The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 7: What Will The Next Ten Years Hold?

There are lots of predictions floating around about the next ten years of gaming.  Yoichi Wada of Square Enix just said that "In ten years' time a lot of what we call 'console games' won't exist."  There's talk that gaming will move to "the cloud," and the whole nature of the industry will change.  What's true and what's false?  What will happen and won't?

Digital distribution will not become the norm.  As much as companies would like it to be, it won't ever take off the way they would like.  I'll have more on this in a different article.

3-D gaming will be the only reason to get a 3-D TV, but it won't catch on until the end of the decade.  Everyone just upgraded to HDTVs and aren't going to shell out even more money for a 3-D TV, and they aren't going to be buying 3-D TV to watch The King of Queens reruns, that's for sure.

There will be a completely unheard-of genre that will take the world by storm.  Just like music games became huge last decade because of improved technologies, a new genre will arrive next decade due to the new motion controls and 3-D gaming.

All three companies that are standing at the beginning of this decade will be in the game during the end of the decade.  Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all have too much money and too much at stake to back out at any point.  Sony's been to the peak and wants to go back.  Microsoft wants inroads into the living room.  Video games are all Nintendo does.  No one's going anywhere.

Microsoft will recognize its need for a stronger first-party lineup after the PS3 passes it by early next decade, and will make overtures to a big studio.  They already thought about acquiring EA, even though they didn't do it.  They'll try again.

Consoles aren't going anywhere, but it will be a while until Sony and Microsoft release a new one.  Nintendo will put one out early next decade, though, and put the screws to both companies in the HD market.

Nintendo will go through another bust cycle, but it won't be the Wii's fault.

Nintendo will radically redo Zelda at some point next decade, and not just by adding Super Guide.

Microsoft will stop trying with Japan and let nature take its course.  They've sunk so much money into Japan for such a little return that it's not worth it anymore, especially with the shrinking market in Japan.

Miyamoto will retire, and there will be much sadness.  However, Yoshiaki Koizumi will step in and nothing will change.

Sony will stick to the ten-year plan and be rewarded at the end with either a victory in the console race or a tie with Nintendo.

Natal will be a game-changer, but traditional controls aren't going anywhere.

Call of Duty and Guitar Hero will see diminishing returns.  By the end of the decade, they'll be non-starters.

EA's patience with new IPs will be rewarded, but not until there's more corporate bloodletting.

If the 00's were the start of the indie developer, the 10's will be the decade of the indie.

Single-player games on the PC will be even fewer by the end of the decade.  MMOs will start migrating to the consoles, but they won't be there by the end of the decade.

Diablo III will be excellent, but it won't arrive until 2012.  I can't believe there's even debate about the quality of it.

Blizzard will refocus on new IPs and will struggle for it.

We'll see a new No One Lives Forever game.  Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

The Old Republic will be the next big MMO.  World of Warcraft will still stick around, just like Everquest and Ultima Online have.

Someone, somewhere will finally revisit X-Com.  It's been far too long to let it lie fallow.  It will disappoint the hardcore fans.

Finally, the more things change, the more things stay the same.  We're not going to be jacking into the matrix by the end of the decade, and we won't have everything streamed to us in a set-top box.  We'll still be putting discs into machines and sitting on the couch with controllers.  Granted, it'll be a space couch, and we'll be wearing hovershoes while connecting to the overmind, but some things simply won't change.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 6: The Decade of the Music Game

We've already talked about the importance of Guitar Hero.  It sold tons of copies and created a large pile of spinoffs, copiers, and detractors.  However, in talking about Guitar Hero, we're touching on something very interesting about this decade: In the zeroes, music games really went supernova.  Dance Dance Revolution launched in 1998, but didn't really make it into homes until this decade, where it sold in huge numbers.  DDR became part of the cultural lexicon so much that even people who hadn't played it knew what it was.  So what caused music games to become so popular so quickly when they hadn't been a big deal before?

The answer comes down to the music in games.  Video game music was very similar for a long time.  Even the best music still sounded a little chippy:

Granted, a lot of these songs were great, and there's no denying that they did wonders with what they had, but chiptunes don't hold a lot of significance for people other than gamers.  It's really hard to show someone who's not familiar with gaming how great a chiptune is because they don't understand how difficult it is to make them sound good.  Most systems had ho-hum sound chips that could do a little bit of digitized audio, but the sound was still garbled and not-quite-right.

