So speaketh outgoing Sony exec David Reeves. Here's another tidbit:
"The legacy will be that people will see a tortoise and hare situation. In a way, in the end it will be a dead heat."
It would be an interesting thing if that would happen. The PS3 is definitely heating up (and not in a RROD way either), but there's still the major problem that Sony doesn't seem to care about: Price.
Regular readers of this site will note the poll on the side of the site that indicates that the PS3 should be my next system. I would be okay with that, but for me to track down a PS3 that has PS2 BC and that WON'T cost me an arm and a leg isn't an exciting prospect. In other words, I would really love a PS3 if I didn't have to pay so much for it.
Like all things in life, everything's better when you don't have to pay as much for it, but there has to be some balance between the cost of a system and how much fun it is. Right now, I'm in the same boat as a lot of consumers: My Wii is still fun, so why should I go out and spend upwards of $500 on something that's not going to appreciably improve my situation? If I buy a used one, who knows what issues I'll have with it. There's always that risk with anything used. If I buy a new one, I don't get to play any of the PS2 games that I want. How can I justify that purchase?
So, David, I appreciate the sentiment, and I do wish Sony the best. I want them to be in a good position in the market because I loved my PS2. But on your way out the door, can you just quickly drop the prices on the PS3? I mean, what are they gonna do, fire you?
After playing two games in MLB Dugout Heroes, I have to say I'm mildly intrigued. I was hoping it would be more like Cal Ripken's Real Baseball, where you'd make a player and have him run through his motions, but controlling a whole team is fun too.
So far, I'm finding out that people, especially lower-level ones, have difficulty learning how to control their pitches. I had a game where I walked in several runs. I won one game 11-0 when the computer evoked a mercy rule. Now, I've been playing baseball games for a while so I have a half-way decent eye for pitches, but I have a tendency to swing at junk an awful lot. So, the fact that I'm winning so well on lower levels bodes well for me.
However, I'm not going to be able to play anymore. Why? MY FREAKING COMPUTER DIED! I don't know if it was my ethernet card or what, but first my processor overheated, and now the internet doesn't work. I'm going to try an OS reinstall and see if that fixes the card, and if not I have to go out and get another card. Fun.
So, I've been playing catchup this past week with some other games that I hadn't played before. I've already talked a little about Drawn To Life, which is a so-so platformer wrapped around a really cool concept that makes it play that much better. I've also been digging into Meteos and Lunar Knights to see how they play.
Meteos is an interesting case. I mean, we've played block matching games how many times before, right? There shouldn't really be anything fresh with the concept, but it's surprisingly good. It's frantic and fun in a way that most puzzlers aren't anymore. I found myself gritting my teeth in concentration, which I haven't done in a while.
Lunar Knights I've only just started. I'm interested to see where it goes, since the first dungeon is reasonably interesting. It seems to play fairly solidly at first glance.
I'm also probably going to download MLB Dugout Heroes tomorrow. I'll let you know how it is.
So, I went back into the vault to check out Drawn To Life. This game was made by the people behind the excellent Lock's Quest, and they seem to have a very strong grasp on the kinds of games I like. They quietly save in the background so you don't have to screw around with save screens, and they're chock full of great ideas that are simple to execute.
The idea in Drawn To Life is that YOU draw your character, YOU draw platforms, YOU draw your weapons. Of course, my character is a smiling guy with bloody stumps for arms. I had to draw a sled and I wrote INFIDELS across it, which was even more fun when I ran over about 20 enemies in a row with it. So far so good.
So, I've needed closers for a bit. There are a couple of teams that have several, and I have one who barely ever plays. I was hassling one of the teams to see if he's trade me a closer, and he was adamant that he wanted one of my best players for one of his closers. I thought, "Screw that noise."
There was a team with tons of closers who wasn't doing so hot. I made an offer and he wasn't really impressed with who I had to offer him. He made a counter-offer where he packaged TWO CLOSERS for Andre Ethier (a great young player, but playing way over his head right now) and Jarrod Washburn (who will also come down to earth soon as well). How could I pass that up?
First, I'm out of Hamels/MC Hammer jokes. Second, what a great win for the Brewers, and third, a line drive off of Hamels' shoulder? Yeouch! That had to hurt. Hope he'll be ok. He's a good young pitcher.
Well, Cole Hamels was pulled. I still don't know why. Was he injured or what? Hope he's not hurt, but if it was just because the Brewers were rocking him early on, that's good. That would be an awful short leash for him, though.
More and more, I find myself turning away from football. I refer here not to futbol, which is a ton of fun to play and almost mind-numbing to watch. I refer to American football, which admittedly has a lot going for it. It's fun to watch, it's fun to play, and there's a lot of strategy involved in it.
However, I can't shake a feeling that I have about it. There's something that keeps on bothering me over and over. When a player is done with their career, they're done physically. They can barely move anymore. Their hips are destroyed. Their knees need replacing. Their necks are mush. They couldn't pass a physical to get a job at a factory. Baseball players may have messed-up shoulders, and some of them will have some messed-up knees or ankles, but for the most part, they're able to live their lives in relative comfort.
There's something that makes me uncomfortable about watching someone crush their body for my amusement. It makes me feel a little like I'm watching the Roman gladiators fight to the death. Now, I know that health care is really, really good now, so they're not destroying their bodies so utterly that they can't ever do anything ever again. Still, there's something uncomfortable about it, especially when you consider the appalling treatment given to older players.
Plus, football is becoming so overblown. Every game is immediately the "biggest game ever," with slow-motion montages of players running while trumpets blare and the American flag waves in the background. I mean, come on. There's only so much of this heroism I can take at one time, and every week it's blared at you like mad.
On top of that, when there's only 16 games played in a season, you get wacky results. Look at baseball. We're about 12 games in, and there's some teams at the top of their divisions that shouldn't be there right now. You can bet that it's going to change before the season it out. Why? Because the best teams always shake out in the end. It's a game of averages, a marathon and not a sprint. That doesn't always happen in football, and it's difficult to get attached to teams when there's no consistency.
For instance, why do a lot of people hate the Yankees? Is it just because they overspend? No, they overspend and they're usually really good. They have 26 World Series rings. They have a personality that is unlikeable because they're usually consistently good despite how much we hate them. They're the perfect villains in baseball. You don't have that consistency in football. Even the lowly Cardinals got to the Super Bowl last year. How is that consistent, and how does that help teams to develop personalities?
Football has also been slow to admit any connection with PEDs. When we're talking about guys who are 6'4", 230 pounds and run a 4.4 40 yard dash, you can't convince me there's not something extra in the mix. Those kind of people don't just happen, and definitely not in the numbers that we see in football.
It's funny, because as soon as someone hits 50 home runs in a season in baseball, we immediately start thinking of steroids. In football, the hits keep getting harder and the players keep getting faster and stronger, and we don't even blink an eye. Tell me how that makes sense.
Now, for sure, I still keep my eye on football, but baseball was my first favorite sport. It's pretty much right back there again, and I hope it stays.
Like a lot of people, I'm really excited about the new Star Trek movie. Early returns are looking good, although time will tell whether or not it's as good as the early reviews are saying it is.
However, I have a couple of bones to pick with Star Trek. These are all things that I wish that they either wouldn't have done since the beginning or would fix now. Be warned: This entry includes spoilers and massive amounts of geekdom. You might want to avert your eyes.
1) Stop the time travel.
Look, I love time travel as much as anyone. Some of Star Trek's best episodes have been about it. I mean, what would Star Trek be without "City on the Edge of Forever" or "Yesterday's Enterprise?" At least on the aforementioned examples, no timelines were really changed and the plots were actually, you know, thought through.
What I wish they would stop is time travel that causes paradoxes. For instance, in the season finale of Voyager, Janeway goes back to help Voyager get back home much sooner than they did in her timeline. So what does that mean for Janeway? Does that mean that she still goes back in time at the same time that she did in the alternate timeline just to complete the mission she went back to do in the alternate timeline? And if she doesn't go back at that exact time, then the crew never actually goes home early, which means she then goes back, which means they get home early, which means she never goes back, and-
My head hurts. Alternate timeline stuff is sloppy and demonstrates a lack of creativity. Not mention the fact that time travel in the Star Trek universe is getting absurdly simple to do. It's time to stop using it as a crutch for lazy writers.
2) More backstory.
We know that Kirk was an immature kid who grew up once he was joined Starfleet, and we know that Picard was a hellion in the Academy until he was stabbed in the heart and realized his own mortality. But what about Sulu's backstory? Tell me about Uhura. Tell me about Geordi LaForge.
