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.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Template Mistake
So I was hitting some buttons and accidentally removed my old template. It was time to retire the old girl anyway, but I wish I could have done it a little more gracefully than summarily yanking it off the site and having to pull it back together with my teeth and baling twine. Great move, Lee. Braaaaa-vo. (sarcastic hand clapping)
Rock Band Vs. Guitar Hero
Yesterday I sold off Guitar Hero World Tour and picked up Rock Band 2. I asked around and people told me that Rock Band 2 was definitely different than Guitar Hero, but I didn't quite know how different. What I found is that it illustrates perfectly the gap between the way games should be and the way they are.
A week or so ago, we had a Guitar Hero party. We had a bunch of friends over to play, and everyone had fun, but the evening was not without frustrations. For instance, some songs were way too long, and people got bored with them. That wasn't the worst part, though. The worst of it was the constant threat of failure that hung over everyone's heads. I was afraid to try Hard mode in front of everyone because if I failed the song ended. We were afraid to take on more complicated songs because we were afraid that the less experienced players would have difficulty getting around in them. We ended up sticking to the same couple of songs because if we strayed outside of that zone we'd get knocked back pretty hard. It was fun, but not as much fun as it could have been, and one of the party who had Rock Band at home continually lamented that it wasn't very helpful.
Last night, we hooked up Rock Band 2 for the first time. Using the same instruments and the same difficulty modes, we tackled a bunch of new songs. At this point, I can pick up just about any Guitar Hero/Rock Band song and blow it away on the first try, but I was working with two people (my wife and her sister) who are fairly uncomfortable with the instruments and games in general. Both of them played much, much better. Nobody failed, and while they did get a little lost and get cases of the giggles, both of them had much higher completion percentages than Guitar Hero. The weird thing is that Rock Band's drums seem to ask more of the player than Guitar Hero did, and yet because they have you using one less drum and don't let you fail as easily it helps the player succeed in a way that Guitar Hero doesn't.
It highlights the difference between how games should be and how they are. For instance, Guitar Hero keeps on adding more features. They have a tap-wah feature and pressure-sensitive drum pads. They have the ability to play four sets of drums if you choose and new digital fret bars for sliding your hand up the neck of the guitar. The new Guitar Hero 5 has more realistic graphics and achievements as well. They have all this extra stuff when all people want is to have a good time with their friends. Getting high scores is just a bonus, and as far as I remember no one ever cared about our score when we played Guitar Hero.
Once again, this underscores the issues plaguing gaming. The HD twins are at times suffering under a "more is better" philosophy, when many times more is just more: More headaches, more learning curve and more frustration. The Wii is letting everyone get in on the fun with positive reinforcement being the order of the day, like New Super Mario Bros. Wii making it more difficult to fail, and they're extremely successful. Rock Band still lags behind Guitar Hero in overall sales, but that can be linked to Guitar Hero's improved brand awareness, marketing and two-year head start. The point still holds. An inclusive strategy for gaming is helpful.
As core gamers, we grew up with negative reinforcement being the standard for gaming. You had to make the right move or you'd fail. There was no other option. Our attitude therefore is one of "It worked for us, why doesn't it work for them?" We get upset when Nintendo puts in Super Guide because it's such a copout. The new player should have to learn the way we did, by trial and error, continually falling off a cliff and getting impaled on spikes until they don't fall off the cliff anymore. Then they'll be ready to take on the next game that adds in a gust of wind that pushes them off the cliff, and so on.
The problem is that not everyone handles negative reinforcement in the same way. Oh sure, they'll except negative reinforcement when it's for something important, like learning a language or a new skill in the workplace, but games aren't that important to everyone. It's just a fun diversion, and no one wants frustration when they're trying to have fun. So while we may be used to getting manhandled by a game before grasping the reins, we're alone in that sentiment. The hearty reception for Rock Band is proof.
A week or so ago, we had a Guitar Hero party. We had a bunch of friends over to play, and everyone had fun, but the evening was not without frustrations. For instance, some songs were way too long, and people got bored with them. That wasn't the worst part, though. The worst of it was the constant threat of failure that hung over everyone's heads. I was afraid to try Hard mode in front of everyone because if I failed the song ended. We were afraid to take on more complicated songs because we were afraid that the less experienced players would have difficulty getting around in them. We ended up sticking to the same couple of songs because if we strayed outside of that zone we'd get knocked back pretty hard. It was fun, but not as much fun as it could have been, and one of the party who had Rock Band at home continually lamented that it wasn't very helpful.
Last night, we hooked up Rock Band 2 for the first time. Using the same instruments and the same difficulty modes, we tackled a bunch of new songs. At this point, I can pick up just about any Guitar Hero/Rock Band song and blow it away on the first try, but I was working with two people (my wife and her sister) who are fairly uncomfortable with the instruments and games in general. Both of them played much, much better. Nobody failed, and while they did get a little lost and get cases of the giggles, both of them had much higher completion percentages than Guitar Hero. The weird thing is that Rock Band's drums seem to ask more of the player than Guitar Hero did, and yet because they have you using one less drum and don't let you fail as easily it helps the player succeed in a way that Guitar Hero doesn't.
It highlights the difference between how games should be and how they are. For instance, Guitar Hero keeps on adding more features. They have a tap-wah feature and pressure-sensitive drum pads. They have the ability to play four sets of drums if you choose and new digital fret bars for sliding your hand up the neck of the guitar. The new Guitar Hero 5 has more realistic graphics and achievements as well. They have all this extra stuff when all people want is to have a good time with their friends. Getting high scores is just a bonus, and as far as I remember no one ever cared about our score when we played Guitar Hero.
Once again, this underscores the issues plaguing gaming. The HD twins are at times suffering under a "more is better" philosophy, when many times more is just more: More headaches, more learning curve and more frustration. The Wii is letting everyone get in on the fun with positive reinforcement being the order of the day, like New Super Mario Bros. Wii making it more difficult to fail, and they're extremely successful. Rock Band still lags behind Guitar Hero in overall sales, but that can be linked to Guitar Hero's improved brand awareness, marketing and two-year head start. The point still holds. An inclusive strategy for gaming is helpful.
As core gamers, we grew up with negative reinforcement being the standard for gaming. You had to make the right move or you'd fail. There was no other option. Our attitude therefore is one of "It worked for us, why doesn't it work for them?" We get upset when Nintendo puts in Super Guide because it's such a copout. The new player should have to learn the way we did, by trial and error, continually falling off a cliff and getting impaled on spikes until they don't fall off the cliff anymore. Then they'll be ready to take on the next game that adds in a gust of wind that pushes them off the cliff, and so on.
The problem is that not everyone handles negative reinforcement in the same way. Oh sure, they'll except negative reinforcement when it's for something important, like learning a language or a new skill in the workplace, but games aren't that important to everyone. It's just a fun diversion, and no one wants frustration when they're trying to have fun. So while we may be used to getting manhandled by a game before grasping the reins, we're alone in that sentiment. The hearty reception for Rock Band is proof.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
On A Roll
Ever have a day where your gaming just lines up? I'm having one of those weeks.A little over a week ago, I got up to 120 stars in Galaxy, as regular readers are aware. Today, I jumped back in to Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia on a whim to fight a boss that I hadn't touched in a bit, and after five or six losses, beat it.
After that, I jumped back into Puzzle Quest to attempt a quest that had failed me repeatedly. I escaped by the skin of my teeth, defeating an orc lord with only six hit points left. In other words, hand me Ninja Gaiden Sigma so that I can either beat it or be horribly humbled.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Trying To Complete Mario Galaxy With Luigi...
It's hard work! I'm sitting at 63 stars now, and while some are ridiculously easy, I swear they ramped up the challenge level on the Cosmic Races by 100%. Everything else is just like I remember it, but I have a feeling I'm in for a long fight.
EDIT: Just found this on an FAQ:
EDIT: Just found this on an FAQ:
Ah. Great. I'm probably going to hurt myself before this is all over.Cosmic comet stars become much harder to get as Luigi. This is because Cosmic
Luigi makes extensive use of long jumps and will be taking full advantage of
the level's features (such as the speed up rings in Sea Slide Galaxy). You
will have to use Luigi's abilities to the fullest to win.
The PSP...Back From The Dead Only To Die Again?
I don't know if you've noticed, but there's an odd blip turning up in the Japanese sales reports. Week after week the PSP is making a strong resurgence, consistently beating the PS3 and 360 and nearly hitting the Wii's numbers, in some cases surpassing it. It's an interesting story, seeing as how the system was almost dead in the water last year.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the PSP. I don't own one, and up until earlier this year I didn't see a reason to. Sony has also seen fit to throw in multiple versions of it, from the basic to the Slim to Original Recipe to Caffeine Free to Home Premium and now the PSPGo. It's not really a smart strategy, but the PSP-3000 is doing great, so who can argue with success?
The key, as always, are the games. You can have the most awesome graphics EVAR, but if you don't have games you don't have a system. It's the problem that the Wii ran into last year and the PS3 has recently started defeating, and it seems to be working. The best-looking handheld games are on the PSP, and it's enough to make DS owners salivate. In other words, the system is doing well, the games are selling, and it has more buzz around it than it has since launch.
So why is Sony deliberately destroying their momentum?
I've spoken in this space before about the ridiculousness of the PSPGo, in that they're cutting out physical media and hoping to change the format to a download-only format to reduce piracy. Sony states that they'll try and work out some plan so that you can still use the games you've already purchased, and we can always trust the name of a faceless, large corporation as well known for customer satisfaction as Sony, right?
