OK, this was a series that I never really got into back in the day, but the concept always got me very intrigued. I could never track down a copy, no matter how hard I tried.
Well, now they're updating this, and Starbreeze Studios, makers of the Chronicles of Riddick game, is producing it: Linkity Linkity
All right, that's cool.
This is default featured slide 1 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 2 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 3 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 4 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 5 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
So, Which System Should I Get Next
I have a Wii, a DS and a PC. I'm trying to decide on my next system, and there's benefits and drawbacks to my options. I turn to my readers, the ↓C Krew, to help me pick which would be the best fit for me. My three options are the PS2, the XBox 360, and the PS3.
PS2:
Benefits: Cheap quality games. Has MLB the Show on it. Lots of RPGs.
Drawbacks: No new games coming out. Doesn't display in widescreen, rendering my HDTV pretty much useless.
XBox 360:
Benefits: Great graphics that will show off my TV. Getting Final Fantasy XIII. Viva Pinata for my wife.
Drawbacks: High hardware failures. Not enough games that I want.
PS3:
Benefits: Great graphics that will show off my TV. Has MLB the Show. Cool content like PixelJunk Eden, Flower and Noby Noby Boy, as well as the upcoming Katamari Damacy remake.
Drawbacks: Price. Also, price. Not enough games to justify exobitant price. Also is very expensive. Some games have mandatory installs.
--
I'm leaning toward a PS2, but the whole widescreen thing really bothers me. It's painful to play Gamecube games on my TV for that reason. What say you, ↓Cers?
UPDATE: I'm changing the poll on the right side to reflect this question. Have at it!
PS2:
Benefits: Cheap quality games. Has MLB the Show on it. Lots of RPGs.
Drawbacks: No new games coming out. Doesn't display in widescreen, rendering my HDTV pretty much useless.
XBox 360:
Benefits: Great graphics that will show off my TV. Getting Final Fantasy XIII. Viva Pinata for my wife.
Drawbacks: High hardware failures. Not enough games that I want.
PS3:
Benefits: Great graphics that will show off my TV. Has MLB the Show. Cool content like PixelJunk Eden, Flower and Noby Noby Boy, as well as the upcoming Katamari Damacy remake.
Drawbacks: Price. Also, price. Not enough games to justify exobitant price. Also is very expensive. Some games have mandatory installs.
--
I'm leaning toward a PS2, but the whole widescreen thing really bothers me. It's painful to play Gamecube games on my TV for that reason. What say you, ↓Cers?
UPDATE: I'm changing the poll on the right side to reflect this question. Have at it!
Read This: Cool Article From CNet
It talks about what we can learn from the Atari 2600. It's taken from a discourse Ian Bogost gave at the GDC. Good stuff.
Monday, March 30, 2009
PS2 Price Drop?
Now let's see them drop the PS3's price.
At first glance, it would appear that Sony's doing it wrong. Frankly, they are. However, their idea is to clear out warehouses that still have the PS2 in stock, and then they can focus on other stuff. A good idea in theory, but they're hurting with the PS3 and not the PS2. Clearing out more PS2s isn't going to make the problem go away.
At first glance, it would appear that Sony's doing it wrong. Frankly, they are. However, their idea is to clear out warehouses that still have the PS2 in stock, and then they can focus on other stuff. A good idea in theory, but they're hurting with the PS3 and not the PS2. Clearing out more PS2s isn't going to make the problem go away.
Kind Of Mad At Kotaku
So, I'm looking at Kotaku, and there's an article about Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings with new screenshots. It's coupled with this statement:
Ordinarily I'd look at these Wii screenshots and think, it doesn't look like much (get those spiders!) but it'll probably look great on the core consoles. Then I remember it's not being made for them.Can we just drop this already? It's people like this that make core gamers so annoying. Instead of being excited for a new Indiana Jones game, they're upset that it didn't come out for "their" console. This is why core gamers are becoming less and less important as time goes by. We can't get out of our own way. We're way too concerned with what comes out for which system instead of just enjoying the stupid games. I don't blame companies for running away from us.
Clarifying My Comments On Zelda
So, a few posters saw my Zelda comments, and one astute poster, bearing nothing but Nerd Rage and a Caps Lock key, declared the following:
I have the solution to shake up Zelda, while still maintaining fidelity and continuity in the game world. I'll sum it up in one word: Steampunk.
OK, so it needs more clarification. Here's the layout of my multiple-pronged plan: Continue making games along the Twilight Princess timeline. Those will still be traditional Zelda games, with Link, the Triforce and Ganondorf doing whatever he does. However, it's leading somewhere this time around.
The next prong is a different timeline that we'll call "The Chronicles of Hyrule." It takes place in a place much like Victorian England with a new protagonist. Let's say he's a gentleman of society, an amateur adventurer. He reads about some interesting temple off somewhere, and decides to go investigate. It turns out that his land is on top of or parallel to the old land of Hyrule, and Ganondorf had been sealed away by Link. Ganondorf is using all of his strength to manipulate world events so that he gets freed.
The kicker? In the original timeline games, you play Link, and do the events that lead to Ganondorf being sealed away.
There are a couple reasons that this works. One, some of Zelda's gadgets already have a steampunk feel to them, like the hookshot. Two, this would provide the shakeup that Zelda needs while not throwing away all the history of the game world. Three, this creates a new franchise of sorts while still building on top of the old one and maintaining a link (no pun intended) to Nintendo's most popular franchise.
I love this idea, frankly. What do you guys think?
WAT? IM GUESSING YOU NEVER PLAYED GAMECUBE OR WII ZELDAS THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS!!!!Thank you, Anonymous. There is only one response when someone posts such a thought-provoking, deep comment:
WAT? YES I HAVE PLAYED GAMECUBE ZELDAS THAT IS WHY I SAY THIS!!111!! HOWEVER I HAVE NOT PLAYED TWILIGHT PRINCESS AND EVERYONE IS HOLDING THAT UP AS A GOOD EXAMPLE SO MAYBE IF I CONTINUE ENJOYING OCARINA I WILL PLAY IT!!!eleven!!Maybe I need a little less punctuation, but I hope I get the point across. To me, Zelda is running into the same territory that Mario is entering: Where do we go from here? We've sent Mario into space. Where do we go next?
I have the solution to shake up Zelda, while still maintaining fidelity and continuity in the game world. I'll sum it up in one word: Steampunk.
OK, so it needs more clarification. Here's the layout of my multiple-pronged plan: Continue making games along the Twilight Princess timeline. Those will still be traditional Zelda games, with Link, the Triforce and Ganondorf doing whatever he does. However, it's leading somewhere this time around.The next prong is a different timeline that we'll call "The Chronicles of Hyrule." It takes place in a place much like Victorian England with a new protagonist. Let's say he's a gentleman of society, an amateur adventurer. He reads about some interesting temple off somewhere, and decides to go investigate. It turns out that his land is on top of or parallel to the old land of Hyrule, and Ganondorf had been sealed away by Link. Ganondorf is using all of his strength to manipulate world events so that he gets freed.
The kicker? In the original timeline games, you play Link, and do the events that lead to Ganondorf being sealed away.
There are a couple reasons that this works. One, some of Zelda's gadgets already have a steampunk feel to them, like the hookshot. Two, this would provide the shakeup that Zelda needs while not throwing away all the history of the game world. Three, this creates a new franchise of sorts while still building on top of the old one and maintaining a link (no pun intended) to Nintendo's most popular franchise.
I love this idea, frankly. What do you guys think?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Good News, Everyone
So Zelda finally clicked. I'm in the Forest Temple, and I'm actually enjoying myself this time around. This could be for a couple different reasons:
1) I have played this portion before, so I know what to expect. However, I played this more than 5 years ago, so I'm not sure how much I'm remembering and how much I'm figuring out.
2) I'm not overthinking the puzzles anymore. For instance, once you enter Lake Hylia for the first time, there's a bottle on the lake's floor. I noticed it, but swam right past it, looking for the next quest hook. I roamed around the lake for half an hour trying to figure out where to go next and consulted an FAQ, which told me that the answer was right in front of my face the whole time.
I have a habit of doing this. In fact, this DM of the Rings strip just about explains what happens to me in Zelda games. Instead of looking for the obvious solution, I run around trying to find the most complex one and get frustrated when it doesn't work.
Another example: Entering the Forest Temple, you're supposed to use the Hookshot to get onto the tree branch above the broken stairs. I tried using the Hookshot, but it didn't reach. So I started running around for ledges that I could climb up on, and swinging my sword at the tree, and looking for a ladder until I realized that I just had to move a little closer and it would work.
We'll see how long this lasts.
1) I have played this portion before, so I know what to expect. However, I played this more than 5 years ago, so I'm not sure how much I'm remembering and how much I'm figuring out.
2) I'm not overthinking the puzzles anymore. For instance, once you enter Lake Hylia for the first time, there's a bottle on the lake's floor. I noticed it, but swam right past it, looking for the next quest hook. I roamed around the lake for half an hour trying to figure out where to go next and consulted an FAQ, which told me that the answer was right in front of my face the whole time.
I have a habit of doing this. In fact, this DM of the Rings strip just about explains what happens to me in Zelda games. Instead of looking for the obvious solution, I run around trying to find the most complex one and get frustrated when it doesn't work.
Another example: Entering the Forest Temple, you're supposed to use the Hookshot to get onto the tree branch above the broken stairs. I tried using the Hookshot, but it didn't reach. So I started running around for ledges that I could climb up on, and swinging my sword at the tree, and looking for a ladder until I realized that I just had to move a little closer and it would work.
We'll see how long this lasts.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Zelda: Ocarina of Time Update
So I'm inside Lord Jabu-Jabu, and I'm flagging. I'm tempted to just print out an FAQ and power through, because I really hate this dungeon. Please tell me this isn't representative of the rest of the game or I'm going to shoot myself.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Nintendo's GDC Presentation Impressions
Now that I've had a day to digest Nintendo's GDC presentation, I have a few thoughts about it. You can read a really good roundup here.
- I love how Miyamoto works. I always like getting glimpses into the minds of brilliant people and finding out what they do and how they do it. In this case, how he'll kidnap a random Nintendo employee, shove a controller in their hand and have them play a game. While it has to be weird playing a game in front of Miyamoto, it sounds pretty cool.
- I'm excited about the SD Card channel. I downloaded the update last night, and I'm going to get an SD card today to test it all out. So far, early results are fantastic: There's more space and VC games load faster by several seconds.
- Good call on Zelda: Spirit Tracks. The Zelda franchise has needed some upending for a bit, and this mechanic may be a great new way to experience the game. Even though I'm not a huge Zelda fan, it's still cool to see. Can we just please not have a forced, timed stealth section after every dungeon this time around? Thanks.
- Now the bad news: Where are the Wii games? Rock & Roll Climber looks interesting, but I'm talking core games. I'm not talking about more VC games, or adding a game like Gaplus, even though that's cool. I'm talking bonafide content. I know they're working on stuff. They have to be. So where is it?
They've made some concessions to the core audience by putting in things that they've been clamoring for for a while, like added storage space. I'm as patient as anyone. I'll defend Nintendo's decisions with the Wii for a long time, and in a future article, I will do so. But you have to throw me a bone here, Nintendo. Help me help you.
- I love how Miyamoto works. I always like getting glimpses into the minds of brilliant people and finding out what they do and how they do it. In this case, how he'll kidnap a random Nintendo employee, shove a controller in their hand and have them play a game. While it has to be weird playing a game in front of Miyamoto, it sounds pretty cool.