Now, these characters have backstories, but how much do we really know about them? I'm going to hold up Lost as an example, because they do a lot of things right. We know far more about Jack and Sawyer than we ever did about William Riker or Chekov. I mean, on Lost, we even know that Sayid snapped a chicken's neck as a child.
Why does this help? Well, a great character isn't just a great actor playing a person. It's years of learning why this character does what they do. That's why Lost's characters work, that's why Captain Kirk works, why Spock works, why Picard works, why Data works, why Sisko works, and why stiffs like Harry Kim and the ciphers from Enterprise don't work.
3) Add risk.
In every episode we know who will live and who will die. It doesn't matter if Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres get stuck outside the ship in spacesuits. They'll find a way back in. They're not going anywhere. It doesn't matter if the crew is kidnapped and forced into slavery. They're not going to die. There's no long-term threat.
Do characters die in Star Trek? Yes, they do, but for stupid reasons. Tasha Yar died because Denise Crosby wanted to leave the show. Jadzia Dax died because Terry Farrell wanted off Deep Space Nine. No one dies just because sometimes people die. When you add in that sense of risk, it adds pathos and tension to the stories. You actually get nervous that someone might die because no one is truly safe.
I hold up as an example Serenity. MAJOR SPOILERS! WARNING! Over the course of the Firefly series, you get to know Shepherd Book and Wash very well. Shepherd Book dies in Serenity, and as sad as it is, you kind of expect it. You figure, "Someone has to die, why not have it be this guy?" It made sense for the narrative, but it took away the tension you felt throughout the big space battle afterwards because you know that no one else is going to die.
Then Wash dies suddenly and with no warning. It shocks you back to your senses. Anything is now possible. Anyone can die from here on out. Suddenly, the stakes are raised for everyone and you don't know who's going to get it next. That makes the fact that everyone escapes much more gratifying. END SPOILERS!
Star Trek would do well to heed that. When no one's off-limits, there's so much more dramatic tension and danger. The galaxy is a scary place, and Star Trek would do well to demonstrate it.
4) Jump ahead 50-100 years.
The 2300-2400's are becoming very well-tread ground. It's getting to the point that you can't shoot a phaser without hitting some legend of the Star Trek universe, and the plotlines are starting to get more and more insular. Every story has to be mindful of canon and can't interfere with anything else. You can't have any major, seismic changes in the galaxy because it'll upset what's already known.
So, why not jump ahead? We know the Dominion fell. We know the Borg are weakened. We know that Cardassia and the Klingon Empire are in decline. So now what? Where do we go from here? There are myriad possibilities that this opens up, and it finally takes the shackles off the writers, allowing for spec scripts and all sorts of things that you wouldn't have been able to do if they had kept the timeline in the same place.
This also does something else: It enables the other actors to retire in peace. Patrick Stewart is 67. Jonathan Frakes is in his late 50s. You can't keep trotting these people out and expecting them to play the same young versions of themselves. The original cast is already dying off, as sad as it is. Someday, the rest of them will go too. We need to move on from a narrative sense and a practical sense.
5) No more human-alien hybrids.
OK, you can't really retcon this stuff out. I mean, Spock is half-human, half-Vulcan. That can't change. But ask yourself: How can a creature that has green blood and a creature that has red blood have a child? How is it that myriad humanoids evolving separately across the galaxy all have the same reproductive organs and systems?
I say no more. Leave the ones that are able to reproduce alone. Fine. I'll accept those. But no more hybrids. No more Trill/Klingon coupling or Human/Mud Monster babies.
Why? Well, for one, it makes no sense. These aren't like different races of human. These are different species, and should be treated as such.
Secondly, it adds emotional depth. Imagine this plotline: One character falls in love with another character, but they can never be together because they're from a different species. Think about it: A relationship based on trust and love that can never be consummated that opens the door for social commentary, which is what Star Trek was meant for. What could be more dramatic and heartfelt than that?
6) Stop focusing on nothing but Galaxy-class Federation ships.
We all love the Enterprise. Everyone knows it, and it's one of the most enduring symbols of Star Trek. That shouldn't change. But how about giving us a full picture of the galaxy? We know a little about the Maquis, a smattering of the Romulans and an amount about the Klingons. Let's bring it all together. Let's focus on something like, say, a ship of Maquis on the run, the adventures they have, and the Federation ship that's trying to track them down. Let's say that sometimes the Federation has to get their hands dirty trying to track down the Maquis.
Using that plotline, you can delve into a whole variety of issues, like whether or not the end justifies the means, terrorism, or any other real hot-button issue of this time. Why is it more effective? Because you're not going to be exploring these issues merely from the strait-laced views of the Federation, but the fast-and-loose style of the Maquis. You get to see the best and worst of both sides.
--
Star Trek is great, but what makes it great isn't just Captain Kirk and Spock. They're the most recognizable part of it, but they're not all that Star Trek is about. Star Trek made its mark by being provocative and forward. It was a show that made you think in a time when most shows didn't. It was a show that gave you heroes and antiheroes, questioned established prejudices, and made you care about characters. It can still be that show, but it needs to make these changes to be relevant once again.
"We can't pay and we wouldn't pay," said Sunde defiantly. "Even if I had the money I would rather burn everything I owned, and I wouldn't even give them the ashes," he added. "I OWE U 31,000,000 SEK," the spokesperson wrote on a sign during a webcast. "That's as close as you're going to get," he declared.
I'm pretty sure their case it going to get overturned anyway, since they're not really liable for what people do with their site. The internet's a hard place to police, and courts are starting to learn that.
Now that my weekend has passed, I can finally comment on it. I had a great time visiting my sister and her husband, even though it was exhausting.
They both live in northern Wisconsin, and it's a six-hour drive from where we live. We left with my mother on Saturday morning. Before we left, she wanted to fill one of her tires up with air. We looked around for a gas station with a free air machine, and eventually found one. We start filling it up, but it doesn't look like it's working. We try again, and the tire appears to be deflating. The attendant comes out and gives it a try, holding it for even longer. Now, the tire is flat.
I've never changed a tire before. I've seen it done, but no one's ever taught me. The very nice lady who was helping us showed me some tips and tricks and I set to work putting on the spare, and we ran across the street to a car dealership that had a working air compressor, and they refilled the tire. As it turns out, the air machine at the gas station was broken and deflated our tire. There was nothing wrong with our tire at all.
I had to put the tire back on the car now. Have you ever seen those flimsy little jacks they give you for a car? We were on a slight incline, and the jack was bending. We ended up borrowing their pneumatic jack and propping up the car, whereupon I put the new tire on and we drove on it for 6 hours. All in all, that set us back about two hours from our original start time.
We FINALLY get to her house. We had brought along Caramelo, the Official Dog of Downwards Compatible, and he had a great time playing with the Official Dog of Downwards Compatible's Older Sister, who was named Finnegan. Now, Finnegan, or Fin for short, is about the same age as Caramelo. Fin is also about five times larger and liked to chase Caramelo. I couldn't tell if Caramelo was having fun or was scared for his life. I'd like to think he was enjoying himself, because otherwise our laughter would have been cruel. He was chasing Fin himself, so I think he was enjoying himself.
After that, we went for a walk in the woods, and we were plum tired out after that. My sister's husband played some Raphael Saadiq (whom I had never heard of and was pleasantly surprised). The dog was tired, we were tired, everyone was tired. We watched a movie and went to bed.
However, Caramelo had different plans.
He was in a strange place, with strange noises and strange people and animals around. He decided that this would be the best time to go into Hyper Alert Dog Mode, where every possible noise would roust him into a fit of barking. He woke us up three times between 10:30 and 12:30.
The last time he woke us up, I decided to lock him in the downstairs bathroom, because that's where he usually goes at night in our house. That didn't work for him. He kept right on whining and yapping, so I had the let him out.
After that, we were repeatedly accosted by Finnegan and their cat Phyllis. Phyllis is an adorable, sweet cat, but my wife is allergic. She would come over by us and start purring and want attention. If you ignore her, she gets more insistent, eventually trying to sit on my wife's head. I had to get up around 3am and see what it was she wanted. It turned out she wanted to get into a room nearby, so I opened the door and she was in.
After that, Fin kept waking me up my walking over to me and looking me straight in the face with his sad puppy dog eyes. At one point, he laid on me, leaned over onto my wife and wedged himself in between us.
We got up for good around 7am, when my sister woke up. Both the dogs were so excited about it that they decided to run upstairs to notify us immediately. I slogged my way downstairs and had a headache for the rest of the day. I was so out that I could derive no joy from them dancing to Noah and the Whale. On the drive home I slept for a solid two hours, and my dog was out for the whole trip home.