Snarkiness aside, I think this may be a case of Sony outrunning their audience, something they have an unfortunately tendency of doing lately. The PS3 was priced far outside the range of normal users and contained features that normal users (ie, the public at large) didn't want or need. Even three years after launch, Mark Fein from Epic says that less than 50% of these systems are hooked up to HDTVs. Sure, Sony won the HD format war, but at what cost?
The PSP risks doing the same thing. The nearest analogue would be the DSi, the first handheld to try downloadable games. We don't have hard sales numbers on DSiWare games yet, and to be fair, there aren't a whole lot of good ones out there to choose from unless you like Mario clocks and calculators. But we can extrapolate a couple of things from DSiWare:
- The DSi already had about 2 million units in the wild as of the end of March. Looking at sales figures and the recent Dragon Quest IX launch in Japan, we can safely assume that the number is now at about 4 million and growing steadily.
- The DSi is aimed as an upmarket solution, namely going after the PSP's audience of people who want an all-in-one gadget.
- Developers are not lining up to make content for DSiWare yet, even with a relatively large install base.
With that data in hand, we can put this together: The DSi, with its downloadable content solutions, is firmly aimed at the upmarket. The upmarket has spoken clearly that it doesn't want downloadable games on their handheld, and developers are responding in kind. This could be a little bit of chicken-and-egg, as there isn't anything good on DSiWare yet. But if the potential was there for enormous growth, there would things in the pipeline, right? Thus far, the only games we have coming up that are notable are the new WarioWare game and the new Mario Vs. Donkey Kong game. That's it.
So, what could quite possibly happen with the PSPGo? It could die a painful, slow death. The market still wants a game in their hands that they can give to someone else, trade in or sell on eBay. The far upmarket appreciates the ability to download their games to eliminate physical media, but the soft, squishy middle market and the profitable downmarket don't really understand or care.
Another factor that Sony is absolutely not considering at all: Comfort. If I dump $50 on a game that sucks, I can trade it on eBay or sell it on Craigslist. If I download that game, I'm stuck with it forever and ever and ever. It's lost. That's why most games on downloadable services are so cheap. If I lose $10 on a middling game, it's not awful. If I lose $20, it sucks. If I lose $30 or $40? I'm apoplectic with nerd rage. That's a point that even the far upmarket can appreciate, since we've all been burned on a game at least once or twice. On top of that, we all feel a little shiver of joy at our collections, something you can't really do with downloadable games.
And, as I stated before, do you trust Sony to make sure that all your games that you currently own will work on the PSPGo? I have a Club Nintendo account, and even with that I don't trust that Nintendo's next system will allow my Virtual Console and WiiWare games to run properly. Are you absolutely sure that Sony will treat you right in the matter? I can see why many consumers wouldn't think so, because that's kind of a big deal.
So here's the rundown: Developers aren't making downloadable games for handhelds right now since it would seem that there isn't a big demand. A system that is finally gathering some steam is being cut down in the prime of its life for its successor without a clear transition strategy. The upmarket, while intrigued by the idea of a fully downloadable system, still enjoys having the game in hand. Time will tell if I am right or I am wrong, but all of this sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Malstrom's Blog
A while ago, I said some disparaging things about Sean Malstrom's blog, where I called him a fanboy. I still hold that he is to some extent, but I find myself conceding points to him. His latest article talks about how the PS3 and 360 are outrunning the market and appealing to high-end consumers, while the Wii is pointed squarely at the normal growth market.
It makes some sense. As I've said, the Wii's hook was the motion control thing, but upgraded motion controls for other systems aren't going to bring about the death of the Wii. It's priced right and it's got the right kind of games that appeal to a broader spectrum of people, and then Nintendo can move back upmarket. Good points, all.
It makes some sense. As I've said, the Wii's hook was the motion control thing, but upgraded motion controls for other systems aren't going to bring about the death of the Wii. It's priced right and it's got the right kind of games that appeal to a broader spectrum of people, and then Nintendo can move back upmarket. Good points, all.
Cardinals close to getting Holliday?
According to ESPN, the Cardinals close to landing Matt Holliday in exchange for three minor leaguers. As a Brewer fan, that totally sucks. First DeRosa (one of the most consistent Cubs of the last four years) and now Holliday on the Cards? And what are the Brewers doing now? Oh, that's right. NOTHING. Never mind the fact that they could use some more pitching and hey, Roy Halladay would be a monster in the NL. No, instead let's just sit on our inexperienced rotation and trot a stiff like Suppan out every five days, he of the 5+ ERA. (sarcastic clap) Bra-vo.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Who Needs Hi-Def?
God, I hate being right on things. It gets so old after a while, you know?
There's an interview with a guy from Epic at Joystiq where he talks about the next Playstation or XBox. Here's the money quote:
So why is it that the Wii ABSOLUTELY MUST release an HD version or perish? To hear places like GamesRadar talk about it, it's the worst thing EVER that the Wii doesn't have it available, but the dirty secret is that even the hardcore aren't USING it! In the meantime, they demand that the Wii give them more graphical fidelity than their TVs can actually handle, and I sit over here being right and clucking my tongue at them.
Being right hurts so much sometimes.
There's an interview with a guy from Epic at Joystiq where he talks about the next Playstation or XBox. Here's the money quote:
"Over half the users who played Gears of War 2 so far do not have HDTVs[...]My point is, of the systems that are out there now, the majority of them aren't plugged into HDTVs. So there's no way we're ready for the PlayStation 4 or the Xbox Whatever," Rein said.
I find it interesting to hear this. You assume that if someone has a high-def next gen system they have it run through an HDTV, but that's not always the case. In other words, their TVs aren't taking full advantage of the graphical capability of the system, right? That's what a developer from Epic is basically saying, correct? I just find this interesting: Gears 2 is a supposedly core game and it's not being played in the way that the core claim that they play games.So why is it that the Wii ABSOLUTELY MUST release an HD version or perish? To hear places like GamesRadar talk about it, it's the worst thing EVER that the Wii doesn't have it available, but the dirty secret is that even the hardcore aren't USING it! In the meantime, they demand that the Wii give them more graphical fidelity than their TVs can actually handle, and I sit over here being right and clucking my tongue at them.
Being right hurts so much sometimes.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Nintendo's Secrecy: Why It Helps And Why It Hurts
Nintendo is one of the most secretive companies out there. They remain very tight-lipped about every game they release, every system they announce - just about anything they do is under a cone of silence. It's a stark contrast between Nintendo and Sony, which has more leaks than a shooting gallery full of condoms. Much to Sony's consternation, we heard about the PSPGo and the PS3 Slim before Sony even said a word.
Is Nintendo's tight-lipped attitude a good thing or a bad thing? It depends. Let's break it down.
Advantages:
When Nintendo Speaks, People Listen: If Nintendo makes an announcement, you know it'll count. It won't be a cryptic announcement like Sony's horrible Agent announcement at E3. It'll be clear and decisive, with a solid release date and specifics about what they're offering and why. They learned their lesson from Super Mario 128: Don't talk about anything that you don't actually have ready to go in the pipeline, and have it ready as soon as possible.
Limited Hype Cycle: Game announcements made four years before the game releases are awful. The available footage gets endlessly dissected and criticized, people form opinions based on it, battle lines are drawn and conclusions are leaped to years before the game's release. Look at the firestorm of controversy surrounding Fallout 3 from the Fallout community: Those who pilloried the game pre-release missed out on the best game of last year, all because they had too much time to think about it.
Everyone Loves Secrets: Before E3 this year, everyone knew there was a new Mario announcement coming out, so New Super Mario Bros. Wii was no big surprise. It was greeted with a half-hearted shrug of mild excitement. No one was prepared for the Galaxy 2 announcement, and much less for the Metroid: Other M announcement. No one expected Zelda: Spirit Tracks to be announced at GDC last year, and it ended up stealing the show and keeping eyes on what Nintendo planned to say for the rest of the show. That secrecy keeps people on their toes regarding Nintendo's future plans.
Above The Fray: Nintendo is an odd throwback to the days before the internet. While other devs maintain close ties to the community, getting into virtual fistfights and insult swordfighting, Nintendo stays out of it. The only person who really gets into the trenches of trash talk is Reggie, and that only occasionally. This helps maintain Nintendo's position as the elder statesman, the company that stays above the teeming, criticizing masses and emerges from on high to proffer its goods at its own appointed time.
Disadvantages:
Lackluster Conferences: Nintendo's E3 in 2008 was absolutely, ridiculously awful, but it didn't have to be. Think about it: Sony will drop names for games two years in advance. In 2008, they announced God of War III with a CGI trailer and no gameplay footage whatsoever. I mean, let's be honest, if Nintendo and Sony switched places, Sony would have taken the one drawing that Miyamoto had for the new Zelda this year and made it into an event all its own. So let's think about which games Nintendo COULD have announced in 2008:
Zelda: Spirit Tracks
Excitebots
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Fossil Fighters
Galaxy 2
Kid Icarus (maybe? All you need is a CGI trailer)
Metroid Other M
Wii Fit Plus
According to what other companies have done, they would have been well within their rights to do so. Most of these games would have been 1-2 years away, but Sony announced God of War III at E3 2008 and it's not due until next year. As it was, Nintendo had the worst, most debilitating conference in the history of conferences that might have irreparably damaged the Wii's reputation among the hardcore.
Connection Lost: While it's great that Nintendo remains above the fray of the petty console wars, it would be nice to know more about the guys who make some of the finest games available. All we know are their names and what we've gleaned from past interviews. We know a couple of names: Iwata, Miyamoto, Fils-Aime, Dunaway. For instance, do you know the name Yoshiaki Koizumi? Maybe, maybe not. If you don't, you should. He designed Majora's Mask, Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy. How do we not know more about this guy? He worked on Link to the Past, for God's sake. He should be a rock star, and we know next to nothing about him.
