow of the battle. The simple reticule and slight screen-zoom worked wonders for quick precision. Resident Evil's 4 and 5 revived this simple and effective system of shooting, proving that the idea still works wonders. The difference, of course, is that you can also shoot from the hip in Goldeneye, so we're still being one-upped by a game released 12 years ago.
Design:
Sure, the game didn't allow you to jump and blocky doesn't even begin to describe level design, but was anyone complaining? For the single-player route, things were just fine. Levels were fairly linear, giving you just the right amount of real-estate in a level to get the job done. Remember, this was a James Bond game, not an open-world shooter. Your job was to make a beeline towards the objective and get it done, so the levels were linear. Yet, Rare still put in just enough corners, objects, windows, side offices, and extra corridors to give the player a tactical choice. Do you shoot out a window and pick off heads as they run down a corridor to get you, or do you hide behind the corner across the hall and get them to line-up for you? Do you run in and pick off three heads in a second, or do you set up a proxy mine before you draw the enemies out? It was simple and effective design that relied on you being Bond. You had the tools and they felt as natural as they possibly could, and it was up to you to decide how you wanted to move your move forward. People often focus too much on the multiplayer of this game that they often forget that the single-player option was just as rewarding and well-made.
Yet, on the multiplayer front, things were golden, and I don't just mean the Golden Gun. Everything was in such great balance that you can't pick one specific part of the experience to throw your praise onto. First, there was sheer balance. If you picked up that P90 in the temple, then you had a gun that would mow down anything in a corridor, but the gun wasn't in a corridor. It was in one of the biggest rooms of the game, leaving its new owner within pick-off range of anyone with a rifle or a good pistol aim. If you picked up a sniper rifle, you had to move your ass to use it or you'd be dead, because the game was littered with places to hide and sneak up on people. The best players in Goldeneye were the ones who moved, picked off someone, then moved to get another. No one camped, as this was one of the few games where camping spots were just plain hard to find and took massive skill to defend once found.
Second, the game had auto-aim, a blessing for noobs and a curse for experienced players, but no big deal for the good players. It created balance, yet didn't remove the advantage from players who were genuinely skilled. Many areas in the game were tailored to compliment this. In the facility, there was a wide hallway with pillars to hide behind, and if you relied on auto-aim to force straight through it, you were going to get killed by the person using the pillars and precision-aiming together. The tight corners of the game, with proper use, became a deadly advantage to someone on the run from someone who was feeling cocky. Even stairways were tough to master and maintained balance. The stairways were wide open, and with enough distance and skill you could pick off a person using them to flee, but if you were in hot pursuit of a target and ended up right on his heels when he reached the staircase, you needed to rely on auto-aim and perfect tail-chasing to make the kill. Stopping to aim at a seemingly perfect target would not only cost you your gain, but leave you open to a return headshot volley.
Finally, the multiplayer was designed to be personal. There were only 4 people allowed in, and the levels were designed to facilitate memorable battles in between you and a rival that was on the couch right next to you. If the game is going to be updated, then the levels may need to get a little bigger, but 16 players is not necessary. 8 players, max. It's hard to maintain balance when there's too many players, and it's certainly harder to practice your skill at the spy game when there are too many opponents involved. Let Modern Warfare 2 and MAG deal with the player glut. Keep Goldeneye 2010 simple and keep the player-count to a minimum. Let other games be frantic. Let this one remain focused and intense.
The game was well rounded on virtually every level, and that's what made us love the game. It was never about speed, acrobatics, reflex, and eye candy. It was about grounded, gripping realism and perfect execution of your style. If Activision has any hope in reviving the experience, then these are the keys. Everything needs to be updated, and no one is going to dispute that, but the trouble with upgrading a game system is knowing what is natural. Certain elements of the game need to take the natural evolution of improved graphics and a modern control scheme for new controllers, but other elements were natural to the gameplay. Many developers miss the mark by a long shot because they have determined that console FPS's need to be faster, that dual-wielding is the next evolution, or that bigger levels means more fun. There's a reason why no one has made the true successor to Goldeneye, and it's because there was nothing in the original game that particularly needed changing. It's as simple as updating the game for the modern console. Why is it so hard to just leave it there without toying with it?
So there you go, Activision. Get to work.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
October 27, 2009
October 23, 2009
When it's difficult to bash
I want to bash this guy for being wrong. It's always fun to bash somebody with an opinion, because I'm so used to people having pretty terrible ones.
This guy has his mind in the right place, though. "An Objection to Originality" is something that got me thinking about two factors: the masses and the creators of these games. that's a difficult line, because someone has to be blamed. There is a lack of original franchises out there, or at least originality as a whole. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a line that was crossed somewhere.
Do I blame the writer for being wrong? No, he's right.
Do I blame the masses for buying good sequels? No, because the key word is "good" in most respects.
Do I blame the developers? Yes.
In a direct response to David R.'s post, I have to blame the developers on this one. Am I going to ignore FIFA 10 because it's a rehash of a franchise? Am I going to cancel my pre-order to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 because it's a sequel? Am I going to shun the next Zelda for being a Nintendo self-wank franchise? No. These are all going to be terrific games, and there is no one that will tell you to ignore them. That person would be stupid.
The point he's trying to make is that people do vote with the dollar. If people are willing to buy $100 worth of track-packs for Rock Band, then that is expressing that they are willing to pay for it. People like me hate those people, because there should be at least a little bit of criticism levied on the companies who want to screw you and your wallet for their profit. $2 for a song that is way too limited in usage bothers me, especially when iTunes songs cost a dollar and you actually get to own the song for personal use. That Resident Evil 5 deathmatch DLC? Total BS. That should have been in the game.
However, if a game is good, it should sell well. Sometimes there are financial flops like Beyond Good and Evil that sold poorly with no explanation as to why, but for the most part if a game sells well, the developers know that they product was appreciated. Supply and demand.
Now I point to Squeenix to demonstrate my point as to where the blame really lies, because let's face it, these guys do this stuff on a daily basis.
We can't get a good follow-up to the Chrono series to save our lives, but apparently, Squeenix has decided that we love Final Fantasy VII too much to let it go. When it came to Final fantasy 1-VII, we got a tremendous amount of originality and, I know this may sound foreign, individuality in each installment. From then on, each game became less unique. For as good a game as it was, Final Fantasy XII even took the Ivalice world from Tactics, and I found it very hard to believe that Nomura didn't just get lazy and throw Tidus and Zidane together to make Vaan.
I'm having a hard time building up the desire to play Final Fantasy XIII because the characters just don't feel right. I've seen them all before, and nothing looks terribly compelling. The Final Fantasy formula seems to be a rehash of everything that happened before it. Nothing seems fantastical anymore, and its as if the series is borrowing from itself too much. Yet, this is what we're given. Sure, people buy it, but the Final Fantasy series has lost a lot of credit overexposing itself.
As I said, people still buy it and if the games are good, why not? What matters is that Squeenix is arguably ignoring other franchises to make sure they make the safe bet for cash. Final Fantasy XIII has a wealth of games coming out for it that clones Final Fantasy VII's gaiden series. It's difficult to point to any series recently other than Dragon Quest that has felt original and excellent, whereas in the PSX days Final Fantasy wasn't the only RPG series in town. Parasite Eve (which is thankfully returning), Vagrant Story, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, and other RPG's at least took the company's experience in the genre and put it to use developing different IP's that have had various success, but at least they were trying. If there was a game idea that brought something new to the table, then it didn't necessarily have to be a Final Fantasy game.
Hell, Final Fantasy never had direct sequels for the longest time, but Final Fantasy X sold so well that it was decided that a Charlie's Angels type RPG was necessary. Why couldn't this have been another game? Was it really that necessary to extend an already complete story, and then not even really build off of it? That was a cash-in tactic without any doubt. Even the "new" character introduced felt unoriginal and generic. This game could have been a separate game with new ideas and maybe a little quirkiness to love, but instead we got Yuna again. Nobody wanted Yuna again.
Basically, developers have so much cash on their hands that they won't take risks. You have major games out there with engines that define the genres they were made for, but it seems like all of the ideas are getting strapped to these franchises as well. I would love to play an original, epic RPG outside of the big guns, but I can't because they don't exist. Chrono Trigger, for example, somehow rallied all the major brains within Squaresoft and got them involved on a single game outside of Final Fantasy. I find it hard to believe that no other game deserves that kind of attention. I understand that this involves a little bit of money, but if you're going to make bank off of every Final Fantasy sequel and cash-in title, can it really be that hard to expand yourself?
Another good example would be Hideo Kojima. Remember when he made games that didn't have Metal Gear in the title? When this man does anything more than produce a game, it ends up being good. Snatcher and Policenauts, though spiritually close, were amazing games. I understand that you have a baby and you want to take care of it, but please take a break every now and then and surprise us.
That's why I can blame the developers. Yes, they have their money-makers that wind up being very good games, but there are other places to put the development cash. No one is asking for an A-lister to headline a game like Brutal Legend to create a new IP. All we really want is something different now and then. No one is asking for developers to come up with a new engine or millions spent on voice actors and music, but if the tools that are at their disposal could give some new ideas a place to develop and a compelling new story to go along with it, then the community has always been open. In the past, those ideas turned into rock-solid games. Why not now?
We'll pay for a good game, and we have paid for good games. We just don't have a lot of choice in the matter. If you're going the RPG route, you're pretty much stuck waiting for Final Fantasy XIII or playing Fallout 3. If you're an FPS person, you go with the elite game that has the multiplayer masses online. If you're a sports fan, you go with the best. If you're a racing fan, you have a choice on which playing style fits you, and beyond the Burnout's and GT's, there's crap. Adventure fans get a lot of watered down action outside of the few A-list titles. So if you're a gamer, you put your money where the quality is. You don't have much of a choice, anyway. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
This guy has his mind in the right place, though. "An Objection to Originality" is something that got me thinking about two factors: the masses and the creators of these games. that's a difficult line, because someone has to be blamed. There is a lack of original franchises out there, or at least originality as a whole. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a line that was crossed somewhere.
Do I blame the writer for being wrong? No, he's right.
Do I blame the masses for buying good sequels? No, because the key word is "good" in most respects.
Do I blame the developers? Yes.
In a direct response to David R.'s post, I have to blame the developers on this one. Am I going to ignore FIFA 10 because it's a rehash of a franchise? Am I going to cancel my pre-order to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 because it's a sequel? Am I going to shun the next Zelda for being a Nintendo self-wank franchise? No. These are all going to be terrific games, and there is no one that will tell you to ignore them. That person would be stupid.
The point he's trying to make is that people do vote with the dollar. If people are willing to buy $100 worth of track-packs for Rock Band, then that is expressing that they are willing to pay for it. People like me hate those people, because there should be at least a little bit of criticism levied on the companies who want to screw you and your wallet for their profit. $2 for a song that is way too limited in usage bothers me, especially when iTunes songs cost a dollar and you actually get to own the song for personal use. That Resident Evil 5 deathmatch DLC? Total BS. That should have been in the game.
However, if a game is good, it should sell well. Sometimes there are financial flops like Beyond Good and Evil that sold poorly with no explanation as to why, but for the most part if a game sells well, the developers know that they product was appreciated. Supply and demand.
Now I point to Squeenix to demonstrate my point as to where the blame really lies, because let's face it, these guys do this stuff on a daily basis.
We can't get a good follow-up to the Chrono series to save our lives, but apparently, Squeenix has decided that we love Final Fantasy VII too much to let it go. When it came to Final fantasy 1-VII, we got a tremendous amount of originality and, I know this may sound foreign, individuality in each installment. From then on, each game became less unique. For as good a game as it was, Final Fantasy XII even took the Ivalice world from Tactics, and I found it very hard to believe that Nomura didn't just get lazy and throw Tidus and Zidane together to make Vaan.
I'm having a hard time building up the desire to play Final Fantasy XIII because the characters just don't feel right. I've seen them all before, and nothing looks terribly compelling. The Final Fantasy formula seems to be a rehash of everything that happened before it. Nothing seems fantastical anymore, and its as if the series is borrowing from itself too much. Yet, this is what we're given. Sure, people buy it, but the Final Fantasy series has lost a lot of credit overexposing itself.
As I said, people still buy it and if the games are good, why not? What matters is that Squeenix is arguably ignoring other franchises to make sure they make the safe bet for cash. Final Fantasy XIII has a wealth of games coming out for it that clones Final Fantasy VII's gaiden series. It's difficult to point to any series recently other than Dragon Quest that has felt original and excellent, whereas in the PSX days Final Fantasy wasn't the only RPG series in town. Parasite Eve (which is thankfully returning), Vagrant Story, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, and other RPG's at least took the company's experience in the genre and put it to use developing different IP's that have had various success, but at least they were trying. If there was a game idea that brought something new to the table, then it didn't necessarily have to be a Final Fantasy game.
Hell, Final Fantasy never had direct sequels for the longest time, but Final Fantasy X sold so well that it was decided that a Charlie's Angels type RPG was necessary. Why couldn't this have been another game? Was it really that necessary to extend an already complete story, and then not even really build off of it? That was a cash-in tactic without any doubt. Even the "new" character introduced felt unoriginal and generic. This game could have been a separate game with new ideas and maybe a little quirkiness to love, but instead we got Yuna again. Nobody wanted Yuna again.
Basically, developers have so much cash on their hands that they won't take risks. You have major games out there with engines that define the genres they were made for, but it seems like all of the ideas are getting strapped to these franchises as well. I would love to play an original, epic RPG outside of the big guns, but I can't because they don't exist. Chrono Trigger, for example, somehow rallied all the major brains within Squaresoft and got them involved on a single game outside of Final Fantasy. I find it hard to believe that no other game deserves that kind of attention. I understand that this involves a little bit of money, but if you're going to make bank off of every Final Fantasy sequel and cash-in title, can it really be that hard to expand yourself?
Another good example would be Hideo Kojima. Remember when he made games that didn't have Metal Gear in the title? When this man does anything more than produce a game, it ends up being good. Snatcher and Policenauts, though spiritually close, were amazing games. I understand that you have a baby and you want to take care of it, but please take a break every now and then and surprise us.
That's why I can blame the developers. Yes, they have their money-makers that wind up being very good games, but there are other places to put the development cash. No one is asking for an A-lister to headline a game like Brutal Legend to create a new IP. All we really want is something different now and then. No one is asking for developers to come up with a new engine or millions spent on voice actors and music, but if the tools that are at their disposal could give some new ideas a place to develop and a compelling new story to go along with it, then the community has always been open. In the past, those ideas turned into rock-solid games. Why not now?
We'll pay for a good game, and we have paid for good games. We just don't have a lot of choice in the matter. If you're going the RPG route, you're pretty much stuck waiting for Final Fantasy XIII or playing Fallout 3. If you're an FPS person, you go with the elite game that has the multiplayer masses online. If you're a sports fan, you go with the best. If you're a racing fan, you have a choice on which playing style fits you, and beyond the Burnout's and GT's, there's crap. Adventure fans get a lot of watered down action outside of the few A-list titles. So if you're a gamer, you put your money where the quality is. You don't have much of a choice, anyway. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 20, 2009
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FIFA 10 is coming out in a few hours, and I'm excited. I'm an American, yes, but I do have some history with the sport. from watching to playing, the experience originally started off well. As a kid, I had access to Premiere League matches and a lot of Euro-league action, so I was spoiled. Also, the Super Nintendo was loaded with the first generation of football games that influenced everything to come after it. ATLUS actually published the first such game that I actually enjoyed: World Soccer '94 - Road to Glory. The game was freakishly simple, which is probably why I liked it.