We had a great time, don't get me wrong. It was a lot of fun, but I'm still groggy. I could sleep another 10 hours and it still wouldn't be enough.
This topic occurred to me the other night. I was watching TV and I found an old episode of The Andy Griffith Show and I decided to watch it. You know what amazed me? How simple it was.
Here's the plot of the episode, which was called "Otis the Deputy": Otis, the town drunk, realizes his family's coming to visit him. They think he works for the sheriff's office, so Andy and Barney feel bad and make him a temporary deputy so that he can impress Otis' brother. It turns out Otis' brother is just as much a town drunk at Otis is, so Otis needn't have bothered.
That's it. That's the whole episode. There's a sequence where we meet Otis' wife, and she makes him throw out his booze because he's a deputy and has to uphold the law, but there were no subplots, no other diversions. There's nothing more to recap.
And you want to know something? It was brilliant. Anything else would have just gotten in the way. They knew they had a good idea, so they just let that idea do its thing. It ended up being an episode that's consistently listed as one of the best episodes of The Andy Griffith Show, no small feat for a show that has some really good episodes.
This got me thinking about game design. I reviewed a game a while ago called Tornado that had a brilliant concept: You play as a tornado and you're supposed to suck up buildings on earth. It was a great game until the developers started throwing more ideas into the mix, like special weapons and opposing tornadoes that tried to bump you out of the way. It almost seemed like the developers didn't trust their idea enough to let it breathe. It ended up being a huge disappointment of a game.
It's really a common danger with game design. Designers are afraid that the great idea they have really isn't so great, so they start trying to mix it up and obfuscate it and end up making things far, far worse than if they had just left it alone.
I'm going to tell all the developers out there something that probably already know: You're all really, really smart. If you have an idea that seems like it will work, it probably will. Trust your instincts.
Look at last year's indie darlings, Braid and World of Goo. What is Braid? A side-scroller with time-controlling elements. What is World of Goo? A building game. Look at the year before, with Portal. What was the concept? When you strip away GladOS and cake and the Weighted Companion Cube, it's a first-person puzzle game.
Now, to be certain, the things that are piled on top definitely add to the game's charms, but would Portal still be a good game without GladOS? Yeah. Would World of Goo be great without all the wacky backgrounds and music? Yes. Why? Because the underlying idea never gets covered over. No matter how out-there the gameplay gets, the developers trusted the idea enough to never bury it under rubble.
Even more mainstream games like Gears of War 2 and Killzone 2 are basically using the same template that was set down way back by Wolfenstein 3D. It's just prettier. They're building on a basic idea, but they never cover over the idea with other flotsam.
So, when designing a game, remember, trust your instincts. If you have an idea that seems to be fun, it probably is. Just remember to let that idea breathe, or you'll be smothering it before it has a chance to grow.
I'm showing her The Wrath of Khan for the first time. She's thinking it's ok, but not really liking it. I finally get her full attention at the end for Spock's big scene and Kirk's funeral speech. This is the big moment where it all pays off, right?
So, Kirk says, "Of all the souls I've met, his was the most..." BRRRRING Her phone rings! Worst possible timing! I was so mad I turned it off. Ruined the movie.
A lot of times, it seems that us older gamers are too hung up on older systems to care as much about new systems. That's not always true, but I can attest that my thoughts are usually more preoccupied with old-school systems than modern systems. Why is it important to care about these older systems? Why not forget about them and focus on modern gaming? What can they teach us about gaming's past and present?
One of the big reasons is that it can show us where we're going in gaming. Most really old school gamers started with the Atari 2600. It was the birth of in-home 2-D gaming, but it was really primitive. Some of us look back on it fondly, but most of the games looked like this:
Tell me what's going on in this picture. Go ahead. I'll wait.
There's a lot of nostalgia for the Atari 2600, but frankly, most of it is unearned. It's only a big deal because it's the first system we played. I know this sounds like heresy, but fire up a 2600 and you'll see what I mean. I'm hearing some sputtering from the peanut gallery saying, "But...but...but Pitfall!" I answer, yes. Pitfall looked good, for an Atari 2600 game. Most everything else was pretty blah.
It wasn't until the 16-bit generation that 2D finally came into its own. Things finally looked the way they were intended to. With games like Super Metroid and Sonic the Hedgehog, you could finally get what the big deal was with 2D. Almost every game was drawn relatively well, even the budget ones.
It was around this time that the first tentative steps into true 3D were being made. Some were okay, but even good games like StarFox ran at 20 frames per second and looked like they were made out of cardboard, and not in a good way. The worst offenders, like Stunt Race FX, ran at about 10 frames per second and should never have been released.
In the next generation, 3D started spreading its wings a little. Sure, a lot of stuff looks pretty jagged, and yes, some of it looks ridiculous now. Even a game as revered as Goldeneye looks pretty bad now. As the above screenshot from Goldeneye hopefully proves, 3D looked best when it was trying not to imitate real life exactly, but when it was doing a more cartoony look.
When the PS2, XBox, and Gamecube hit, 3D finally came into its own. Finally, you could see the full potential of 3D gaming, and you didn't have to squint in order to pretend that you were looking at a space marine instead of a group of polygons.
So what's the next step? What next improvement will take the leap and start rolling out slowly but surely, improving by degrees until it's finally where it should be? Who knows? It could be gaming with 3D glasses. It could be the perfection of motion controls. It could be a technology that we haven't even thought of. It's just exciting to see gaming grow and change over time, and we're all lucky to be able to watch it.
"We think there will be a Nintendo key property coming out by the end of the year," he says. "They haven't given us any insight, but they have told us to reserve [shelf] space."
Please be Mario Galaxy 2 please be Mario Galaxy 2 please be Mario Galaxy 2.
So I'm about an hour and a half into FFCC:EoT. So far, I have to say that it's mostly positive. I haven't been able to play multiplayer yet, but it's way better than the first crappy FFCC game on the DS. I keep wanting to play more. We'll see if it holds up.
Imagine, if you will, a kingdom of evil. It's a kingdom with traitorous soldiers, magic-casting fiends, mechanical contraptions, ghosts and reanimated skeletons. Over all of it rules a fearsome kin of the dragon, a fire-breathing lord of darkness.
Now think about that same lord of darkness getting really lonely all the time.
That's pretty much the story of Bowser, King of the Koopas. As anyone who knows a little about gaming can tell you, Bowser is Mario's main archenemy, but he's also surprisingly insecure and ineffectual. Here's his plan for just about every Mario game:
Kidnap Princess.
Wait.
Get beaten.
There's no real point in doing this. What does he want? He's never asked for ransom. He's never made any other moves on the Mushroom Kingdom, so he obviously doesn't want to incite a war. This can only mean one thing: He's lonely.
Think about it: He kidnaps a woman. He never actually does anything with her. It only serves to make Mario mad, so he comes and gets her. He pretends to be all angry about it, but we know the real reason.
We all know it's lonely at the top. You can have your huge, imposing castle and legions of groveling minions, but what good is it if you don't have companionship? That sadness can hurt deeper than any fireball or fall into a pit of lava. It might be all worth it for just the chance at real, lasting contact.
However, Bowser's own desire for companionship is always his undoing. He ends up creating antagonistic relationships instead of building bridges to happiness and fulfillment. When he does finally reach out and try to enjoy time with others with activities such as go-karting or baseball, he inevitably ruins it by throwing a blue shell or whipping a Chain Chomp at someone. This is obviously very destructive behavior.
Compound that with his relationship with his son, Bowser Jr., and we have even more questions. Where's the mother? Did he chase her away as well? And why is he using his son for evil? Think of the irreparable damage to a young boy's psyche as he sees his father antagonize others and get beaten up repeatedly.
Really, Bowser's story is a remarkably sad one, full of sadness, regret, and melancholy. We can only hope that this poor troubled soul finds the happiness he so richly craves.
It was really, really good. This is going to be SPOILER-HEAVY, so if you haven't seen the movie, look away like this is the Ark of the Covenant.
SPOILERS BELOW
I loved how the movie plays with your expectations. At first, you are totally on Father Flynn's side, played by one of my personal favorite actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Flynn is nice and fun-loving, gives good sermons, and stands in stark contrast to Meryl Streep's Sister Aloysius. I love how Doubt gets you on the side of the priest, then pulls the rug out from underneath you at the end.
There's a lot of subtext in the movie about the larger issues with the Catholic Church and its well-publicized issues with sexual misconduct among the clergy. When Sister Aloysius reveals her doubts at the end, she's speaking for a lot of people who love the church but aren't sure if it's the right way to go after seeing what they've seen.