Give Me Something To Look Forward To: Speaking of the lackluster conferences that Nintendo has had in the past, it's really hard to defend a company when their release schedule looks awful. How can you? If there's nothing in the apparent pipeline, there's no way to get excited for future games. Now, there's a high level of excitement about what's coming out at the end of this year and during the next, but there was virtually nothing to look forward to last year, prompting a lot of people (myself included) to seriously consider dumping the Wii in favor of a more robust system.
--
All in all, it's not a bad idea that Nintendo keeps its future projects under wraps and that it keeps new hardware under its hat. You can't deny that it's worked out really well for them, but there's something to be said for a little openness. In an era where even Microsoft is contributing lines of code to Linux, you can't stay hidden forever.
Is Nintendo's tight-lipped attitude a good thing or a bad thing? It depends. Let's break it down.
Advantages:
When Nintendo Speaks, People Listen: If Nintendo makes an announcement, you know it'll count. It won't be a cryptic announcement like Sony's horrible Agent announcement at E3. It'll be clear and decisive, with a solid release date and specifics about what they're offering and why. They learned their lesson from Super Mario 128: Don't talk about anything that you don't actually have ready to go in the pipeline, and have it ready as soon as possible.
Limited Hype Cycle: Game announcements made four years before the game releases are awful. The available footage gets endlessly dissected and criticized, people form opinions based on it, battle lines are drawn and conclusions are leaped to years before the game's release. Look at the firestorm of controversy surrounding Fallout 3 from the Fallout community: Those who pilloried the game pre-release missed out on the best game of last year, all because they had too much time to think about it.
Everyone Loves Secrets: Before E3 this year, everyone knew there was a new Mario announcement coming out, so New Super Mario Bros. Wii was no big surprise. It was greeted with a half-hearted shrug of mild excitement. No one was prepared for the Galaxy 2 announcement, and much less for the Metroid: Other M announcement. No one expected Zelda: Spirit Tracks to be announced at GDC last year, and it ended up stealing the show and keeping eyes on what Nintendo planned to say for the rest of the show. That secrecy keeps people on their toes regarding Nintendo's future plans.
Above The Fray: Nintendo is an odd throwback to the days before the internet. While other devs maintain close ties to the community, getting into virtual fistfights and insult swordfighting, Nintendo stays out of it. The only person who really gets into the trenches of trash talk is Reggie, and that only occasionally. This helps maintain Nintendo's position as the elder statesman, the company that stays above the teeming, criticizing masses and emerges from on high to proffer its goods at its own appointed time.
Disadvantages:
Lackluster Conferences: Nintendo's E3 in 2008 was absolutely, ridiculously awful, but it didn't have to be. Think about it: Sony will drop names for games two years in advance. In 2008, they announced God of War III with a CGI trailer and no gameplay footage whatsoever. I mean, let's be honest, if Nintendo and Sony switched places, Sony would have taken the one drawing that Miyamoto had for the new Zelda this year and made it into an event all its own. So let's think about which games Nintendo COULD have announced in 2008:
Zelda: Spirit Tracks
Excitebots
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Fossil Fighters
Galaxy 2
Kid Icarus (maybe? All you need is a CGI trailer)
Metroid Other M
Wii Fit Plus
According to what other companies have done, they would have been well within their rights to do so. Most of these games would have been 1-2 years away, but Sony announced God of War III at E3 2008 and it's not due until next year. As it was, Nintendo had the worst, most debilitating conference in the history of conferences that might have irreparably damaged the Wii's reputation among the hardcore.
Connection Lost: While it's great that Nintendo remains above the fray of the petty console wars, it would be nice to know more about the guys who make some of the finest games available. All we know are their names and what we've gleaned from past interviews. We know a couple of names: Iwata, Miyamoto, Fils-Aime, Dunaway. For instance, do you know the name Yoshiaki Koizumi? Maybe, maybe not. If you don't, you should. He designed Majora's Mask, Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy. How do we not know more about this guy? He worked on Link to the Past, for God's sake. He should be a rock star, and we know next to nothing about him.
Give Me Something To Look Forward To: Speaking of the lackluster conferences that Nintendo has had in the past, it's really hard to defend a company when their release schedule looks awful. How can you? If there's nothing in the apparent pipeline, there's no way to get excited for future games. Now, there's a high level of excitement about what's coming out at the end of this year and during the next, but there was virtually nothing to look forward to last year, prompting a lot of people (myself included) to seriously consider dumping the Wii in favor of a more robust system.
--
All in all, it's not a bad idea that Nintendo keeps its future projects under wraps and that it keeps new hardware under its hat. You can't deny that it's worked out really well for them, but there's something to be said for a little openness. In an era where even Microsoft is contributing lines of code to Linux, you can't stay hidden forever.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Why Guitar Hero Is Unsustainable
I recently went out and picked up Guitar Hero: World Tour. It's fun. Not the best game I've ever played, but it's good. I really want to trade it for Rock Band 2, but here's the kicker: No one wants to trade. This isn't going to be a post bemoaning the fact that no one wants to trade their copy to me. Far from it. Instead, it's going to be a postmorten on Guitar Hero as a franchise.
Guitar Hero has sold gajillions of copies, and with good reason. The concept is really fun. But here's the problem that publishers HAVE NOT LEARNED. By the time that Guitar Hero 5 launches in September, we will have 13 Guitar Hero games in the space of four years. That's insane. On top of that, you have Rock Band 1 and 2 and in September, Beatles Rock Band. Don't forget about Lego Rock Band and Rock Band Unplugged. Now we're talking 18 types of the same game in four years.
Here's a newsflash, publishers: People get really tired of buying the same game over and over again in a small span of time. The backlash was huge against Smash Hits, and 5 might undeservedly suffer the same fate.
Let's compare the Guitar Hero approach to the Rock Band approach. Rock Band 1 came out almost as a proof-of-concept. It took off, and Rock Band 2 took it to the next level with more DLC on all three current-gen systems. DLC still comes out every week. It's gotten so huge that a story came out last week about a music-purchase tracking firm that now wants to track weekly downloads just like regular music sales. Harmonix doesn't have to sell as many copies of Rock Band to be as profitable if not more than Guitar Hero, since they're still raking in money on the one game they've already sold. The next major iteration, Beatles Rock Band, won't be a direct competitor to their DLC empire. It will be its own separate entity and will reach a larger audience that Rock Band on its own couldn't.
Meanwhile, Guitar Hero has to come out with a new game every couple months to satisfy people who want more from their franchise. They've flirted with DLC in World Tour, even bought it flowers and drinks and took it home with them for a romantic evening, but ultimately couldn't seal the deal proper and have left their fans frustrated. Sure, there's DLC in World Tour, but definitely not on the magnitude of Rock Band's DLC. I found one song - just ONE SONG! - that I actually was excited about downloading in World Tour, and I decided not to do it. I'm not going to spend money on one song ("Born To Run", by the way) out of a meager library of songs, and I expect that many people feel the same.
So, in other words, Harmonix is able to keep their development costs to a minimum while continually selling product. They don't have to design a new Rock Band game. All they have to do is convert songs into the Rock Band format, which is a relatively easy process. They've sold one game and they're still making money off of it. Neversoft can't take that route. They have to make a brand new game with a new graphics engine, piles of new songs, sink a ton into development, shipping, and tweaking the guitar and drums to make it worthwhile. They have to keep doing this at a furious clip or their audience will wander away.
How is that a sustainable business model? Combine this with the glut of Guitar Hero games on the market and the coming peripheral-pocalypse, and you have a recipe for a precipitous fall.
Guitar Hero has sold gajillions of copies, and with good reason. The concept is really fun. But here's the problem that publishers HAVE NOT LEARNED. By the time that Guitar Hero 5 launches in September, we will have 13 Guitar Hero games in the space of four years. That's insane. On top of that, you have Rock Band 1 and 2 and in September, Beatles Rock Band. Don't forget about Lego Rock Band and Rock Band Unplugged. Now we're talking 18 types of the same game in four years.
Here's a newsflash, publishers: People get really tired of buying the same game over and over again in a small span of time. The backlash was huge against Smash Hits, and 5 might undeservedly suffer the same fate.
Let's compare the Guitar Hero approach to the Rock Band approach. Rock Band 1 came out almost as a proof-of-concept. It took off, and Rock Band 2 took it to the next level with more DLC on all three current-gen systems. DLC still comes out every week. It's gotten so huge that a story came out last week about a music-purchase tracking firm that now wants to track weekly downloads just like regular music sales. Harmonix doesn't have to sell as many copies of Rock Band to be as profitable if not more than Guitar Hero, since they're still raking in money on the one game they've already sold. The next major iteration, Beatles Rock Band, won't be a direct competitor to their DLC empire. It will be its own separate entity and will reach a larger audience that Rock Band on its own couldn't.
Meanwhile, Guitar Hero has to come out with a new game every couple months to satisfy people who want more from their franchise. They've flirted with DLC in World Tour, even bought it flowers and drinks and took it home with them for a romantic evening, but ultimately couldn't seal the deal proper and have left their fans frustrated. Sure, there's DLC in World Tour, but definitely not on the magnitude of Rock Band's DLC. I found one song - just ONE SONG! - that I actually was excited about downloading in World Tour, and I decided not to do it. I'm not going to spend money on one song ("Born To Run", by the way) out of a meager library of songs, and I expect that many people feel the same.