Then I grew up, and the actual matches became unavailable to me. I lost touch. Games didn't make much sense either, as the first FIFA games tried hard but didn't make me feel like I was having any fun. International Superstar Soccer wasn't enjoyable either. When the 16-bit era was over, I tried again and actually liked FIFA 99, but nothing really grabbed my attention and kept it there until Winning Eleven 7. That's when I saw the potential.
The actual games are huge and amazing to behold. If you think that Cowboys Stadium has any intensity to the crowd, let me be the first to tell you that you just don't understand anything about fans. Cram as many people as you want into that place, nothing will match what's going on during even a decent Euro-match. We're still captivated by Rally Monkeys, and the best things we can come up for during a game is "LET'S GO BLAH BLAH LET'S GO!"
This country just doesn't do crowd-awe well on the professional level. I tip my cap to college sports, because if you've ever seen the stands during a university basketball game explode after a bit shot, you know that it's something else entirely. American college football is inspired, too, as each alma-matter has tailored chants for game situations (kick-offs) and fight songs from the school band.
Still, nothing holds a candle to the Europeans. They don't just have fight songs. Their fight songs have words, and they sing it loud and will actually fight you on behalf of their team. If someone scores a goal, prepare to lose your hearing.
FIFA 10 is already getting unfairly good impressions from critics who have played the game, and this may just be the first year that the majority of gamers will experiencing all of this in HD and full surround by default. Add in all of the gameplay elements I'm hearing about, and you've got yourself one hell of a package. I'm probably getting the game later today, and thankfully, the few friends I've had a chance to show the game to via the demo are very interested.
It's not just football, either. All around, it's a great time to be a sports fan. Each of the major franchises have a ton of graphical beef at their disposal, and most games will give you that fleeting impression of actually being there. The presentation does not lack, and most simulate a real broadcast even without the addition of online extras. Audio is just as important, and while crowd noise still needs a bit more oomph in my opinion, it's all as you'd expect.
I'm a big believer in the experience of sports games. It's important, if you're going to play a game at home rather than outside, to have the entire package at your disposal. Most of us will never make it to the big leagues no matter how hard we practice our games, so the fantasy element needs to be a true fantasy. This year has stuck out to me as having the most to offer, and while that's going to improve, it's nice to hear that this was the year that most of the big franchises decided to give themselves an extra push towards excellence. It certainly shows, and I'm starting to rethink my stance against purchasing sports games for full price, at least for this year. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Then I grew up, and the actual matches became unavailable to me. I lost touch. Games didn't make much sense either, as the first FIFA games tried hard but didn't make me feel like I was having any fun. International Superstar Soccer wasn't enjoyable either. When the 16-bit era was over, I tried again and actually liked FIFA 99, but nothing really grabbed my attention and kept it there until Winning Eleven 7. That's when I saw the potential.
The actual games are huge and amazing to behold. If you think that Cowboys Stadium has any intensity to the crowd, let me be the first to tell you that you just don't understand anything about fans. Cram as many people as you want into that place, nothing will match what's going on during even a decent Euro-match. We're still captivated by Rally Monkeys, and the best things we can come up for during a game is "LET'S GO BLAH BLAH LET'S GO!"
This country just doesn't do crowd-awe well on the professional level. I tip my cap to college sports, because if you've ever seen the stands during a university basketball game explode after a bit shot, you know that it's something else entirely. American college football is inspired, too, as each alma-matter has tailored chants for game situations (kick-offs) and fight songs from the school band.
Still, nothing holds a candle to the Europeans. They don't just have fight songs. Their fight songs have words, and they sing it loud and will actually fight you on behalf of their team. If someone scores a goal, prepare to lose your hearing.
FIFA 10 is already getting unfairly good impressions from critics who have played the game, and this may just be the first year that the majority of gamers will experiencing all of this in HD and full surround by default. Add in all of the gameplay elements I'm hearing about, and you've got yourself one hell of a package. I'm probably getting the game later today, and thankfully, the few friends I've had a chance to show the game to via the demo are very interested.
It's not just football, either. All around, it's a great time to be a sports fan. Each of the major franchises have a ton of graphical beef at their disposal, and most games will give you that fleeting impression of actually being there. The presentation does not lack, and most simulate a real broadcast even without the addition of online extras. Audio is just as important, and while crowd noise still needs a bit more oomph in my opinion, it's all as you'd expect.
I'm a big believer in the experience of sports games. It's important, if you're going to play a game at home rather than outside, to have the entire package at your disposal. Most of us will never make it to the big leagues no matter how hard we practice our games, so the fantasy element needs to be a true fantasy. This year has stuck out to me as having the most to offer, and while that's going to improve, it's nice to hear that this was the year that most of the big franchises decided to give themselves an extra push towards excellence. It certainly shows, and I'm starting to rethink my stance against purchasing sports games for full price, at least for this year. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Of immense consequence
So I've been invited to do a podcast, and I do believe I might just take part. Yes, I just bashed IGN.com for having a terrible idea of what qualifies as a podcast, and there's a good chance this one will suck just as bad. Yet, trying and failing is half of the learning experience, so bear with me on this one and I will try not to ruin it for you.
Yeah, that was the whole point of the tagline. Just needed to get it out of the way.
Though, I could extend this title to Sony, who "continues to redefine entertainment". Yes, they're serious. For one single month, they beat out the console competition in what appears to be a sign that they may be gaining ground, and they do not want you to ignore it. No sir. Sony is here to tell you that they have been recrowned as masters of the gaming world.
I guess I shouldn't tell them that since my article two months ago, they've actually LOST ground against the 360. Ouch. That's roughly the equivalent to a teen bragging about the ability to masturbate in front of men who just finished having hours of intense sex with real women.
Now, over to me for some sports.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
October 19, 2009
Gaming: The League
Often, I talk about how competitive gaming is something I look forward to. It's not going to look the way it does now, but we may be a little closer than we allow ourselves to believe. Granted, none of the commentary has made it onto this blog, but someday the thoughts will emerge.
For now, we deal with November 10th. On that day, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be unleashed.
For those who don't believe the hype, put down the pipe and read the news. This game will be record breaking on so many levels. Even our little backwoods town...city...thing has about 700 preorders at one GameStop. Yes, we have two GameStops, but sometimes I wonder if our population even reached five digits, so 700 preorders is a huge deal. Modern Warfare 2 may just put Halo to complete shame on the first day, and as much as I love to bash that franchise, there's something to be said about that. The closer it gets, the more news we get, and the latest news is regarding PC multiplayer options.
Dedicated servers are out, Battle.n... IW.net is in. The response reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
So why is this a bad thing? Well, for starters, if you've ever hosted a server, the amount of personalization/customization is endless. You can define physics in most games, so forget about defining basic match rules. The PC community is pissed, and it's mainly due to losing control of the gaming environment. You paid for the game. Why can't you do what you want to it?
Well, the argument stands up for about five-seconds, until you remember that we are talking about a PC game. PC games and "breaking the rules" have gone together since God said "there will be bytes", then left the Internet alone to be conquered by porn. To this criticism, I have one thing to say that I don't need to justify.
Deal with it. You'll figure it out.
Now, to address the reasoning behind Infinity Ward taking on the project. While they may say that cheating is only a "small part" of the reason, come on. That's ENTIRELY the reason why you did this. No developer likes piracy or cheating in their game, period. Beyond that, it is an idea meant to legitimize Modern Warfare 2. I'm not faulting Infinity Ward for deciding to reap the benefits of a clean game. On the contrary, this is a game that needs it more than any other game out there. The developers know that they have one of the most sought after teamplay titles in the past, oh, forever, and they are going to do everything they can to maintain that reputation. These are the people that want tournaments and leagues to be based around their product, and it may be among the first games to make competitive gaming mainstream.
So, in short, Infinity Ward does not want you screwing with their game. They don't want some 13 year old script kiddie fragging players in their legitimate league. While the effort may be futile, at least they are making the effort to support that.
I say again to the PC crowd: deal with it. You'll figure out a way to break the game and run anything you want, but for players who are truly wanting to keep things fair and competitive, Infinity Ward is trying to facilitate that. Now, if they shoot themselves in the foot, I'll gladly join the cause, but nobody likes a cheater. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
For now, we deal with November 10th. On that day, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be unleashed.
For those who don't believe the hype, put down the pipe and read the news. This game will be record breaking on so many levels. Even our little backwoods town...city...thing has about 700 preorders at one GameStop. Yes, we have two GameStops, but sometimes I wonder if our population even reached five digits, so 700 preorders is a huge deal. Modern Warfare 2 may just put Halo to complete shame on the first day, and as much as I love to bash that franchise, there's something to be said about that. The closer it gets, the more news we get, and the latest news is regarding PC multiplayer options.
Dedicated servers are out, Battle.n...
So why is this a bad thing? Well, for starters, if you've ever hosted a server, the amount of personalization/customization is endless. You can define physics in most games, so forget about defining basic match rules. The PC community is pissed, and it's mainly due to losing control of the gaming environment. You paid for the game. Why can't you do what you want to it?
Well, the argument stands up for about five-seconds, until you remember that we are talking about a PC game. PC games and "breaking the rules" have gone together since God said "there will be bytes", then left the Internet alone to be conquered by porn. To this criticism, I have one thing to say that I don't need to justify.
Deal with it. You'll figure it out.
Now, to address the reasoning behind Infinity Ward taking on the project. While they may say that cheating is only a "small part" of the reason, come on. That's ENTIRELY the reason why you did this. No developer likes piracy or cheating in their game, period. Beyond that, it is an idea meant to legitimize Modern Warfare 2. I'm not faulting Infinity Ward for deciding to reap the benefits of a clean game. On the contrary, this is a game that needs it more than any other game out there. The developers know that they have one of the most sought after teamplay titles in the past, oh, forever, and they are going to do everything they can to maintain that reputation. These are the people that want tournaments and leagues to be based around their product, and it may be among the first games to make competitive gaming mainstream.
So, in short, Infinity Ward does not want you screwing with their game. They don't want some 13 year old script kiddie fragging players in their legitimate league. While the effort may be futile, at least they are making the effort to support that.
I say again to the PC crowd: deal with it. You'll figure out a way to break the game and run anything you want, but for players who are truly wanting to keep things fair and competitive, Infinity Ward is trying to facilitate that. Now, if they shoot themselves in the foot, I'll gladly join the cause, but nobody likes a cheater. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 18, 2009
Wisdom that doesn't come with old age
So Mr. Nintendo is now a "liability".
Whoever this Malstrom guy is, he clearly just emerged from under some rock. This has been common knowledge now for quite a long time. Sure, the Wii took off and he wasn't considered to have lost all his marbles at the system's launch, but he was not exactly hiding the fact that he was on the downhill spiral.
I'll give partial credit, only because this observation is partially correct, though extremely late, and the community needs to be reminded of this. It's not that we hate Nintendo. We don't. As gamers, we get excited when someone at least makes an attempt at innovation. Even if it goes the way of the Virtual Boy, an idea that could change games is always welcome. Microsoft and Sony have projects of their own based on Nintendo's exploration of new control schemes, so they didn't exactly create a one-time gimmick. Let's also not forget that even an idiotic concept like attaching a vibrator to your controller actually became pure industry standard awesome. Some ideas just need to get thrown out there, and Nintendo has proven it is willing to put some money on the line in making sure games evolve.
If gaming had a Pantheon, Shigeru Miyamoto is certainly towards the top. This is a guy whose mere thoughts have profited Nintendo by billions. With the Wii's success, he had even more influence on what random ideas could be brought to the table, but the trouble is that his inspirations are getting a little strange.
Go to your local GameStop and check out the clutter that is the Wii's game wall. While I understand that the "hardcore" crowd looks for a certain type of game you're usually not going to find there, there is still a lack of generally good games on display. For every game worth your time like MLB Power Pros, Twilight Princess, or Boom Blox, you're going to find hundreds more titles like Hell's Kitchen that have no place in anyone's home. The sad part is that, in essence, Miyamoto wanted this to happen.
The simple things in life that inspired Miyamoto to make such classics as The Legend of Zelda are the exact things killing him now. Wii Music might not have been high up on anyone's "must have" list, but at least it was an inspired idea that just didn't pan out so well. Yet, instead of learning that there needed to be a little more solid groundwork before everyone decided it was a good idea to make a game about everyday life, he continued to champion the concepts, giving rise to the clutter of bad cooking games you find on shelves today. In interviews, he still tries to get across that his plan is to make games about things no one else would make a game about, like walking a dog.
Face it, your gaming God is starting to lose touch in some ways. Miyamoto is getting old, and is not the same type of gamer we are. When it comes to creating IPs, Mr. Nintendo is throwing some strange stuff out there, and it's not the kind of idea list supporters want to see conjoined with two horrendous E3's. Love him all you want, but Nintendo has a recent track record of being unimpressive and stale. Maybe this climate is shaping the way I personally view the guy, but he's starting to sound like some old guy spouting crackpot business scheme while hopped up on painkillers.
Now, to his defense.
Under no circumstances should this man retire for all of the same things I just spoke about. Miyamoto still gives one hell of an interview, proving every time that he knows the challenges in game design. He's not running on a 100% success rate, but neither did Michael Jordan. There are some people you can hear speak about their craft for hours, and Miyamoto is almost like the Bill Clinton of video games. When this man speaks, everything makes sense. Reading his latest interview at IGN, you can tell that he just "gets it", whether you're sold on his products or not. He's not a bullshitter, unlike Peter Molyneux, and expressed desires and imagination with great realism when it comes to design and the market.
For every crazy idea the man has had, someone like Atlus will make a game such as Trauma Center to prove that he wasn't off his rocker about how fun the concepts could be. Yes, user generated content (UGC) sounds like a completely lame idea at the moment, but he's not seeing it the way you and I are. What do we visualize when UGC is brought up? We think of the people designing levels for the Source engine and how many of them look like a second-grader whipped out those giant building blocks. We think of the glut of LittleBigPlanet levels and how most of them wind up being crap. Some Mario ROMhacks out there might even convince you that the only thing users could possibly create by themselves is a politically incorrect character swap for laughs.
UGC goes way beyond what you're used to. Someone had to design those courses in Mario games, so this Malstrom guy clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Just take a look at a homebrew Metroid project, AM2R. While everybody likes clinging to official releases as skill benchmark, getting original is what rocks about gaming. Sure, the man brings to mind IP rinse-and-repeats, but he's missing the big picture. UGC is exactly what will drive the future of gaming. Two counter-points to his argument:
MMO's can benefit, and have benefited in the past, from UGC. The developers can only do so much with a gaming world. Barring a supercomputer driven, actual size, randomly generated planetary model of a planet (more on that in another post), these guys don't have the time to create every step you walk on in the MMO world. Some teams do, but if LOTRO taught us anything, it's that world-creation takes time. City of Heroes/City of Villains gave users the opportunity to modify their own super-hangout, and while it sounds gimmicky and unimportant, it's a step in the right direction. If Blizzard decided to give you a plot of land to build a World of Warcraft farm on, then that's a plot of land that you have the opportunity to make worthy of being included in their gaming world. It brings the users closer to the creators and expands the setting of the published game beyond what it was meant to. While it's true that if this happened, 90% of the plots would suck, but the idea alone is something that could potentially work while moving the genre forward at the same time.
My second example is something I've already talked about: making gamers care. An extension of personality is not something to be taken lightly. You could be getting tea-bagged on a battlefield as a form of "expression", or you could be feeding the evolving machine. Computers operate on a set of rules that we, as a species, have moved way beyond. It's only natural that computer must break down these walls in some way, however small, to advance the relationship that users have with their software.