However, I do wish that director John Patrick Shanley would have not played with the camera so much. There are some scenes where he tilts the camera needlessly, or frames something in a strange way just because he can. When you have Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep giving knockout performances, you don't need to draw attention away from them. That being said, I'm an admirer of Shanley, and he does fine work here as usual.
SPOILERS END
If you haven't seen Doubt, go see it. It's a quick movie, it's smart, it has great acting, and it'll make you think.
If you take a look at my "Currently Listening To" section along the right side, you'll see a pretty wide variety of music in there. I like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Springsteen and the Who through Weezer, Nirvana and Hum and down to Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, the New Pornographers, and Radiohead. I have a pretty diverse collection.
I'm also fairly picky. I don't like things just because critics fawn all over them. I've started going back through Jimi Hendrix's work, and I'm really not impressed. I think the Doors were overrated. I can't listen to Girl Talk because it annoys me. I've tried getting into TV on the Radio, and it just hasn't clicked. I really liked Weezer's new album, even though a lot of critics didn't.
That being said, I don't get all the hate for Coldplay. If you look all over the interwebs, you'll see people bashing them left and right, calling them a homeless man's U2, saying that they're no-talent hacks and the like. Among the internetati, it's a foregone conclusion that they stole a song from Joe Satriani. It goes on and on.
I don't get why a halfway-decent band inspires such hate. I mean, okay, X & Y was a lousy album. It had its moments, but it was pretty lame. But Parachutes and A Rush of Blood to the Head are pretty much unimpeachable. Viva La Vida is a great, great album and one of my favorites of 2008.
Now, I can get that you may not like that style of music. I get that. I also get that sometimes people don't want to see someone get successful doing something that's really not that special. I get that. But the unbridled hate for Coldplay really doesn't have any basis. I mean, I can say, "Coldplay is the suckiest sucky band ever to suck," but unless I have something to back it up it's a worthless opinion.
I guess where I'm trying to go is that I hate the drive-by criticism of the internet. It's so easy for critics to swoop past any argument or site and say "You suck" without any basis. Coldplay is one example of how real life many times bears no relation to what happens on the internet.
I've been using a DS Phat for about two years, and it's getting a little long in the tooth. It's still nice, and it still plays everything really well, but it's so big.
Enter my new cobalt DS Lite that I just ordered from a friend on Gaming Trend. It should be heading out today. I'm so excited you have no idea. Plus, it's basically already paid for since I've sold some stuff on eBay and am I going to be selling the DS Phat.
In honor of the venerable Game Boy turning 20, it's about time we counted down 20 of the best Game Boy games of all time. Looking at the Game Boy library, there certainly are a large amount of games that are fairly laughable. Most of them were weak derivatives of other, better games pressed into a smaller cartridge to be on the go.
However, sometimes, lightning struck and developers were able to field-test ideas that they may not have been able to integrate into larger games. Other times, great series got their start on this weaker system and later moved up to the big time. This is a list of those that happened to be able to stand on their own two feet as quality games.
--
20. Final Fantasy Legend
SquareSoft knew that gamers in the States wouldn't really cotton to a game called SaGa. They changed the name for US audiences, calling it the Final Fantasy Legend series. The tactic worked, and the Final Fantasy Legend series sold really well.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they were great games, though. In particular, the first of the series is a gigantic honker. You don't really build up your stats in the normal way. You buy hit point upgrades, and certain characters will change and build by eating meat. It's all pretty weird, but the plot is cool. You eventually end up going into heaven and trying to kill God. He'd beat me every time, but he is God after all.
19. Kirby's Dream Land
At first, I was very angry at Kirby's Dream Land. I bought the game for the full price of $30, and I brought it home and beat it in literally half an hour. I tried returning it, but obviously they don't let you return games just because you finish them. I ended up selling it to a local game store for $2. What a ripoff.
Still, time has eased the pain somewhat. While by far the worst Kirby game due to its length, you can see the clear outline of what was to come. You could see enemies with various powers that would have been GREAT to copy if they had LET you do that in this game. You saw the introduction of various recurring enemies like Kracko and Whispy Woods. Later games would take all of these good ideas and turn them into a much more solid game.
18. Super Mario Land
The first Super Mario Land was weird. The graphics were awful, the enemies were completely different than what was established in Mario, and the fireball was changed into a superball. What was that all about?
Still, it was fun to play. In some levels, you got an airplane or a submarine, and Mario Land turned into a shooter, which was a cool idea. At any rate, Super Mario Land was certainly a formative step in portable game creation for one major reason: It sold well enough to convince publishers that portable gaming was a viable platform to make games for, and for that it deserves a place on this list.
17. Donkey Kong Land
At the height of the Donkey Kong Country craze, Nintendo commissioned Rare to make a Donkey Kong Country game for the Game Boy. It was thought to be an impossible task, but Rare actually pulled it off quite well. Several of the ideas from this game made it into future games, like improved rope climbing and collecting tokens for bonuses.
Sure, the graphics were muddy and Donkey Kong looked like he was covered in oil. Sure, some of the levels were weird. Still, the music was catchy and it was Donkey Kong Country on the go. It deserves a place in this list.
16. Final Fantasy Legend 3
Of the Legend series, this is the one that is the most like a regular RPG, what with the gaining XP and the levelling up. It also has an awesome plot about time travel and changing the future. As the game starts, the world is covered in water by the Pureland Water Entity. Visitors from the future report the same problems. How can it be stopped?
Now, is the plot Shakespeare? It has its moments. Are the battles amazing? They're passable. Is it still a great game? You betcha, and worth the 10-20 hours it takes to finish it.
15. Donkey Kong Land 2
Donkey Kong Land 2 was a gigantic leap over its predecessor. For one, it would actually show you the names of its levels, whereas before you had to refer to the manual. They also copied remarkably well almost everything about Donkey Kong Country 2, the finest of the DKC series. You could pick up and throw your teammate, you could hover in the air as Dixie, and you could ride a cart in the rollercoaster level.
Was it merely a remake of a superior game? Yes. Did it remake the game remarkably well on a system that had no business running it? A very emphatic yes.
14. Mega Man IV
The first couple of Mega Man games were sparse and thrown together rather quickly. Mega Man 5 cranked the difficulty way up. Mega Man 4, on the other hand, maintains a lot of polish from the original NES games and adds new wrinkles, like a super weapon won from the vanquished robot Ballade. Plus, it has some great original music. Check the video below starting at 1:15. If you're going to start with a portable Mega Man game, this is the place to start.
13. Final Fantasy Legend 2
Regarded as the finest of the "Legend" series in many quarters, Final Fantasy Legend 2 improved on many of the mechanics of the first game. Sure, there's still no experience points, but this time around the plot is deeper and you control your character's growth far more. This game's legend (pardon the pun) continues growing, so they're planning on remaking it for the DS.
12. Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters
Poor Pit never got a lot of love. He got one game during the NES days, one more game during the Game Boy years and then silence. It seems Nintendo might be finally rectifying this grave injustice soon, but in the meantime we have to give a nod to this great extension of the Kid Icarus series.
Of Myths and Monsters actually improves in several ways on the original. There are more weapons and skills that you can get, it's easier, and you can use the hammers in places other than the dungeons to open up secret rooms. All around, it's a great effort and worth playing if you haven't already done so.
11. Wario Land 2
This is a worthy game, if only to test a bold new idea: What if your character could never die? Many scoffed at the concept. They thought it would make Wario Land 2 far too easy, but that couldn't be further from the truth. It was still just as difficult as other platformers, with the only difference being that you didn't have to go back and farm for extra lives or search frantically for powerups, a cool idea that was way ahead of its time.
10. Pokemon Red/Blue
I was never as excited about the Pokemon series as others, but there's no denying the lasting appeal of these critters. An RPG-lite with strategy and tons of secrets, Pokemon Red & Blue set a template that future games have improved and added to. Plus, it inspired a lot of people to buy link cables and trade Pokemon. Along with games like F-1 Race, it helped set the standard for multiplayer gaming in a handheld in a way that hadn't been done before.
One minor side effect is that it also ruined friendships when people wouldn't trade you Pokemon that you needed to fill out your Pokedex (I'm looking at you, Jason Brisch, I wanted that Charmander).
9. Super Mario Land 2
Super Mario Land 2 was a great return to form for the Super Mario Land series, with Mario retaining his spin jump from Super Mario World and getting some cool new powers. It was a very freeform game, with him being able to go to any world right from the start. There was a great amount of variety in the levels, too. Some had him roaming the innards of a whale. One had him shrunk down, running around in a level made out of Legos.