- I'm excited about the SD Card channel. I downloaded the update last night, and I'm going to get an SD card today to test it all out. So far, early results are fantastic: There's more space and VC games load faster by several seconds.
- Good call on Zelda: Spirit Tracks. The Zelda franchise has needed some upending for a bit, and this mechanic may be a great new way to experience the game. Even though I'm not a huge Zelda fan, it's still cool to see. Can we just please not have a forced, timed stealth section after every dungeon this time around? Thanks.
- Now the bad news: Where are the Wii games? Rock & Roll Climber looks interesting, but I'm talking core games. I'm not talking about more VC games, or adding a game like Gaplus, even though that's cool. I'm talking bonafide content. I know they're working on stuff. They have to be. So where is it?
They've made some concessions to the core audience by putting in things that they've been clamoring for for a while, like added storage space. I'm as patient as anyone. I'll defend Nintendo's decisions with the Wii for a long time, and in a future article, I will do so. But you have to throw me a bone here, Nintendo. Help me help you.
I Just Don't "Get" Zelda
As a longtime gamer, there are certain games that you're just expected to "get." You're expected to like Mario, Halo, Half-Life and others. If you don't, you usually feel like there's something wrong with you.One of these venerable series that you're supposed to "get" is the Zelda series. Even if someone doesn't like the newer entries because they haven't really improved on the Zelda formula, it's usually a given that everything up to Ocarina of Time (excluding Zelda 2 for the NES) is legendary. They're indisputable classics, so we're told.
That makes this even harder to say: I just don't like Zelda games, including Ocarina.
That's not for lack of trying. I keep trying to get into them over and over. I've beaten Link's Awakening and Link to the Past, although I wasn't wowed by either of them. Usually, I can enjoy most Zelda games through the first dungeon. Beyond that, they fall apart for me. Even the original Zelda escapes me. I'm trying again with Ocarina, just to see if I can finally make it click. If I can't do it this time, I'm done for good with them.
Why can't I get these games to click? Sure, there are flaws in the Zelda games, but I usually overlook them in other genres.
For instance, in some Zelda games it's not always readily apparent where you're supposed to go next. You usually wander around for a bit trying to find the next quest hook, or the entrance to the next dungeon. Sometimes, you'll get lost in a dungeon, or not be able to find the way to the next room. As much as I hate using them, I usually end up going to an FAQ to give me a push in the right direction.
That sounds frustrating, but I'll overlook it in other games. I have no problems getting lost in Metroid games. I just accept it as part of the game, and look for the exit or the next tool that I need without throwing a hissy fit. I have no problems not locating quest hooks in RPGs. I don't mind wandering around for a while and having to consult an FAQ if I'm really lost.
However, when you put all of this in a Zelda game, it's my personal recipe for Nerd Rage. I practically start foaming at the mouth, I'm so angry. I don't get why Zelda does this to me.
The good news is that so far, I'm about two hours into Ocarina and there's been no noticeable eye twitching. I already needed to consult an FAQ. Turns out there's an area that looks like a tutorial area that I've been avoiding, and you have to go through it to get your sword.
What's wrong with me?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
5 Ways That Sony Botched The PS3 (And Why They Did The Right Thing)
By now, most can agree that Sony has totally and completely borked the launch of the Playstation 3. At every turn, it seems that Sony consistently made the wrong calls. It's easy to mock them in hindsight and assume that everyone involved in the launch has an IQ of a wet tuna salad sandwich, but Sony actually made some easily-defended decisions that just turned out very, very badly.
1) The PS3 is really difficult to program for.
Why it was dumb: "Of COURSE people aren't going to make games for your system if it's hard to do! Developers are going to go to other consoles because it's easier! Everyone knows this!"
Why it wasn't dumb: It's never been a problem.
The PS2 was notoriously difficult to program for. The PS2 was the weakest of the three consoles of the last generation, even weaker than the supposedly lightweight Gamecube. The only reason that devs were able to get games to run as well as they did was because they offloaded some instructions through the PS1 chip that was in there for downwards compatibility. (Hey, that's the name of this blog!) It made programming for the PS2 far more complex than it should have been. It's also why downwards compatibility is so ridiculously difficult to do on the PS3. Did that stop developers from making games for it? Absolutely not! It was the best-supported of the three consoles by third parties. Developers may not have wanted to, but they made games for it anyway because they had to.
Likewise, Sony was depending on the loyalty of third parties to make games for the PS3. It didn't work out as Sony planned because of all the other things that went wrong at exactly the same time, limiting the console's popularity. That, in turn, made it a less attractive system to make games for.
2) They shouldn't have included a Blu-Ray drive with it.
Why it was dumb: "It made the system so much more expensive, and everyone is using streaming video now anyway! The 360 got Netflix all without adding an expensive high-def drive! Idiots!"
Why it wasn't dumb: The idea worked with the PS2, XBox and PS1. It also helped kill the Gamecube right in the cradle.
When the PS2 launched, DVD players were upwards of $300. Why buy a DVD player when you can buy a PS2 which gets you a DVD player AND a state-of-the-art gaming system for $299? It was a no-brainer, and moved a lot of people who were on the fence about which system to get over the the side of the PS2. The XBox launched their remote to control DVDs as well, but it wasn't as widely embraced as the PS2 was. The Gamecube didn't get adopted by the public at large for precisely that reason. Similarly, the PS1 could also play CDs, so when given the choice between a Nintendo 64 that played nothing but games or a PS1, a lot of people chose the PS1.
Sony made the same call with Blu-Ray. They assumed (rightly) that a lot of people who would be interested in a PS3 would also have interest in a high-definition TV, and Blu-Ray was the next logical step up from DVDs. Blu-Ray players were all far more expensive than the launch price of the PS3, so they assumed that the same thing that drove people to buy the PS2 would push them to buy the PS3.
However, where Sony erred wasn't in the strategy they employed, but rather by overestimating how many people would be interested in high-def media players so soon after upgrading to DVD. They also could have been a little more farsighted as far as streaming video was concerned, but hindsight is always 20/20. While streaming video was making moves toward the mainstream at the time of the PS3 launch, it hadn't really caught fire in the way that it has now. Sony could have been a little more proactive, but it's easy to predict the future when you're already in it.
3. The price.
Why it was dumb: "Why would ANYONE pay $600 for a video game system when there are cheaper alternatives right there?"
Why it wasn't dumb: It worked before, though not to the same degree.
The PS2 launched at $299. The Gamecube launched at $249. Over time, the Gamecube plummeted in price repeatedly, but always managed to be outdistanced by the more-expensive PS2 by miles. The XBox was at the same price at launch and still stayed ahead of the Gamecube throughout almost the entire generation.
Sony figured the same things would happen: The more-expensive PS3 would sell more than its rivals because it was the better, more powerful system. It could have worked, except that they underestimated the degree to which consumers would be willing to pay for a system. It still might have worked even AFTER that, but we got hit with the worst recession in 60 years right after the PS3 launched. Sony couldn't have forseen that occurrence.
4) The continuing arrogance from Sony.
Why it was dumb: "Didn't they see that their sales figures were bad? How blind did they have to be?"
Why it wasn't dumb: Sony had no reason to be nervous.
The PS1 and the N64 were tied near the beginning of their launches. Nintendo offered Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time along with a slew of other properties. Slowly but surely, the PS1 started inching away as developers left the N64 and came over to the PS1.
The PS2 and the Gamecube were tied near the beginning of their launches. Nintendo offered Star Fox Adventures and Super Smash Bros. Melee along with a slew of other properties. Slowly but surely, the PS2 started inching away as developers left the Gamecube and came over to the PS2.
In Sony's eyes, who was to say that this wouldn't happen again? Besides, when you're the market leader you can be arrogant. Sony still viewed itself as the market leader, and rightly so. They led the last two generations. On top of that, talking like Old Gill from The Simpsons ("Please buy this! The wolf is at Old Gill's door!") doesn't help matters. It doesn't help with your investors, it doesn't help with developers, and it's awful for company morale.
5) The 10-year plan.
Why it was dumb: "It just shows how stupid Sony is. How can you say that a console is going to be good for ten years? None of them are."
Why it wasn't dumb: Other consoles have lasted nearly that long, and none of them were as powerful as the PS3.
A console shelf life of 7-8 years is not uncommon, even for consoles that are underpowered for their generation. The NES (technically inferior to the Master System) launched in 1983, and the last notable game came out in 1991 (Kirby's Adventure). The Super Nintendo (which had a lower clock speed than the Genesis) launched in 1990, and top-shelf games were being released through 1997. The Playstation was released in 1994 and was still getting games as recently as a few years ago. Even the PS2, launched in 2000, got a AAA game last year in Persona 4.
Armed with that information, do you see how Sony could easily talk about ten years? Why is it unrealistic to think that a very powerful console would have a life cycle slightly longer than other, less powerful consoles?
--
Most of these errors can be charged to looking at the patterns that were already established in the past and repeating them with an extra dose of hubris. Sony attempted to emulate the PS1 and PS2 launches in every way, and why shouldn't they have? The only problem is they walked in with the assumption that people would buy the PS3 just because it was the PS3 instead of being more humble about the fickleness of the gaming public. I can guarantee that they've learned these lessons and will come back stronger in the next generation.
1) The PS3 is really difficult to program for.
Why it was dumb: "Of COURSE people aren't going to make games for your system if it's hard to do! Developers are going to go to other consoles because it's easier! Everyone knows this!"
Why it wasn't dumb: It's never been a problem.
The PS2 was notoriously difficult to program for. The PS2 was the weakest of the three consoles of the last generation, even weaker than the supposedly lightweight Gamecube. The only reason that devs were able to get games to run as well as they did was because they offloaded some instructions through the PS1 chip that was in there for downwards compatibility. (Hey, that's the name of this blog!) It made programming for the PS2 far more complex than it should have been. It's also why downwards compatibility is so ridiculously difficult to do on the PS3. Did that stop developers from making games for it? Absolutely not! It was the best-supported of the three consoles by third parties. Developers may not have wanted to, but they made games for it anyway because they had to.
Likewise, Sony was depending on the loyalty of third parties to make games for the PS3. It didn't work out as Sony planned because of all the other things that went wrong at exactly the same time, limiting the console's popularity. That, in turn, made it a less attractive system to make games for.
2) They shouldn't have included a Blu-Ray drive with it.
Why it was dumb: "It made the system so much more expensive, and everyone is using streaming video now anyway! The 360 got Netflix all without adding an expensive high-def drive! Idiots!"
Why it wasn't dumb: The idea worked with the PS2, XBox and PS1. It also helped kill the Gamecube right in the cradle.
When the PS2 launched, DVD players were upwards of $300. Why buy a DVD player when you can buy a PS2 which gets you a DVD player AND a state-of-the-art gaming system for $299? It was a no-brainer, and moved a lot of people who were on the fence about which system to get over the the side of the PS2. The XBox launched their remote to control DVDs as well, but it wasn't as widely embraced as the PS2 was. The Gamecube didn't get adopted by the public at large for precisely that reason. Similarly, the PS1 could also play CDs, so when given the choice between a Nintendo 64 that played nothing but games or a PS1, a lot of people chose the PS1.
Sony made the same call with Blu-Ray. They assumed (rightly) that a lot of people who would be interested in a PS3 would also have interest in a high-definition TV, and Blu-Ray was the next logical step up from DVDs. Blu-Ray players were all far more expensive than the launch price of the PS3, so they assumed that the same thing that drove people to buy the PS2 would push them to buy the PS3.