For that matter, I also get a little steamed when people bash Nintendo's "guide" experiment. The idea is that the game will have a hint system built into the game so that entry level, or even advanced players, can get a bit of a clue that will help them complete a game. How is this a bad idea? I understand the fear fans have of being spoon fed, but get a clue; you're already babied. I had a hint book for King's Quest IV that used the red cellophane "revealer", strategy guides have been around for decades, and the second GameFAQs went online there wasn't even a need to buy those. Walkthroughs and guides have been around as long as gaming and they've evolved, too. Giving you the convenience to skip a step is common sense and just plain inevitable. Do what I did for Uncharted if you're so up in arms over the idea: turn the hints off. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Whoever this Malstrom guy is, he clearly just emerged from under some rock. This has been common knowledge now for quite a long time. Sure, the Wii took off and he wasn't considered to have lost all his marbles at the system's launch, but he was not exactly hiding the fact that he was on the downhill spiral.
I'll give partial credit, only because this observation is partially correct, though extremely late, and the community needs to be reminded of this. It's not that we hate Nintendo. We don't. As gamers, we get excited when someone at least makes an attempt at innovation. Even if it goes the way of the Virtual Boy, an idea that could change games is always welcome. Microsoft and Sony have projects of their own based on Nintendo's exploration of new control schemes, so they didn't exactly create a one-time gimmick. Let's also not forget that even an idiotic concept like attaching a vibrator to your controller actually became pure industry standard awesome. Some ideas just need to get thrown out there, and Nintendo has proven it is willing to put some money on the line in making sure games evolve.
If gaming had a Pantheon, Shigeru Miyamoto is certainly towards the top. This is a guy whose mere thoughts have profited Nintendo by billions. With the Wii's success, he had even more influence on what random ideas could be brought to the table, but the trouble is that his inspirations are getting a little strange.
Go to your local GameStop and check out the clutter that is the Wii's game wall. While I understand that the "hardcore" crowd looks for a certain type of game you're usually not going to find there, there is still a lack of generally good games on display. For every game worth your time like MLB Power Pros, Twilight Princess, or Boom Blox, you're going to find hundreds more titles like Hell's Kitchen that have no place in anyone's home. The sad part is that, in essence, Miyamoto wanted this to happen.
The simple things in life that inspired Miyamoto to make such classics as The Legend of Zelda are the exact things killing him now. Wii Music might not have been high up on anyone's "must have" list, but at least it was an inspired idea that just didn't pan out so well. Yet, instead of learning that there needed to be a little more solid groundwork before everyone decided it was a good idea to make a game about everyday life, he continued to champion the concepts, giving rise to the clutter of bad cooking games you find on shelves today. In interviews, he still tries to get across that his plan is to make games about things no one else would make a game about, like walking a dog.
Face it, your gaming God is starting to lose touch in some ways. Miyamoto is getting old, and is not the same type of gamer we are. When it comes to creating IPs, Mr. Nintendo is throwing some strange stuff out there, and it's not the kind of idea list supporters want to see conjoined with two horrendous E3's. Love him all you want, but Nintendo has a recent track record of being unimpressive and stale. Maybe this climate is shaping the way I personally view the guy, but he's starting to sound like some old guy spouting crackpot business scheme while hopped up on painkillers.
Now, to his defense.
Under no circumstances should this man retire for all of the same things I just spoke about. Miyamoto still gives one hell of an interview, proving every time that he knows the challenges in game design. He's not running on a 100% success rate, but neither did Michael Jordan. There are some people you can hear speak about their craft for hours, and Miyamoto is almost like the Bill Clinton of video games. When this man speaks, everything makes sense. Reading his latest interview at IGN, you can tell that he just "gets it", whether you're sold on his products or not. He's not a bullshitter, unlike Peter Molyneux, and expressed desires and imagination with great realism when it comes to design and the market.
For every crazy idea the man has had, someone like Atlus will make a game such as Trauma Center to prove that he wasn't off his rocker about how fun the concepts could be. Yes, user generated content (UGC) sounds like a completely lame idea at the moment, but he's not seeing it the way you and I are. What do we visualize when UGC is brought up? We think of the people designing levels for the Source engine and how many of them look like a second-grader whipped out those giant building blocks. We think of the glut of LittleBigPlanet levels and how most of them wind up being crap. Some Mario ROMhacks out there might even convince you that the only thing users could possibly create by themselves is a politically incorrect character swap for laughs.
UGC goes way beyond what you're used to. Someone had to design those courses in Mario games, so this Malstrom guy clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Just take a look at a homebrew Metroid project, AM2R. While everybody likes clinging to official releases as skill benchmark, getting original is what rocks about gaming. Sure, the man brings to mind IP rinse-and-repeats, but he's missing the big picture. UGC is exactly what will drive the future of gaming. Two counter-points to his argument:
MMO's can benefit, and have benefited in the past, from UGC. The developers can only do so much with a gaming world. Barring a supercomputer driven, actual size, randomly generated planetary model of a planet (more on that in another post), these guys don't have the time to create every step you walk on in the MMO world. Some teams do, but if LOTRO taught us anything, it's that world-creation takes time. City of Heroes/City of Villains gave users the opportunity to modify their own super-hangout, and while it sounds gimmicky and unimportant, it's a step in the right direction. If Blizzard decided to give you a plot of land to build a World of Warcraft farm on, then that's a plot of land that you have the opportunity to make worthy of being included in their gaming world. It brings the users closer to the creators and expands the setting of the published game beyond what it was meant to. While it's true that if this happened, 90% of the plots would suck, but the idea alone is something that could potentially work while moving the genre forward at the same time.
My second example is something I've already talked about: making gamers care. An extension of personality is not something to be taken lightly. You could be getting tea-bagged on a battlefield as a form of "expression", or you could be feeding the evolving machine. Computers operate on a set of rules that we, as a species, have moved way beyond. It's only natural that computer must break down these walls in some way, however small, to advance the relationship that users have with their software.
For that matter, I also get a little steamed when people bash Nintendo's "guide" experiment. The idea is that the game will have a hint system built into the game so that entry level, or even advanced players, can get a bit of a clue that will help them complete a game. How is this a bad idea? I understand the fear fans have of being spoon fed, but get a clue; you're already babied. I had a hint book for King's Quest IV that used the red cellophane "revealer", strategy guides have been around for decades, and the second GameFAQs went online there wasn't even a need to buy those. Walkthroughs and guides have been around as long as gaming and they've evolved, too. Giving you the convenience to skip a step is common sense and just plain inevitable. Do what I did for Uncharted if you're so up in arms over the idea: turn the hints off. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 16, 2009
Practice
Opening up this blog, I bashed the concept of the EVO; a box marketed as a Linux gaming console. In theory, it's a great idea, but that idea never made past the idea phase and consumers ultimately received a mini-computer with no promise.
How do you get the idea of a Linux console off the ground? Well, if anyone's listening, I'll give you this tip for free. Well, the tip is free, but I want recognition when this awesome idea gets made. As a matter of fact, if you're a potential hardware developer looking for a good, cheap way to score a profit without resorting to a system with a $300+ price tag, you are absolutely welcome to pay attention so long as you understand that by continuing on you are assuming a basic form of contractual obligation. By using this idea or a significant portion of the idea, you are given the right to negotiate for usage and must automatically provide acknowledgement and minor compensation. Also, I can still tell you "no."
My idea? Practice. Do it small, and do it right. No company should enter the "Linux console" market without starting small. Look at the GP32X and what a nice bit of machinery it is. It's a portable Linux console all in itself, but the trouble is that it's expensive. It'll cost you just as much to nab one of those as it would to get a PSP or a DS, and right now, all of that power is completely unnecessary. There's no reason to demand that customers pay a premium on a device that goes well beyond what the average gamer really needs or wants.
People don't generally get a PSP with the intention to pirate Sony's catalog of games. People do try to get it for that reason at times, but for the most part, portable retro is what the consumers are in it for. No one needs a cell processor or a dedicated graphics chip to run Nintendo games. All they need is a screen, the controls, and the most basic of specs.
The timing is perfect for a handheld like this. Gamers are increasingly interested in retro gaming, and basement programmers create simple games all the time as a hobby. Free or not, the supply and demand is there. All that is required is a point of focus, and in this case, it is a common platform that releases can find a home on. Personal computers that can run this stuff all the time, but that's not the definition of a dedicated console. A hardware architecture built specifically to run basic games would not only be extremely cheap to produce, but yield significant rewards for hobbyists and small development teams looking to practice their art.
Sure, netbooks and the iPhone can do everything that this handheld could, but the difference is in cost and freedom. The way I see it, the equivalent of making a Game Boy Advance could not possibly cost any more than $30 to produce, and that sort of power isn't even necessary. Adding in wi-fi or the cheaper Bluetooth option plus an SD card slot would cost $15 at the most. We're talking a system that comes into profit selling at $40, and maybe not even that much. So for less than $40, you can experience on-the-go gaming with complete freedom and a large development community. How large? Get the specs posted on the internet and let the people do the rest. The trouble with these DIY projects floating around is that so few of the systems are created and no one makes them available to the public, but this handheld would have widespread acceptance as a system anyone could develop for.
So how do you make money off of this? Well, I hate to say it, but the indie scene is going to have to fend for themselves on this one. About the only way that the company producing the handheld could assist indie developers in making money is by having an approval board and a Steam-like depository for published games. Being able to use the digital delivery model that Steam introduced would help offset the lack of profit piracy would cause. The idea is that the handheld would be completely unprotected, leaving it up to the community to put the hardware to work however it saw fit. Free games, piracy, and open source projects would be accepted, but having the convenience of an iTunes inspired click-and-buy interface would encourage gamers to support others and not feel as if their wallet is taking a massive hit.
Another source of profit is so freakishly easy that even major third-parties would get on the bandwagon. Creating a game like Mega Man 9 is not like making Street Fighter IV. The costs are less, the manpower is minimum, and the development timeline is kept short. In the time that it would take Konami to produce one quality next-gen Castevania game, at least four NES/SNES style games could be produced without costing them much money at all. How do you make a profit off of this? Well, assuming that at least a few thousand downloads will be purchased ones, you can also assume that about half of the development costs can be recouped. The rest is simple: advertising. If you're going to put out a Castevania game on a handheld, you could easily ask a movie studio to slap an ad on the intro and make the game sponsored by AMP. No pirate will take the time to remove those advertisements, as seeing them would be as pain-free as the company credits you see at the beginning of any other major title out there.
The way I see it, if you stick a couple of interns and supervising programmer in a room to develop retro games, you're probably only costing the company a hundred grand to get the game made. I'm pretty damn sure that you're going to find a couple of companies that will pay you $25,000 each to get an advertisement in a game that, paid or not, could reach millions of people. Sales make up the rest. Thus, it's entirely proven that major production houses will get in on the action. Making things better, a good indie concept that has a platform outside of the PC might just get their IPs bought by one of these producers in a good example of trickling riches.
Whoever makes the handheld would be driven by the profit of sales. Since the system would be so cheap to produce, money could be made immediately on every handheld sold, and the cheapness also reflects the relatively low risk point for creating it in the first place. It's not like a PS3 that, with its high production cost, revolves around game sales for company profit.
Look, it's a SNES+1, an LCD screen, and Bluetooth. That's it. This cannot be the most expensive thing in the world to make, and there are a lot of gamers that dream of constant streams of old-school gaming. The time is ripe for such a simple concept, and no one would be spending a lot. In a a perfect scenario, millions of people snap up the handheld for as little as it costs to buy a Blu-Ray movie and everybody's happy. The open-source community finally has a concrete goal to strive for, major gaming companies have a low risk way of promoting their IPs while still making a little extra cash to fund their big-budget games, and the hardware manufacturer makes bank. Everybody wins, and on top of that, hundreds of games would be immediately available to toy with on the go.
Someone out there needs to take a shot with this. If you need a better business model, then talk to me, because this should definitely happen. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
How do you get the idea of a Linux console off the ground? Well, if anyone's listening, I'll give you this tip for free. Well, the tip is free, but I want recognition when this awesome idea gets made. As a matter of fact, if you're a potential hardware developer looking for a good, cheap way to score a profit without resorting to a system with a $300+ price tag, you are absolutely welcome to pay attention so long as you understand that by continuing on you are assuming a basic form of contractual obligation. By using this idea or a significant portion of the idea, you are given the right to negotiate for usage and must automatically provide acknowledgement and minor compensation. Also, I can still tell you "no."
My idea? Practice. Do it small, and do it right. No company should enter the "Linux console" market without starting small. Look at the GP32X and what a nice bit of machinery it is. It's a portable Linux console all in itself, but the trouble is that it's expensive. It'll cost you just as much to nab one of those as it would to get a PSP or a DS, and right now, all of that power is completely unnecessary. There's no reason to demand that customers pay a premium on a device that goes well beyond what the average gamer really needs or wants.
People don't generally get a PSP with the intention to pirate Sony's catalog of games. People do try to get it for that reason at times, but for the most part, portable retro is what the consumers are in it for. No one needs a cell processor or a dedicated graphics chip to run Nintendo games. All they need is a screen, the controls, and the most basic of specs.
The timing is perfect for a handheld like this. Gamers are increasingly interested in retro gaming, and basement programmers create simple games all the time as a hobby. Free or not, the supply and demand is there. All that is required is a point of focus, and in this case, it is a common platform that releases can find a home on. Personal computers that can run this stuff all the time, but that's not the definition of a dedicated console. A hardware architecture built specifically to run basic games would not only be extremely cheap to produce, but yield significant rewards for hobbyists and small development teams looking to practice their art.
Sure, netbooks and the iPhone can do everything that this handheld could, but the difference is in cost and freedom. The way I see it, the equivalent of making a Game Boy Advance could not possibly cost any more than $30 to produce, and that sort of power isn't even necessary. Adding in wi-fi or the cheaper Bluetooth option plus an SD card slot would cost $15 at the most. We're talking a system that comes into profit selling at $40, and maybe not even that much. So for less than $40, you can experience on-the-go gaming with complete freedom and a large development community. How large? Get the specs posted on the internet and let the people do the rest. The trouble with these DIY projects floating around is that so few of the systems are created and no one makes them available to the public, but this handheld would have widespread acceptance as a system anyone could develop for.
So how do you make money off of this? Well, I hate to say it, but the indie scene is going to have to fend for themselves on this one. About the only way that the company producing the handheld could assist indie developers in making money is by having an approval board and a Steam-like depository for published games. Being able to use the digital delivery model that Steam introduced would help offset the lack of profit piracy would cause. The idea is that the handheld would be completely unprotected, leaving it up to the community to put the hardware to work however it saw fit. Free games, piracy, and open source projects would be accepted, but having the convenience of an iTunes inspired click-and-buy interface would encourage gamers to support others and not feel as if their wallet is taking a massive hit.
Another source of profit is so freakishly easy that even major third-parties would get on the bandwagon. Creating a game like Mega Man 9 is not like making Street Fighter IV. The costs are less, the manpower is minimum, and the development timeline is kept short. In the time that it would take Konami to produce one quality next-gen Castevania game, at least four NES/SNES style games could be produced without costing them much money at all. How do you make a profit off of this? Well, assuming that at least a few thousand downloads will be purchased ones, you can also assume that about half of the development costs can be recouped. The rest is simple: advertising. If you're going to put out a Castevania game on a handheld, you could easily ask a movie studio to slap an ad on the intro and make the game sponsored by AMP. No pirate will take the time to remove those advertisements, as seeing them would be as pain-free as the company credits you see at the beginning of any other major title out there.
The way I see it, if you stick a couple of interns and supervising programmer in a room to develop retro games, you're probably only costing the company a hundred grand to get the game made. I'm pretty damn sure that you're going to find a couple of companies that will pay you $25,000 each to get an advertisement in a game that, paid or not, could reach millions of people. Sales make up the rest. Thus, it's entirely proven that major production houses will get in on the action. Making things better, a good indie concept that has a platform outside of the PC might just get their IPs bought by one of these producers in a good example of trickling riches.