Let's not forget that it also introduced us to Wario, the greedy weirdo we've all come to know and love. His final castle was awesome, and it's still pretty difficult to this day.
8. Metroid 2: The Return of Samus
Metroid 2 improved upon its predecessor in almost every concievable way. It improved the weapon selection, the graphics and the environments. It introduced a save system and ended with one of the most poignant sequences in the Metroid series. It is an absolute travesty that this game hasn't seen more exposure. At least there's a very promising remake on the horizon, but Nintendo really should give this game the official remake it so richly deserves.
7. Donkey Kong Land 3
I really didn't like Donkey Kong Country 3. It was by far the worst of the DKC series, with its insistence on shoving the "adorable" Kiddy Kong down our throats and throwing in unkillable enemies left and right. It jettisoned everything good about DKC2 and added all sorts of ridiculous, unnecessary stuff.
For that reason, it's a gigantic shock that Donkey Kong Land 3 is the best of the Land series. Having to squish a big game into a small cartridge meant that they had to cut out all the fat and just concentrate on solid level design, which they did. It just shows that many times, constraints breed creativity.
6. Final Fantasy Adventure
SquareSoft did the same as they did with the Final Fantasy Legend series. In Japan, this game was originally titled Seiken Densetsu in Japan and had no relation to Final Fantasy. Astute fans of RPGs will note that "Seiken Densetsu" also happens to be the name of the Secret of Mana series in Japan.
Yes, this game was actually Secret of Mana's prequel, and was later remade into the vastly inferior Sword of Mana. For a tiny little cart, this game packed a ton of gameplay, from allies who would assist you, to special moves for each weapon, all the way on down to a sword called "Blood" that talked. It also happened to have one of the most atmospheric final levels I've ever played, along with brilliant and catchy music. It's one of those lost gems from the Game Boy era that I hope gets its due someday.
5. Tetris
What more can be said about Tetris? It stands alone as one of the most influential games of its genre and is still the standard to which all other puzzle games are held. It's the one that singlehandedly made the Gameboy the most popular portable gaming system of all-time. There is not one person who doesn't at least have a grudging respect for Tetris. It's a game that's impossible to hate, and I'll bet you're getting the Tetris music in your head right now.
You may be asking why this game isn't higher on the list. That's because Tetris, as good as it is, is pretty basic. It's fun, but it's not horribly deep. If you've played it for five minutes, you've pretty much seen everything it has to offer. Still, there's no underestimating its impact on gaming and the Game Boy in particular.
4. Donkey Kong
Stop me if you've heard this one: Donkey Kong kidnaps the girl, so Mario chases after him to stop him and get the girl. It's a setup as old as gaming, right?
Well, why not add some stuff to the formula? Why not throw in the fact that Mario can do triple jumps, flips, handstands and well as pick up and throw barrels? Next, pile in more enemies, add about 80 more levels and make the music absolutely awesome and you have an idea of Donkey Kong for the Game Boy. It's one of the best portable games ever made.
3. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
My distaste for Zelda is well-known, but I surprisingly don't hate Link's Awakening. It's a very deep game, containing all the weapons of the NES games plus exclusive weapons like the Fire Rod (which had the very funny description, "Burn everything! Burn! Burn!"). The characters were actually really well drawn for the first time in a Zelda game to the extent that you actually cared about them, which they've never really been able to duplicate in further installments.
There was also a cool element where you could trade items around the island to get a mystical mirror that showed you the way through the final dungeon, and 20 Secret Seashells scattered around the island that would give you a stronger sword. If you've never played it, I highly recommend it or the Game Boy Color remake.
2. Kirby's Dream Land 2
Kirby's Dream Land 2 can be viewed as a makeup letter from HAL Laboratories for their first game. They added tons more levels, a secret final boss, more powers and animal helpers all while keeping the same fun that they developed in the first game.
There were some pretty cool strategies and twists involved as well. Here's an example: If you gave Kine the Fish the Electric power, he could shoot a lightbulb out of his mouth. Funny, right? Well, the lightbulb also lit up dark areas, and in one such area, using the lightbulb revealed which powers you needed to use in which order to open up a door to a secret room. Now tell me that isn't cool.
1. Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land
On the surface, Wario's first adventure is basically a Mario game with Wario as the hero. You have lives and you collect coins and hearts to collect more lives while you go through each individual level toward the final boss.
Even with this installment, the makers of the Wario system demonstrated a willingness to question the basic tenets of platformers. For instance, in every Mario game, walking into an enemy hurts you. In this game, they asked the question, "Why? Why should just walking into an enemy automatically damage you?" Instead, unless the enemy have a spiky end or weapon pointing at you, Wario merely bumps into them harmlessly.
There are other cool features, too, like entire worlds that can be skipped on a straight playthrough unless you actively look for the game's secrets. There are levels which affect other levels, like one in particular that gets covered in water, enabling you to reach areas you may not have been able to reach otherwise. These are all cool ideas that eventually found their way into other games, but Super Mario Land 3 tried many of them out first and proved their viability before putting them in practice.
--
For those 20 games and more, we salute the Game Boy and all its contributions to gaming. Where would we be without it? Now, let's all sing the Tetris song!
This isn't necessarily on Kotaku, but rather the commenters and culture they've created.
(By the way, if you're asking why I still go there when it makes me mad, it's because they have the most up-to-date news, and a lot of times they'll have neat features. For instance, they just had a feature about Montessori schools and Spore. It was really interesting.)
"Somehow, this isn't surprising." "It's not really that surprising that the Wii isn't played more than it is. I'm not a soldier in this ridiculous fanboy war that seems to be going on, but I honestly can't remember the last time I actually fired up the Wii." "These stats don't really surprise me. Largest install user base and least amount of play time per user. A business success for Nintendo to be sure, but this brings of definitive issues as to the console's longevity." "No surprise here. Own all three but one of them is in the basement storage. Next generation I will smarten up, ignore the hype, and skip Nintendo."
OK. Fair enough. I understand that there is a large group of people who don't like Nintendo.
However, today, it was revealed that the graph was wrong! It was accidentally mislabeled by Nielsen, and Nintendo actually has the highest usage of all next-gen consoles! Well, certainly, those commenters who were working off of a faulty assumption will apologize for their statements.
"To me it looks like the 360 is in second for 12 of the 13 months, and the wii is second only in the last month. Unless I'm looking at it wrong." "It was always going to be wrong. The people who sign up to have these devices installed are not representative of the target market, most of the time, if ever. And so taking anything away from the findings becomes ridiculously subjective, in a way that makes the findings almost useless for anything other than college research papers and drawing up weak conclusions." "In my head I was calling BS as I looked at the chart. Just doesn't make sense on so many levels. Thanks for pointing this out and reconfirming my feelings. We're wasting too much time on charts and not enough on video games!"
Oh, OK. So when the statistics show something that fits with your point of view, then the statistics are infallible. However, when they show that the console you don't like is on top, then the statistics are a pack of lies. Got it.
I especially like the first commenter. People were almost giddy when the first chart showed that the 360 was in first place, if only for one month. They were hailing it as a turnaround that would finally topple Nintendo once and for all. Now, it's only one month and of absolutely no importance whatsoever.
Meanwhile, I sit here at ↓C, trying to maintain a balanced viewpoint of all gaming as being equally important, even the stuff I don't necessarily like.
As regular readers of ↓C know, I've been playing through Ocarina of Time for the first time. I've been finding out that the reason that I never really enjoyed the Zelda games is because I overthink the solution to a puzzle. I will now illustrate how I did this with the future Criminally Overlooked game Donkey Kong for the Game Boy.
(Before I start getting confused e-mails, yes, Donkey Kong is well-known and revered. However, no one ever talks about the Game Boy remake with almost 90 levels including a boss battle with a 50-foot-tall Donkey Kong. It's a travesty that I'll rectify someday.)
For those who haven't played that version, it's very similar to the Game Boy Advance game Mario Vs. Donkey Kong. You're supposed to pick up a key, get it to a door, and advance to the next level. Some of these levels had very devious layouts, and you die is you get touched by one enemy or fall from too far a distance.
The level in questions is level 3-1, and the solution is relatively simple. There is a platform that is covered with spikes. You have to get an enemy to walk onto the spikes so that you stand on his head and get to the door. To that end, you have to create a bridge so that the critter walks across it. Pretty simple, right?
Here was my solution.
In my solution, you threw the key at the critter. It bounced on the critter's head until it (sometimes) rested carefully on the edge of the platform. Then, with a running start, I picked up the key and landed on the spikes. Since I was holding an object, the key would fall forward and I would fall backwards into a pool of water. Then, I would try and get back on the platform and try and make another running jump at the key, where I would pick it up AGAIN and try throwing it in hopes that it would land on the platform and I would go back into the drink. Then, I would build the bridge that was SUPPOSED to bring the critter over there, and walk across the bridge to glory.