However, where Sony erred wasn't in the strategy they employed, but rather by overestimating how many people would be interested in high-def media players so soon after upgrading to DVD. They also could have been a little more farsighted as far as streaming video was concerned, but hindsight is always 20/20. While streaming video was making moves toward the mainstream at the time of the PS3 launch, it hadn't really caught fire in the way that it has now. Sony could have been a little more proactive, but it's easy to predict the future when you're already in it.
3. The price.
Why it was dumb: "Why would ANYONE pay $600 for a video game system when there are cheaper alternatives right there?"
Why it wasn't dumb: It worked before, though not to the same degree.
The PS2 launched at $299. The Gamecube launched at $249. Over time, the Gamecube plummeted in price repeatedly, but always managed to be outdistanced by the more-expensive PS2 by miles. The XBox was at the same price at launch and still stayed ahead of the Gamecube throughout almost the entire generation.
Sony figured the same things would happen: The more-expensive PS3 would sell more than its rivals because it was the better, more powerful system. It could have worked, except that they underestimated the degree to which consumers would be willing to pay for a system. It still might have worked even AFTER that, but we got hit with the worst recession in 60 years right after the PS3 launched. Sony couldn't have forseen that occurrence.
4) The continuing arrogance from Sony.
Why it was dumb: "Didn't they see that their sales figures were bad? How blind did they have to be?"
Why it wasn't dumb: Sony had no reason to be nervous.
The PS1 and the N64 were tied near the beginning of their launches. Nintendo offered Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time along with a slew of other properties. Slowly but surely, the PS1 started inching away as developers left the N64 and came over to the PS1.
The PS2 and the Gamecube were tied near the beginning of their launches. Nintendo offered Star Fox Adventures and Super Smash Bros. Melee along with a slew of other properties. Slowly but surely, the PS2 started inching away as developers left the Gamecube and came over to the PS2.In Sony's eyes, who was to say that this wouldn't happen again? Besides, when you're the market leader you can be arrogant. Sony still viewed itself as the market leader, and rightly so. They led the last two generations. On top of that, talking like Old Gill from The Simpsons ("Please buy this! The wolf is at Old Gill's door!") doesn't help matters. It doesn't help with your investors, it doesn't help with developers, and it's awful for company morale.
5) The 10-year plan.
Why it was dumb: "It just shows how stupid Sony is. How can you say that a console is going to be good for ten years? None of them are."
Why it wasn't dumb: Other consoles have lasted nearly that long, and none of them were as powerful as the PS3.
A console shelf life of 7-8 years is not uncommon, even for consoles that are underpowered for their generation. The NES (technically inferior to the Master System) launched in 1983, and the last notable game came out in 1991 (Kirby's Adventure). The Super Nintendo (which had a lower clock speed than the Genesis) launched in 1990, and top-shelf games were being released through 1997. The Playstation was released in 1994 and was still getting games as recently as a few years ago. Even the PS2, launched in 2000, got a AAA game last year in Persona 4.
Armed with that information, do you see how Sony could easily talk about ten years? Why is it unrealistic to think that a very powerful console would have a life cycle slightly longer than other, less powerful consoles?
--
Most of these errors can be charged to looking at the patterns that were already established in the past and repeating them with an extra dose of hubris. Sony attempted to emulate the PS1 and PS2 launches in every way, and why shouldn't they have? The only problem is they walked in with the assumption that people would buy the PS3 just because it was the PS3 instead of being more humble about the fickleness of the gaming public. I can guarantee that they've learned these lessons and will come back stronger in the next generation.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Game Design: Internal Vs. External Characters Part 2
Yesterday, we dissected the difference between internal and external characters, and why it's a big deal to make the distinction. Today, we're going to be seeing some examples of characters done the right way and the wrong way.
The most successful internal character is Mario. One of the reasons for his continued success is because he says very little. When we play Super Mario 64, he only says things like, "Its-a me, Mario!" and "Hello!" They tried giving him more dialogue in games like Super Mario Advance 4 by having him say things like "Just what I needed!" It was an immersion killer. It sold a lot, but you'll notice they've stopped doing it. They've even cut down on the voice samples in games like Super Mario 64 DS and Super Mario Galaxy.
Mario also has very little continuity from one game to another. There's no reason to care if Super Mario Land is canon in the Mario universe, or if Super Mario Galaxy came before or after Super Mario World in a fictional timeline. It doesn't matter. Mario is merely a construct and not necessarily a fully fleshed out person with his own motivations, and it works for that specific character.
Here's another example: Sitting through mountains of exposition is okay when we're playing Final Fantasy VII. We care about Cloud's backstory and his motivations, so we want to know what makes him tick. However, what makes Gordon Freeman tick? What kind of life did he live before Black Mesa? Who cares? He shoots aliens now, and that's the important thing.
You could make the claim that Gordon Freeman isn't an internal character, as everyone calls him "Gordon," and you're playing his story. In response to that, I ask you, when Alyx smiles at Gordon, how do you react? Do you react by saying, "I think she likes Gordon?" Or do you think "She likes me?" Similarly, Alyx can take punishment from enemies rather well. Playing through Half-Life 2 Episode 1, I was still protecting her even though I knew I could use her as a meat shield. Why? Because I myself was emotionally invested in her survival. I had internalized the Gordon Freeman character so that he became me.
Other game developers will gently play with this "internal/external" dilemma. Bioware did this with Jade Empire. When you play as an internal character, you expect that your character is "the one," the main hero who is head and shoulders above everyone else, and for most of Jade Empire they play that up. I won't spoil the game, but those who have played Jade Empire know that it subverts the very nature of an internal character.
Circling back to Sonic the Hedgehog: Sonic started out as an internal character. We weren't just playing as Sonic, we were Sonic. He was an extension of ourselves, and the controls reflected this. Over time, Sega tried shifting him to being an external character without warning and we still see him as an internal character. Therefore, the same things we'll accept while playing as an external character, like endless dialogue and strange controls, become unacceptable when playing a new Sonic game. Therefore, they'll delve into weird diversions like a human/hedgehog romance, and they have no qualms about giving him motivations, hopes and dreams. They tie the games together with needless plot threads, making the transition from internal to external even more jarring.
It's not a bad idea to switch some characters from internal to external. Some characters, like Link or Samus, were originally internal only because it was never really thought of to use external character in action games at that time.
However, Link started out internal and is slowly moving external. When A Link To The Past came out, it wasn't important which game came first in the Zelda canon. Once they started adding more story in Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, it became more important. It's cursory, but there's a mythology that never existed before and adds depth to the game. We still view Link as internal, but there's no doubt that he's moving to the external side of things.
Similarly, Samus was viewed as internal throughout the entire first Metroid. Then, during the ending, they rip the lid off and reveal that Samus is a woman, thereby opening up tantalizing possibilites for melding internal and external characters together. Metroid games still play as if Samus is an internal character, but Metroid Fusion took a huge step in trying to externalize her by giving her a former commanding officer and more backstory. Now that Retro Studios is done with the Prime series, it's very exciting to see which direction they'll go with the Samus character.
That's a lot to cover, but I hope that my point has been made clear: When designing a game, it's important to decide whether or not your character is an extension of the gamer or separate from them and design accordingly. Otherwise, you can end up making more Sonic games, and who really wants that?
The most successful internal character is Mario. One of the reasons for his continued success is because he says very little. When we play Super Mario 64, he only says things like, "Its-a me, Mario!" and "Hello!" They tried giving him more dialogue in games like Super Mario Advance 4 by having him say things like "Just what I needed!" It was an immersion killer. It sold a lot, but you'll notice they've stopped doing it. They've even cut down on the voice samples in games like Super Mario 64 DS and Super Mario Galaxy.
Mario also has very little continuity from one game to another. There's no reason to care if Super Mario Land is canon in the Mario universe, or if Super Mario Galaxy came before or after Super Mario World in a fictional timeline. It doesn't matter. Mario is merely a construct and not necessarily a fully fleshed out person with his own motivations, and it works for that specific character.
Here's another example: Sitting through mountains of exposition is okay when we're playing Final Fantasy VII. We care about Cloud's backstory and his motivations, so we want to know what makes him tick. However, what makes Gordon Freeman tick? What kind of life did he live before Black Mesa? Who cares? He shoots aliens now, and that's the important thing.
You could make the claim that Gordon Freeman isn't an internal character, as everyone calls him "Gordon," and you're playing his story. In response to that, I ask you, when Alyx smiles at Gordon, how do you react? Do you react by saying, "I think she likes Gordon?" Or do you think "She likes me?" Similarly, Alyx can take punishment from enemies rather well. Playing through Half-Life 2 Episode 1, I was still protecting her even though I knew I could use her as a meat shield. Why? Because I myself was emotionally invested in her survival. I had internalized the Gordon Freeman character so that he became me.
Other game developers will gently play with this "internal/external" dilemma. Bioware did this with Jade Empire. When you play as an internal character, you expect that your character is "the one," the main hero who is head and shoulders above everyone else, and for most of Jade Empire they play that up. I won't spoil the game, but those who have played Jade Empire know that it subverts the very nature of an internal character.
Circling back to Sonic the Hedgehog: Sonic started out as an internal character. We weren't just playing as Sonic, we were Sonic. He was an extension of ourselves, and the controls reflected this. Over time, Sega tried shifting him to being an external character without warning and we still see him as an internal character. Therefore, the same things we'll accept while playing as an external character, like endless dialogue and strange controls, become unacceptable when playing a new Sonic game. Therefore, they'll delve into weird diversions like a human/hedgehog romance, and they have no qualms about giving him motivations, hopes and dreams. They tie the games together with needless plot threads, making the transition from internal to external even more jarring.
It's not a bad idea to switch some characters from internal to external. Some characters, like Link or Samus, were originally internal only because it was never really thought of to use external character in action games at that time.
However, Link started out internal and is slowly moving external. When A Link To The Past came out, it wasn't important which game came first in the Zelda canon. Once they started adding more story in Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, it became more important. It's cursory, but there's a mythology that never existed before and adds depth to the game. We still view Link as internal, but there's no doubt that he's moving to the external side of things.
Similarly, Samus was viewed as internal throughout the entire first Metroid. Then, during the ending, they rip the lid off and reveal that Samus is a woman, thereby opening up tantalizing possibilites for melding internal and external characters together. Metroid games still play as if Samus is an internal character, but Metroid Fusion took a huge step in trying to externalize her by giving her a former commanding officer and more backstory. Now that Retro Studios is done with the Prime series, it's very exciting to see which direction they'll go with the Samus character.
That's a lot to cover, but I hope that my point has been made clear: When designing a game, it's important to decide whether or not your character is an extension of the gamer or separate from them and design accordingly. Otherwise, you can end up making more Sonic games, and who really wants that?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Game Design: Internal Vs. External Characters Part 1
This train of thought all started with Sonic the Hedgehog.
Fewer characters have inspired so much devotion and so much hatred as Sonic the Hedgehog. In the 90's and early 00's, Sonic was the epitome of cool. Sega did what Nintendidn't, and Sonic was a demonstration of that. He ran faster, his games were cool, and Sonic himself was ubiquitous, appearing in several cartoon series. He very nearly could have eclipsed Mario in popularity.
But then something happened. Sonic went from the top of the heap to digging in the trash bin faster than Amy Winehouse. They still make Sonic games, and every time a new game comes out there's a little bit of hype, but when the games get released they usually land with a sickening wet thud. Inevitably, Sonic's fans defend the game to the death, while most everyone else looks at these deluded souls with derision and pity.