Whoever makes the handheld would be driven by the profit of sales. Since the system would be so cheap to produce, money could be made immediately on every handheld sold, and the cheapness also reflects the relatively low risk point for creating it in the first place. It's not like a PS3 that, with its high production cost, revolves around game sales for company profit.
Look, it's a SNES+1, an LCD screen, and Bluetooth. That's it. This cannot be the most expensive thing in the world to make, and there are a lot of gamers that dream of constant streams of old-school gaming. The time is ripe for such a simple concept, and no one would be spending a lot. In a a perfect scenario, millions of people snap up the handheld for as little as it costs to buy a Blu-Ray movie and everybody's happy. The open-source community finally has a concrete goal to strive for, major gaming companies have a low risk way of promoting their IPs while still making a little extra cash to fund their big-budget games, and the hardware manufacturer makes bank. Everybody wins, and on top of that, hundreds of games would be immediately available to toy with on the go.
Someone out there needs to take a shot with this. If you need a better business model, then talk to me, because this should definitely happen. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Prelude to Halloween, part 2
So they made a video game about Saw.
At first, I was surprised, and though I still feel pretty distant from the game world in a graphical sense, it looks as if it could be a solid rental game. That shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that unless a horror flick is legendary, it's usually destined for the rental lot in the first place. From a review standpoint, the game is getting higher marks than I would expect, with most major reviewers pegging it in the 70 percent range.
The entire premise of Saw is to get under the audiences skin with scenes of explicit violence and gore. OK, so that's not saying much, since pretty much every work of horror out there warns of explicit violence and gore. Bluntly, the movies are completely sick and twisted, though I admit, in a pretty innovative way. Sometimes the movie business needs a shot in the arm when it comes to scaring people, as each generation has gone through the motions of bringing something new to the table. The whole "torture porn" genre that's being coined these days for movies like the Saw franchise and Hostel is our response to the 90's teen slasher phase and the days of super-slashers from the 80's. Simply put, there's a different kind of horror for each generation, and Saw happens to be one of the two major horror phases going on right now. The other, of course, is the in-your-face quick cutting horror present in most Michael Bay and Rob Zombie movies.
Here are a few movies and their video game parallels to give you the rundown on the history of horror in both genres, and what they had to offer in the way of innovation.
Resident Evil/Psycho
Before you ask why these two are connected, let's just start with the basics. Both are pretty much the grandaddies of their genre, and while they may not be the first, their mastery of the art is what links them in entertainment history. With Psycho, it wasn't necessarily about what the killer was going to do. The worst that was going to happen was someone taking a knife to the chest, a far cry from what serial killers do in movies these days. After Hitchcock killed off his marquee actress in the infamous shower scene, setting the stage for another brutal slashing later on. In that final scene, it wasn't about the unknown of what was going to happen, since you already knew, but rather the sound of inevitability. Once the scream filled the house, you could hear the footsteps rushing down the stairs to find and kill the source, and that tense feeling of knowing sent chills through anyone slightly relating to the protagonist.
With Resident Evil, you're given one scene that sets the stage for the rest of the game. Once that mid-snack corpse turns his head to face you, you know exactly what you're in for: zombies. You're left knowing exactly what to expect around every corner, but hearing the moans and scraping footsteps keep you on edge. Later horror games threw cheap scares at you and loud noises, but Resident Evil kept the cheapness rather tame. Hitchcock was a master at still scaring you while showing you absolutely everything about a given scene, keeping surprises to an absolute minimum. While Resident Evil has its share of shocks, for the most part the third person perspective gave players a clear view as to what was in any given room. Simplicity means more, sometimes.
Evil Dead II/Doom
You can either fear the darkness, or you can rush into it headfirst with a chainsaw and a smile. Evil Dead II isn't always about badassery, but the tone was significantly changed from Evil Dead and ultimately was a better movie. No longer is the plot just about terror, but instead about taking what's good about horror movies and embellishing the whole thing. From the chainsaw hand to the gallons of blood shooting out of the walls like a firehose, Sam Raimi's classic delivered the goods and never stopped to apologize. Once you've experienced it for the first time, a return trip is all about how much fun horror can be, and how one person can go from cowering in fear to being a no-apologies master of ass-kicking.
In Doom, it's pretty much the same thing. When you first played it, you got scared. Sure, you heard the snarls, but when you opened up that first door with an imp right behind it, you jumped just like everyone else. Each strobing corridor was an invite to your, well, doom. Treading carefully seemed to be the only way to go until you got more comfortable with the games mood. Then, just like the transformation of Ash, a terrifying game became a personal playground for your inner badass. Like the Doom Trooper's picture at the bottom of the screen, a disturbing grin was on everyone's face when demons tried to surprise you from around a corner. It was a matter of choice at that point; what weapon would be most fun in the killing process? Dead Rising owes everything to Doom giving you that first real sense of enjoying yourself while trying to survive.
Halloween/Clock Tower
No one is going to say that Halloween is an Oscar worthy film. It's about a bunch of kids getting hacked up by an immortal guy in a Captain Kirk mask. It is, however, the first notable uber-stalker that the movies ever had. Even films with no distinct bad guy like Final Destination steal from Michael Myers and his persistence. To steal a line from the sports world, "You can't hope to stop him. You can only hope to contain him."
Sure, Freddy has personality and Jason has an uncalled for amount of athleticism at times, but Michael's faults make him better than the rest. He's huge and powerful, but he's usually slow, clumsy, and completely narrow minded. He's the ultimate stalker. John Carpenter's creation and the way he shaped the movie around this "stalker" image is what made that movie a horror classic. No matter what the character's do, he always shows up, and while he might not leap through floorboards to get to you, he'll always be on your tail in the end.
When Scissorman made his debut on the Super Nintendo, gamers were finally given a similar figure to run from. Sure, Jason himself was chasing gamers on the Nintendo in the historically bad Friday the 13th, but Scissorman had all of the qualities that made Michael Myers have such a unique presence. He would butcher you if he caught you and he was always just a step behind you, but he wasn't godlike in his abilities. You had your chances to escape, and it was your own fault if you blew it. He was slow and small, but the shrill snapping of the man-sized scissors let you know that he was all about serious business. The entire game is based on running from him, and the formula worked, causing several sequels on other consoles. If you think he hasn't had much of an influence on the history of gaming, then you obviously missed Resident Evil's inclusion of characters like Nemesis. Not only will you likely hear those scissors again someday, but I have a good feeling that unkillable stalkers are going to come back into the console scene pretty soon.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre/Silent Hill
I first watched the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when I was in my early teens, mainly to try to figure out what all the fuss was about. Honestly, I can say that there's nothing special about the movie except one thing: it's disturbingly violent. The "meat hook" scene exemplifies everything you need to know about the movie. The world that the characters find themselves in is completely psychotic, all summed up in the room Pam falls into while exploring the killers' house. In broad daylight she finds skeletons, hellish decorations, and a floor littered with bones. It takes her a minute to process this, and when she does it completely ruins her mental state. By the time she pulls herself off the floor, she finds herself backing right into the personification of the insanity: Leatherface. Jason was pretty elaborate in his kills, and Freddy may have loved playing his sick dream-games, but this was the first time in cinema where the audience was gulping from the brutality rather than being scared.
When you first enter Silent Hill, you immediately think that you're in for a clone of Resident Evil. That all changes pretty quickly though, as the player is introduced to a world with its own rules. Not only were the monsters designed to be evil looking, but they were also created for the sole purpose of making you completely uncomfortable. This game took its gore and atmosphere and forced it into your brain whether you liked it or not. Pyramid Head is the iconic figure of the series, and one of the biggest reasons why is that you can expect nothing less than the worst when it turns up. Just as Leatherface casually flings people onto meat hooks, Pyramid Head will turn up and cleave someone in two, then walk away and brutally rape a fellow monster minutes later. Excessive, yes, but the disturbing visuals cause you to lose all the happy places left in your brain that were helping you deal with the nightmare.
Night of the Living Dead/nothing
I feel compelled to end the article with one movie that may not be matched in video games anytime soon. Night of the Living Dead is the ultimate zombie movie. It has everything you need out of a good movie about the undead, and while there are many excellent follow ups in the genre, none of them can claim to have the complete package. The sequel, Dawn of the Dead, is the only one that comes close. Sure, we've upgraded the zombies since then, but it's not always about them. Seclusion, fear, distrust, teamwork, complex characters...Night of the Living Dead has all of this. To this day, the film is lauded for how it deals with everything other than the zombies themselves.
That's something that games haven't figured out yet. Arguably, Left 4 Dead contains some of these elements, but not in the way that they should be presented. Yes, you have to move forward as a cohesive unit, and the odds of survival are pretty slim if a team member goes down, but it's never a question of character. The biggest concern of character you have is whether someone is a a n00b or not. You can't ragequit a zombie holocaust, so how to you translate that tension into a game?
I often refer to Night of the Living Dead and Battle Royale as two movies that just can't be made into a game. Sure, they both sound cool on paper. One is about zombies and the other is about killing fellow classmates, but they don't work as games. You can scare a person. You can put them on edge. You can chase them. You can break their boundaries and test their sanity. It's much harder to make them care about someone else. Right now, I'd go so far to say that it's impossible. Characters in these movies have a personal stake in their actions, but a gamer doesn't. Whatever game manages to change that will not only be a landmark title for the genre, but it will forever change the entire business of gaming.
As a side note, I don't believe I have the ability to end this problem, but I have a pretty good idea of where to start. So if a developer out there wants to nab the Battle Royale franchise and get back to me, I can show you how to give the movie some justice. Promise. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
At first, I was surprised, and though I still feel pretty distant from the game world in a graphical sense, it looks as if it could be a solid rental game. That shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that unless a horror flick is legendary, it's usually destined for the rental lot in the first place. From a review standpoint, the game is getting higher marks than I would expect, with most major reviewers pegging it in the 70 percent range.
The entire premise of Saw is to get under the audiences skin with scenes of explicit violence and gore. OK, so that's not saying much, since pretty much every work of horror out there warns of explicit violence and gore. Bluntly, the movies are completely sick and twisted, though I admit, in a pretty innovative way. Sometimes the movie business needs a shot in the arm when it comes to scaring people, as each generation has gone through the motions of bringing something new to the table. The whole "torture porn" genre that's being coined these days for movies like the Saw franchise and Hostel is our response to the 90's teen slasher phase and the days of super-slashers from the 80's. Simply put, there's a different kind of horror for each generation, and Saw happens to be one of the two major horror phases going on right now. The other, of course, is the in-your-face quick cutting horror present in most Michael Bay and Rob Zombie movies.
Here are a few movies and their video game parallels to give you the rundown on the history of horror in both genres, and what they had to offer in the way of innovation.
Resident Evil/Psycho
Before you ask why these two are connected, let's just start with the basics. Both are pretty much the grandaddies of their genre, and while they may not be the first, their mastery of the art is what links them in entertainment history. With Psycho, it wasn't necessarily about what the killer was going to do. The worst that was going to happen was someone taking a knife to the chest, a far cry from what serial killers do in movies these days. After Hitchcock killed off his marquee actress in the infamous shower scene, setting the stage for another brutal slashing later on. In that final scene, it wasn't about the unknown of what was going to happen, since you already knew, but rather the sound of inevitability. Once the scream filled the house, you could hear the footsteps rushing down the stairs to find and kill the source, and that tense feeling of knowing sent chills through anyone slightly relating to the protagonist.
With Resident Evil, you're given one scene that sets the stage for the rest of the game. Once that mid-snack corpse turns his head to face you, you know exactly what you're in for: zombies. You're left knowing exactly what to expect around every corner, but hearing the moans and scraping footsteps keep you on edge. Later horror games threw cheap scares at you and loud noises, but Resident Evil kept the cheapness rather tame. Hitchcock was a master at still scaring you while showing you absolutely everything about a given scene, keeping surprises to an absolute minimum. While Resident Evil has its share of shocks, for the most part the third person perspective gave players a clear view as to what was in any given room. Simplicity means more, sometimes.
Evil Dead II/Doom
You can either fear the darkness, or you can rush into it headfirst with a chainsaw and a smile. Evil Dead II isn't always about badassery, but the tone was significantly changed from Evil Dead and ultimately was a better movie. No longer is the plot just about terror, but instead about taking what's good about horror movies and embellishing the whole thing. From the chainsaw hand to the gallons of blood shooting out of the walls like a firehose, Sam Raimi's classic delivered the goods and never stopped to apologize. Once you've experienced it for the first time, a return trip is all about how much fun horror can be, and how one person can go from cowering in fear to being a no-apologies master of ass-kicking.
In Doom, it's pretty much the same thing. When you first played it, you got scared. Sure, you heard the snarls, but when you opened up that first door with an imp right behind it, you jumped just like everyone else. Each strobing corridor was an invite to your, well, doom. Treading carefully seemed to be the only way to go until you got more comfortable with the games mood. Then, just like the transformation of Ash, a terrifying game became a personal playground for your inner badass. Like the Doom Trooper's picture at the bottom of the screen, a disturbing grin was on everyone's face when demons tried to surprise you from around a corner. It was a matter of choice at that point; what weapon would be most fun in the killing process? Dead Rising owes everything to Doom giving you that first real sense of enjoying yourself while trying to survive.
Halloween/Clock Tower
No one is going to say that Halloween is an Oscar worthy film. It's about a bunch of kids getting hacked up by an immortal guy in a Captain Kirk mask. It is, however, the first notable uber-stalker that the movies ever had. Even films with no distinct bad guy like Final Destination steal from Michael Myers and his persistence. To steal a line from the sports world, "You can't hope to stop him. You can only hope to contain him."
Sure, Freddy has personality and Jason has an uncalled for amount of athleticism at times, but Michael's faults make him better than the rest. He's huge and powerful, but he's usually slow, clumsy, and completely narrow minded. He's the ultimate stalker. John Carpenter's creation and the way he shaped the movie around this "stalker" image is what made that movie a horror classic. No matter what the character's do, he always shows up, and while he might not leap through floorboards to get to you, he'll always be on your tail in the end.
When Scissorman made his debut on the Super Nintendo, gamers were finally given a similar figure to run from. Sure, Jason himself was chasing gamers on the Nintendo in the historically bad Friday the 13th, but Scissorman had all of the qualities that made Michael Myers have such a unique presence. He would butcher you if he caught you and he was always just a step behind you, but he wasn't godlike in his abilities. You had your chances to escape, and it was your own fault if you blew it. He was slow and small, but the shrill snapping of the man-sized scissors let you know that he was all about serious business. The entire game is based on running from him, and the formula worked, causing several sequels on other consoles. If you think he hasn't had much of an influence on the history of gaming, then you obviously missed Resident Evil's inclusion of characters like Nemesis. Not only will you likely hear those scissors again someday, but I have a good feeling that unkillable stalkers are going to come back into the console scene pretty soon.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre/Silent Hill
I first watched the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when I was in my early teens, mainly to try to figure out what all the fuss was about. Honestly, I can say that there's nothing special about the movie except one thing: it's disturbingly violent. The "meat hook" scene exemplifies everything you need to know about the movie. The world that the characters find themselves in is completely psychotic, all summed up in the room Pam falls into while exploring the killers' house. In broad daylight she finds skeletons, hellish decorations, and a floor littered with bones. It takes her a minute to process this, and when she does it completely ruins her mental state. By the time she pulls herself off the floor, she finds herself backing right into the personification of the insanity: Leatherface. Jason was pretty elaborate in his kills, and Freddy may have loved playing his sick dream-games, but this was the first time in cinema where the audience was gulping from the brutality rather than being scared.