It took me about a month of playing to get this solution to work. I couldn't understand why this game was so difficult so early. The only reason I kept playing is because I didn't have any other games at the time, so I had no choice but to keep on attempting my cockamamie solution. Eventually, shockingly, it actually WORKED.
So, if it seems that I'm bragging when I say that I overthink solutions, I'm really not, unless you count coming up with Rube Goldberg-esque solutions for simple problems a plus.
Okay, so I've been trying to contain my excitement, but I can't anymore...BASEBALL'S BACK! Last night, the Brewers were up against the venerable Randy Johnson, and he was in great control, getting strikeout after strikeout in the first couple of innings. Then, Mike Cameron cracked a home run and all of a sudden the Big Unit looked vulnerable.
I stopped watching when Yovani Gallardo (Yovani Gallardo!) hit a homer in the 5th. They intentionally walked Jason Kendall to get to him. Good choice, Giants. Brewers won, 4-2.
Get used to these baseball updates. I'm probably going to be doing this throughout the season, like it or not.
So, Lost.
Michael Emerson is a great actor. He plays Ben, the man who always seems in control no matter how bad the situation. The frustrating thing is, he usually is in control. He always has people right where he wants them, so it's great to see him totally out of control like he was in last night's episode.
Ben has now been forced to accept that John Locke is his new leader. How will he react? Will a man who is a known manipulator and liar be content with sitting in a No. 2 role? He's used to getting his own way. Is he going to want his decisions filtered through someone wiser than he? We're heading into some great territory here, and I can't wait.
I'm pretty much done with Ocarina. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. I mean it in the sense that I have other games I have to move on to, so I have no more time to play Ocarina. The good news is that I now like it much more, and I might be willing to give another Zelda game a try.
I was thinking about this: In talking about Ocarina, I hate to rip on the legendary Super Metroid, but I must. Remember how there's a tube that connects Brinstar and Norfair, and you have to bomb it with a Power Bomb in order to get it to shatter? It's one of the coolest things in the entire game, right?
However, there's no indicators anywhere in the game that tell you to bomb that specific tube. There are no signs, no demonstrations, nothing. There's no way that you would know that you can destroy it unless you actually read a magazine or guide that explains it. I read about it two years before I played Super Metroid, so I wasn't frustrated in that part. If I had walked in with no prior knowledge of this mystical destructible tube, I can only imagine how frustrated I would have been.
Similarly, I think that from now on I'm just going to have to play Zelda games with an FAQ at the ready. When I referred to the FAQ, I enjoyed the game much more than if I had just spent an hour wandering listlessly getting angrier by the second.
Next up on my playlist: Mushroom Men. After I'm finished with it, I'll decide whether I want to keep Mushroom Men or de Blob, and the other goes on eBay so that I can put money toward Klonoa or Punch-Out.
Here’s Ms. Dunaway addressing why Nintendo fans should be excited about E3:
“Well, because, I’m going to be up on stage presenting, something that your fans ought to love. But I’m not gonna snowboard, I’m not gonna show my mother’s day card. I’m just going to talk about the games.”
One of the rumors about last year's awful, awful E3 show is that Factor 5 was supposed to be showing off a new Kid Icarus game. Budget cuts forced Factor 5 to cut back on the project, meaning they didn't have much to show at E3. If that's the case, I hope we see it this year.
Here's a brief list of what I'd like to see for E3:
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (PLEASE)
Kid Icarus
Final Fantasy 7, 8 or 9 remade for a next-gen console (You could even put 7 on the Wii as-is. I'm not picky.)
Some more Pikmin 3 details
A new Nintendo property that introduces a new character
If you're like me, you cringe at the sight of a "Tycoon" game. There are a few that are halfway decent, like Rollercoaster Tycoon and its variants, but by and large there really isn't much to like about them. They're cheap knockoffs. They play bad. There's no depth to them. They look drab. To put it another way, they suck.
On top of that, most board games don't translate very well to video games. Whenever you see a version of a board game on a console, what do you do? If you're like me, you run the other way as far and fast as you can, unless you're looking for a game you'll play once, smirk at and then go back to playing something else that has more merit.
So, seeing a game called "Monopoly Tycoon" is like the worst of both worlds. It's easy to see why this one got passed over when it was released back in 2001. Most people took one look at the title, rolled their eyes, and went and bought something else that didn't look like a kid's game. You really can't blame them, because on paper, Monopoly Tycoon looks all wrong. It's a good reason video games aren't played on paper, because Monopoly Tycoon is excellent. It's basically a business simulation, with you trying to figure out what types of businesses people want, how much to charge for your services, and how to continue making money with the least amount of overhead.
In each level, you're handed a bunch of empty blocks and told to complete a certain goal. In most levels, you compete against surprisingly good AI characters to achieve the goal before they do. The goals could be something like "sell 100 items" or "make $1000 in profit in one day." As the game goes on, the goals get more complex and more difficult until you're putting just as much thought into Monopoly Tycoon as you would in running a real business.
Let's use an example. Clothing is always in demand around the city. It's a great business to run, because clothing has a high markup. You'll purchase clothing at 30 pieces for $10 apiece, but the default consumer price is $30. Great, right? Every piece you sell, you'll make $20! Score!
Not so fast. Your competitor across the street is selling the exact same clothes, but since it has such a high margin, he's marked it down to $20. He's selling out of his stock of 30, thereby making $300 profit every day. You might sell five pieces of clothing, meaning that you make $100 in profit every day. Add that to the costs of running your store, which could be more or less depending on which part of town your store is, and you could find yourself in the red very quickly. Therefore, you have to adjust your price so that you can compete with the guy across the street or else he'll outsell you.
There are other features that add to the depth of the game. For instance, you're allowed to lease entire city blocks at auction. If you do so, you pay no rent on your properties on the block until your lease expires. If someone else owns the block, all rent you pay goes to the person who owns it. You can also build apartment buildings, making it possible to collect large chunks of rent at the end of each day and offsetting other expenses you may have.
It's a shame this game didn't get more love from the press at large. I suppose they did the same thing that most people did, namely, looked at the title and assumed it wasn't any good. I can't blame them for not noticing, but you can find it for about $5 and it works on Windows XP and Vista. If it sounds intriguing to you, go get it. You won't regret it.
I love the WarioWare games, but I'm not sure I'm going to be as pleased with Rhythm Heaven. While WarioWare games are brief and fun, Rhythm Heaven's games are longer. Failure means having to listen to a two-minute song all over again.
Also, you don't necessarily have an idea of how well you're doing in the level. While games like Elite Beat Agents will always have a meter showing you how close you are to failure, you have to kind of guess during Rhythm Heaven. Will I get a medal? Am I doing well at all? Or do I think that I'm doing well when I'm really doing awful? Who knows? Guess I'll have to wait until the end of the level to find out. I'm not sure I like that.
But in the years since then, as happens with every piece of consumer electronics, the cost to Nintendo to actually make the things has gone down. And if Credit Suisse analyst Koya Tabata is to be believed, it's gone down by around 45%.
Meaning that, if Tabata's numbers/sources are to be believed, it costs nearly half the price in 2009 that it did in 2006 to manufacture a Wii. Which, yes, nearly doubles the profits they make on every console sold (as shipping costs, etc remain the same). So even with a topsy-turvy Yen and declining sales in Japan, don't cry for Nintendo. They're still doing OK.
One more Nintendo article and I'll try and lay off it for a while. Recently, poster "Sambo" had this to say:
Yeh right on! screw core gamers right? they stopped being important with the wii you know. who are they to complain with their decads of support&making video games bigger than music or movies right? thay dont matter even if they spend more mony & buy more games then anybody else right! how dare anybody complain just be happy you even get to play a game. sheesh bunch of ingrats what do they think this is america/a consumer driven market?
It got me thinking. He has a valid point. For a long time, we feel that we've propped up this industry, giving a lot monetarily, and frankly, emotionally too. We care about this stuff more than other people have. We are, in many ways, as much or more passionate than cinephiles or audiophiles. We're certainly more numerous, and we make more of a difference on our respective industries.
For instance, a cinephile may appreciate French cinema or Ingmar Bergman films, but when it comes time to make a new movie, no one is asking their opinion. Audiophiles may love listening to Lou Reed on vinyl, but people aren't rushing to iTunes to download the new Titus Andronicus single. They're listening to Rihanna or Mr. Fifty Cents or whatever the kids are listening to nowadays. Get off my lawn.