So, in other words, Harmonix is able to keep their development costs to a minimum while continually selling product. They don't have to design a new Rock Band game. All they have to do is convert songs into the Rock Band format, which is a relatively easy process. They've sold one game and they're still making money off of it. Neversoft can't take that route. They have to make a brand new game with a new graphics engine, piles of new songs, sink a ton into development, shipping, and tweaking the guitar and drums to make it worthwhile. They have to keep doing this at a furious clip or their audience will wander away.
How is that a sustainable business model? Combine this with the glut of Guitar Hero games on the market and the coming peripheral-pocalypse, and you have a recipe for a precipitous fall.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP
119! I just beat Toy Time! That's the hardest one! The only thing standing between me and 120 is the Dreadnought! This is unreal!
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Tipping Point
Are you tired of endless peripherals? I know I am. For instance, in order to play Guitar Hero or Rock Band, you need plastic instruments. In order to play Wii Fit, you need a Balance Board. In order to play the upcoming Tony Hawk Ride, you need a plastic skateboard. In order to play Wii Sports Resort, you need a MotionPlus doodad. In order to play any games coming out for Natal, you need a Natal setup. In order to play Dance Dance Revolution, you need DDR pads. ExciteBots and MarioKart come with a Plastic Wheel.
Are we reaching the tipping point? Are we reaching the point when gamers throw up their hands and say "No more"?
Consider: Up until this generation, the most you needed to play the vast majority of games were controllers. That's it. When a game did have a large novelty controller like Steel Batallion, it was laughed out of the marketplace. What changed? We can trace this all back to the explosion of Guitar Hero, when publishers realized that people will willingly spend extra money on something if it's cool enough. The Guitar Hero idea was awesome and still is, but since then every publisher wants to replicate their success.
Why wouldn't they want to replicate that success? How much does it cost to make a plastic guitar with a couple of switches? Not much, frankly. I mean, they were able to drop the price of Guitar Hero: Aerosmith down to $30. We're not sure if they were still turning a profit with that price point, but even if they were breaking even on that discounted price, the normal price is $70. That's $40 they're pocketing for each guitar. Imagine how much they must be raking in for a kit with a drum set, guitar and cheap USB microphone priced at $190.
If you're a publisher, you obviously want a piece of that. What do you do? Well, you make your own cheap plastic peripheral, jack the price out of it and hope that it gets purchased. That's exactly what a lot of people are doing, and it's leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Sure, there are some peripherals that definitely enhance your gaming experience, like MotionPlus and Natal, but at what point is enough enough? When do gamers start to rebel?
I have a feeling that it's going to be with Tony Hawk Ride. First, early reports are saying that it's OK, but not great. It's not $80 great, which might be the price point. Early previewers are saying that grab tricks are a little too hard and they keep falling off of the board. I don't know about you, but I play skateboarding games because I CAN'T SKATE. I fall off the board enough in real life that I would like to stay on the board in a game. Guitar Hero took something complex (guitar playing) and made it into something that just about anybody could do somewhat successfully. Tony Hawk Ride doesn't.
So what will happen? Will gamers keep buying peripherals that are only good for one game of middling quality, a la Steel Batallion? It's doubtful, but a lot of publishers are banking on gamers doing so, and it's going to backfire and backfire badly.
Are we reaching the tipping point? Are we reaching the point when gamers throw up their hands and say "No more"?
Consider: Up until this generation, the most you needed to play the vast majority of games were controllers. That's it. When a game did have a large novelty controller like Steel Batallion, it was laughed out of the marketplace. What changed? We can trace this all back to the explosion of Guitar Hero, when publishers realized that people will willingly spend extra money on something if it's cool enough. The Guitar Hero idea was awesome and still is, but since then every publisher wants to replicate their success.
Why wouldn't they want to replicate that success? How much does it cost to make a plastic guitar with a couple of switches? Not much, frankly. I mean, they were able to drop the price of Guitar Hero: Aerosmith down to $30. We're not sure if they were still turning a profit with that price point, but even if they were breaking even on that discounted price, the normal price is $70. That's $40 they're pocketing for each guitar. Imagine how much they must be raking in for a kit with a drum set, guitar and cheap USB microphone priced at $190.
If you're a publisher, you obviously want a piece of that. What do you do? Well, you make your own cheap plastic peripheral, jack the price out of it and hope that it gets purchased. That's exactly what a lot of people are doing, and it's leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Sure, there are some peripherals that definitely enhance your gaming experience, like MotionPlus and Natal, but at what point is enough enough? When do gamers start to rebel?
I have a feeling that it's going to be with Tony Hawk Ride. First, early reports are saying that it's OK, but not great. It's not $80 great, which might be the price point. Early previewers are saying that grab tricks are a little too hard and they keep falling off of the board. I don't know about you, but I play skateboarding games because I CAN'T SKATE. I fall off the board enough in real life that I would like to stay on the board in a game. Guitar Hero took something complex (guitar playing) and made it into something that just about anybody could do somewhat successfully. Tony Hawk Ride doesn't.
So what will happen? Will gamers keep buying peripherals that are only good for one game of middling quality, a la Steel Batallion? It's doubtful, but a lot of publishers are banking on gamers doing so, and it's going to backfire and backfire badly.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
12% of My Visitors Use IE6!
I was screwing around with Google Analytics and found out that 12% of you still use IE6! What is wrong with you holdouts? Get Firefox or Chrome! Geez!
Us Firefox users will just be standing over in the corner shunning you like lepers.
Us Firefox users will just be standing over in the corner shunning you like lepers.
My Super Mario Galaxy Goal
Last year when I was out of work, I made it my goal to get 120 stars in Super Mario Galaxy. I thought it would be nigh-impossible, and very nearly gave up around 90, thinking that I had done pretty darn good. I kept going after a fashion and stalled out for the past couple of months at 113, thinking that it was as far as I was going to get. I picked it back up just yesterday after being inspired by the Mario Marathon, and I'm now within sniffing distance of 120. I am currently residing at 116 stars, with my only ones left being those awful, awful Purple Coin challenges. Of course, then I unlock Luigi and have to do it all over again, but I'm starting to grit my teeth and bear down on the final ones.
With any luck, I'll have gotten all the stars in the game by the time Galaxy 2 comes out. I'll keep you posted on when (or if) I accomplish my deed.
With any luck, I'll have gotten all the stars in the game by the time Galaxy 2 comes out. I'll keep you posted on when (or if) I accomplish my deed.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
CrispyGamer Discussing Used Games
Crispy Gamer is having a series of articles right now where they discuss used games and why it's good for developers and publishers alike. They start off all right, explaining supply and demand and saying that the publisher is basically assigning an arbitrary number to the value of the game and assuming that the median of gamers will pay that amount. It then goes off the rails. Basically, they're saying, "Look, if you as a developer want three different people to buy their game for $60 apiece, then go ahead and charge $180 because only one person will pay it and WTF am I really trying to say I am so high on shrooms right now my hands are so HUGE."
Look, I have a better way to explain it from a personal anecdote. I didn't want to play Super Mario Galaxy because Sunshine sucked so bad that I never thought I could enjoy another Mario game. Reviews for Galaxy were good, so I took a chance on a used copy that I got on eBay for $40. It was one of the best games I'd ever played, and when the sequel comes out next year I'm going to buy it on day one. If my only option for Galaxy would have been the full $50, I probably wouldn't have picked it up and would never be willing to get any new Mario games. QED.
Most publishers also don't realize the necessity of dropping their prices sooner rather than later. Am I going to pay full price for a game that's six months old? No. Absolutely not. No one will. The price on every other piece of electronics goes down appreciably and rapidly. iPhones now cause $99. HDTVs cost $600. It's a fact of life, and one that most people in the electronics field know. However, most publishers still keep charging full price long after it's a good idea to do so. They're shooting themselves in the foot over and over and blaming the gamers for not paying for the bullets.
Look, I have a better way to explain it from a personal anecdote. I didn't want to play Super Mario Galaxy because Sunshine sucked so bad that I never thought I could enjoy another Mario game. Reviews for Galaxy were good, so I took a chance on a used copy that I got on eBay for $40. It was one of the best games I'd ever played, and when the sequel comes out next year I'm going to buy it on day one. If my only option for Galaxy would have been the full $50, I probably wouldn't have picked it up and would never be willing to get any new Mario games. QED.
Most publishers also don't realize the necessity of dropping their prices sooner rather than later. Am I going to pay full price for a game that's six months old? No. Absolutely not. No one will. The price on every other piece of electronics goes down appreciably and rapidly. iPhones now cause $99. HDTVs cost $600. It's a fact of life, and one that most people in the electronics field know. However, most publishers still keep charging full price long after it's a good idea to do so. They're shooting themselves in the foot over and over and blaming the gamers for not paying for the bullets.
Ranking The Kirby Games
I love Kirby. I know this makes me somewhat of an anomaly among hardcore gamers. When everyone else is talking about their Gears of War and Shooty McShootyface 2, I'm over here talking about a little pink bulimic of indeterminate gender.
I've always felt that the Kirby games got a bad rap. They were unfairly shunted into a "kid's game" category early on when they really deserved better than that. Now they're almost firmly in the kid's game category, which isn't really fair. Sure, they're not the most difficult games in the world, but the gameplay is rock-solid and deserves a wider audience.
In honor of Kirby's continued eating disorders, I've decided to rank his games from the worst to the best. In ranking these games, I only ranked the games that were in the main series of Kirby games, and not any of his side projects like Kirby Block Ball or Kirby Air Ride.