How did this happen? Many have focused on laggy controls or the change to three dimensions as being the cause. Others speculate that all the extra characters haven't really helped matters either. I thought it was because "Dr. Eggman" is a stupid name, and he should always and forevermore be known as "Dr. Robotnik."
Another answer came to me, though, and it's an answer that reverberates not only through the Sonic series, but all of gaming. It explains why we are willing to put up with these issues in some games, but they can be completely unacceptable in other games, and it has to do with the way we perceive characters.
Most characters can be split into two groups, internal characters and external characters. When you play as an internal character, that character becomes an extension of self, meaning that you have internalized that character's story so that it becomes your own. When you play as an external character, you are playing THAT character's story and not your own. Examples of internal characters are Mario, Gordon Freeman, old-school Sonic, and the protagonist from Grand Theft Auto 3. External characters would be characters like Solid Snake, Cloud Strife, new-school Sonic, and GTA4's Niko Bellic.
Why is it important to make a distinction between internal and external characters? For the simple fact that it affects everything about the game. I do mean everything, from the controls to the story to the environment itself.
There are benefits and drawbacks to each character type. When you use an internal character, you are able to provide deeper immersion with less exposition. The character becomes whatever the player wants that character to be. The developer provides the blank canvas upon which the player projects themselves, making them more emotionally attached to the character. Instead of being a nebulous "they," the character has now become an "I." I beat Bowser. I passed that level. I distracted that creature with a grenade.
You also have to do less explaining with an internal character. The player assumes some things about an internal character. They assume that the internal character is "the chosen one" upon which the gameworld hinges, so you don't usually have to lay out pages of backstory.
The downside is that you have less storytelling capability. Nowhere is this more apparent that in the Half-Life. We all agree that the story is great, but there are so many gaps in the story because Gordon only knows what he is told. How do you fill those gaps without stepping out of character? It's something that Valve is grappling with, because when you try and cram more story in, it can very easily break immersion.
Another downside can be attributed to developer laziness. The same problem crops up with amateur fiction writers: They don't want to describe a character, so instead they assume that the audience will describe them. They don't want to say that a character has brown hair and blue eyes, so they hope the audience puts that in for them. Similarly, a lazy developer might view an internal character as a crutch to reduce their workload, so that they don't have to explain much about the character.
External characters have their own strengths and weaknesses as well. An external character can have a more involved backstory in most cases, since you're not telling the story from only one point of view. A great example of this is Final Fantasy VII, which tells not only Cloud's story but also Barrett's, Red XIII's, Aeris' and Sephiroth's stories, among others. It makes all of the characters a little richer and involves you more in the gameworld.
You also don't have to worry about control as much. Control is still a big deal, but gamers are willing to accept compromises for more in-depth storytelling. Since we use the character as a tool and not as an extension of ourselves, we're willing to give up a little control. For instance, if Mario couldn't shoot fireballs while walking, it would be a travesty. It's a tiny distinction, but it would affect the gameplay greatly and there would be nerd riots everywhere, including this site. However, we'll accept that Solid Snake and Chris Redfield can't reload while walking. It annoys us, but it's not a gamebreaker since the character is a tool instead of an extension.
There are some negatives to external characters, though. There is much less immersion in an external character, because you don't become the character, you use the character. The developers have to resort to other means to get your attention, like the Sanity meter in Eternal Darkness. Therefore, as a developer, you have to work harder to get the character attached to the game emotionally.
You also must provide a balance between gameplay and exposition with external characters. If we're following someone else's story, we need enough information about the character to provide us with motivation during the gameplay but not too much so that we feel overwhelmed by exposition. This is a trap among many amateur filmmakers: They feel that the way to achieve immersion is through backstory and an opening crawl. The reason why things like an opening crawl work in something like, say, Star Wars is because it's brief and there's action immediately afterwards. The story only gets filled in with more details once we're attached to the characters. Many developers (hello, Hideo Kojima) can't manage that balance and instead provide far too much information about the character and the world, breaking immersion.
So, what are some real-world examples of these types of characters in action, and what lessons can we learn? Check back tomorrow.
Fewer characters have inspired so much devotion and so much hatred as Sonic the Hedgehog. In the 90's and early 00's, Sonic was the epitome of cool. Sega did what Nintendidn't, and Sonic was a demonstration of that. He ran faster, his games were cool, and Sonic himself was ubiquitous, appearing in several cartoon series. He very nearly could have eclipsed Mario in popularity.
But then something happened. Sonic went from the top of the heap to digging in the trash bin faster than Amy Winehouse. They still make Sonic games, and every time a new game comes out there's a little bit of hype, but when the games get released they usually land with a sickening wet thud. Inevitably, Sonic's fans defend the game to the death, while most everyone else looks at these deluded souls with derision and pity.
How did this happen? Many have focused on laggy controls or the change to three dimensions as being the cause. Others speculate that all the extra characters haven't really helped matters either. I thought it was because "Dr. Eggman" is a stupid name, and he should always and forevermore be known as "Dr. Robotnik."
Another answer came to me, though, and it's an answer that reverberates not only through the Sonic series, but all of gaming. It explains why we are willing to put up with these issues in some games, but they can be completely unacceptable in other games, and it has to do with the way we perceive characters.
Most characters can be split into two groups, internal characters and external characters. When you play as an internal character, that character becomes an extension of self, meaning that you have internalized that character's story so that it becomes your own. When you play as an external character, you are playing THAT character's story and not your own. Examples of internal characters are Mario, Gordon Freeman, old-school Sonic, and the protagonist from Grand Theft Auto 3. External characters would be characters like Solid Snake, Cloud Strife, new-school Sonic, and GTA4's Niko Bellic.
Why is it important to make a distinction between internal and external characters? For the simple fact that it affects everything about the game. I do mean everything, from the controls to the story to the environment itself.
There are benefits and drawbacks to each character type. When you use an internal character, you are able to provide deeper immersion with less exposition. The character becomes whatever the player wants that character to be. The developer provides the blank canvas upon which the player projects themselves, making them more emotionally attached to the character. Instead of being a nebulous "they," the character has now become an "I." I beat Bowser. I passed that level. I distracted that creature with a grenade.
You also have to do less explaining with an internal character. The player assumes some things about an internal character. They assume that the internal character is "the chosen one" upon which the gameworld hinges, so you don't usually have to lay out pages of backstory.
The downside is that you have less storytelling capability. Nowhere is this more apparent that in the Half-Life. We all agree that the story is great, but there are so many gaps in the story because Gordon only knows what he is told. How do you fill those gaps without stepping out of character? It's something that Valve is grappling with, because when you try and cram more story in, it can very easily break immersion.
Another downside can be attributed to developer laziness. The same problem crops up with amateur fiction writers: They don't want to describe a character, so instead they assume that the audience will describe them. They don't want to say that a character has brown hair and blue eyes, so they hope the audience puts that in for them. Similarly, a lazy developer might view an internal character as a crutch to reduce their workload, so that they don't have to explain much about the character.
External characters have their own strengths and weaknesses as well. An external character can have a more involved backstory in most cases, since you're not telling the story from only one point of view. A great example of this is Final Fantasy VII, which tells not only Cloud's story but also Barrett's, Red XIII's, Aeris' and Sephiroth's stories, among others. It makes all of the characters a little richer and involves you more in the gameworld.
You also don't have to worry about control as much. Control is still a big deal, but gamers are willing to accept compromises for more in-depth storytelling. Since we use the character as a tool and not as an extension of ourselves, we're willing to give up a little control. For instance, if Mario couldn't shoot fireballs while walking, it would be a travesty. It's a tiny distinction, but it would affect the gameplay greatly and there would be nerd riots everywhere, including this site. However, we'll accept that Solid Snake and Chris Redfield can't reload while walking. It annoys us, but it's not a gamebreaker since the character is a tool instead of an extension.
There are some negatives to external characters, though. There is much less immersion in an external character, because you don't become the character, you use the character. The developers have to resort to other means to get your attention, like the Sanity meter in Eternal Darkness. Therefore, as a developer, you have to work harder to get the character attached to the game emotionally.
You also must provide a balance between gameplay and exposition with external characters. If we're following someone else's story, we need enough information about the character to provide us with motivation during the gameplay but not too much so that we feel overwhelmed by exposition. This is a trap among many amateur filmmakers: They feel that the way to achieve immersion is through backstory and an opening crawl. The reason why things like an opening crawl work in something like, say, Star Wars is because it's brief and there's action immediately afterwards. The story only gets filled in with more details once we're attached to the characters. Many developers (hello, Hideo Kojima) can't manage that balance and instead provide far too much information about the character and the world, breaking immersion.
So, what are some real-world examples of these types of characters in action, and what lessons can we learn? Check back tomorrow.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Interview With The Creator Of "Another Metroid 2 Remake" (AM2R)
Most fan remakes are pretty bad. They're usually very unprofessional, forgetting most of what made the original game great. They usually have bad level design and don't play like the original game did.
The one exception very might well be Another Metroid 2 Remake, also known as AM2R. Even though we only have a tech demo and screenshots to go on it appears that the creator/designer, a sound designer from Argentina named Milton "DoctorM_64" Guasti, has captured not only the look of Metroid but also the feel as well. The tech demo actually feels like a modern Metroid game, with intelligent level design and sharp controls.
So how is it that a fan project is so faithful to the original work while adding all the features that we know and love about Metroid? How did he do it? I talked with Milton about what he did to make AM2R a success.
----
Downwards Compatible: What convinced you to remake Metroid 2?
Milton: After I finished Metroid: Zero Mission, I wanted to play the next chapter in the saga with the same fast paced gameplay. At the time I thought Nintendo would do it, but they didn´t seem to be interested in that game. So, I decided to remake Metroid 2.
↓C: How did the project come together?
M: It was going to be a very basic remake, using sprites from other Metroid games to save time (like most fangames). Then I started adding extra features, and it slowly started to feel like a full fledged Metroid game. The development is done in my free time, and since it depends on my real life and work, there are times when progress is very slow. I think taking time to do things helped polish every aspect of the gameplay.
After the project became public, a lot of people offered to help. Right now I´m working with a spriter, designing the next Metroid evolution (Zeta Metroids), and I might add a musician to the project later this year. As soon as my life doesn´t become a mess, progress will be steady these months. I hope the game can be finished this year.
↓C: What's been the hardest thing about remaking it?
M: Making early design decisions. I had to research the little information available about Metroid 2: the story told in the manual, the official manga story, etc. And since the Metroid Prime games are prequels of Metroid 2, I had to research whatever story (related or not) was told in those games. Then I had make the choices: Will I be telling more of the story? Will there be additional bosses, areas, etc.? Will space pirates appear in the game? (A Ridley fight is a classic in 2D Metroids.) Is a ship computer going to tell me what to do all the time? What items will Samus have? And so on. I chose to be respectful about the amount of story revealed.
↓C: I'm a huge fan of Metroid games, but what is it about Metroid games that you like personally?
M: The combination of atmosphere and great level design. I love to explore a huge planet by acquiring new abilities, and bulking up your armory without the time consuming rituals of RPGs. It´s the fast paced action, and the freedom to play the game at my own pace what I like most.
↓C: Which of the Metroid games is your favorite?
M: Super Metroid. It´s massive, and exploration is very enjoyable in that game.
↓C: I loved Super Metroid myself. That was such a great game. I love seeing that statue that blocks the way to Tourian. Which part was your favorite?
M: I loved the whole intro sequence. The Ceres space station could easily be a cutscene, but it was executed perfectly as a great intro level. An escape sequence in the first 5 minutes of the game? I didn´t see that coming. And then arriving at Zebes, and revisiting the deserted Tourian. That was awesome.