When you first enter Silent Hill, you immediately think that you're in for a clone of Resident Evil. That all changes pretty quickly though, as the player is introduced to a world with its own rules. Not only were the monsters designed to be evil looking, but they were also created for the sole purpose of making you completely uncomfortable. This game took its gore and atmosphere and forced it into your brain whether you liked it or not. Pyramid Head is the iconic figure of the series, and one of the biggest reasons why is that you can expect nothing less than the worst when it turns up. Just as Leatherface casually flings people onto meat hooks, Pyramid Head will turn up and cleave someone in two, then walk away and brutally rape a fellow monster minutes later. Excessive, yes, but the disturbing visuals cause you to lose all the happy places left in your brain that were helping you deal with the nightmare.
Night of the Living Dead/nothing
I feel compelled to end the article with one movie that may not be matched in video games anytime soon. Night of the Living Dead is the ultimate zombie movie. It has everything you need out of a good movie about the undead, and while there are many excellent follow ups in the genre, none of them can claim to have the complete package. The sequel, Dawn of the Dead, is the only one that comes close. Sure, we've upgraded the zombies since then, but it's not always about them. Seclusion, fear, distrust, teamwork, complex characters...Night of the Living Dead has all of this. To this day, the film is lauded for how it deals with everything other than the zombies themselves.
That's something that games haven't figured out yet. Arguably, Left 4 Dead contains some of these elements, but not in the way that they should be presented. Yes, you have to move forward as a cohesive unit, and the odds of survival are pretty slim if a team member goes down, but it's never a question of character. The biggest concern of character you have is whether someone is a a n00b or not. You can't ragequit a zombie holocaust, so how to you translate that tension into a game?
I often refer to Night of the Living Dead and Battle Royale as two movies that just can't be made into a game. Sure, they both sound cool on paper. One is about zombies and the other is about killing fellow classmates, but they don't work as games. You can scare a person. You can put them on edge. You can chase them. You can break their boundaries and test their sanity. It's much harder to make them care about someone else. Right now, I'd go so far to say that it's impossible. Characters in these movies have a personal stake in their actions, but a gamer doesn't. Whatever game manages to change that will not only be a landmark title for the genre, but it will forever change the entire business of gaming.
As a side note, I don't believe I have the ability to end this problem, but I have a pretty good idea of where to start. So if a developer out there wants to nab the Battle Royale franchise and get back to me, I can show you how to give the movie some justice. Promise. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Joining the masses who sit upon their
Top ten lists are something that I love. Get a few friends who know about the topic being listed off, and you're up for some serious debate. It's also nice, if you happen to agree or are open to suggestion, to see certain things get the recognition they deserve. IGN used to be pretty good about their top lists, but every other one that they post these days seems either paid off or overreaching. Don't get me wrong, they have some seriously good brains in the think tank for some of these lists, but they make some decisions that just make you go "WTF?" every now and then.
Such is debate, however, and lists keep being made. I haven't throw my own hat into the mix for these because as much as I know about games, it takes more than one person to get a good list going for obvious reasons. Then again, narrow-minded opinion seems to work for FOX News...
So, Halloween is coming up and you need a few games to play. Gaming and Halloween are becoming more synonymous these days. It used to be that an old fashioned horror flick was the ritual, but games have that added interactivity that you can't ignore. Now, your popcorn eating friends can scream "No, don't go that way!" and get actual results instead of another busty blonde death scene.
Besides, you should be at home giving candy to kids anyway. This just gives you something to do. That said, I present the top 10 games you should play this Halloween.
10. Resident Evil
It's pretty much a given that this game be on the list, but it's not for everyone and it certainly has its limits as a social game. You can take the B-route with the PSX version or go for the gritty realism of the REmake, but either one has its moments of creepiness. If you've got a few gamers that have played the game and know their way around and another group of RE virgins, you've got a combination for Halloween fun. It's obligatory, yes, but the time required to play through really should turn you away unless you want to make a night of it.
9. Sweet Home
Resident Evil's inspiration and what is basically the origin of console based survival horror, Sweet Home is still creepy even by modern standards. Don't let the NES part scare you away; less is sometimes more. With gimmicky thrills, lush soundtracks, and detailed graphics, modern horror games sometimes forget that the loneliness and simplicity of the old days can actually be scarier for gamers. Like Resident Evil, you shouldn't approach this without having some time devoted to the task, but if you're looking to discover something you may never have tried before while keeping in tune with the Halloween theme, then give this RPG/survival horror hybrid a shot. It's guaranteed to give you at least a few chills.
8. Ghosts 'n Goblins
Sometimes, a game doesn't really need to be scary to be a perfect fit for the Halloween spirit. Ghosts 'n Goblins is platforming at its roots, and one of the hardest games ever. You won't be dominating the undead horde unless you have some legendary gamer in your midst, so plan on dying. A lot. Hence, the beauty of this game for Halloween. It's tense, it's frustrating, and it will make everyone feel victimized while keeping up the theme.
7. Castlevania
Avoid the stat-based games and go straight for the leveled ones. Just as the case with Ghosts 'n Goblins, this game is difficult, but at least you're given a badass with which to deal with Dracula and his minions. If the song "Vampire Killer" doesn't get you in the Halloween mood, then there's something wrong with the wiring in your brain.
6. Dead Rising
The instant the game was released, wannabe zombie-slayers had an outlet for their fantasy. You can pretty much pick up anything in this game and use it to kill the brain munchers, and you're encouraged to go nuts. Screw the story, this game is all about the freedom to deal with the undead in whatever way you wish. Anybody in the room can pick up the controller and get a body count going, and that's what really matters.
5. Night Trap
Most of you are probably wondering why I would put such a terrible game on this list, but the fact is that this can possibly be the most entertaining group game on this list. Anybody who can watch a B-horror flick can watch and participate once you figure out the controls. Controlling the game is simple, but it can be very confusing to figure out how exactly to play at first. Once you've got the controls down, designate a pilot and a backup pilot for the game and let everybody else participate from the couches. The terribleness of this "interactive movie" will get a lot of people laughing, turning this gimmicky game into a giant MST3K session. Also, everyone should be forced to finish their drink every time Dana Plato tells you to use a trap.
4. Monster Party
This game is a cult-classic in many ways, but the foremost reason is that this game is straight up wacky. It doesn't matter who you are in a given room, you can give this game a decent shot and have fun with it. Monster Party oozes with charm, and it won't take forever to beat, either. Passing the controller around the party with this game will put a smile on most everyone's face.
3. Nazi Zombies
Why isn't this higher on the list? Well, everybody's playing it regardless of Halloween, so it's just business as usual. Yet, something about getting the boys together for several rounds of tense zombie slaying is still appealing. Keep the game offline and between friends, and you've got yourself on the list.
2. Zombies Ate My Neighbors!
LucasArts had a hit on their hands when this came out, and it still stand up to the test of time. The game is pretty simple to pick up and play, and the levels are short so that attention spans won't wane and everyone can take a shot at it. Just like Monster Party, this game has a lot of personality. Even if nothing in this game is capable of truly scaring you, I have to remind you that the Monster Squad didn't scare you either, yet you still love it.
1. Clock Tower
How does this beat out zombie genocide? Because it has pretty much every quality that the other games on this list have. The scenarios are short, so everybody gets a turn. The game will definitely have some backseat drivers telling you what to do (or not to do). The game is tense and scary, and you're put in the unenviable position of being the busty blonde that has to run and hide rather than whip out a shotgun. Even people who aren't interested in what game you're playing this Halloween will still take a second look at what you're doing and follow the thrill of the chase, even if they won't admit it. When it comes to Halloween games, this one is pretty much a given for any list, but it's at the top because it's the perfect thing to replace your movie binge with. Scissorman is just as memorable as Jason or Michael when it comes to horror stalkers.
As you can see, this particular top 10 isn't necessarily about what's scary. Certainly, Silent Hill and Eternal Darkness would wind up on that list, but on this list, it's all about what fits the mood. No one should game alone, and Halloween is the perfect time to get your friends together and share some fun horrors just like you would with a scary movie. Make sure you buy some candy for the kids in your neighborhood, and have fun with the games on the list. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Such is debate, however, and lists keep being made. I haven't throw my own hat into the mix for these because as much as I know about games, it takes more than one person to get a good list going for obvious reasons. Then again, narrow-minded opinion seems to work for FOX News...
So, Halloween is coming up and you need a few games to play. Gaming and Halloween are becoming more synonymous these days. It used to be that an old fashioned horror flick was the ritual, but games have that added interactivity that you can't ignore. Now, your popcorn eating friends can scream "No, don't go that way!" and get actual results instead of another busty blonde death scene.
Besides, you should be at home giving candy to kids anyway. This just gives you something to do. That said, I present the top 10 games you should play this Halloween.
10. Resident Evil
It's pretty much a given that this game be on the list, but it's not for everyone and it certainly has its limits as a social game. You can take the B-route with the PSX version or go for the gritty realism of the REmake, but either one has its moments of creepiness. If you've got a few gamers that have played the game and know their way around and another group of RE virgins, you've got a combination for Halloween fun. It's obligatory, yes, but the time required to play through really should turn you away unless you want to make a night of it.
9. Sweet Home
Resident Evil's inspiration and what is basically the origin of console based survival horror, Sweet Home is still creepy even by modern standards. Don't let the NES part scare you away; less is sometimes more. With gimmicky thrills, lush soundtracks, and detailed graphics, modern horror games sometimes forget that the loneliness and simplicity of the old days can actually be scarier for gamers. Like Resident Evil, you shouldn't approach this without having some time devoted to the task, but if you're looking to discover something you may never have tried before while keeping in tune with the Halloween theme, then give this RPG/survival horror hybrid a shot. It's guaranteed to give you at least a few chills.
8. Ghosts 'n Goblins
Sometimes, a game doesn't really need to be scary to be a perfect fit for the Halloween spirit. Ghosts 'n Goblins is platforming at its roots, and one of the hardest games ever. You won't be dominating the undead horde unless you have some legendary gamer in your midst, so plan on dying. A lot. Hence, the beauty of this game for Halloween. It's tense, it's frustrating, and it will make everyone feel victimized while keeping up the theme.
7. Castlevania
Avoid the stat-based games and go straight for the leveled ones. Just as the case with Ghosts 'n Goblins, this game is difficult, but at least you're given a badass with which to deal with Dracula and his minions. If the song "Vampire Killer" doesn't get you in the Halloween mood, then there's something wrong with the wiring in your brain.
6. Dead Rising
The instant the game was released, wannabe zombie-slayers had an outlet for their fantasy. You can pretty much pick up anything in this game and use it to kill the brain munchers, and you're encouraged to go nuts. Screw the story, this game is all about the freedom to deal with the undead in whatever way you wish. Anybody in the room can pick up the controller and get a body count going, and that's what really matters.
5. Night Trap
Most of you are probably wondering why I would put such a terrible game on this list, but the fact is that this can possibly be the most entertaining group game on this list. Anybody who can watch a B-horror flick can watch and participate once you figure out the controls. Controlling the game is simple, but it can be very confusing to figure out how exactly to play at first. Once you've got the controls down, designate a pilot and a backup pilot for the game and let everybody else participate from the couches. The terribleness of this "interactive movie" will get a lot of people laughing, turning this gimmicky game into a giant MST3K session. Also, everyone should be forced to finish their drink every time Dana Plato tells you to use a trap.
4. Monster Party
This game is a cult-classic in many ways, but the foremost reason is that this game is straight up wacky. It doesn't matter who you are in a given room, you can give this game a decent shot and have fun with it. Monster Party oozes with charm, and it won't take forever to beat, either. Passing the controller around the party with this game will put a smile on most everyone's face.
3. Nazi Zombies
Why isn't this higher on the list? Well, everybody's playing it regardless of Halloween, so it's just business as usual. Yet, something about getting the boys together for several rounds of tense zombie slaying is still appealing. Keep the game offline and between friends, and you've got yourself on the list.
2. Zombies Ate My Neighbors!
LucasArts had a hit on their hands when this came out, and it still stand up to the test of time. The game is pretty simple to pick up and play, and the levels are short so that attention spans won't wane and everyone can take a shot at it. Just like Monster Party, this game has a lot of personality. Even if nothing in this game is capable of truly scaring you, I have to remind you that the Monster Squad didn't scare you either, yet you still love it.
1. Clock Tower
How does this beat out zombie genocide? Because it has pretty much every quality that the other games on this list have. The scenarios are short, so everybody gets a turn. The game will definitely have some backseat drivers telling you what to do (or not to do). The game is tense and scary, and you're put in the unenviable position of being the busty blonde that has to run and hide rather than whip out a shotgun. Even people who aren't interested in what game you're playing this Halloween will still take a second look at what you're doing and follow the thrill of the chase, even if they won't admit it. When it comes to Halloween games, this one is pretty much a given for any list, but it's at the top because it's the perfect thing to replace your movie binge with. Scissorman is just as memorable as Jason or Michael when it comes to horror stalkers.
As you can see, this particular top 10 isn't necessarily about what's scary. Certainly, Silent Hill and Eternal Darkness would wind up on that list, but on this list, it's all about what fits the mood. No one should game alone, and Halloween is the perfect time to get your friends together and share some fun horrors just like you would with a scary movie. Make sure you buy some candy for the kids in your neighborhood, and have fun with the games on the list. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 14, 2009
Conflicted
In case you didn't see this coming, I have decided that Uncharted and it's sequel have officially defined what a truly great modern franchise should be. I'll try to keep the review short, but before I say anything, I have to say that the game is completely worth your money. Any criticism I put upon this series is to be taken with a grain of salt, since nothing in the games are broken or less than impressive. Even the so-so parts of the games manage to be better than elements of most A+ titles on the market.
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves has improved on it's predecessor in every way possible, and it is the second time I've played a game and said "Wow, this is like playing a movie." and meant it as a compliment. Unlike Metal Gear Solid 4 or some parts of Final Fantasy games after VI where you were separated from gameplay a little way too long, I could honestly say that even when cutscenes were happening, I was still playing the game and having fun. This would be the first improvement over the first.
In the original Uncharted, Naughty Dog gave a basic story that works well for gamers. There were no cheap cop-outs on the plot. Everything moved forward with no loose ends, a bit of tension between characters, and a good solid MacGuffin with a solid narrative to make it important enough to chase. Never did you get the feeling that an hour was about to pass before you could pick up the controller again. Within a minute, you were usually back in the action and playing the game. What impressed me the most was that even when I was doing basic platforming, the characters still oozed personality. That made for great immersion, and thankfully the voice acting was terrific.
The second game improves upon these ideas even more. Same solid storytelling +1. There is even more personality and chatter coming from the characters, which is great, and there seems to be more cutscenes. Normally, this is a bad thing, but the cutscenes are so quick to happen and so quick to end that it really never separates you from the experience of playing. I can't remember how many times I was just eating nachos, thinking that I should enjoy the cutscene, only to throw down my plate and wipe my hands on my jeans in a hurry to respond to the game being right back in my hands.
There are a few other notable improvements, the first being the obligatory graphical upgrade. The first game had amazing visuals, so comparing gorgeous game to gorgeous game makes it hard to say "wow". Yet, you still get a lot of moments close to that, failing to cross that "wow" line only because we were generally spoiled with the first game. Everything is a little more detailed and a lot more varied. Uncharted 2's jungle stage is twice as lush as the one in the first. When the game invites you to take a look at the distance, look.