9. Kirby's Dream Land (Game Boy)
It's shocking that this game actually sold as well as it did. They sold it for $30 back in the day and it only had about an hour of gameplay, unless you tried to beat the impossibly hard extra mode which only unlocked a sound test for all your effort. You couldn't copy powers either, further lessening the replay value. The basic principles of Kirby were there, and that brief hour was pretty fun. Still, it's the worst Kirby game by far.
8. Kirby & The Amazing Mirror (Game Boy Advance)
In this game, the developers strayed from the linear path that Kirby games usually follow, being more of a Metroidvania type of game. It was a noble idea, but wasn't very good in practice. It meant a lot of circling and confused wandering was in store until you finally found the door that led to another part of the world. This was where Flagship Studios (Kirby's developer for the last couple of games) learned that Kirby was not Metroid and shouldn't be treated as such.
7. Kirby's Dream Land 3 (Super Nintendo)
After the success of Yoshi's Island, Nintendo decided it would go back to the well for more squiggly-lined games, and thus was born Kirby's Dream Land 3. The graphics look great, but the levels are way too long and boring, and the new animal friends aren't as exciting as new powers. If they would have shortened the levels or cut out at least one of the animal friends to make way for more powers, this could have been a really good game. As it is, it's merely passable.
6. Kirby: Squeak Squad (Nintendo DS)
Now we start getting to the really good games. While Kirby's motivation for going after the main villains is dumb (They stole a piece of cake from him? The indignity!), the gameplay itself is great. There are a ton of powers, a ton of secrets, and a ton of cool levels. It's a very easy game to finish, and it's almost criminally easy to get 100%, but it still leaves you smiling in the end.
5. Kirby: Canvas Curse (Nintendo DS)
Some people love this game. I was ambivalent about it. I'm putting it up this high because it achieved something very important: It showed developers how to use the DS controls and helped put the system on the map. Until Canvas Curse came out, the DS was a joke, with games like Yoshi Touch 'N Go being the only game to utilize the touch screen. Canvas Curse set forth the path other devs could follow, and it had one of the best final boss battles I've ever seen to boot.
4. Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards (Nintendo 64)
This has, thus far, been Kirby's only adventure in 3D. While it's more like 2.5D, the results are great. Kirby can combine powers and make new ones, like combining the sword power and the lightning power to create a double-sided lightsaber. You also get to play as other characters besides Kirby, and there's lots of hidden secrets. One of the lost gems of the N64 era.
3. Kirby's Dream Land 2 (Game Boy)
If the first Kirby game on the Game Boy was disappointing, the second one more than made up for it. They pushed the Game Boy to do things that weren't thought possible before. The levels were detailed, the powers were awesome, and the levels had really cool planning in them. The music was some of the best on the system as well. If you haven't played it, go play it. I'll wait.
2. Kirby Super Star/Kirby Super Star Ultra (Super Nintendo/Nintendo DS)
At first glance, Kirby Super Star appears like a collection of minigames. It even says on the cover, "6 Games in One!" which is a sure kiss of death for most gamers. However, those who've played it can attest to the depth inside. There's one game that you can play through normally, but you don't truly finish it until you find all the treasure chests hidden throughout it. There's another game that turns into a side-scrolling shooter during the final level. It had co-op play as well, with you being able to call a friend into the action at any time. The DS remake is even better, including new Arena modes and a game where you play as Meta Knight.
1. Kirby's Adventure (NES)
Kirby games always are cursed to show up late in a console's usable life. Kirby 64 showed up after everyone had moved over to the PS2. Kirby Super Star showed up in 1996, a week before Super Mario 64 launched. Kirby's Dream Land 2 showed up in 1994, when the Game Boy was moving toward the Game Boy Color. No game suffered more indignity than Kirby's Adventure, a sprawling epic of a game that showed up in 1991, after everyone had already set aside their NES consoles in favor of the 16-bit generation.
Kirby's Adventure stands alongside Super Mario 3 as one of the best games of the NES generation. Huge bosses, inventive levels, tons of powers (including the UFO power, the best Kirby power ever), bunches of secrets, and genuine challenge. It's a great game, and it's the main reason that Kirby has earned a lifetime pass from me.
I've always felt that the Kirby games got a bad rap. They were unfairly shunted into a "kid's game" category early on when they really deserved better than that. Now they're almost firmly in the kid's game category, which isn't really fair. Sure, they're not the most difficult games in the world, but the gameplay is rock-solid and deserves a wider audience.
In honor of Kirby's continued eating disorders, I've decided to rank his games from the worst to the best. In ranking these games, I only ranked the games that were in the main series of Kirby games, and not any of his side projects like Kirby Block Ball or Kirby Air Ride.
9. Kirby's Dream Land (Game Boy)
It's shocking that this game actually sold as well as it did. They sold it for $30 back in the day and it only had about an hour of gameplay, unless you tried to beat the impossibly hard extra mode which only unlocked a sound test for all your effort. You couldn't copy powers either, further lessening the replay value. The basic principles of Kirby were there, and that brief hour was pretty fun. Still, it's the worst Kirby game by far.
8. Kirby & The Amazing Mirror (Game Boy Advance)
In this game, the developers strayed from the linear path that Kirby games usually follow, being more of a Metroidvania type of game. It was a noble idea, but wasn't very good in practice. It meant a lot of circling and confused wandering was in store until you finally found the door that led to another part of the world. This was where Flagship Studios (Kirby's developer for the last couple of games) learned that Kirby was not Metroid and shouldn't be treated as such.
7. Kirby's Dream Land 3 (Super Nintendo)
After the success of Yoshi's Island, Nintendo decided it would go back to the well for more squiggly-lined games, and thus was born Kirby's Dream Land 3. The graphics look great, but the levels are way too long and boring, and the new animal friends aren't as exciting as new powers. If they would have shortened the levels or cut out at least one of the animal friends to make way for more powers, this could have been a really good game. As it is, it's merely passable.
6. Kirby: Squeak Squad (Nintendo DS)
Now we start getting to the really good games. While Kirby's motivation for going after the main villains is dumb (They stole a piece of cake from him? The indignity!), the gameplay itself is great. There are a ton of powers, a ton of secrets, and a ton of cool levels. It's a very easy game to finish, and it's almost criminally easy to get 100%, but it still leaves you smiling in the end.
5. Kirby: Canvas Curse (Nintendo DS)
Some people love this game. I was ambivalent about it. I'm putting it up this high because it achieved something very important: It showed developers how to use the DS controls and helped put the system on the map. Until Canvas Curse came out, the DS was a joke, with games like Yoshi Touch 'N Go being the only game to utilize the touch screen. Canvas Curse set forth the path other devs could follow, and it had one of the best final boss battles I've ever seen to boot.
4. Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards (Nintendo 64)
This has, thus far, been Kirby's only adventure in 3D. While it's more like 2.5D, the results are great. Kirby can combine powers and make new ones, like combining the sword power and the lightning power to create a double-sided lightsaber. You also get to play as other characters besides Kirby, and there's lots of hidden secrets. One of the lost gems of the N64 era.
3. Kirby's Dream Land 2 (Game Boy)
If the first Kirby game on the Game Boy was disappointing, the second one more than made up for it. They pushed the Game Boy to do things that weren't thought possible before. The levels were detailed, the powers were awesome, and the levels had really cool planning in them. The music was some of the best on the system as well. If you haven't played it, go play it. I'll wait.
2. Kirby Super Star/Kirby Super Star Ultra (Super Nintendo/Nintendo DS)
At first glance, Kirby Super Star appears like a collection of minigames. It even says on the cover, "6 Games in One!" which is a sure kiss of death for most gamers. However, those who've played it can attest to the depth inside. There's one game that you can play through normally, but you don't truly finish it until you find all the treasure chests hidden throughout it. There's another game that turns into a side-scrolling shooter during the final level. It had co-op play as well, with you being able to call a friend into the action at any time. The DS remake is even better, including new Arena modes and a game where you play as Meta Knight.
1. Kirby's Adventure (NES)
Kirby games always are cursed to show up late in a console's usable life. Kirby 64 showed up after everyone had moved over to the PS2. Kirby Super Star showed up in 1996, a week before Super Mario 64 launched. Kirby's Dream Land 2 showed up in 1994, when the Game Boy was moving toward the Game Boy Color. No game suffered more indignity than Kirby's Adventure, a sprawling epic of a game that showed up in 1991, after everyone had already set aside their NES consoles in favor of the 16-bit generation.
Kirby's Adventure stands alongside Super Mario 3 as one of the best games of the NES generation. Huge bosses, inventive levels, tons of powers (including the UFO power, the best Kirby power ever), bunches of secrets, and genuine challenge. It's a great game, and it's the main reason that Kirby has earned a lifetime pass from me.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Haven't Played Any of the Fallout 3 DLC, But...
Alien Mothership might get me to come back. I played the crap out of Fallout 3 last year, about 40 hours worth, never beat it and set it aside. I played it much like I do Oblivion and Morrowind: Wander for ages and never actually accomplish anything. I purposely tried not to beat Fallout 3 because I didn't want it to end, and then I burned myself out on it. Alien Mothership might bring me back, if only because I'm a sucker for 60's era space paranoia and aliens.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Warner Bros Owns Midway, But Where Will Midway Go?
According to this Joystiq article, the Midway name is now owned by Warner Bros. along with their assets. So here's the question: What happens to Midway? What should happen?