↓C: What's the gaming scene like in Argentina? What are the popular genres and games?
M: The most popular system here is the Playstation 2, and the most popular game is the Winning Eleven series. Everybody is the owner of the undisputable truth about soccer in this country, and now they can include a videogame in their endless discussions. But that´s just the majority of the people. I enjoy fighting games and platformers.
↓C: What are your thoughts on the direction Nintendo is going in now?
M: They are a great company, and I think they´re the only ones capable of doing something unimaginable before: bringing videogames to the whole family. I don´t own a wii, so I´m not up to date with the available games, but judging from what I see on various sites, there could be more "mature" games. Hardcore gamers are part of the family too, right?
↓C: What are your thoughts on original games versus sequels?
M: Original games have much more design freedom than sequels. If a game was succesful enough to deserve a sequel, you can use that same principle for the upcoming game, you know people already like it. But in those cases, there has to be enough new content to avoid the "more of the same" syndrome.
If the sequel is going to add new elements, or tries to reinvent the franchise, it should be done right. This means taking the time to make a solid game.
Awesome sequels: Street Fighter 2, Sonic 2, Mortal Kombat 2
Not so good ones: Doom 2, Final Fight Streetwise, Bubsy 3D
↓C: Any ideas on a followup project?
M: I have many gameplay ideas on my mind but, I have long term plans to make a platform exploration game. And sometimes I feel tempted to expand the story and levels of Metroid: Confrontation (The second AM2R demo). Maybe give it a more "Portal" style, when a training exercise goes wrong and you have to go behind-the-scene to solve it.
↓C: Any advice for anyone who wants to try and make their own game?
M:Start simple, make simple games to perfect you coding skills. Then start adding features, or making more complex games. Most importantly, make sure you take your time and have fun while doing it.
The one exception very might well be Another Metroid 2 Remake, also known as AM2R. Even though we only have a tech demo and screenshots to go on it appears that the creator/designer, a sound designer from Argentina named Milton "DoctorM_64" Guasti, has captured not only the look of Metroid but also the feel as well. The tech demo actually feels like a modern Metroid game, with intelligent level design and sharp controls.
So how is it that a fan project is so faithful to the original work while adding all the features that we know and love about Metroid? How did he do it? I talked with Milton about what he did to make AM2R a success.
----
Downwards Compatible: What convinced you to remake Metroid 2?Milton: After I finished Metroid: Zero Mission, I wanted to play the next chapter in the saga with the same fast paced gameplay. At the time I thought Nintendo would do it, but they didn´t seem to be interested in that game. So, I decided to remake Metroid 2.
↓C: How did the project come together?
M: It was going to be a very basic remake, using sprites from other Metroid games to save time (like most fangames). Then I started adding extra features, and it slowly started to feel like a full fledged Metroid game. The development is done in my free time, and since it depends on my real life and work, there are times when progress is very slow. I think taking time to do things helped polish every aspect of the gameplay.
After the project became public, a lot of people offered to help. Right now I´m working with a spriter, designing the next Metroid evolution (Zeta Metroids), and I might add a musician to the project later this year. As soon as my life doesn´t become a mess, progress will be steady these months. I hope the game can be finished this year.
↓C: What's been the hardest thing about remaking it?
M: Making early design decisions. I had to research the little information available about Metroid 2: the story told in the manual, the official manga story, etc. And since the Metroid Prime games are prequels of Metroid 2, I had to research whatever story (related or not) was told in those games. Then I had make the choices: Will I be telling more of the story? Will there be additional bosses, areas, etc.? Will space pirates appear in the game? (A Ridley fight is a classic in 2D Metroids.) Is a ship computer going to tell me what to do all the time? What items will Samus have? And so on. I chose to be respectful about the amount of story revealed.
↓C: I'm a huge fan of Metroid games, but what is it about Metroid games that you like personally?
M: The combination of atmosphere and great level design. I love to explore a huge planet by acquiring new abilities, and bulking up your armory without the time consuming rituals of RPGs. It´s the fast paced action, and the freedom to play the game at my own pace what I like most.
↓C: Which of the Metroid games is your favorite?
M: Super Metroid. It´s massive, and exploration is very enjoyable in that game.
↓C: I loved Super Metroid myself. That was such a great game. I love seeing that statue that blocks the way to Tourian. Which part was your favorite?M: I loved the whole intro sequence. The Ceres space station could easily be a cutscene, but it was executed perfectly as a great intro level. An escape sequence in the first 5 minutes of the game? I didn´t see that coming. And then arriving at Zebes, and revisiting the deserted Tourian. That was awesome.
↓C: What's the gaming scene like in Argentina? What are the popular genres and games?
M: The most popular system here is the Playstation 2, and the most popular game is the Winning Eleven series. Everybody is the owner of the undisputable truth about soccer in this country, and now they can include a videogame in their endless discussions. But that´s just the majority of the people. I enjoy fighting games and platformers.
↓C: What are your thoughts on the direction Nintendo is going in now?
M: They are a great company, and I think they´re the only ones capable of doing something unimaginable before: bringing videogames to the whole family. I don´t own a wii, so I´m not up to date with the available games, but judging from what I see on various sites, there could be more "mature" games. Hardcore gamers are part of the family too, right?
↓C: What are your thoughts on original games versus sequels?
M: Original games have much more design freedom than sequels. If a game was succesful enough to deserve a sequel, you can use that same principle for the upcoming game, you know people already like it. But in those cases, there has to be enough new content to avoid the "more of the same" syndrome.
If the sequel is going to add new elements, or tries to reinvent the franchise, it should be done right. This means taking the time to make a solid game.
Awesome sequels: Street Fighter 2, Sonic 2, Mortal Kombat 2
Not so good ones: Doom 2, Final Fight Streetwise, Bubsy 3D
↓C: Any ideas on a followup project?M: I have many gameplay ideas on my mind but, I have long term plans to make a platform exploration game. And sometimes I feel tempted to expand the story and levels of Metroid: Confrontation (The second AM2R demo). Maybe give it a more "Portal" style, when a training exercise goes wrong and you have to go behind-the-scene to solve it.
↓C: Any advice for anyone who wants to try and make their own game?
M:Start simple, make simple games to perfect you coding skills. Then start adding features, or making more complex games. Most importantly, make sure you take your time and have fun while doing it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Criminally Overlooked Games: Metroid 2: The Return Of Samus
Among many people, the Metroid series is indisputably good. Super Metroid is rated as one of the best games of all time, Metroid Prime is one of the best games of the previous console generation, and even the original Metroid is still highly rated after oh so many years. However, in the series, one game gets frequently overlooked. You could almost say that it's Criminally Overlooked, but what kind of douchebag would write like that?The game in question is Metroid 2: The Return Of Samus. The story goes like this: Several commando units have been dispatched to SR-388 in order to wipe out the Metroids once and for all, but none have returned. In desperation, the Galactic Federation sends bounty hunter Samus Aran in order to finish the job. She then begins the task of wiping out the Metroids one by one, along the way finding new and strange mutations of the Metroid species.
Insofar as a game can be spoiled when it has already been spoiled by its sequel, this could be viewed as a spoiler for those concerned about such things. Samus finally destroys the Metroid Queen, and on her way out she's confronted by a little egg. A tiny baby Metroid hatchling pops out of the egg and starts following Samus around. Instead of killing it, she goes back to her ship with the Metroid hatchling opening the way the entire time, and they fly off into the wild blue yonder.
So why does Metroid 2 get overlooked? It's for a couple of reasons. One, it's sandwiched between Metroid which launched the franchise and is still very much beloved, and Super Metroid, one of the greatest games of all time. Second, it was released on the Game Boy, a system not known for heavier fare. The only other real games on the system at this time were Tetris and the Super Mario Land games, and neither was a strategic masterpiece.However, taking a closer look at Metroid 2 reveals some genuinely brilliant decisions that helped bridge the gap between the primitive Metroid and the superior Super Metroid. First, for being on a system that only had four colors, there's actually far more detail than the NES Metroid. Samus is more clearly drawn. The different Metroid mutations have more detail. Second, there are more secrets and puzzles, and you have a little more guidance through them. You always know how many Metroids you have to defeat so the next stage opens up. They limit you to a one area at a time to reduce confusion and cut down on endless wandering.
Third, you can actually save, which was a first for the Metroid series. Now, I'm sure that Super Metroid would have let you save whether or not this feature was added into Metroid 2, but isn't it just plain better than an archaic password system? Fourth, there's actually a semblance of a plot at the end of the game with a legitimately satisfying ending that leads into the next Metroid.
Now, is Metroid 2 a perfect game? Well, no. It's a little hard to play now, especially because there's no in-game map. The music is also a little weird. There are some tracks that are just repetitive bleeps, and it's annoying. Some of the Metroids are also a little too hard, and devolve into desperately trying to find a good hiding place while shooting missiles at it.All that being said, I find it far superior to the original Metroid, and it's a shame that it frequently gets passed over in favor of its inferior sibling. It's one of those games that really deserves a remake a la Metroid: Zero Mission. Tomorrow we'll be talking about a very promising remake of this Criminally Overlooked game.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Why Metroid Is Nintendo's Best Franchise
Nintendo has quite a stable of franchises. I mean, there's Mario, Kirby, StarFox, Fire Emblem, Zelda, Advance Wars, the list could go on for an entire article. However, there's one franchise that stands above the rest and that is head and shoulders above all others. Since this is Metroid Week at ↓C, I think you can posit which one it is: The Metroid franchise.
The Metroid franchise is special in a couple of different ways. First, the main character is totally unique. While some Nintendo characters can be considered "cute," like Kirby or Pikachu, or even made "cute," like Baby Mario and Young Link, you can't really make a woman in a battle-ready suit of armor "cute." You will never see "Baby Samus" in a Nintendo game.
(Side note: if you ever see Baby Samus in a Nintendo game, feel free to put a bullet through my head. Warn me first.)
In fact, Samus is more than just a walking tank; she's downright vicious. She destroyed almost an entire species (Metroids) because they were too dangerous, which led to another species (the X parasite) being released, so she had to destroy that one too. She's a very intense character, an anomaly in Nintendo terms, and especially for a character that's supposed to be mainstream.
Beyond that, there has never been a truly bad Metroid game. The game that is often referred to (unfairly) as the worst Metroid game is Metroid 2, and even that game has a lot of merit. I'll break that down more tomorrow. Just thinking about it makes me want to play it again.
In fact, each Metroid game is a high water mark for its respective console. You have one of the best games of the Game Boy generation in Metroid 2, you have (arguably) the best game of the Super Nintendo and one of the best games ever in Super Metroid. You have the best GBA game in Metroid Fusion AND one of the best Gamecube games in Metroid Prime. That's not even mentioning the original Metroid, Metroid: Zero Mission, Metroid Prime Hunters, Metroid Pinball, or the rest of the Prime series, all of which are stellar games.
Other franchises may try and stake claim to Nintendo's greatest franchise, but they all falter for one reason or another. Mario gets watered down an awful lot. You used to be able to trust that a game that had Mario's name in the title would be quality, but that's no longer a given. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games took care of that. Other franchises have their own quirks to them: Star Fox is uneven, Kirby isn't a really hardcore franchise, Zelda is repetitive, and Fire Emblem has too narrow of a focus. No other franchise that Nintendo runs has as consistent and clean of a track record. Even when Metroid goes off the reservation, as in games like Metroid Pinball, you can still be assured that it'll play well and you'll have a good time with it.