The point is, these people are not as important to their respective industries as core gamers. We have a much bigger impact on what gets made and how it gets made. A great game like Beyond Good & Evil which sold all of 7 copies (most of which to Michel Ancel's family) shouldn't deserve a sequel. Yet, because we liked it, it's getting one. Kid Icarus will get an update someday because we ask for one.
However, we are not what drives it.
Nintendo doesn't care individually about what we want. Microsoft doesn't really get upset when we complain about frat guys being homophobic on Live. Sony doesn't care that the bloggers are lambasting them over Home.
All that they care about is money.
"Well, of course," you say. "That's obvious."
Not so fast. It's not obvious. We rake Nintendo over the coals for Wii Fit and Wii Music and Wii Smirk and Wii Watch Grass Grow, but the fact of the matter is that those games sell, for the most part. They won't stop making them as long as they sell, and that's not up to us. We can make as many derisive comments as we want, but these games are not going anywhere until the public at large get tired of them. Then, and only then, will they stop making them.
We do not drive this industry at all. We are merely fleas on the backs of the St. Bernard that is the industry, and the only time we have an effect is when we all lean to one side simultaneously for an extended period of time. Even then, we only get scratched at a little bit.
Here's some cold, hard science to remind us all of how little we affect the industry. The Playstation was the most popular system of all time until the PS2 came out. To whom were those systems marketed? That's right: Non-gamers. Because of the high rate of adoption, Squaresoft (as it was known) was able to release Final Fantasy VII for the PS1. After FF7 sold ridiculous amounts, what did other companies start making? RPGs!
Now, in Japan, they've always had RPGs. The Dragon Quest series has been going strong since the NES and shows no signs of slowing. Final Fantasy was huge hit for them. But remember: Final Fantasy was supposed to be Square's last game, hence the name "FINAL Fantasy." The only reason they made more? It sold!
We always complain about gaming being taken over by the Maddens and Halos of the world. Why do they keep making them? They sell! Why do they keep making lame movie tie-in games? They sell! No amount of complaining on our part will ever stop market forces from completely overrunning us.
So, when I hear complaining about the Wii, I've started hearing something else: Fear. We're scared by what's going to happen. I like my Wii, and I can understand the fear. I don't want my future to be filled with shovelware and cheaply-made ports of Bejeweled, and I'm sure you don't either. We're scared that publishers will learn the wrong lessons from the Wii. We're scared that they'll start putting waggle controls into every single game, and they'll make Bioshock: Undersea Carnival Games instead of proper sequels.
Here's the good news: It won't happen. Just because the movie executives don't care about those subtitle-loving, beret-wearing cinephiles doesn't mean that they never get movies made for them. Likewise, those vinyl-loving audiophiles get their Yo La Tengo LPs more frequently than they care to admit.
In a similar vein, while developers may be enamored with the idea of cheap games cheaply made, there will always be something for the core audiences just because there will always be someone to make it. Still, always remember the dirty secret of the hardcore gamer: Video game companies are far more important to us as we are to them.
I haven't really weighed in on it yet. I'm not sure what I think. On the one hand, the DS browser and DSiWare is really cool. I love that it finally supports WPA encryption, and the volume rocker is great, too. On the other hand, they've disabled flash cart support. I'm sure for Nintendo, that's a plus, but for those of us who use them it's not really a good thing.
I'll probably wait for someone to sell their old DS Lite and then swoop down to grab it. Can you believe I'm still rolling with a DS Phat? I'm kicking it old school, yo.
Some have chalked up the Wii's success to serendipity, or they claim that Nintendo is now going after the lowest common denominator. There's actually far more to their success than that, and once we see how carefully this whole thing was plotted out, it's easy to see why it's succeeding.
Also, please note that while it looks like I'm ripping on the other systems, I'm really not. I really like the 360 and PS3, but there are some definite reasons that Nintendo is out to a large, large lead.
1. Price.
The Wii launched cheaper than the other systems by at least $50. That much is obvious, but if that was all there was to it, the 360 (now priced at $199) would have the edge now. No, there's a little more to it than that, which brings us to the next point.
2. Value.
If a family goes out and buys a Wii, they're getting the Wii, a remote, and Wii Sports. As soon as they come home, they'll be able to play Wii Sports by passing the remote around, and everyone in the family will have the full Wii experience for a flat fee of $249.
Contrast this with the 360. If you buy a 360 for the $199 price point, you'll come home and be able to play the XBox Live Compilation Disc, which has games that are the equivalent of Yahoo Games. In order to get the full experience of the 360, you'll have to shell out another $20-$50 for a top-flight game. If you have old XBox games, you'll need a hard drive to play them. If you want to play online, you'll need a Live subscription. If you want to play with other people, you need another controller. In order to get the full 360 experience, you have to shell out upwards of $400. Suddenly, that cheaper system doesn't look so cheap.
3. One SKU.
If you want an XBox 360, you have to choose between the Arcade, Pro or the Elite. There was also the Core SKU that's been discontinued. Two have downwards compatility, but two don't. Guess which ones and win a prize!
Sony is even worse. If you want a PS3, you have two current SKUs an 80 GB model and a limited edition 160 GB model, but there are another five floating around out there. If you go on eBay or Amazon to get one, you could end up with one of the downwards compatible models or not.
If you go and buy a Wii, you go to the store and grab a Wii. There's no Wii Pro or Wii HD or Wii Plus. There's just the Wii.
I don't get why the other companies are doing this. Sony was the most successful company by far last generation, and they only had one SKU at a time. Sure, they had hardware revisions, but in general, a PS2 was a PS2. A PS1 was a PS1. It worked very well. This new system only confused consumers and sent them running into the arms of the "safe" Wii.
4. Virtual Console.
Nintendo was very perceptive when putting in the Virtual Console. There are very few forces in this world stronger than nostalgia, and Nintendo had never really capitalized on that. There are also a lot of gamers who had played Super Mario Bros. back in the day, had a great time and never picked up a system since then. They might have wanted to play it again, but it's a pain to dig out an NES or try and buy one on Ebay just to play one game for a couple of minutes.
With the Virtual Console, people were able to reignite their nostalgia for only $5 per game. In a matter of minutes, people were able to recall fond memories of playing Mario at their weird friends' house who breathed through his mouth but he was cool because he had Twizzlers and his mom was nice to you. Other consoles have tried to follow suit, but Nintendo got the upper hand early, due to them gathering up practically every old-school system right off the bat and leaving nothing but table scraps for everyone else.
5. Word of mouth.
You can do all the marketing you want, but what really makes any product take flight is word of mouth. When word started to spread that you could go bowling without leaving the house, or go golfing without paying for clubs and a course, it took off. That's why so many Wiis keep getting sold: Because people actually LIKE their Wiis and tell others about them.
6. A non-threatening library.
Games are scary to audiences not familiar with them. All it takes are a couple of Nancy Grace reports about Mass Effect being a rape simulator or a frantic news report about pedophiles using Animal Crossing, and parents groups go into a tizzy. There's a lot of misinformation around, and manufacturers really aren't doing themselves any favors with the libraries they offer. Here are the Top 10 Games from 2008 for the 360:
Grand Theft Auto IV
Call of Duty: World at War
Rock Band
Gears of War 2
Madden NFL 09
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
Fable II
Rock Band 2
Left 4 Dead
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2
We, the gamers, may look at that list and say, "What the problem?" We've been inoculated to the shock value of these games. Your mother or grandmother looks at the list and sees this:
That Awful Game From CNN Where You Have Sex With Prostitutes And Kill Them
More Shooting
Too Loud
Does That Man Have A Chainsaw
Finally He's Playing A Nice Game
Does This Have Fleetwood Mac In It
I Don't Know What This Is
Still Too Loud
That's A Decaying Hand, No You Can't Buy That
Why Are There Always Guns
It's no surprise that the top four games sold for the entire year were Wii Play, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. They're safe games. They feature racing and playing, and while Brawl is a fighting game it's all Mario so it's not a big deal. When picking between systems, the vast majority of non-core gamers will pick the safer library. That's why games like MadWorld don't sell. They're not welcome on the Wii, at least not yet. People go to the Wii to avoid those kind of games.
7. Single-system multiplayer.
The 360 and the PS3 are really pushing online multiplayer. It makes sound business sense for them. If two people are playing against each other online, that means they've both purchased a copy of the game. Single-system multiplayer means that there's only one copy of the game that several people are playing, which is less than ideal for a company trying to sell more copies of a game.