My thought is that Midway is now pretty much poison. If you say that a game is a Midway game, it's guaranteed to be crap. Here's what I say: Drop it. Get it out of there. All Warner Bros. really needed was Mortal Kombat and the manpower to make the games. Do you really want the stench of death surrounding future games? It's like naming your child "Mussolini." You're guaranteeing that everyone will prejudge the poor thing before it even has a chance. Same with Midway: If you keep the Midway name, most people will dismiss future games out of hand. It makes no sense, and they don't need the name anyway.
Another thought: Spin off the name into the small, light development studios people are using now for iPhone games. It builds a rep, and maybe someday they can use it again.
My thought is that Midway is now pretty much poison. If you say that a game is a Midway game, it's guaranteed to be crap. Here's what I say: Drop it. Get it out of there. All Warner Bros. really needed was Mortal Kombat and the manpower to make the games. Do you really want the stench of death surrounding future games? It's like naming your child "Mussolini." You're guaranteeing that everyone will prejudge the poor thing before it even has a chance. Same with Midway: If you keep the Midway name, most people will dismiss future games out of hand. It makes no sense, and they don't need the name anyway.
Another thought: Spin off the name into the small, light development studios people are using now for iPhone games. It builds a rep, and maybe someday they can use it again.
Played Through Trine: Whew!
I'm going to have a review going up in less than a week for Trine, but suffice to say, it's really good.
It's easy to see why physics-based gameplay is becoming such a big deal. There's something awesome about materializing and dropping a heavy block on a skeleton, or swinging through a jungle, leaping into the air and unleashing a barrage of arrows on an unsuspecting enemy.
I'm also very pleased that they didn't at any point gimp your characters. For instance, there's no point where they say, "OK, you can't use the Knight during this section," or, "Mage only during this part!" You're free to tackle obstacles as you see fit whenever you want.
However, the final boss was the most disappointing that I've ever seen. The game gears you up for an amazing conflict, and then...nothing. A great final boss battle would have pushed this game into legendary status. As it is, it's good if a little short.
It's easy to see why physics-based gameplay is becoming such a big deal. There's something awesome about materializing and dropping a heavy block on a skeleton, or swinging through a jungle, leaping into the air and unleashing a barrage of arrows on an unsuspecting enemy.
I'm also very pleased that they didn't at any point gimp your characters. For instance, there's no point where they say, "OK, you can't use the Knight during this section," or, "Mage only during this part!" You're free to tackle obstacles as you see fit whenever you want.
However, the final boss was the most disappointing that I've ever seen. The game gears you up for an amazing conflict, and then...nothing. A great final boss battle would have pushed this game into legendary status. As it is, it's good if a little short.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Review: Arcade Sports
For every WiiWare gem like Cave Story, Mega Man 10, LostWinds or Rage of the Gladiator, there are at least fifty games that make you cringe. Most of these developers are small and just trying to turn a little bit of a profit by making a little game. Many try to make a game based off a really basic premise, or possibly cash in on the success of other, superior games.
Arcade Sports, is a horrible, horrible cash-in that attempts to ape Wii Sports. It’s a basic compilation, including bowling, air hockey, snooker, and pool. It also feels really warmed-over. What went wrong? Let’s take a look and see if we can’t also sort out a few things with motion controls.
A Brief History of Motion Controls
Since the dawn of gaming, we’ve been trying to find more intuitive ways of controlling our games. Nintendo struck gold with the original NES pad, and every gaming controller since has been a refinement or addition to their original device. Nintendo struck gold again with the Wiimote with the promise of more intuition. For example, when playing bowling, instead of pressing the Z button and using the targeting reticule, you can mimic the motion of bowling and the ball will roll like normal. As evidenced by the large sales figures, this has gone a long way toward breaking down the barriers separating man and machine.
So why are we examining all of this? Because the point of motion controls is intuition: Being able to look at what’s going on on-screen and figure out your motion. That is exactly what Arcade Sports lacks, especially in the bowling section.
For instance, to bowl, you aim the ball, press A twice and then...what? I tried mimicking the bowling motion. Nothing happened. I flailed the remote a little bit and the ball flew out of my hands toward the pins as if rocket-propelled. I repeated the action on the next frame and nothing happened. I moved my hand quickly upward. The ball rolled slowly and hooked even though I purposely didn’t twist my wrist to set up a straight shot. I tried repeating the movement. Nothing happened. I flailed wildly. The ball rolled softly straight ahead.
I could sit and try and figure exactly how the motion is supposed to work, but that’s really not the point, is it? Motion controls are supposed to be intuitive, and Arcade Sports completely lacks intuition.
Another thing that we can pretty easily agree on is that the original Wiimote lacked precision. That’s why they had to release Motion Plus. Therefore, I’m completely baffled that someone thought that Air Hockey would be a good inclusion in Arcade Sports. In Air Hockey, you have to move quickly and precisely, and in Arcade Sports your controller gets confused and loses track of where your paddle is in the heat of action, or you find that you’re pointing offscreen and have to scramble to get back to your paddle. It’s also impossible to line up a shot with any accuracy, leading to the computer embarrassing you repeatedly, even in practice mode. This lack of precision also kills pool and snooker, although to a much lesser degree.
This is exactly what Sony refers to when they boast about how accurate their system is, but at the risk of getting way off the subject, it’s not always the hardware’s fault. Wii Sports laid down a really accurate template for doing bowling, for instance. It works great and feels like real bowling. These games? I don’t even know what they feel like, but they ain’t pool, snooker, bowling and air hockey, that’s for sure. The accuracy of the device doesn’t necessarily matter, but how the developers use it that will make the more lasting impression.
More Problems Than You Can Shake A Pool Cue At
The computer also has an unfortunate tendency to use rubber-band AI. I’ve actually never seen a more outrageous use of it. For instance, the computer will clamp down with the first three or so balls pretty badly. Then, after that, it will actually start SETTING YOU UP FOR SHOTS. I saw the computer player shoot the cue ball in such a way that it rolled to a gentle stop in the easiest position for me. Once you’ve potted a few, the computer clamps down again and finishes you off. I mean, that’s lazy. Only a child would be taken in by such tomfoolery.
I should say that the one facet I did like was that while playing pool, they would show you not only what angle your cue ball would strike at, but also what direction your ball would ricochet in and what direction the ball you strike would go. That’s like, one good decision out of 80 made here.
I could go on about the ugly graphics ,or the fact that the framerate drops when your bowling ball goes down the alley, or how there’s such an unnatural curve to your shots that it sometimes feels as if your ball hit a gopher or a camouflaged cat hiding underneath the alley, but I’m spending far too much time on this game. Suffice to say, it’s not good.
Here’s the thing: I have no problems awarding extra points to a game that aims high and misses. Not everyone can be Miyamoto, but at least you’re trying, right? However, I get very angry when a game aims for the ground and misses. And falls over. And then poops itself. That’s Arcade Sports in a nutshell.
Final Grade: F
Arcade Sports, is a horrible, horrible cash-in that attempts to ape Wii Sports. It’s a basic compilation, including bowling, air hockey, snooker, and pool. It also feels really warmed-over. What went wrong? Let’s take a look and see if we can’t also sort out a few things with motion controls.
A Brief History of Motion Controls
Since the dawn of gaming, we’ve been trying to find more intuitive ways of controlling our games. Nintendo struck gold with the original NES pad, and every gaming controller since has been a refinement or addition to their original device. Nintendo struck gold again with the Wiimote with the promise of more intuition. For example, when playing bowling, instead of pressing the Z button and using the targeting reticule, you can mimic the motion of bowling and the ball will roll like normal. As evidenced by the large sales figures, this has gone a long way toward breaking down the barriers separating man and machine.
So why are we examining all of this? Because the point of motion controls is intuition: Being able to look at what’s going on on-screen and figure out your motion. That is exactly what Arcade Sports lacks, especially in the bowling section.
For instance, to bowl, you aim the ball, press A twice and then...what? I tried mimicking the bowling motion. Nothing happened. I flailed the remote a little bit and the ball flew out of my hands toward the pins as if rocket-propelled. I repeated the action on the next frame and nothing happened. I moved my hand quickly upward. The ball rolled slowly and hooked even though I purposely didn’t twist my wrist to set up a straight shot. I tried repeating the movement. Nothing happened. I flailed wildly. The ball rolled softly straight ahead.
I could sit and try and figure exactly how the motion is supposed to work, but that’s really not the point, is it? Motion controls are supposed to be intuitive, and Arcade Sports completely lacks intuition.
Another thing that we can pretty easily agree on is that the original Wiimote lacked precision. That’s why they had to release Motion Plus. Therefore, I’m completely baffled that someone thought that Air Hockey would be a good inclusion in Arcade Sports. In Air Hockey, you have to move quickly and precisely, and in Arcade Sports your controller gets confused and loses track of where your paddle is in the heat of action, or you find that you’re pointing offscreen and have to scramble to get back to your paddle. It’s also impossible to line up a shot with any accuracy, leading to the computer embarrassing you repeatedly, even in practice mode. This lack of precision also kills pool and snooker, although to a much lesser degree.
This is exactly what Sony refers to when they boast about how accurate their system is, but at the risk of getting way off the subject, it’s not always the hardware’s fault. Wii Sports laid down a really accurate template for doing bowling, for instance. It works great and feels like real bowling. These games? I don’t even know what they feel like, but they ain’t pool, snooker, bowling and air hockey, that’s for sure. The accuracy of the device doesn’t necessarily matter, but how the developers use it that will make the more lasting impression.