This game also gets my "I see what you did there" award for making me truly smile at its game design. The game is truly linear, but the game does a great job at convincing you otherwise. There was a particular urban level where, upon completion, I turned around and thought about the actual distance I needed to travel. It turned out that the start and end points of the segment were about fifty yards apart, and I could have drawn the straight line on the screen and never hit an obstacle. This was funny to me, because I ended up throwing Drake across the rooftops in a complete circle and it felt like that was what I was naturally supposed to be doing. Looking again, I saw a ground path circling the area as well. Depending on what kind of gamer you are, there seems to be a good amount of choice in how to approach certain areas. This actually made me give up treasure hunting for my first playthrough, because the playground Naughty Dog has given us contains so many layers that it it would be a shame to break up the story to go explore it all. I can replay this again.
Multi-player is a given, so skipping that, I have to mention that the combat is a little more fine tuned this time around, and the Sixaxis gimmick was removed. Though, I actually miss that for grenade lobbing. You now have a little more control over hand-to-hand combat, and the weapons are a lot more grounded. No longer will you be able to pick and choose when you'll get a headshot. Instead, you'll have to deal with the natural unsteadiness of an intense firefight. To compensate, scoped vision is now integrated.
The most glaring bit of improvement is something of a mixed bag, but an improvement nonetheless. Treasure hunting is much more in depth this time, and it shows that Naughty Dog was listening to players and their experience with the original. Treasures are no longer limited to the ground. Instead, Drake must put his acrobatics to use more often (as mentioned above), and you'll find yourself pulling a Leon Kennedy here and there, shooting treasures off of high perches. The sequel also adds an extra 20 treasures to find. Ultimately, this achieves a very unique outcome.
There is a movie that is meant to be played, and it's a good movie and a damn good game. Never does the game stick you in the back seat, and it is even a little less linear in its approach. Throw in the treasure hunting, and the elements I wanted more of in the first game are actually there this time around. A little bit more exploration and platforming is how you get most of the treasures this time around, and that's almost a completely different way of playing the same game. With the multiplayer addition, you can argue that there may be three truly unique and entertaining games under one roof. That's a lot of replay value, not to mention monetary value. Easily, Uncharted 2's supposed 10 hour storyline becomes something you can sink 40 hours into while keeping the experience fresh. That's just rare.
As the title would suggest, I am a bit conflicted. This is a game that still doesn't quite have the exploration aspect completely there. I hesitate to use the word "dungeon", but this is a game that makes me want that freedom to discover, solve puzzles, and get lost in. Tomb Raider and its clones could be an absolute pain in the ass to control sometimes, and the camera schemes didn't help. Uncharted 2 makes me truly believe that the pain could be removed from that. I want that game made, and Uncharted 2 is not that game.
Yet, the credit goes out to Naughty Dog. It's a playable movie, sure. No, there are no dungeons to solve and no real opportunities for gritty exploration outside of the treasures. They truly have perfected a style of game that is truly unique. The success of the sequel may ultimately coin the phrase "blockbuster game", because that's what this is. It's a game that pulls no punches and throws a story out there for you to experience, not just watch. Everything is as it should be. Sure, there are things missing, but those things are for a completely different game. What Naughty Dog wanted to achieve from this game, it pulled off with flying colors, even going the extra mile to give players replay value when it didn't have to.
Props to ya, Naughty Dog. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves has improved on it's predecessor in every way possible, and it is the second time I've played a game and said "Wow, this is like playing a movie." and meant it as a compliment. Unlike Metal Gear Solid 4 or some parts of Final Fantasy games after VI where you were separated from gameplay a little way too long, I could honestly say that even when cutscenes were happening, I was still playing the game and having fun. This would be the first improvement over the first.
In the original Uncharted, Naughty Dog gave a basic story that works well for gamers. There were no cheap cop-outs on the plot. Everything moved forward with no loose ends, a bit of tension between characters, and a good solid MacGuffin with a solid narrative to make it important enough to chase. Never did you get the feeling that an hour was about to pass before you could pick up the controller again. Within a minute, you were usually back in the action and playing the game. What impressed me the most was that even when I was doing basic platforming, the characters still oozed personality. That made for great immersion, and thankfully the voice acting was terrific.
The second game improves upon these ideas even more. Same solid storytelling +1. There is even more personality and chatter coming from the characters, which is great, and there seems to be more cutscenes. Normally, this is a bad thing, but the cutscenes are so quick to happen and so quick to end that it really never separates you from the experience of playing. I can't remember how many times I was just eating nachos, thinking that I should enjoy the cutscene, only to throw down my plate and wipe my hands on my jeans in a hurry to respond to the game being right back in my hands.
There are a few other notable improvements, the first being the obligatory graphical upgrade. The first game had amazing visuals, so comparing gorgeous game to gorgeous game makes it hard to say "wow". Yet, you still get a lot of moments close to that, failing to cross that "wow" line only because we were generally spoiled with the first game. Everything is a little more detailed and a lot more varied. Uncharted 2's jungle stage is twice as lush as the one in the first. When the game invites you to take a look at the distance, look.
This game also gets my "I see what you did there" award for making me truly smile at its game design. The game is truly linear, but the game does a great job at convincing you otherwise. There was a particular urban level where, upon completion, I turned around and thought about the actual distance I needed to travel. It turned out that the start and end points of the segment were about fifty yards apart, and I could have drawn the straight line on the screen and never hit an obstacle. This was funny to me, because I ended up throwing Drake across the rooftops in a complete circle and it felt like that was what I was naturally supposed to be doing. Looking again, I saw a ground path circling the area as well. Depending on what kind of gamer you are, there seems to be a good amount of choice in how to approach certain areas. This actually made me give up treasure hunting for my first playthrough, because the playground Naughty Dog has given us contains so many layers that it it would be a shame to break up the story to go explore it all. I can replay this again.
Multi-player is a given, so skipping that, I have to mention that the combat is a little more fine tuned this time around, and the Sixaxis gimmick was removed. Though, I actually miss that for grenade lobbing. You now have a little more control over hand-to-hand combat, and the weapons are a lot more grounded. No longer will you be able to pick and choose when you'll get a headshot. Instead, you'll have to deal with the natural unsteadiness of an intense firefight. To compensate, scoped vision is now integrated.
The most glaring bit of improvement is something of a mixed bag, but an improvement nonetheless. Treasure hunting is much more in depth this time, and it shows that Naughty Dog was listening to players and their experience with the original. Treasures are no longer limited to the ground. Instead, Drake must put his acrobatics to use more often (as mentioned above), and you'll find yourself pulling a Leon Kennedy here and there, shooting treasures off of high perches. The sequel also adds an extra 20 treasures to find. Ultimately, this achieves a very unique outcome.
There is a movie that is meant to be played, and it's a good movie and a damn good game. Never does the game stick you in the back seat, and it is even a little less linear in its approach. Throw in the treasure hunting, and the elements I wanted more of in the first game are actually there this time around. A little bit more exploration and platforming is how you get most of the treasures this time around, and that's almost a completely different way of playing the same game. With the multiplayer addition, you can argue that there may be three truly unique and entertaining games under one roof. That's a lot of replay value, not to mention monetary value. Easily, Uncharted 2's supposed 10 hour storyline becomes something you can sink 40 hours into while keeping the experience fresh. That's just rare.
As the title would suggest, I am a bit conflicted. This is a game that still doesn't quite have the exploration aspect completely there. I hesitate to use the word "dungeon", but this is a game that makes me want that freedom to discover, solve puzzles, and get lost in. Tomb Raider and its clones could be an absolute pain in the ass to control sometimes, and the camera schemes didn't help. Uncharted 2 makes me truly believe that the pain could be removed from that. I want that game made, and Uncharted 2 is not that game.
Yet, the credit goes out to Naughty Dog. It's a playable movie, sure. No, there are no dungeons to solve and no real opportunities for gritty exploration outside of the treasures. They truly have perfected a style of game that is truly unique. The success of the sequel may ultimately coin the phrase "blockbuster game", because that's what this is. It's a game that pulls no punches and throws a story out there for you to experience, not just watch. Everything is as it should be. Sure, there are things missing, but those things are for a completely different game. What Naughty Dog wanted to achieve from this game, it pulled off with flying colors, even going the extra mile to give players replay value when it didn't have to.
Props to ya, Naughty Dog. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 8, 2009
I can afford it, so who cares if I know how to use it?
As mentioned before, I rarely give the Yahoo's "media panel" any credence whatsoever. Usually they are a bunch of hacks, and the future doesn't look much better when I read IGN and notice that the exact same NBA2K vs. NBA Live article was paraphrased for their personal use. No, I don't know which actually came first, but they cited that they followed the media's view, and it's still not a good sign.
This service announcement was given over Yahoo! channels, however, reminding readers that they should be using more care when "tweeting". Basically, a waiter got fired for bashing a no-tipping celebrity customer. I've never heard of the celebrity in question, but a few things are pretty clear.
A) Customer was an idiot
B) so was her waiter.
Look people, just because you have the technology to do something useless doesn't mean you should. If you think you have the cure for cancer one test away from perfection, then yes, use your available tech. This doesn't qualify. Reputable bloggers research their stuff before throwing their name and reputation on the line. A Twitter account is a mini-blog. You stuck your name and reputation into that account, and were thusly sacked for it. Makes perfect sense to me.
That said, I am sort of curious about these in-game Twitter updates people keep talking about for my sidelog. No, I don't think that anybody cares, but it is a log more so than an ego-shrine, so it makes sense. It would just save me a step.
Also, in media related issues, I listened to my second-ever IGN podcast last night, and dear God, it was painful. If you'd like to add something resembling production values to your podcasts, IGN, talk to me. I got a few ideas, and I'll even give you the first few for free:
Fire your podcast producers/guys hitting record button on laptop.
Banish all current podcast commentators to text-only submissions.
Enact a "no bros" requirement in the hiring process.
Prohibit recording from staff member's basements.
Define structure guidelines.
Compulsory backhands for every time someone oversteps their bias lines, i.e. cutting off people who are describing information the listener may want to hear just because the rest of the people wish to circle-jerk over their favored company. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
This service announcement was given over Yahoo! channels, however, reminding readers that they should be using more care when "tweeting". Basically, a waiter got fired for bashing a no-tipping celebrity customer. I've never heard of the celebrity in question, but a few things are pretty clear.
A) Customer was an idiot
B) so was her waiter.
Look people, just because you have the technology to do something useless doesn't mean you should. If you think you have the cure for cancer one test away from perfection, then yes, use your available tech. This doesn't qualify. Reputable bloggers research their stuff before throwing their name and reputation on the line. A Twitter account is a mini-blog. You stuck your name and reputation into that account, and were thusly sacked for it. Makes perfect sense to me.
That said, I am sort of curious about these in-game Twitter updates people keep talking about for my sidelog. No, I don't think that anybody cares, but it is a log more so than an ego-shrine, so it makes sense. It would just save me a step.
Also, in media related issues, I listened to my second-ever IGN podcast last night, and dear God, it was painful. If you'd like to add something resembling production values to your podcasts, IGN, talk to me. I got a few ideas, and I'll even give you the first few for free:
Fire your podcast producers/guys hitting record button on laptop.
Banish all current podcast commentators to text-only submissions.
Enact a "no bros" requirement in the hiring process.
Prohibit recording from staff member's basements.
Define structure guidelines.
Compulsory backhands for every time someone oversteps their bias lines, i.e. cutting off people who are describing information the listener may want to hear just because the rest of the people wish to circle-jerk over their favored company. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 7, 2009
Sony wants your soul.
While I would love to heap reviews upon the Demon's Souls, the most recent addition to my stack of "in progress" RPG's, I'm sadly seven hours into it with still no sense of direction or accomplishment as of yet. In other words, I need a little time to process this monstrosity. I'll give it this much: the game is hard. Damn hard. This is the equivalent of Burnout for RPG's. It demands your absolute perfection or it will crush you.
Speaking of souls, however, Sony is looking to put a price on yours. As mentioned previously, the PSP Go has arrived and things are not looking good. On IGN, there was a poll asking who might be interested in buying said handheld, and over 80% said "no" last I checked. Of the rest, more than half said they were waiting for a price drop.
That's the first sign I got of the Go's lukewarm reception, and that's being generous. Amongst my gaming friends, the general idea was that the Go was nothing special and just an overpriced social accessory. Their interest was solely based on looks and portability with no mention of hardware merit along the way. Most impressions from the net is that this luxury item is simply a middle-finger to GameStop.
Oh, but that's not all. Sony isn't simply packaging its venom into PSP's. No sir. The rumor going around based off of some media leaks, specifically Sega (though I doubt that document ended up being real), is that PS2 emulation is on the way back into the picture. Actually, the rumor is sort of old. It was first brought up a few months ago that Sony was working on a more cost effective emulator so that they could bring back PS2 gaming, but very recently that idea was refined to include charging you for it.
Yes, that is correct; it is entirely possible that Sony will resort to charging you for backwards compatibility despite originally marketing the system as being that way already. Granted, they did remove this feature, but their reasoning isn't very justified. They actually have the capital to invest in an emulation project, and they actually did for a while. Originally, the backwards compatibility derived from the Emotion Engine actually being in the PS3. Later, an emulator was introduced, which keeps the overall costs down on producing a model since there is no extra hardware to add. If Sony attempts to charge customers for bringing back a service that was already supposed to be there, then there will most likely be a bigger backlash than the straight-up removal of the feature.
The final piece of the overall Sony puzzle is back to the PSP, but not the Go. Instead, when I popped Persona into the handheld, I was greeted to yet another firmware update. This was almost infuriating, but I'll defend Sony first on this one. It's for piracy, duh. Sony doesn't want you to steal potential new titles they will be releasing, and any chance to fuzz over previous successful hacks is a bonus to game sales. I get that.
That doesn't change the fact that it's annoying. I hate updating the thing. I hate having to installing additional software to play a game that doesn't need the software at all, I hate that Sony is constantly reminding you that they don't trust you, and I hate that I can't use the PSP for all of the cool things it SHOULD be able to do. I didn't buy a PSP to play PSP games. OK, so I bought it to play two PSP games, but that's it. I was hoping to get some NES games on there someday. I bought it for the hardware, plain and simple. Sony even knows this. Even if they kept their game releases to a minimal, people would still buy the damned thing as long as it was left open for hacking. If I knew that I could get that handheld to play everything I have on other systems, I might actually consider dropping $250 on it, ensuring that Sony made money. Lots of people would. Those who wouldn't don't know how, and would be spending money on the games without pirating them anyway. Win all around.
What gets me most of all about Sony is that it sounds like they may be on the road to alienating every single one of their customers who know anything about gaming. I own a nice collection of PSX RPG's, and I would love to play them on the PSP, but I can't. I have to buy them again. I would love to play PSP games through my PS3, but I can't, even though the technology is there. I have to buy the component cables. I have PSP games that I would like play on the PSP Go I won't be buying, but I can't. Sony asks that I buy them again, too, and they even have the balls to ask that you upgrade your PSP to the Go, knowing that you will lose the ability to play these games. I want to play PS2 games on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony screwed up their marketing plan when they launched the console. Instead, I might just have to pay for that, too, so that Sony can make it's money back that it flushed away in the first place. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Speaking of souls, however, Sony is looking to put a price on yours. As mentioned previously, the PSP Go has arrived and things are not looking good. On IGN, there was a poll asking who might be interested in buying said handheld, and over 80% said "no" last I checked. Of the rest, more than half said they were waiting for a price drop.
That's the first sign I got of the Go's lukewarm reception, and that's being generous. Amongst my gaming friends, the general idea was that the Go was nothing special and just an overpriced social accessory. Their interest was solely based on looks and portability with no mention of hardware merit along the way. Most impressions from the net is that this luxury item is simply a middle-finger to GameStop.