So, while other franchises may have their own merits, I am totally comfortable naming Metroid Nintendo's Best Franchise. Now would it kill you to release a 2-D Metroid game for the DS? Thanks.
The Metroid franchise is special in a couple of different ways. First, the main character is totally unique. While some Nintendo characters can be considered "cute," like Kirby or Pikachu, or even made "cute," like Baby Mario and Young Link, you can't really make a woman in a battle-ready suit of armor "cute." You will never see "Baby Samus" in a Nintendo game.
(Side note: if you ever see Baby Samus in a Nintendo game, feel free to put a bullet through my head. Warn me first.)In fact, Samus is more than just a walking tank; she's downright vicious. She destroyed almost an entire species (Metroids) because they were too dangerous, which led to another species (the X parasite) being released, so she had to destroy that one too. She's a very intense character, an anomaly in Nintendo terms, and especially for a character that's supposed to be mainstream.
Beyond that, there has never been a truly bad Metroid game. The game that is often referred to (unfairly) as the worst Metroid game is Metroid 2, and even that game has a lot of merit. I'll break that down more tomorrow. Just thinking about it makes me want to play it again.
In fact, each Metroid game is a high water mark for its respective console. You have one of the best games of the Game Boy generation in Metroid 2, you have (arguably) the best game of the Super Nintendo and one of the best games ever in Super Metroid. You have the best GBA game in Metroid Fusion AND one of the best Gamecube games in Metroid Prime. That's not even mentioning the original Metroid, Metroid: Zero Mission, Metroid Prime Hunters, Metroid Pinball, or the rest of the Prime series, all of which are stellar games.
Other franchises may try and stake claim to Nintendo's greatest franchise, but they all falter for one reason or another. Mario gets watered down an awful lot. You used to be able to trust that a game that had Mario's name in the title would be quality, but that's no longer a given. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games took care of that. Other franchises have their own quirks to them: Star Fox is uneven, Kirby isn't a really hardcore franchise, Zelda is repetitive, and Fire Emblem has too narrow of a focus. No other franchise that Nintendo runs has as consistent and clean of a track record. Even when Metroid goes off the reservation, as in games like Metroid Pinball, you can still be assured that it'll play well and you'll have a good time with it.So, while other franchises may have their own merits, I am totally comfortable naming Metroid Nintendo's Best Franchise. Now would it kill you to release a 2-D Metroid game for the DS? Thanks.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Weird Rulership Situations In Gaming Part 2: Ridley
SCENE: SPACE PIRATES LAIR
CHARACTERS: RIDLEY, OTHER VARIOUS SPACE PIRATES
Ridley: OK, I know that times are tough. We've been beaten when we tried to use Phazon as a weapon. We tried to harness Metroids as a weapon, and that didn't work out so well-
Pirate 1: I still have suction and bite marks all over me.
Ridley: Ye-e-e-ss, we all do. We all do. But this time I have a plan that will totally work!
Pirates: Let's hear it!
Ridley: OK, here it is: We go back to Planet Zebes and try using the Metroids AGAIN!
(stunned silence)
Ridley: It's a winner, right? Zebes? Metroids?
(crickets)
Ridley: So, we're just going to use the same tunnels that we've already used before. I mean, why change a good thing, right?
Pirate 1: You know, I'm not sure this plan will work.
Ridley: What? How can you say that? It's foolproof.
Pirate 2: Except do you remember why our plans haven't worked before? The crazy lady in the armor who always kills a bunch of us and kicks the crap out of you?
Ridley: It was a draw the last time we fought.
Pirate 2: Yeah, sure. Anyway, wouldn't it maybe a bad idea to go back to the same place that she beat you already? I mean, she already knows the tunnels, and-
Ridley: Look, I know things went badly the last time. I know this. That's why I have help. This will work, trust me.
Pirate 1: Oh, who's the help?
(excited chatter)
Ridley: All right, I'll show you! I know I'm excited about this addition to our team. Let's give a big Space Pirate welcome to...Mother Brain!
A curtain falls, revealing a huge grotesque, fleshy, pulsating brain in a jar.
(stunned silence)
Ridley claps his wings excitedly.
Pirate 1: Listen, Ridley. We've worked with you for a while, and it's been great. It really has. I mean, we've been plundering and wreaking havoc, and we all have some really good memories. But we've done this all before, and I think it...might be time for a new direction.
Ridley: What?! Why?
Pirate 2: Look, I know you're trying your hardest, but we all need to recharge our batteries for a bit. Maybe you should take a little vacation, catch some sun...
Ridley: You KNOW I hate sunlight.
Pirate 1: It doesn't matter. We're not doing this again.
Ridley: Doing what?
Pirate 1: Hiding out in the same tunnels, trying to get the same Metroids, trying to harness their power...I mean, this isn't going to work! (stands up) How can we get help from a giant brain when it can't even handle having it's jar being broken?
Pirate 1 throws chair at Mother Brain's jar. A slight crack appears.
Ridley: Don't do that!
Pirate 1: What, or it'll make a mess all over the floor that'll take the janitors a week to clean up? Oh, boo-hoo!
Pirate 1 throws another chair. The glass shatters and the brain falls on the floor with a sickeningly wet thud.
Pirate 1: THERE. Now let's all move on with a different plan. I'm thinking-
Mother Brain: RAHAAHHAGGGGGHHHH
Mother Brain sprouts a body with arms and legs and shoots a beam of pure thought energy at Pirate 1, vaporizing him and leaving behind only a sooty pile of wet ashes.
Mother Brain looks offended and climbs back inside her broken jar with a hurt look on her face.
Ridley: Now look, you've hurt her feelings. Everyone apologize.
(murmured apologies around the room)
Ridley: OK, so let's go find another Metroid! Who's with me!
(murmured, unenthusiastic agreement)
END SCENE.
CHARACTERS: RIDLEY, OTHER VARIOUS SPACE PIRATES
Ridley: OK, I know that times are tough. We've been beaten when we tried to use Phazon as a weapon. We tried to harness Metroids as a weapon, and that didn't work out so well-
Pirate 1: I still have suction and bite marks all over me.
Ridley: Ye-e-e-ss, we all do. We all do. But this time I have a plan that will totally work!
Pirates: Let's hear it!
Ridley: OK, here it is: We go back to Planet Zebes and try using the Metroids AGAIN!
(stunned silence)
Ridley: It's a winner, right? Zebes? Metroids?
(crickets)
Ridley: So, we're just going to use the same tunnels that we've already used before. I mean, why change a good thing, right?
Pirate 1: You know, I'm not sure this plan will work.
Ridley: What? How can you say that? It's foolproof.
Pirate 2: Except do you remember why our plans haven't worked before? The crazy lady in the armor who always kills a bunch of us and kicks the crap out of you?
Ridley: It was a draw the last time we fought.
Pirate 2: Yeah, sure. Anyway, wouldn't it maybe a bad idea to go back to the same place that she beat you already? I mean, she already knows the tunnels, and-
Ridley: Look, I know things went badly the last time. I know this. That's why I have help. This will work, trust me.
Pirate 1: Oh, who's the help?
(excited chatter)
Ridley: All right, I'll show you! I know I'm excited about this addition to our team. Let's give a big Space Pirate welcome to...Mother Brain!
A curtain falls, revealing a huge grotesque, fleshy, pulsating brain in a jar.
(stunned silence)
Ridley claps his wings excitedly.Pirate 1: Listen, Ridley. We've worked with you for a while, and it's been great. It really has. I mean, we've been plundering and wreaking havoc, and we all have some really good memories. But we've done this all before, and I think it...might be time for a new direction.
Ridley: What?! Why?
Pirate 2: Look, I know you're trying your hardest, but we all need to recharge our batteries for a bit. Maybe you should take a little vacation, catch some sun...
Ridley: You KNOW I hate sunlight.
Pirate 1: It doesn't matter. We're not doing this again.
Ridley: Doing what?
Pirate 1: Hiding out in the same tunnels, trying to get the same Metroids, trying to harness their power...I mean, this isn't going to work! (stands up) How can we get help from a giant brain when it can't even handle having it's jar being broken?
Pirate 1 throws chair at Mother Brain's jar. A slight crack appears.
Ridley: Don't do that!
Pirate 1: What, or it'll make a mess all over the floor that'll take the janitors a week to clean up? Oh, boo-hoo!
Pirate 1 throws another chair. The glass shatters and the brain falls on the floor with a sickeningly wet thud.
Pirate 1: THERE. Now let's all move on with a different plan. I'm thinking-
Mother Brain: RAHAAHHAGGGGGHHHH
Mother Brain sprouts a body with arms and legs and shoots a beam of pure thought energy at Pirate 1, vaporizing him and leaving behind only a sooty pile of wet ashes.
Mother Brain looks offended and climbs back inside her broken jar with a hurt look on her face.
Ridley: Now look, you've hurt her feelings. Everyone apologize.
(murmured apologies around the room)
Ridley: OK, so let's go find another Metroid! Who's with me!
(murmured, unenthusiastic agreement)
END SCENE.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Publishers Want Sony To Drop Prices
Great article from Bloomberg detailing why publishers want Sony to drop their prices. I'm going to post on this next week, but as easy as it is to mock the PS3, they tried to mimic the PS2 launch as best as they could. The PS2 was their most successful system, so it makes sense to emulate the launch, right? I'll break it down next week: This week is Metroid country.
Metroid Week
It's Metroid week this week, as we talk about everyone's favorite genocidal maniac in a power suit: Samus Aran. Here's a list of what's scheduled for this week:Tuesday: Weird Leadership Situations In Gaming, Part 2: Ridley
Wednesday: Why Metroid Is Nintendo's Best Franchise
Thursday: Criminally Overlooked Games: Metroid 2
Friday: Interview With DoctorM64, the Man Behind the Upcoming Metroid 2 Remake.
I hope you enjoy this week's theme!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Now I Like World Of Goo/Avalon Code First Impressions
I'm going to keep on waffling on World of Goo quite a bit, methinks. Now I like it. The tower-building finally clicked and I beat a ton of the levels that I had to skip. Just goes to show you, don't trust first impressions.AVALON CODE First Impressions: It's confusing me. I like the whole "smack people with a book" idea, but I'm having trouble finding quest hooks. I'm not sure I'm going to keep hammering away at this one.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Let's Fix Tecmo Bowl
Tecmo Bowl was one of the all-time great sports games when it debuted on the NES. The franchise has fallen on hard times, though, with the latest version being pretty awful. Some have blamed EA for monopolizing the NFL license, but it runs a little deeper than that. You can still make a good football game without the license, but there are steps that need to be followed. It would be a shame to see a franchise like Tecmo Bowl go completely by the wayside.
One thing that absolutely must happen is for there to be superstars in the game once again. We knew who the superstars were when we played the original versions, like Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders and Darrell Green, because we knew that they were good players in real life. We don't know who these players are anymore because they're not real players.
So let's have this: Every team has at least 1 Superstar. That player speaks for the team. Before a game, he'll issue your team a challenge, like "I bet you can't hold me under 100 yards today," or "I'll pass for over 250 yards against you today!" If you meet the challenge, you gain a bonus. If you don't, you don't get those extra points.
This accomplishes two things: One, you now know who some of the players are, so that it feels less homogenic. Two, you also are able to put faces to the teams, which gives you an emotional response to a team. When I play against Minnesota in Madden, I want to beat them because I hate the Vikings. I have no such emotional response in Tecmo Bowl because Minnesota means nothing to me there. However, if a player keeps taunting me and telling me they're going to run all over me, I want to crush that player and team.