More Problems Than You Can Shake A Pool Cue At
The computer also has an unfortunate tendency to use rubber-band AI. I’ve actually never seen a more outrageous use of it. For instance, the computer will clamp down with the first three or so balls pretty badly. Then, after that, it will actually start SETTING YOU UP FOR SHOTS. I saw the computer player shoot the cue ball in such a way that it rolled to a gentle stop in the easiest position for me. Once you’ve potted a few, the computer clamps down again and finishes you off. I mean, that’s lazy. Only a child would be taken in by such tomfoolery.
I should say that the one facet I did like was that while playing pool, they would show you not only what angle your cue ball would strike at, but also what direction your ball would ricochet in and what direction the ball you strike would go. That’s like, one good decision out of 80 made here.
I could go on about the ugly graphics ,or the fact that the framerate drops when your bowling ball goes down the alley, or how there’s such an unnatural curve to your shots that it sometimes feels as if your ball hit a gopher or a camouflaged cat hiding underneath the alley, but I’m spending far too much time on this game. Suffice to say, it’s not good.
Here’s the thing: I have no problems awarding extra points to a game that aims high and misses. Not everyone can be Miyamoto, but at least you’re trying, right? However, I get very angry when a game aims for the ground and misses. And falls over. And then poops itself. That’s Arcade Sports in a nutshell.
Final Grade: F
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Natal Idea
I did just have a cool idea for a Natal game: A simulation much like EndWar. Consider: You sit in front of the TV ordering your units with voice commands, grabbing parts of the interface and shifting them around, pinpointing airstrikes, calling your generals and having them issue reports, and things like that. I could see it work.
Like I say, it's not that Natal has NO good ideas attached to it. There is an awful lot you can do, but will it grab a wide audience and, above all, will it be fun?
Like I say, it's not that Natal has NO good ideas attached to it. There is an awful lot you can do, but will it grab a wide audience and, above all, will it be fun?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Virtual Reality and Natal
When I was in 4th grade, the local newspaper had a section where they would ask kids what they thought of newsworthy events. In one of their segments, they asked kids what they thought the future held for video games. I got in the newspaper for blathering something about virtual reality. I was pretty proud of my answer, and everyone at the time thought virtual reality was the key to future gaming.
A couple of years later, I went to visit New York City and was walking around at Pier 17. They had a virtual reality game up where you could strap on a helmet and try and shoot someone in full 3D. I wanted to play, but my mom wouldn't let me at the time. It looked too violent for her tastes. It didn't take much to realize that this was the Future of Gaming and that Videogames As We Know Them were done.
So, what happened? A couple of things, really. First, VR is expensive. Second, wearing a giant helmet isn't fun, and can be rather headache-inducing. Third, and most importantly, moving around when you're playing a video game is fun at first, but then it's kind of tiring.
This brings me, in a roundabout way, to Natal. Gaming journalists are falling all over themselves to talk about how Natal is a gamechanger. I'll be honest, I don't see it. Now, to be fair, I also didn't see why you would need a touchscreen on a handheld, so I'm usually wrong on these things. But hear me out, please.
Stop for a second and ask how you can use Natal to play games. You can wave your arms around or move your legs. So, what genres can you play with that? Sports games, like tennis, maybe baseball. Rail shooters. Maybe you can draw on the screen, like Yoshi Touch 'N Go. Not a bad selection, but here's the separate question: How do you move?
I don't mean move your avatar onscreen with Natal. WIth that, you can move left and right. You can duck. You can wave your arms. But how will your character move across the screen? How will he move forward? How will he back up? Will you draw a path? Will there be buttons on screen that you touch? You think that waving your hands with a Wiimote is a pain, but imagine having to keep your hands in the air to play a simple platform game. Sound like fun yet?
Guys like Jonny Lee think that Natal will create new genres. That's great, but what are they? Name me some genres that could benefit from this. Name me some game styles that will be better when you have to move your whole body. Dance Dance Revolution? Guitar Hero without the guitar?
Another big issue: This technology is basically some of the same stuff as the EyeToy. Sure, it's far more sophisticated, and has a lot of features that the EyeToy didn't have, like facial recognition, but it's the same principle in play. In the interest of comparing apples to apples, the Playstation 2 sold 140 million units. The EyeToy sold 10 million. That means that 1 in every 14 PS2 owners thought that the EyeToy was a valuable purchase. That's a great number, right?
Consider, then, that the current install base of the 360 is 30 million. By applying the "1 in 14" metric, only about 2 million 360 owners will purchase Natal. That's 10 times less that the owners of Wii Fit. Now, Natal isn't aimed specifically at current owners, but we don't know the cost of ownership for Natal. How much will it be? Will most users also want the standard controller? Will they need it in order to make characters move in a proper way? Also, consider that people bought their 360s precisely because they DIDN'T want to move around and act like morons in front of the TV and then you start seeing that there are a lot more issues here than meets the eye.
Bear in mind that install base means everything. Companies stopped making games for the Gamecube because there were so few sold. Companies are starting to fall off the PS3 wagon because there are so few sold. They're starting to make more games for the Balance Board because of its install base of nearly 20 million. Will a company really push their chips to the middle of the table for a fancy piece of tech that forces them to rethink all of their game-making strategies in exchange for a meager install base?
I could be wrong about all of this. In face, I hope I am because it will force other companies to continue innovating. Natal is really interesting, no doubt. I'm really excited to see it in person and see it in a real-world setting. But does it have legs? Is it going to change gaming? If you're a consumer, is it really worth investing money into? There's no way of knowing for certain, but count me as a huge skeptic.
A couple of years later, I went to visit New York City and was walking around at Pier 17. They had a virtual reality game up where you could strap on a helmet and try and shoot someone in full 3D. I wanted to play, but my mom wouldn't let me at the time. It looked too violent for her tastes. It didn't take much to realize that this was the Future of Gaming and that Videogames As We Know Them were done.
So, what happened? A couple of things, really. First, VR is expensive. Second, wearing a giant helmet isn't fun, and can be rather headache-inducing. Third, and most importantly, moving around when you're playing a video game is fun at first, but then it's kind of tiring.
This brings me, in a roundabout way, to Natal. Gaming journalists are falling all over themselves to talk about how Natal is a gamechanger. I'll be honest, I don't see it. Now, to be fair, I also didn't see why you would need a touchscreen on a handheld, so I'm usually wrong on these things. But hear me out, please.
Stop for a second and ask how you can use Natal to play games. You can wave your arms around or move your legs. So, what genres can you play with that? Sports games, like tennis, maybe baseball. Rail shooters. Maybe you can draw on the screen, like Yoshi Touch 'N Go. Not a bad selection, but here's the separate question: How do you move?
I don't mean move your avatar onscreen with Natal. WIth that, you can move left and right. You can duck. You can wave your arms. But how will your character move across the screen? How will he move forward? How will he back up? Will you draw a path? Will there be buttons on screen that you touch? You think that waving your hands with a Wiimote is a pain, but imagine having to keep your hands in the air to play a simple platform game. Sound like fun yet?
Guys like Jonny Lee think that Natal will create new genres. That's great, but what are they? Name me some genres that could benefit from this. Name me some game styles that will be better when you have to move your whole body. Dance Dance Revolution? Guitar Hero without the guitar?
Another big issue: This technology is basically some of the same stuff as the EyeToy. Sure, it's far more sophisticated, and has a lot of features that the EyeToy didn't have, like facial recognition, but it's the same principle in play. In the interest of comparing apples to apples, the Playstation 2 sold 140 million units. The EyeToy sold 10 million. That means that 1 in every 14 PS2 owners thought that the EyeToy was a valuable purchase. That's a great number, right?
Consider, then, that the current install base of the 360 is 30 million. By applying the "1 in 14" metric, only about 2 million 360 owners will purchase Natal. That's 10 times less that the owners of Wii Fit. Now, Natal isn't aimed specifically at current owners, but we don't know the cost of ownership for Natal. How much will it be? Will most users also want the standard controller? Will they need it in order to make characters move in a proper way? Also, consider that people bought their 360s precisely because they DIDN'T want to move around and act like morons in front of the TV and then you start seeing that there are a lot more issues here than meets the eye.
Bear in mind that install base means everything. Companies stopped making games for the Gamecube because there were so few sold. Companies are starting to fall off the PS3 wagon because there are so few sold. They're starting to make more games for the Balance Board because of its install base of nearly 20 million. Will a company really push their chips to the middle of the table for a fancy piece of tech that forces them to rethink all of their game-making strategies in exchange for a meager install base?
I could be wrong about all of this. In face, I hope I am because it will force other companies to continue innovating. Natal is really interesting, no doubt. I'm really excited to see it in person and see it in a real-world setting. But does it have legs? Is it going to change gaming? If you're a consumer, is it really worth investing money into? There's no way of knowing for certain, but count me as a huge skeptic.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Review: Out of the Park X
Developer: OOTP Developments
Publisher: OOTP Developments
You would think there would be a very small niche for stat-based sports simulation games. You could draw a Venn diagram with "Sports Fans" on one side and "People who like reading spreadsheets" on the other and see a very, very tiny overlap. However, for some reason, baseball seems to attract a lot more amateur sabermetricians and Billy Beane wannabes than your average sport.
At its heart, baseball is not a very cerebral game. The pitcher throws the ball and the batter tries to hit it. The great thing about baseball is that the devil is in the details: Suicide squeezes, intentional walks, substituting the pitchers at the right time, stealing bases and all the other little quirks that America's national pastime has. Sometimes, baseball video games focus too much on "pitch the ball and hit it...home run!" than the things that really make baseball great. While chicks may dig the long ball, devotees of the sport dig the parts that require more thinking: Lineup cards, pitching rotations and juggling bullpens.