Oh, but that's not all. Sony isn't simply packaging its venom into PSP's. No sir. The rumor going around based off of some media leaks, specifically Sega (though I doubt that document ended up being real), is that PS2 emulation is on the way back into the picture. Actually, the rumor is sort of old. It was first brought up a few months ago that Sony was working on a more cost effective emulator so that they could bring back PS2 gaming, but very recently that idea was refined to include charging you for it.
Yes, that is correct; it is entirely possible that Sony will resort to charging you for backwards compatibility despite originally marketing the system as being that way already. Granted, they did remove this feature, but their reasoning isn't very justified. They actually have the capital to invest in an emulation project, and they actually did for a while. Originally, the backwards compatibility derived from the Emotion Engine actually being in the PS3. Later, an emulator was introduced, which keeps the overall costs down on producing a model since there is no extra hardware to add. If Sony attempts to charge customers for bringing back a service that was already supposed to be there, then there will most likely be a bigger backlash than the straight-up removal of the feature.
The final piece of the overall Sony puzzle is back to the PSP, but not the Go. Instead, when I popped Persona into the handheld, I was greeted to yet another firmware update. This was almost infuriating, but I'll defend Sony first on this one. It's for piracy, duh. Sony doesn't want you to steal potential new titles they will be releasing, and any chance to fuzz over previous successful hacks is a bonus to game sales. I get that.
That doesn't change the fact that it's annoying. I hate updating the thing. I hate having to installing additional software to play a game that doesn't need the software at all, I hate that Sony is constantly reminding you that they don't trust you, and I hate that I can't use the PSP for all of the cool things it SHOULD be able to do. I didn't buy a PSP to play PSP games. OK, so I bought it to play two PSP games, but that's it. I was hoping to get some NES games on there someday. I bought it for the hardware, plain and simple. Sony even knows this. Even if they kept their game releases to a minimal, people would still buy the damned thing as long as it was left open for hacking. If I knew that I could get that handheld to play everything I have on other systems, I might actually consider dropping $250 on it, ensuring that Sony made money. Lots of people would. Those who wouldn't don't know how, and would be spending money on the games without pirating them anyway. Win all around.
What gets me most of all about Sony is that it sounds like they may be on the road to alienating every single one of their customers who know anything about gaming. I own a nice collection of PSX RPG's, and I would love to play them on the PSP, but I can't. I have to buy them again. I would love to play PSP games through my PS3, but I can't, even though the technology is there. I have to buy the component cables. I have PSP games that I would like play on the PSP Go I won't be buying, but I can't. Sony asks that I buy them again, too, and they even have the balls to ask that you upgrade your PSP to the Go, knowing that you will lose the ability to play these games. I want to play PS2 games on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony screwed up their marketing plan when they launched the console. Instead, I might just have to pay for that, too, so that Sony can make it's money back that it flushed away in the first place. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 2, 2009
Fighting recession with obsession.
It's hard to argue that there's a good percentage of us gamers that are just complete nerds. It's not a bad thing for the most part, though it's easy to pop onto the internet and find a few good reasons why it can be embarrassing to the collective given the right YouTube clip or Google image search. In this recession, I've often wrote about why it's a terrific time for people to get into gaming. Terms like "recession-proof" have been popping up, and it won't take you long to find an article here or there about how people are investing more time into their gaming to fight the recession.
I kid you not. Articles are out there telling you to spend money on games to fight the economy.
They are right.
The first thought on anyone's mind when you bring this idea up is the cost of gaming. Dropping, at minimum, $200 for a brand new system and $50-60 on a game to go with it doesn't seem like a good way to save money, but if you're willing to overlook the stigma that is "nerdy gamers", you might just find yourself agreeing with the millions of gamers worldwide that find it to be a little fun.
First, you have to consider that the major costs involved with gaming are simply for the first step. Once you have your system, the worst is out of the way. Beyond that, you'd be surprised how cheap the games actually are in comparison to most other things out there. Some people fill their tank for as must as it costs to buy a decent game, so it's not like dropping that cash is something you don't do twice a week anyway. It's also fairly true that while most people are trying to save a buck here and there, little purchases like coffee and soda add up to about that much over the course of a week. If that weren't true, Starbucks would be out of business and Coke would be putting on a major hurting.
You're still skeptical, and that's fine, but we can bring those costs down even more when you figure some of the cheaper ways to game. Say you're not up for a brand new game. You can go used, which is the obvious choice, but there's even better options out there. Rentals may seem like they're going out of style, but in truth, rentals are a terrific way to save a little cash here and there for some week-long fun. Blockbuster is a terrible place to get your rentals, and probably why they're taking a nosedive in the profits, but Movie Gallery and even your local rental stores can probably get you a five-day rental for $5. Not bad, especially when you consider that you usually get free rentals the more times you check something out.
Options get even better when you take GameFly into consideration, a company that provides a Netflix like service for gamers. It's an extremely cheap way to play games you want for as long as you want, keeping your personal expenditure on games under a pre-set budget depending on which plan you sign up for.
When it comes down to it, you're getting to play games for as long as they have value to you at a price that is cheaper than most people spend on their World of Warcraft accounts. Expect to spend about $10-15 a month.
Though a little shady, there are also other ways to get your gaming fix without committing to a purchase. GameStop practically tells you that you can use their store as a rental shop. Purchase a used game, and you have 30 days to play it, beat it, get all the trophies, and get bored with it. So long as you bring it back before the 30 days are up, you can swap it for a different game and do the exact same thing. This is a terrific idea for RPG freaks out there who want to play newer games but don't need to have the physical copy on their hands until they have the spare cash and the prices come down.
This is all gamer lingo, however. Why would any of this be of value to anyone but current gamers?
Well, first of all, there's an actual lesson to be learned from all of this cost banter. Most of the options above are easily incorporated into good budgeting, something our country didn't do in the first place to prevent this mess. A GameFly account is the definition of a good budget, allowing someone to preset their gaming costs every month. Even just taking the rental route and assuming one game per week, you're only talking about setting aside an extra $20 a month. Responsibly abiding by that limitation is just a great reminder to everyone that they can have fun as long as they budget accordingly and stick to a plan.
This isn't just about a single guy's monthly budget, either. Families can easily pass this down to their kids by teaching these standards. When I was a kid, my parents never let me rent more than one game at a time, and I could only rent a game once a week on Friday. It's a good routine to get into, and since the quality of gaming has risen an awful lot since I was a kid, I could only imagine that it would teach a child to care a little more about finishing the game they have rather than thinking about the fifteen other releases on the shelf. Obviously, they can't get them all.
Gaming isn't even for the kids anymore. Especially with the Wii, gaming can truly be a lot of fun for the family. Bash the Wii's Mario Kart all you want, it's still an easy way to get every member of the family playing for at least a few races. Mario Party can be just as fun for the family as it can be for a room full of drunks. At the very least, even if the parents don't want to play, what's possible with games certainly makes for a good conversation piece. Just bringing the Wii over to my family one Christmas got them all in one room together for several hours. Occasionally the older crowd would try something out, but they mainly left it up to the kids. Yet, everyone was talking and no one was desperate to leave the room to do their own thing. They say that the recession is supposed to be bringing families back home, and while I doubt that's really happening as much as people would like it to, things like the Wii can help facilitate that.
The best thing about games these days is that there truly is something for everyone. While I can't stand the glut of crappy games out there (Hell's Kitchen, anyone?), I have to commend companies like Atlus for mixing the norm up a little. So you're not a fighter, not an FPS'r, and you don't like traditional RPG's, there's still something there for you. Persona 4 still manages to be a fundamentally great RPG while adding in anime/dating sim elements that a non-gamer can still follow and be interested in. Trauma Center takes a completely different approach and uses hand-eye coordination to perform surgeries. They even have a a couple of less-mature titles that carry an art style and story that children can follow and maintain interest in, even if they don't know how you're actually playing the game.
That's just one company. There's fishing, cooking, racing, full dating sims, game shows, Rock Band/SingStar...the list goes on. You may not have grown up playing Mario and Sonic games, but you don't need to know how to quarter-circle-back just to play a game anymore. There are options.
These options also come packed. Going to the theatre costs $12, and that's going alone without popcorn, and you rarely get more than two hours of entertainment. Short games these days take ten hours to beat on average, and most of the time, the game still doesn't stop there. Replay value has become a major selling point to most developers, and that was before the recession. If you read a couple of reviews and pick a style of game you enjoy playing, there's a very good chance that the game you'll choose has much more than just the main story/game mode.
$60 may seem like a lot, but as long as you remember avoid the calories and to get up off your butt and take a jog every now and then, you'll find yourself spending less time driving and throwing money around on shopping therapy. Games offer a lot of content, so one game is practically a hobby in itself. An RPG, for example, used to take 40 hours to finish. These days, 60 is considered the norm, and any good RPG developer crams in extra side-quests on top of that. That's a lot of value, so long as it's a game that interests you. An hour or two a day is truly something that relieves stress just like any other hobby. I know that most gamers throw that two hour limit out the window, but if you're not one of them, that's the perfect thing.
Games get just as much bad press as it does good press, and it's a real shame that things have to be that way. I could completely understand why a non-gamer just wouldn't be interested, but for the most part, this recession is a great time to re-evaluate why you're NOT playing a game in your spare time. If you're still not convinced, here are some misconceptions that I will quickly refute:
Games are for geeks
First, geeking out isn't just something for gamers. People geek out over all kinds of things. Being addicted to a TV series is the same thing. You enjoy something, and that's OK. Sure, somebody will take it over the top, but that happens in every medium. The quiet, polite, responsible gamers out there get no press. There is no difference between enjoying a game and enjoying Lost, solitaire, or discussing a movie at work. Chances are, something you like was translated into a game at some point anyway.
Games breed stupidity and violence
Not all games are violent. Take Mini Ninjas, for example. Ninjas, by nature, are violent, but the second you see your first "kill" turn into a cute little fox instead of an explosion of blood, you'll understand that even violence in games isn't always psychotic. That game is so freakishly charming, cute, and fun to play, I'd almost challenge you to find an excuse to not hand it to your eight year old. That's just a ninja game. Unless you have a pre-existing issue where you find it necessary to lodge a plastic guitar into someone's skull, chances are that Rock Band won't make you crazy.
They also aren't stupid. Some games have really elaborate systems that demand rocket-science brains and insane patience, most games will challenge your hand-eye coordination on different levels, and if you haven't seen the amount of educational games out there, you're obviously not paying attention. Also, games aren't as simplistic as they used to be. It's almost impossible these days to find a game that doesn't draw history, literature, or art into its game design. Even the sword you use to slay the final boss in most games is a sword inspired by legends that have been around long before video games.
Games are too complicated to learn
Look, if you've never played a game before, you won't be raking up points in Halo anytime soon. I won't argue that most games are complicated, but there's a good number of games our there that are just as complex and fun as any other game while remaining as simple to use as possible. If you doubt your ability, try out a friend's Wii Sports. If you can't figure that game out, then you are right that games are too complicated for you, but if you find yourself having fun, rest assured that there are several games out there that are just as easy to play.
Games lead to obesity
Yes and no. If you have the personal restraint to NOT chug a gallon of Mountain Dew's Game Fuel to chase down that bag of Funyuns you just ate, then you have nothing to worry about. If you find a game you like, then yes, you might just find yourself sitting on the couch for two hours, but I've never heard anyone bash schools or knitting clubs for this. If you feel lazy, turn the game off, and if you need game munchies, make a veggie tray.
Games can actually be very healthy right now. Relief from stress is good for your health, period. Ask your doctor. The Wii can sometimes even be a workout in itself. Also, I'm not a shrink, but parents out there could also take advantage of games to improve the quality of their children's everyday lives. By associating healthy habits into a gaming routine, it's more likely they will incorporate them earlier rather than later, and it's better that they learn it at home.
Gaming is antisocial
This last complaint is more of a reflection of the player than anything else. There are many things people like to do on their own, and some games are just meant for that. Not all games, however. Many games allow for multiple players both in the same room as you and across the country. It's a personal choice as to how you feel about your gaming experience, but it doesn't make you antisocial. Games will not suck the life out of you if you don't want them to. They tend to tailor themselves to your personal style of play nowadays. If you are stuck at home for three hours with nothing to do, then you can put that much time into a game and even have the option of playing with your friends online. If you're a social person with lots of friends and things to do, even games you would never play have options specifically designed to let you put in only the time you have so that you never have to brush anyone off.
And, as with anything in life, just use restraint.
Let's wrap this up with a textbook summary.
These days, the gaming world goes out of their way to design games so that anyone can find something they might like, and it's not nearly expensive as you think. If you're thinking of a better way to ride through the recession, then it doesn't get much better than a good video game. The value in owning a game has never been higher, with each game release offering more content that will last even after a couple of weeks. If you're just coming on board to the whole gaming scene, don't be afraid to try it out. Games are meant to be fun and reduce stress, and while it's true there are "hardcore" games specifically designed to challenge and frustrate, that's not the way it is all the time. The recession has given everyone a grey hair or two, and who couldn't use a little hobby on the side that keeps you out of shopping malls? There are games out there that provide a fun experience not just for one person, but for a whole household. As with any purchase, do your homework and research what you are going to purchase, or try it out at your local video store. If you do this, you might find that you're smiling your way through the recession, knowing that you're having fun without flushing your money down the toilet, and maybe even get some good family time in there. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
I kid you not. Articles are out there telling you to spend money on games to fight the economy.
They are right.
The first thought on anyone's mind when you bring this idea up is the cost of gaming. Dropping, at minimum, $200 for a brand new system and $50-60 on a game to go with it doesn't seem like a good way to save money, but if you're willing to overlook the stigma that is "nerdy gamers", you might just find yourself agreeing with the millions of gamers worldwide that find it to be a little fun.
First, you have to consider that the major costs involved with gaming are simply for the first step. Once you have your system, the worst is out of the way. Beyond that, you'd be surprised how cheap the games actually are in comparison to most other things out there. Some people fill their tank for as must as it costs to buy a decent game, so it's not like dropping that cash is something you don't do twice a week anyway. It's also fairly true that while most people are trying to save a buck here and there, little purchases like coffee and soda add up to about that much over the course of a week. If that weren't true, Starbucks would be out of business and Coke would be putting on a major hurting.
You're still skeptical, and that's fine, but we can bring those costs down even more when you figure some of the cheaper ways to game. Say you're not up for a brand new game. You can go used, which is the obvious choice, but there's even better options out there. Rentals may seem like they're going out of style, but in truth, rentals are a terrific way to save a little cash here and there for some week-long fun. Blockbuster is a terrible place to get your rentals, and probably why they're taking a nosedive in the profits, but Movie Gallery and even your local rental stores can probably get you a five-day rental for $5. Not bad, especially when you consider that you usually get free rentals the more times you check something out.
Options get even better when you take GameFly into consideration, a company that provides a Netflix like service for gamers. It's an extremely cheap way to play games you want for as long as you want, keeping your personal expenditure on games under a pre-set budget depending on which plan you sign up for.
When it comes down to it, you're getting to play games for as long as they have value to you at a price that is cheaper than most people spend on their World of Warcraft accounts. Expect to spend about $10-15 a month.
Though a little shady, there are also other ways to get your gaming fix without committing to a purchase. GameStop practically tells you that you can use their store as a rental shop. Purchase a used game, and you have 30 days to play it, beat it, get all the trophies, and get bored with it. So long as you bring it back before the 30 days are up, you can swap it for a different game and do the exact same thing. This is a terrific idea for RPG freaks out there who want to play newer games but don't need to have the physical copy on their hands until they have the spare cash and the prices come down.
This is all gamer lingo, however. Why would any of this be of value to anyone but current gamers?