Also, Tecmo Bowl: Kickoff made the mistake of letting you beef up your players with stats while not having any other team use theirs, and they also gave you special moves that would turn on randomly, like, say, a quarterback catches on fire when you're using a running play. That's crap. I want to be able to turn it on myself on 4th and long with the game on the line.
Therefore, remove experience points. Make players what they are, and don't add anything to them. This removes balancing issues, as having computer teams try and allocate their experience while you're trying to allocate yours will lead to some wonky results. Better just to leave them alone.
Instead of experience, have bonuses that can be used during the games. For instance, let's say you really need to convert on a long 3rd down. You could use a bonus like "Sure-Handed," which would make all your receivers much more able to catch. Or, let's say you needed a good stop on 4th down. You could use a bonus like "Scramble," which would change the offense's play to a random play. You could only use two per game so it wouldn't turn into a bonus-fest, and it would be really fun besides.
Tecmo Bowl is still struggling with its place in modern gaming. It still can't figure out what it wants to be, but those of us who have played it for years know what it is: A fun, arcade-style version of football. If Tecmo embraces that, we'll be able to enjoy Tecmo Bowl well into the future.
One thing that absolutely must happen is for there to be superstars in the game once again. We knew who the superstars were when we played the original versions, like Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders and Darrell Green, because we knew that they were good players in real life. We don't know who these players are anymore because they're not real players.So let's have this: Every team has at least 1 Superstar. That player speaks for the team. Before a game, he'll issue your team a challenge, like "I bet you can't hold me under 100 yards today," or "I'll pass for over 250 yards against you today!" If you meet the challenge, you gain a bonus. If you don't, you don't get those extra points.
This accomplishes two things: One, you now know who some of the players are, so that it feels less homogenic. Two, you also are able to put faces to the teams, which gives you an emotional response to a team. When I play against Minnesota in Madden, I want to beat them because I hate the Vikings. I have no such emotional response in Tecmo Bowl because Minnesota means nothing to me there. However, if a player keeps taunting me and telling me they're going to run all over me, I want to crush that player and team.
Also, Tecmo Bowl: Kickoff made the mistake of letting you beef up your players with stats while not having any other team use theirs, and they also gave you special moves that would turn on randomly, like, say, a quarterback catches on fire when you're using a running play. That's crap. I want to be able to turn it on myself on 4th and long with the game on the line.
Therefore, remove experience points. Make players what they are, and don't add anything to them. This removes balancing issues, as having computer teams try and allocate their experience while you're trying to allocate yours will lead to some wonky results. Better just to leave them alone.
Instead of experience, have bonuses that can be used during the games. For instance, let's say you really need to convert on a long 3rd down. You could use a bonus like "Sure-Handed," which would make all your receivers much more able to catch. Or, let's say you needed a good stop on 4th down. You could use a bonus like "Scramble," which would change the offense's play to a random play. You could only use two per game so it wouldn't turn into a bonus-fest, and it would be really fun besides.
Tecmo Bowl is still struggling with its place in modern gaming. It still can't figure out what it wants to be, but those of us who have played it for years know what it is: A fun, arcade-style version of football. If Tecmo embraces that, we'll be able to enjoy Tecmo Bowl well into the future.
I Got Angry At World Of Goo
World of Goo seems like a lot of fun, except for one gigantic, elephant-in-the-room flaw: I'm terrible at building games. I didn't realize this until I got World Of Goo, and now I'm mad.
However, here's the good part: I only paid $5 for it, my wife will probably play it instead, and if I really decide I don't want it, I can send it to someone else! This is why Steam is winning the DLC war, frankly. Valve is just plain smart.
However, here's the good part: I only paid $5 for it, my wife will probably play it instead, and if I really decide I don't want it, I can send it to someone else! This is why Steam is winning the DLC war, frankly. Valve is just plain smart.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Making Madden Less Maddening
In theory, the Madden series should be the best sports games ever. I mean, realistic-looking football, with player progression, practices, trades and you're even able to set stadium prices? How can this not be awesome? Yet, every year the series gets a little dimmer, until it's now more than a glorified roster update. The release is still an event, and Madden still sells like hotcakes, but no one can deny that the series has gone stale for the last few years.So, what can be done to make the Madden franchise better?
1) A clutch rating.
I've been begging for this for years. What separates the greats from the not-so-greats? Who would you rather have on 3rd-and-long with 30 seconds on the clock? Kyle Boller or Joe Montana? What differentiates the two? When the chips were down, Joe Montana came up big. When the chips are down, Kyle Boller collapsed like a cheap folding table outside the ring of a wrestling match.
Why hasn't this been accurately modeled? Why aren't the good players matched up with how they perform under pressure? I mean, Tom Brady doesn't have the strongest arm in the league. What separates him from other quarterbacks is that he gets it done in tight situations. Model this, please. I don't ask for much, except for the other stuff on this list.
2) Fix the draft.
A good GM is a GM who picks well in later rounds. Anybody can look at the college game and see who the best 30 players are. It takes a great GM to make choices in later, less expensive rounds.
Unfortunately, in Madden, all of your usable draft choices will be in the first or maybe second rounds. Everyone else is worse than a scrub. Plus, the way they handle scouting is ridiculous. Who scouts only 10 players in a draft, honestly? Are you telling me that you have to have an interview with Tim Tebow to tell me that he's a good player? It's pretty apparent by watching him play that he's good.
Here's what I want. I want updates during the season on which college players are doing well so that I know before the draft who is available. I want players that play for major colleges to be more fully scouted. We know their stats much more clearly. I want players that play for minor colleges to have fewer stats revealed UNLESS you scout them. Then, once you start playing them and using them in practice, you see more of their stats revealed.
That way, maybe a 7th rounder might look like a scrub until you scout him. Then you'll see his true potential and maybe draft him in the 4th round. Once you play him you realize that he's a great player who had some easily-fixed flaws. That makes the draft more strategic and fun.
3. Add an inside-the-helmet cam.
I know that people will say that this has already been done in the 2K Sports games, but let's try it again, shall we? Now that graphics are better, TVs are bigger and there's already some head motion controls in place in Madden (the passing cone), what's to stop them from adding it? Wouldn't it be a great way to liven up the game? It might not be the best thing ever, but it's at least something different.
4. Add chemistry.
No, I don't mean steroids. I mean this: When Brett Favre played a couple of years ago, he had some scrub receivers. Robert Brooks, Anthony Morgan, Antonio Freeman and Bill Schroeder did nothing once they left Green Bay. Why were they good? Favre made them better.
Similarly, I want players to affect other players. If one of my players is an "Idol," he should make other players around him better. If my offensive line plays together for years, I want them to get better and better because they are TOGETHER. This opens up multiple strategic possibilities.
For instance, what if one of your offensive line wants to leave? Will you be more or less willing to open up the purse for a guy who helps your chemistry, or will you let him walk and suffer the hit to your other players? Conversely, what if a malcontent player is affecting others, but he's really talented? Will you take the good with the bad, or will you cut him loose and hope that someone else steps up?
--
There's always room for improvement in any game, and Madden is no exception. If they refuse to tweak the formula, there will come a point when people will refuse to get the new game because they don't want to pay $60 for a roster update. It behooves EA Tiburon to make these changes now before they're forced to.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
100 Million DS Units Sold
That's craaaaaazy!
So, here's the thing: With so many units sold, there are so many games that wouldn't have gotten an audience over here that we've been able to play.
My big question is: When the %#$@! will we see an North American release of Seiken Densetsu 3? I'm waiting.
So, here's the thing: With so many units sold, there are so many games that wouldn't have gotten an audience over here that we've been able to play.
My big question is: When the %#$@! will we see an North American release of Seiken Densetsu 3? I'm waiting.
Why We Should Forget About Steroids In Baseball
Once again, the hot issue in baseball has been steroids, with Alex Rodriguez' admission that he used them when he played for the Texas Rangers. There was an enormous hue and of course cry from journalists and fans alike, saying that records should be taken away and that baseball was forever tainted. Asterisks have now been added not only to Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa, but also to A-Rod, the entire "Steroid Era," and, by extension, Major League Baseball.
It's a great time to be a journalist, as all it takes to win an award is a little bit of outrage, along with a cautionary tale. Just invoke the ghost of Ken Caminiti to talk about why steroids are dangerous, follow it up with "think of the children," and you've won a Pulitzer. Maybe throw in a little something about why the media didn't properly publicize the Steroid Era until it was too late, in order to make it seem that you're offering a mea culpa for the entire fourth estate.
Here's the problem: It's lazy and inaccurate to do so.
It's easy to forget that baseball was dead in the water a little over ten years ago. There was a lockout, talk of contraction and general all-around bad feelings surrounding the sport. Three things pulled baseball up and out of the grave:
1) Cal Ripken breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive games record (1995)
2) Mark McGwire dueling Sammy Sosa for the home run record (1998)
3) Red Sox beat the Yankees in the ALCS (2004)
The first was notable because it reminded the audience that good people still played the sport, punched the clock every day and performed. The second added excitement back into baseball, and the third electrified two of the largest fan bases in the country.
Without McGwire Vs. Sosa, the third isn't nearly as big a deal. During their home run duel, people got talking about baseball again, showing up at the games, and waiting to see the long ball. Baseball still wasn't the number one sport, as football and basketball were still a lot more popular, but people actually cared again in a way that hadn't been seen since guys like DiMaggio and Williams played. It allowed the Red Sox victory in the ALCS to resonate and permanently galvanize the core fan base of baseball in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Reporters did warn us about steroids during the McGwire/Sosa duel. They talked about how McGwire was more than likely on androstenedione (andro), and opened the door to the steroid discussion. They did their job tracking down leads and revealing the truth behind baseball. They were trying to tell the truth to all the fans that would listen.
The problem is the fans didn't want to hear it. We liked it too much to care. Home runs are exciting. 99-mph fastballs are exciting. Sacrifice bunts and double switches? For most fans, not so much. We idolize the players that hit big. Babe Ruth is a legend. He's not a legend for being a great first baseman or a great pitcher. He's a legend because he hit home runs, end of story. Which player wouldn't want to be a legend? There were a few fans who were angry at suspected 'roiders during their torrid streak through the majors, but by and large we came to the ballparks and cheered them on anyway, even when there was solid evidence that there was something fishy going on.
In other words, during the whole thing, we knew what was going on. We saw helmet sizes increase. We saw muscle on players that didn't have muscle before. There was no way not to know. We heard the reports and we didn't care because it was exciting. We finally were seeing our own legends in a sport with some pretty hefty legends. We asked for it.
Of course, now that these players are no longer playing, we can turn our back on them. We can pretend that we always hated steroids and that it took away the integrity of the game. It's a blatant lie, but we give ourselves this cognitive dissonance because we don't want to feel complicit in an illegal activity, especially one that can permanently hurt an athlete.
Except here's the kicker: We like it when our athletes leave it all on the field. We love bone-crunching hits in football, and we like it when a player plays through pain. We demand that they destroy their bodies for our amusement, like spectators in the stadium at Rome. Then, when they actually go out and do it we turn our heads, whether they need better health care in their old age because of their broken bodies, or when players get cut down in what should be the prime of their lives because we wanted them to push it to the limit.
So let's all give up this hand-wringing over steroids. There are new measures in place to curb steroid use among players, and no amount of feigned outrage against the players of the past decade will get them to retroactively stop using steroids or get their supposedly unearned records erased from the books. They exist, they are what they are, and that's the way it is.
We put ourselves into this mess, and it's up to us to live with the consequences.