Here's the problem: Everyone likes single-system multiplayer. It's a lot more fun, you get to hang out with friends in person, and there's less hassle trying to connect to a nebulous server. The Wii holds an advantage because it's built for single-system multiplayer. Look at the most popular games for it. Wii Play? Multiplayer. Mario Kart? Multiplayer. Super Smash Bros. Brawl? Very multiplayer. Even Super Mario Galaxy can be played 2-player.
You want to hear something weird? In this respect, Nintendo has listened to the hardcore audience. I've heard more complaints about single-system multiplayer in modern games than I care to recall, and Nintendo delivered on it when the supposedly "core" systems didn't.
8. Luck.
There was indeed some luck involved in Nintendo's success. When Nintendo announced the Wii, they had no way of knowing that Sony would shoot their own legs off by launching the PS3 at almost $600. They had no way of knowing that the 360 would be prone to hardware failures. They also had no way of knowing that they were going to be have the cheapest system during a major worldwide recession.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "I find that the harder I work, the more luck I have." Nintendo made the right choices at the beginning which made it possible for good luck to happen.
--
There you have it. Nintendo has picked the right audience at the right time with the right tools, and it's working out for them. However, some people feel that they've abandoned the hardcore audience, but there's a dirty truth that most people probably don't want to know. Stay tuned.
So, today I crossed my ne plus ultra from the previous times I've attempted Ocarina of Time: I finally finished the Forest Temple. Every other time I've played, I've gotten up to the Forest Temple, gotten all the way through to Phantom Ganondorf, and then got frustrated and quit. I very nearly quit this time around too.
I mean, I'm standing there with my bow and arrow, and I fire at least five arrows that SHOULD have hit Ganondorf, and none of them do. They really needed to be more forgiving in this section. However, all was forgiven during the next phase of the battle. Bouncing Phantom Ganondorf's projectiles back at him was great.
So now, I'm heading into uncharted waters for me. I'm going to look around for the next quest hook, and if I can't find it, I'll go to GameFAQs.
Still in the Forest Temple. I haven't had much time to play, and I'll probably jump back in next week. I keep on overthinking puzzles, getting lost, and then going to GameFAQs only to find that the answer was absurdly simple the whole time. Maybe that's been my problem the whole time. We'll see.
Also, new Jak & Daxter game for the PS2! I think this might tilt my decision.
Mention "Jack Thompson" to a group of gamers, and you'll get a couple of different reactions, ranging from mild derision to open hatred. We'll get so worked up when people like him will seek to restrict gaming, and I've finally decided to ask the question that we never really have asked:
Why?
Why should we care if any attention-seeking, grandstanding politician, lawyer or "doctor" decides to put a stop to something that we legitimately enjoy? There are couple of reason not to care about these guys.
One, there will always be something that people will blame societal ills on, whether it's comic books, Dungeons & Dragons, or rap music. Most of the time, those who freak out have never changed their opinion, and they weren't shouted down over time. They kept right on fighting until the grave, and the things they protested against kept right on going. So too, anti-video game activists won't ever stop. They'll keep going well past the point of relevance, and things will continue the same.
That's because of the second reason: The free market. You can complain all you want about games, but when a game sells millions of copies and the industry itself is worth billions of dollars, no one is going to listen to you after a while. Remember all the people who were upset that Elvis moved his hips, or thought that the Beatles were Satanic? Those people didn't stop playing music or making albums. The free market told them to keep on going, and the artists complied. So too, it doesn't matter if people get upset over gaming, since the free market is telling gaming companies to keep on going.
Thirdly, gaming is sliding into the mainstream. It's no longer merely the parlance of 15-year-olds with bad skin and body odor. Those malodorous 15-year-olds grew up, inexplicably mated, and are now raising their own families. They're now in their mid-to-late 30s and slowly becoming the status quo. They don't have negative feelings against gaming. Quite the opposite, actually. They're also slowly encouraging others to play games, including older members of their family who were initially resistant to the idea.
Let's bring this all back home: It doesn't matter how many people freak out over gaming. It doesn't matter if pundits say that Game X is a "virtual rape simulator." (Unless, of course, it actually is. You notice how they never throw hissy-fits over those types of games? Weird, huh?) The free market has already decided that they're wrong, most people are recognizing that video games are not responsible for the Downfall of Western Civilization, and more people are using them and growing up with them.
Those who fight against video games will not have to be shouted down. They'll eventually go out with an unheard whimper.
So, last night, I decided to power through the end of World Of Goo. I skipped a couple of levels that were too hard for me (I love that they let you do this) and saw one of the weirdest, most interesting endings I've ever seen. I won't spoil it for you, but I will say that if you have a PC and a Steam account, get World of Goo whenever you can. It's shockingly fun.
Up until now, the Wii is being viewed as a lightweight console, and with good reason. Taking a look at the major releases through the end of 2008 is kind of lackluster. As some people who are stuck in the 80's might say, "Where's the beef?" Indeed, where is the beef, Nintendo?
I am here to tell you that it coming fast and furious, and your hardcore console of choice will soon become the Wii. This isn't going to happen overnight, of course. It probably won't happen next month, or in six months. But it will happen, and it will happen soon.
To prove this point, one of my major points will be the Nintendo DS, which shares many similarities to the Wii. When the DS launched, it was underpowered compared to its nearest competition, the PSP. It had a weird touch interface that had many people wondering why on earth it was there in the first place. It also went supernova, and before its lifecycle is done, it will almost definitely surpass the Game Boy as Nintendo's number 1 system of all time.
Similarly, the Wii is underpowered compared to it competition. It has a weird motion interface that has some developers confused on how to use it. It also has gone supernova, and before its lifecycle is done, it will be Nintendo's most successful console by far. The next most successful console is the NES with 61 million units sold. The Wii had 45 million units sold by the end of 2008, a mere two years into its lifespan. It has more than likely surpassed the Super Nintendo by the time of this writing.
So comparing the two systems isn't a horrible reach, as they both had the same initial reception (namely, "...?") and seem to be following the same path toward acceptance. How do the games break down?
At first, the DS library was pretty barren. There were a few decent games out, but most of them weren't very inspiring. Here's a list of everything until about May of 2006:
Super Mario 64 DS - Nintendo WarioWare Touched - Nintendo Metroid Hunters - Nintendo Yoshi Touch & Go - Nintendo - (By the way, this game STILL sucks.) Kirby Canvas Curse - Nintendo Meteos - Bandai Super Princess Peach - Nintendo Nintendogs - Nintendo Pokemon Trozei - Nintendo Advance Wars - Nintendo Mario & Luigi Partners In Time - Nintendo Resident Evil DS - Capcom Animal Crossing Wild World - Nintendo Mario Kart DS - Nintendo
There are some decent games in there, but on the whole you have a lot of non-core content. However, you can see that there are a lot of similarites to what's out for the Wii. In the past two years, you had a WarioWare game, Animal Crossing, a Wars game (in the Wii's case, Battallion Wars 2), a Resident Evil remake, a Metroid game, and Mario Kart.
Now, of course, the DS has tons of core content. It's still not the home of shooters (although Moon was halfway decent), but for strategy and action RPGs you really can't beat it. Developers are willing to try cool ideas for it, and new talent is coming up regularly. Of course, it's still the home of silly little kid's games and lots of remakes, but developers can't ignore it anymore. There's just too much market penetration to do so.
Let's go back to the Wii. The library thus far has been comparable to the DS' library over the first two years of the system. We've had great games like Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, some middling games like Battalion Wars 2, and some weird things like Wii Fit and Wii Music.
Nintendo's strategy is usually to pump up the console during the first three years or so and then let the third parties take over while Nintendo focuses on the next console. It didn't work before because developers didn't want to make games for the N64 because it was so expensive to make. They didn't want to make games for the Gamecube because nobody had one so it was a waste of time.
This strategy WILL work for the Wii. If you're a developer, you will start putting out games for the Wii, because games on the Wii (like de Blob) actually sell. In a tight economy, you're going to redouble your efforts on the console with the most market penetration. Core content will begin to shift from the 360 and the PS3 over to the Wii. It's already starting.
(However, here's something that I don't get: The PS2 could handle shooters, and so could the XBox. The Gamecube had its fair share as well. Now, all of a sudden, a system that's three times as powerful as the Cube and more powerful than the PS2 and XBox CAN'T handle shooters? Why is this? Does that make any sense at all?)
More and more companies are going to start learning this. Since they won't be making games that live and die on graphics, that should drive development costs down, thereby making Wii games more profitable. How can this not work? How does this not make sense? I mean, it's pretty cut-and-dried to me. I suppose we'll see after E3 and the TGS if publishers are on the same wavelength.