Out of the Park Baseball is on its 10th iteration providing just that. By providing a game that digs into the meat of baseball, they've made something that statheads can appreciate and fans of a more fast-paced approach can at least understand, if not fully enjoy. What makes Out of the Park X a good choice for baseball gamers?
Out of the Park simulates everything, from minor league teams onward. It's a little daunting how many options you have, but for the faint of heart you're able to turn off certain features so that you don't get overwhelmed. The documentation is all online and very extensive, but once again, it's all a little overwhelming. You may spend your first few sessions staring at numbers and wondering what they mean until you go online to try and figure out what exactly it means that a player has an "18" in Sacrifice Bunts. I kept all the options on since I wanted to get a good taste of everything that was involved, and after a few false starts I was good to go.
I started out managing the Gulf Coast League Mets and worked through the season. The GM of the Mets, Omar Minaya, kept moving around my players which would screw up my lineup, but fortunately you can automate certain tasks. I would generally tell my bench coach to make the lineups and then tweak them if I didn't like them. I got especially enamored with a player named Carl Puello who quickly made his way into my leadoff spot (and the leadoff spot in my heart) due to his spray hitting and quickness on the basepaths. Unfortunately, there's no player photos, but you can make your own if you like.
The options here are unreal. You can also start out by managing a big-league team, which I recommend doing in order to get a handle on bullpens and what player stats mean. It's easier to understand ratings once you see players that you recognize with their own ratings. You can also play historical leagues from 1871 onward, which is a kick. The bad news is that there's no MLB license, so while it the names of the teams and players may be there, logos and pictures aren't really represented. It's not a huge loss, though, and it's easy enough to put in whomever you need to.
(A side note: Some people on the forums complain about historical pitching not being up to snuff, but I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. It may be something for the Out of the Park devotees to consider when deciding to make their purchase.)
Another thing you should know before jumping into Out of the Park X is that there is very little in the way of flash and/or dazzle. Most of the time, you'll be poring over spreadsheets and statistics. Granted, you can't really make a spreadsheet pretty, but text on white backgrounds is a little dull. However, it's easy to read and understand what's going on from the get-go, which is kind of the point.
During games, you're once again able to manage everything, from your bullpen to suicide squeezes. At a glance you'll be able to tell if your players are good sacrifice bunters, power hitters or contact hitters. You'll be able to see what your pitcher's velocity is and whether or not they're tired or good to go. You can visit the mound. You can order a hit & run or a run & hit. You can see how good the opposing catcher's arm is so you know whether or not to attempt a steal. You can sim through to 9th inning or even just sit back and let the computer sim the games.
I have to say, the game interface is spectacular. I never had a moment where I didn't completely understand exactly what I needed to do or how to do it. Bullpen management was as easy as clicking on "Substitutions" and dragging one or two of my middle relievers over to the bullpen and letting them warm up while I play. You can also turn off the option to warm up your relievers and just insert them if you need to, but I chose to leave it on just for accuracy's sake.
For previous users, they've added a feature where you're able to use widgets to customize the game view. For instance, if you want to get a closer look at how your batter handles himself against lefties, you can do that by popping open the batter's window instead of having to click on the player and dig through a spreadsheet. If you want to move the field view over to the right side of the screen and all the stat boxes to the left, you can. It's a very nice idea, but there's a several-second delay in between when you click on the windows or try and move them. It's a little disconcerting, but for the patient it's not a bad idea. I'm sure they'll improve and expand upon the idea in future releases.
Another complaint I had: Out of the Park X only plays in a windowed mode. You can get the window to fill up your screen, so if you have a large monitor you really can't take advantage of the extra viewing area to give yourself more data or a bigger advantage. It wasn't a dealbreaker, but it was annoying.
Another thing that's worth mentioning: The type of people who play stat-based sports sims are not your typical sports-game playing cavemen. On the Out of the Park forums, you'll find respectful people who actually use complete sentences. It's a good thing, since it's nice to have a place where you can ask questions that won't be met with icy stares or "LOL NEWB" retorts.
I walked into Out of the Park X as a complete neophyte and came out rather impressed. Everything was easy to understand, if a little daunting at first. It's not the kind of game you can really get a handle on after dabbling in it. It requires a commitment in order to unlock it's mysteries, not unlike baseball itself. I haven't even touched on other features, like online leagues (which have been also improved for this year's version, if documentation is to be believed). For those who are willing to put forth the effort, there's a lot to love within.
Final Grade: A-
Publisher: OOTP Developments
You would think there would be a very small niche for stat-based sports simulation games. You could draw a Venn diagram with "Sports Fans" on one side and "People who like reading spreadsheets" on the other and see a very, very tiny overlap. However, for some reason, baseball seems to attract a lot more amateur sabermetricians and Billy Beane wannabes than your average sport.
At its heart, baseball is not a very cerebral game. The pitcher throws the ball and the batter tries to hit it. The great thing about baseball is that the devil is in the details: Suicide squeezes, intentional walks, substituting the pitchers at the right time, stealing bases and all the other little quirks that America's national pastime has. Sometimes, baseball video games focus too much on "pitch the ball and hit it...home run!" than the things that really make baseball great. While chicks may dig the long ball, devotees of the sport dig the parts that require more thinking: Lineup cards, pitching rotations and juggling bullpens.
Out of the Park Baseball is on its 10th iteration providing just that. By providing a game that digs into the meat of baseball, they've made something that statheads can appreciate and fans of a more fast-paced approach can at least understand, if not fully enjoy. What makes Out of the Park X a good choice for baseball gamers?
Out of the Park simulates everything, from minor league teams onward. It's a little daunting how many options you have, but for the faint of heart you're able to turn off certain features so that you don't get overwhelmed. The documentation is all online and very extensive, but once again, it's all a little overwhelming. You may spend your first few sessions staring at numbers and wondering what they mean until you go online to try and figure out what exactly it means that a player has an "18" in Sacrifice Bunts. I kept all the options on since I wanted to get a good taste of everything that was involved, and after a few false starts I was good to go.
I started out managing the Gulf Coast League Mets and worked through the season. The GM of the Mets, Omar Minaya, kept moving around my players which would screw up my lineup, but fortunately you can automate certain tasks. I would generally tell my bench coach to make the lineups and then tweak them if I didn't like them. I got especially enamored with a player named Carl Puello who quickly made his way into my leadoff spot (and the leadoff spot in my heart) due to his spray hitting and quickness on the basepaths. Unfortunately, there's no player photos, but you can make your own if you like.
The options here are unreal. You can also start out by managing a big-league team, which I recommend doing in order to get a handle on bullpens and what player stats mean. It's easier to understand ratings once you see players that you recognize with their own ratings. You can also play historical leagues from 1871 onward, which is a kick. The bad news is that there's no MLB license, so while it the names of the teams and players may be there, logos and pictures aren't really represented. It's not a huge loss, though, and it's easy enough to put in whomever you need to.
(A side note: Some people on the forums complain about historical pitching not being up to snuff, but I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. It may be something for the Out of the Park devotees to consider when deciding to make their purchase.)
Another thing you should know before jumping into Out of the Park X is that there is very little in the way of flash and/or dazzle. Most of the time, you'll be poring over spreadsheets and statistics. Granted, you can't really make a spreadsheet pretty, but text on white backgrounds is a little dull. However, it's easy to read and understand what's going on from the get-go, which is kind of the point.
During games, you're once again able to manage everything, from your bullpen to suicide squeezes. At a glance you'll be able to tell if your players are good sacrifice bunters, power hitters or contact hitters. You'll be able to see what your pitcher's velocity is and whether or not they're tired or good to go. You can visit the mound. You can order a hit & run or a run & hit. You can see how good the opposing catcher's arm is so you know whether or not to attempt a steal. You can sim through to 9th inning or even just sit back and let the computer sim the games.
I have to say, the game interface is spectacular. I never had a moment where I didn't completely understand exactly what I needed to do or how to do it. Bullpen management was as easy as clicking on "Substitutions" and dragging one or two of my middle relievers over to the bullpen and letting them warm up while I play. You can also turn off the option to warm up your relievers and just insert them if you need to, but I chose to leave it on just for accuracy's sake.
For previous users, they've added a feature where you're able to use widgets to customize the game view. For instance, if you want to get a closer look at how your batter handles himself against lefties, you can do that by popping open the batter's window instead of having to click on the player and dig through a spreadsheet. If you want to move the field view over to the right side of the screen and all the stat boxes to the left, you can. It's a very nice idea, but there's a several-second delay in between when you click on the windows or try and move them. It's a little disconcerting, but for the patient it's not a bad idea. I'm sure they'll improve and expand upon the idea in future releases.
Another complaint I had: Out of the Park X only plays in a windowed mode. You can get the window to fill up your screen, so if you have a large monitor you really can't take advantage of the extra viewing area to give yourself more data or a bigger advantage. It wasn't a dealbreaker, but it was annoying.
Another thing that's worth mentioning: The type of people who play stat-based sports sims are not your typical sports-game playing cavemen. On the Out of the Park forums, you'll find respectful people who actually use complete sentences. It's a good thing, since it's nice to have a place where you can ask questions that won't be met with icy stares or "LOL NEWB" retorts.
I walked into Out of the Park X as a complete neophyte and came out rather impressed. Everything was easy to understand, if a little daunting at first. It's not the kind of game you can really get a handle on after dabbling in it. It requires a commitment in order to unlock it's mysteries, not unlike baseball itself. I haven't even touched on other features, like online leagues (which have been also improved for this year's version, if documentation is to be believed). For those who are willing to put forth the effort, there's a lot to love within.
Final Grade: A-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