It's a great time to be a journalist, as all it takes to win an award is a little bit of outrage, along with a cautionary tale. Just invoke the ghost of Ken Caminiti to talk about why steroids are dangerous, follow it up with "think of the children," and you've won a Pulitzer. Maybe throw in a little something about why the media didn't properly publicize the Steroid Era until it was too late, in order to make it seem that you're offering a mea culpa for the entire fourth estate.Here's the problem: It's lazy and inaccurate to do so.
It's easy to forget that baseball was dead in the water a little over ten years ago. There was a lockout, talk of contraction and general all-around bad feelings surrounding the sport. Three things pulled baseball up and out of the grave:
1) Cal Ripken breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive games record (1995)
2) Mark McGwire dueling Sammy Sosa for the home run record (1998)
3) Red Sox beat the Yankees in the ALCS (2004)
The first was notable because it reminded the audience that good people still played the sport, punched the clock every day and performed. The second added excitement back into baseball, and the third electrified two of the largest fan bases in the country.
Without McGwire Vs. Sosa, the third isn't nearly as big a deal. During their home run duel, people got talking about baseball again, showing up at the games, and waiting to see the long ball. Baseball still wasn't the number one sport, as football and basketball were still a lot more popular, but people actually cared again in a way that hadn't been seen since guys like DiMaggio and Williams played. It allowed the Red Sox victory in the ALCS to resonate and permanently galvanize the core fan base of baseball in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Reporters did warn us about steroids during the McGwire/Sosa duel. They talked about how McGwire was more than likely on androstenedione (andro), and opened the door to the steroid discussion. They did their job tracking down leads and revealing the truth behind baseball. They were trying to tell the truth to all the fans that would listen.
The problem is the fans didn't want to hear it. We liked it too much to care. Home runs are exciting. 99-mph fastballs are exciting. Sacrifice bunts and double switches? For most fans, not so much. We idolize the players that hit big. Babe Ruth is a legend. He's not a legend for being a great first baseman or a great pitcher. He's a legend because he hit home runs, end of story. Which player wouldn't want to be a legend? There were a few fans who were angry at suspected 'roiders during their torrid streak through the majors, but by and large we came to the ballparks and cheered them on anyway, even when there was solid evidence that there was something fishy going on.
In other words, during the whole thing, we knew what was going on. We saw helmet sizes increase. We saw muscle on players that didn't have muscle before. There was no way not to know. We heard the reports and we didn't care because it was exciting. We finally were seeing our own legends in a sport with some pretty hefty legends. We asked for it.Of course, now that these players are no longer playing, we can turn our back on them. We can pretend that we always hated steroids and that it took away the integrity of the game. It's a blatant lie, but we give ourselves this cognitive dissonance because we don't want to feel complicit in an illegal activity, especially one that can permanently hurt an athlete.
Except here's the kicker: We like it when our athletes leave it all on the field. We love bone-crunching hits in football, and we like it when a player plays through pain. We demand that they destroy their bodies for our amusement, like spectators in the stadium at Rome. Then, when they actually go out and do it we turn our heads, whether they need better health care in their old age because of their broken bodies, or when players get cut down in what should be the prime of their lives because we wanted them to push it to the limit.
So let's all give up this hand-wringing over steroids. There are new measures in place to curb steroid use among players, and no amount of feigned outrage against the players of the past decade will get them to retroactively stop using steroids or get their supposedly unearned records erased from the books. They exist, they are what they are, and that's the way it is.
We put ourselves into this mess, and it's up to us to live with the consequences.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Sports Week At Downwards Compatible
I'm a sports geek. This may come as a surprise to those who've been reading and see that I talk almost exclusively about video games, but I have a fascination with football, baseball and sometimes soccer. I was never a jock, and I ended up being a really late bloomer. Now I can play most sports except for basketball, but when I was growing up I usually had my nose in a book or a video game magazine instead.I have a soft spot in my heart for baseball in particular: the smell of the freshly cut grass, the crack of the bat, even the way that Bob Uecker announces a Brewers game. There's something soothing and yet exciting, a throwback to America's pastoral past, a refuge for times gone by. One man faces another man. Sometimes the pitcher wins, and sometimes the batter wins. Sometimes amazing things happen. Sometimes everything turns out exactly the way you expected.
Anyway, I digress. Here's what on tap for this week:Wednesday: Why we should forget about steroids in baseball.
Thursday: Making Madden less maddening.
Friday: Tecmo Bowl, and how the newly relaunched Tecmo Bowl series can succeed.
I hope you enjoy the week, and if you don't like sports, check back next week for Metroid week here at ↓C.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Bought World Of Goo
So, World of Goo was 75% off on Steam (!!!!) so I had to get it yesterday. I mean, how can you pass up a game of that caliber for $5? I bought a game that I otherwise wouldn't have, and all it cost the company making it is a little bit of bandwidth for me to download it. No wonder Steam makes money.
Are you listening, game developers? Cheaper games mean you sell more! What a concept!
Are you listening, game developers? Cheaper games mean you sell more! What a concept!
Friday, March 6, 2009
My Favorite Game
1. Super Mario Bros. 3Some might say that Super Mario World was the best Mario game, but I beg to differ. Super Mario World took the concepts that Mario 3 had already laid down and added thing to them, but for true trailblazing, Super Mario Bros. 3 wins hands down.
It wasn't just that they added slanted surfaces for the first time, along with some basic physics (It was more difficult to run up a hill than down it, for the first time!). It wasn't just the great suits, like the Raccoon Suit or the Hammer Suit, that made Mario 3 great. It wasn't the wide variety of levels, like the awesome Sky World that was connected with a tower to the mainland. It was the rock-solid level design that pushed Mario 3 over the top.
In every level, there were secrets and areas that you didn't know existed, sometimes until years later. There were multiple ways of finishing most levels. The game was challenging at points, but not impossible. There were optional castles and levels. Then you had one of the best, most atmospheric final worlds in gaming history, combined with an excellent final castle and legitimately unique boss battle, and all of it ended up to be one of the best games of all time.
Now, I'm not saying that Mario 3 was perfect. They should have let you go back and replay levels, and some of the levels were far too short. They took a lot of these ideas and ran with them in Super Mario World, but Mario 3 did it first and Mario 3 did it best.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
My Favorite Games Part 3
4. Alpha CentauriThere was one man who was more responsible for Sid Meier's legend status more than any other (besides Sid, of course): Brian Reynolds. Reynolds designed Sid Meier's Colonization and Civilization II, both widely recognized as some of the best games of all time. It was at this point that Meier and Reynolds wanted to make Civilization III, but couldn't due to legal wrangling over who owned the name. Instead, Reynolds and Meier went on to make Alpha Centauri.
Alpha Centauri was an amazing improvement over the Civilization series. For one thing, each faction has a specific personality, as well as bonuses and drawbacks to each. If you picked the Believers, a religious faction, your units would be more mentally strong due to their religious fervor, but you would suffer penalties to your scientific research. If you were part of the Peacekeepers, run by the UN, you would have happier people but suffer militarily.
Not only that, but interactions between opponents were now meaningful. You could actually hate a certain faction, not just because they took one of your bases, but because they genuinely had a dislikable personality. It was a revolution, and one that they have tried to duplicate in later installments of Civilization, but to no avail.
3. Lords of the Realm 2Alpha Centauri wasn't the first game to give you characters that you truly cared about in a stategy game. Lords of the Realm 2, made in 1996, was a strategy game that had you fighting for the throne after the death of the king. There were some characters, like the Baron, that had pure motives in being King. Some, like the Bishop, achieved their means through subterfuge. For instance, let's say you forged an alliance with the Bishop. The Bishop would still wander into your lands and attack you, claiming he was "seizing the land for the church." Jerk.
Here's the opening cinematic, which should give you a good idea what I'm talking about:
The county management took place in a turn-based style akin to Civilization or Heroes of Might and Magic, but battles took place in real-time a la Warcraft. There was so much goodness in this game that it's hard to describe. I can still load it up and play it over and over, even if it is really easy for me now. Don't go anywhere near Lords of the Realm III, though. I'm warning you.
2. Chrono TriggerChrono Trigger is another classic with a capital "C." The story is as follows: Crono meets a pretty girl, Marle, at a fair. Crono's friend Lucca has a teleporting machine that malfunctions when Marle steps into it. Marle seemingly dissapears, and it's up to Crono to find her. From that simple setup is spun a time-travelling story about fate, destiny, friendship and loss. Your actions in the past affect the future, and you really feel like you're having an effect on the game world.
The battle system is one of the finest to grace RPGs during the 16-bit era. The graphics still look great almost 10 years later. And with the release of Chrono Trigger DS, we're finally able to play the game with the translation that was intended from the beginning. If you have any interest in RPGs, you owe it to yourself to play one of the gems of the 16-bit era.
Boy and His Blob Returns, and It Looks Spectacular
A Boy and His Blob was one of those NES games that sounded great in theory, but never actually met up with its potential. Playing with a shape-shifting blob that would change shapes when you fed it jellybeans sounds awesome, but with the NES not being really powerful and game design not being very advanced, there were a lot of missed opportunities.
Looks like they might actually hit the potential of the original with this upcoming remake, though.
Looks like they might actually hit the potential of the original with this upcoming remake, though.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My Favorite Games Part 2
7. Rise of NationsI have a thing against real-time strategy games. I hate how they claim to be about strategy, but instead devolve into click-fests at the same general speed of first-person shooters. How can you actually plan that fast? Look, I know some people can do it, but those people have to play the game day-in, day-out for years. How can someone just randomly drop into this environment and expect to have fun?
That's why my favorite real-time strategy game is Rise of Nations, if only because you are able at any time to pause the action, issue orders, and then continue again. This was really one of the first games that allowed you to do so. Other games would let you pause, and sometimes you could issue an order, but not to the degree of Rise of Nations. It felt like a real-time/turn-based hybrid, and that's not even getting into how it was designed by the immortal Brian Reynolds and feels more like Civilization (one of the best strategy games ever) than any other real-time strategy game I've ever played.
6. Super MetroidSome games are good. Others are great. Others are unimpeachably legendary. Super Metroid is in the latter category.
Setting you down on the site of the first Metroid game, you go through the eerily abandoned ruins of the first game. Happening upon the first of many powerups, a light shines on you. Mother Brain knows you're here.
I'm not going to say much more after that. If you've played Super Metroid, you know how amazing it is. If you haven't played it, you're an idiot. Go play it now. If you have a Wii, get the game through the Virtual Console. If you have a Super Nintendo, find a cartridge on eBay. Just do it. You'll thank me later.
5. Super Mario Bros. 2My love for Mario 2 is well-documented. It was one of the most revolutionary platformers that paved the way for countless games that came afterward. It set the standard for quirky platforming play, and showed that you can break molds and still be successful.
It also excelled in another way: up until then, boss battles were fairly standard affairs. Spit fireballs at the boss. Shoot the boss with bullets. Stab the boss with a sword. Stock stuff, really. Mario 2 made changes to that. Consider Fryguy, a boss that you had to hit with blocks. After you hit him three times, he split in two, and you had to hit them too. Then, each of those split into four and you had to hit those too. This doesn't sound really impressive until you consider that there wasn't anything else like this at the time.
In other words, when you're playing God of War and have to climb inside a boss's innards to get a key instead of just shooting it until it falls over, thank Mario 2 for making it possible.
YESSSSS Punchout Wii Will Use Classic Controls!
The one thing that was keeping me from wanting Punchout for the Wii was the motion controls. They're horribly inaccurate when playing Wii Boxing, and I was nervous about playing a twitch game with them. The good news? You can use old-school Nintendo controls!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