Well, first of all, there's an actual lesson to be learned from all of this cost banter. Most of the options above are easily incorporated into good budgeting, something our country didn't do in the first place to prevent this mess. A GameFly account is the definition of a good budget, allowing someone to preset their gaming costs every month. Even just taking the rental route and assuming one game per week, you're only talking about setting aside an extra $20 a month. Responsibly abiding by that limitation is just a great reminder to everyone that they can have fun as long as they budget accordingly and stick to a plan.
This isn't just about a single guy's monthly budget, either. Families can easily pass this down to their kids by teaching these standards. When I was a kid, my parents never let me rent more than one game at a time, and I could only rent a game once a week on Friday. It's a good routine to get into, and since the quality of gaming has risen an awful lot since I was a kid, I could only imagine that it would teach a child to care a little more about finishing the game they have rather than thinking about the fifteen other releases on the shelf. Obviously, they can't get them all.
Gaming isn't even for the kids anymore. Especially with the Wii, gaming can truly be a lot of fun for the family. Bash the Wii's Mario Kart all you want, it's still an easy way to get every member of the family playing for at least a few races. Mario Party can be just as fun for the family as it can be for a room full of drunks. At the very least, even if the parents don't want to play, what's possible with games certainly makes for a good conversation piece. Just bringing the Wii over to my family one Christmas got them all in one room together for several hours. Occasionally the older crowd would try something out, but they mainly left it up to the kids. Yet, everyone was talking and no one was desperate to leave the room to do their own thing. They say that the recession is supposed to be bringing families back home, and while I doubt that's really happening as much as people would like it to, things like the Wii can help facilitate that.
The best thing about games these days is that there truly is something for everyone. While I can't stand the glut of crappy games out there (Hell's Kitchen, anyone?), I have to commend companies like Atlus for mixing the norm up a little. So you're not a fighter, not an FPS'r, and you don't like traditional RPG's, there's still something there for you. Persona 4 still manages to be a fundamentally great RPG while adding in anime/dating sim elements that a non-gamer can still follow and be interested in. Trauma Center takes a completely different approach and uses hand-eye coordination to perform surgeries. They even have a a couple of less-mature titles that carry an art style and story that children can follow and maintain interest in, even if they don't know how you're actually playing the game.
That's just one company. There's fishing, cooking, racing, full dating sims, game shows, Rock Band/SingStar...the list goes on. You may not have grown up playing Mario and Sonic games, but you don't need to know how to quarter-circle-back just to play a game anymore. There are options.
These options also come packed. Going to the theatre costs $12, and that's going alone without popcorn, and you rarely get more than two hours of entertainment. Short games these days take ten hours to beat on average, and most of the time, the game still doesn't stop there. Replay value has become a major selling point to most developers, and that was before the recession. If you read a couple of reviews and pick a style of game you enjoy playing, there's a very good chance that the game you'll choose has much more than just the main story/game mode.
$60 may seem like a lot, but as long as you remember avoid the calories and to get up off your butt and take a jog every now and then, you'll find yourself spending less time driving and throwing money around on shopping therapy. Games offer a lot of content, so one game is practically a hobby in itself. An RPG, for example, used to take 40 hours to finish. These days, 60 is considered the norm, and any good RPG developer crams in extra side-quests on top of that. That's a lot of value, so long as it's a game that interests you. An hour or two a day is truly something that relieves stress just like any other hobby. I know that most gamers throw that two hour limit out the window, but if you're not one of them, that's the perfect thing.
Games get just as much bad press as it does good press, and it's a real shame that things have to be that way. I could completely understand why a non-gamer just wouldn't be interested, but for the most part, this recession is a great time to re-evaluate why you're NOT playing a game in your spare time. If you're still not convinced, here are some misconceptions that I will quickly refute:
Games are for geeks
First, geeking out isn't just something for gamers. People geek out over all kinds of things. Being addicted to a TV series is the same thing. You enjoy something, and that's OK. Sure, somebody will take it over the top, but that happens in every medium. The quiet, polite, responsible gamers out there get no press. There is no difference between enjoying a game and enjoying Lost, solitaire, or discussing a movie at work. Chances are, something you like was translated into a game at some point anyway.
Games breed stupidity and violence
Not all games are violent. Take Mini Ninjas, for example. Ninjas, by nature, are violent, but the second you see your first "kill" turn into a cute little fox instead of an explosion of blood, you'll understand that even violence in games isn't always psychotic. That game is so freakishly charming, cute, and fun to play, I'd almost challenge you to find an excuse to not hand it to your eight year old. That's just a ninja game. Unless you have a pre-existing issue where you find it necessary to lodge a plastic guitar into someone's skull, chances are that Rock Band won't make you crazy.
They also aren't stupid. Some games have really elaborate systems that demand rocket-science brains and insane patience, most games will challenge your hand-eye coordination on different levels, and if you haven't seen the amount of educational games out there, you're obviously not paying attention. Also, games aren't as simplistic as they used to be. It's almost impossible these days to find a game that doesn't draw history, literature, or art into its game design. Even the sword you use to slay the final boss in most games is a sword inspired by legends that have been around long before video games.
Games are too complicated to learn
Look, if you've never played a game before, you won't be raking up points in Halo anytime soon. I won't argue that most games are complicated, but there's a good number of games our there that are just as complex and fun as any other game while remaining as simple to use as possible. If you doubt your ability, try out a friend's Wii Sports. If you can't figure that game out, then you are right that games are too complicated for you, but if you find yourself having fun, rest assured that there are several games out there that are just as easy to play.
Games lead to obesity
Yes and no. If you have the personal restraint to NOT chug a gallon of Mountain Dew's Game Fuel to chase down that bag of Funyuns you just ate, then you have nothing to worry about. If you find a game you like, then yes, you might just find yourself sitting on the couch for two hours, but I've never heard anyone bash schools or knitting clubs for this. If you feel lazy, turn the game off, and if you need game munchies, make a veggie tray.
Games can actually be very healthy right now. Relief from stress is good for your health, period. Ask your doctor. The Wii can sometimes even be a workout in itself. Also, I'm not a shrink, but parents out there could also take advantage of games to improve the quality of their children's everyday lives. By associating healthy habits into a gaming routine, it's more likely they will incorporate them earlier rather than later, and it's better that they learn it at home.
Gaming is antisocial
This last complaint is more of a reflection of the player than anything else. There are many things people like to do on their own, and some games are just meant for that. Not all games, however. Many games allow for multiple players both in the same room as you and across the country. It's a personal choice as to how you feel about your gaming experience, but it doesn't make you antisocial. Games will not suck the life out of you if you don't want them to. They tend to tailor themselves to your personal style of play nowadays. If you are stuck at home for three hours with nothing to do, then you can put that much time into a game and even have the option of playing with your friends online. If you're a social person with lots of friends and things to do, even games you would never play have options specifically designed to let you put in only the time you have so that you never have to brush anyone off.
And, as with anything in life, just use restraint.
Let's wrap this up with a textbook summary.
These days, the gaming world goes out of their way to design games so that anyone can find something they might like, and it's not nearly expensive as you think. If you're thinking of a better way to ride through the recession, then it doesn't get much better than a good video game. The value in owning a game has never been higher, with each game release offering more content that will last even after a couple of weeks. If you're just coming on board to the whole gaming scene, don't be afraid to try it out. Games are meant to be fun and reduce stress, and while it's true there are "hardcore" games specifically designed to challenge and frustrate, that's not the way it is all the time. The recession has given everyone a grey hair or two, and who couldn't use a little hobby on the side that keeps you out of shopping malls? There are games out there that provide a fun experience not just for one person, but for a whole household. As with any purchase, do your homework and research what you are going to purchase, or try it out at your local video store. If you do this, you might find that you're smiling your way through the recession, knowing that you're having fun without flushing your money down the toilet, and maybe even get some good family time in there. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
October 1, 2009
There and back again, and all I got was this rusty sword.
RPG's piss me off.
It's a love/hate thing really. It's like when you get with who you think is the perfect girl and she ends up being nonsensical and psychotic. There's really nothing you can do but scream, because you can't win no matter what you do. You will go to the ends of the earth to figure out what you can do about her, but it ends up that you never should have gone anywhere to begin with and that a middle finger would have solved the problem.
Developers have long thought that putting fetch quests into games would extend the play-time so that they could claim they had an epic game on their hands. Trouble is, it's usually not worth it, and one game reminded me to come back to this point. I beat it months ago, but I've never gone back to finish what I was actually meaning to do, and that's beat up on the hidden boss in Persona 4, or Persona 3: FES, for that matter. I have an interest in beating them because, if you know what they are, your mind can only say, "Oh, you know, I would want to do that."
Not so with most games. Have you ever gone through the pain that you must go through to get Knights of the Round in FFVII? Have you played through FFX to get every ultimate weapon before beating the boss?
Most of the time, these quests or "hidden" materials are useless to the overall experience of the game. Take, for example, Final Fantasy VI, which is a textbook lesson on how to do things right. The first half of the game was spent going through the linear story with a few steps along the way. Sure, you had your freedoms, but for the most part you weren't wasting your time hunting for insane secrets. You could plainly walk through the first half of the game without fearing repercussions later on.
Then the second half of the game began, and you were faced with the complete freedom to do whatever you needed to do. The difference between this and most games is that you truly wanted to do it. Basically, after the major story-changing event happens midway through the game, you are given the exact route to the final boss. It's sitting right in front of you. There are a few things you have to do first, but for the most part, you're on one giant sidequest to accomplish what you felt was necessary to accomplish.
The truly great thing about this part of the game is that you were rewarded with something. You weren't beating the hardest boss in the game to get a sword that's only purpose would be to fight the boss you're already fighting. Instead, you were not only given items, weapons, and abilities; you were given a story to follow. By choosing the paths you cared to pursue, you discovered more about the world that these characters were living in.
That's more than I can say about most games. Since then, I've often wondered why I do the things I do in games. For Kingdom Hearts, the only reason why I did the crazy things I did was so that I could beat Sephiroth and get the secret ending video. At least in that case, there was a reason. In Final Fantasy XII, I found myself going after bosses for no other reason than to beat them, and while that's great, there should have been a worthwhile reward. I could not come up with a good reason these bosses were in the game except to provide a challenge to lifeless geeks.
Not that there's anything wrong with lifeless geeks, but I can't do that. I need a reason, and a good one. I have to get something out of the experience. If I'm going to waste 4 hours of my life micromanaging a boss fight, then I should, at the very least, get some kind of revelation out of it. If not a revelation, than a big ass sword that I can use to beat the even bigger boss so that HE can give me a revelation.
Turns out, there is nothing at all to gain. I bring up Persona because, at least, you know who these hidden bosses are, and while I may not receive an awesome cut-scene for it, I may get a few lines of narrative telling me that I'm a badass from two characters I'm very familiar with.
Point is, don't just stuff your games with extra content unless you have a reason for doing so. Even in FFVI, when you went to go get your two secret characters, it didn't feel like it was some big secret. It felt like it was meant to happen, and you not only got the characters out of the quests, but in one you are given a blank slate of a character left for you to interpret. The interpretation isn't cheap, either, because the most accepted explanation is that the character fits into another character's back story.
See? I'm rambling about side quests in FFVI. If I'm rambling about it, it was worth it. I don't ramble about the ultimate weapons in FFX. I don't spooge over finding hidden items in your not-so-epic RPG's, either. It especially ticks me off when an RPG that doesn't have much in the way of "epic" going for it tries to pull something out of their ass for the guys at GameFAQ's to write about.
Though, on the flip side (I'm looking at you, Fallout 3), developers could also take a cue from this extra content to give already badass characters something to focus their strength on. If you have every ultimate weapon, every great skill, and are maxed out in levels, what's going to give you a challenge? Shouldn't you use that power to take part in something massive?
Bethesda should have a Weapon locked away for a DLC. So long as there was a good explanation after you stomp it. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
It's a love/hate thing really. It's like when you get with who you think is the perfect girl and she ends up being nonsensical and psychotic. There's really nothing you can do but scream, because you can't win no matter what you do. You will go to the ends of the earth to figure out what you can do about her, but it ends up that you never should have gone anywhere to begin with and that a middle finger would have solved the problem.
Developers have long thought that putting fetch quests into games would extend the play-time so that they could claim they had an epic game on their hands. Trouble is, it's usually not worth it, and one game reminded me to come back to this point. I beat it months ago, but I've never gone back to finish what I was actually meaning to do, and that's beat up on the hidden boss in Persona 4, or Persona 3: FES, for that matter. I have an interest in beating them because, if you know what they are, your mind can only say, "Oh, you know, I would want to do that."
Not so with most games. Have you ever gone through the pain that you must go through to get Knights of the Round in FFVII? Have you played through FFX to get every ultimate weapon before beating the boss?
Most of the time, these quests or "hidden" materials are useless to the overall experience of the game. Take, for example, Final Fantasy VI, which is a textbook lesson on how to do things right. The first half of the game was spent going through the linear story with a few steps along the way. Sure, you had your freedoms, but for the most part you weren't wasting your time hunting for insane secrets. You could plainly walk through the first half of the game without fearing repercussions later on.
Then the second half of the game began, and you were faced with the complete freedom to do whatever you needed to do. The difference between this and most games is that you truly wanted to do it. Basically, after the major story-changing event happens midway through the game, you are given the exact route to the final boss. It's sitting right in front of you. There are a few things you have to do first, but for the most part, you're on one giant sidequest to accomplish what you felt was necessary to accomplish.
The truly great thing about this part of the game is that you were rewarded with something. You weren't beating the hardest boss in the game to get a sword that's only purpose would be to fight the boss you're already fighting. Instead, you were not only given items, weapons, and abilities; you were given a story to follow. By choosing the paths you cared to pursue, you discovered more about the world that these characters were living in.
That's more than I can say about most games. Since then, I've often wondered why I do the things I do in games. For Kingdom Hearts, the only reason why I did the crazy things I did was so that I could beat Sephiroth and get the secret ending video. At least in that case, there was a reason. In Final Fantasy XII, I found myself going after bosses for no other reason than to beat them, and while that's great, there should have been a worthwhile reward. I could not come up with a good reason these bosses were in the game except to provide a challenge to lifeless geeks.
Not that there's anything wrong with lifeless geeks, but I can't do that. I need a reason, and a good one. I have to get something out of the experience. If I'm going to waste 4 hours of my life micromanaging a boss fight, then I should, at the very least, get some kind of revelation out of it. If not a revelation, than a big ass sword that I can use to beat the even bigger boss so that HE can give me a revelation.
Turns out, there is nothing at all to gain. I bring up Persona because, at least, you know who these hidden bosses are, and while I may not receive an awesome cut-scene for it, I may get a few lines of narrative telling me that I'm a badass from two characters I'm very familiar with.
Point is, don't just stuff your games with extra content unless you have a reason for doing so. Even in FFVI, when you went to go get your two secret characters, it didn't feel like it was some big secret. It felt like it was meant to happen, and you not only got the characters out of the quests, but in one you are given a blank slate of a character left for you to interpret. The interpretation isn't cheap, either, because the most accepted explanation is that the character fits into another character's back story.
See? I'm rambling about side quests in FFVI. If I'm rambling about it, it was worth it. I don't ramble about the ultimate weapons in FFX. I don't spooge over finding hidden items in your not-so-epic RPG's, either. It especially ticks me off when an RPG that doesn't have much in the way of "epic" going for it tries to pull something out of their ass for the guys at GameFAQ's to write about.
Though, on the flip side (I'm looking at you, Fallout 3), developers could also take a cue from this extra content to give already badass characters something to focus their strength on. If you have every ultimate weapon, every great skill, and are maxed out in levels, what's going to give you a challenge? Shouldn't you use that power to take part in something massive?
Bethesda should have a Weapon locked away for a DLC. So long as there was a good explanation after you stomp it. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)