It wasn't until the PS1 that we finally had CD-quality audio available for the first time.  However, most of the tracks were still chiptunes, albeit excellent ones.  Even some of the best soundtracks on the PS1 were still MIDI tracks with a lot more flexibility.  Sure, they could put in realistic-sounding instruments and more layers, but it was still MIDI with all the limitations inherent in MIDI.

What changed in the zeroes?  One, compression technology improved, meaning that a song could be compressed and still sound good.  Two, disc capacity took a huge leap from 800 MB on a standard CD to 4.7 GB on a DVD.  Space was no longer at a premium on a disc, so you could actually fit real, actual tracks on a disc.  With those technological improvements, we started seeing a genre that heretofore was impossible to achieve with any success become very, very possible as well as very, very profitable.

Of course, this opened the door for Guitar Hero and its imitators, but what can't be understated is the effect that Guitar Hero had on the industry as a whole.  It's hard to remember now, but at the dawn of the decade Activision was a failed brand that floundered a bit.  Before Guitar Hero, Activision's acquisitions were mostly mid-major studios like Neversoft, Infinity Ward, and Vicarious Visions.  They were positioning themselves to become a player, but hadn't taken the next leap.  After 2005 (when Guitar Hero launched) they started merging and changing, eventually becoming the behemoth we know and tolerate now.

Now, correlation doesn't always equal causality, and Infinity Ward certainly had a lot to do with Activision's rise to prominence.  Still, instead of having one major tentpole franchise (Call of Duty), Activision had TWO that could be exploited which allowed them to play with the likes of Vivendi, acquire Blizzard, and become a money-printing, price-hiking machine.  In other words, Activision is where it is because of music gaming.

So what do the next 10 years hold?  What will change?  What shiny new technology is going to change things forever?  There's no way to be certain, but we'll make some educated guesses in the next article in this series.

I Know Sometimes I Rag On Kotaku Readers...

I know sometimes I rag on Kotaku readers, but in this case I have to hand it to them for a job well-done.  This article just came up, which talks about Nintendo's commanding lead among female gamers.  I knew I had to read the comments on this one, since I thought I could pull out some choice comments to mock.  Instead, I ran across this exchange, which happened after someone talked about Nintendo widening their fanbase:

Slagathorian:
I imagine that if they put in some theatre production in football, it would also widen their fanbase. I imagine if the Resident Evil movies had an angst filled teenage love story, it would widen the fanbase.
The number one goal should not be to "widen" fanbase at the cost of alienating their existing fanbase.

That was what I expected the comments to be filled with, but here was the rebuttal:

shouryuuken:
*shrugs* its not like nintendo has stopped making their classic franchise games. this gen has seen some fine examples if not some of the best of what theyve been doing for the past 20 years.
i see no crime in only adding to their portfolio, even if the new additions are aimed at a different audience.
your complaint would be the same as kids complaining about cartoon network debuting adult swim because the cartoons werent aimed at them.
its a business, not a hobby.

Good work, folks.  It's about time that people start realizing that they're NOT abandoning their bread-and-butter audience, but trying to get a bigger base that will ensure their survival into the 21st century and beyond.  I have nothing else to add.

I have got to stop messing around with the site

Every time I do it messes up my tracking numbers, and then I have to put back in my Google Analytics codes, and then there's a period of a week where I wonder if they're in right.  Next time I try and mess with my site, just slap my hand gently but firmly and say "no."

Review: New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Developer: Nintendo
Publisher: Nintendo

By now, you pretty much know if you like 2-D Mario games or not. They've been around for over 25 years, and most every game has you stepping on enemies and/or killing them with fire in order to rescue Princess Peach from the clutches of Bowser. It's a simple formula that's paid dividends for years.
Mario made a successful detour into 3-D while other iconic characters failed (hello, Sonic), but the success of 2006's New Super Mario Bros. for the DS convinced Nintendo to return to his 2-D roots once again for New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's Mario's first 2-D console outing since 1990's Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo, so he's long overdue. Was the return trip to the Mushroom Kingdom worth the wait, or is a trip that should have been skipped?

It's-a Me

I had a few complaints about the DS version of New Super Mario Bros:

1. I finished the game on the same day that I purchased it.
2. Going through the levels and getting every Star Coin didn't seem to add anything to gameplay. It was just so much busywork.
3. Some of the later levels were just hard for the sake of being hard. They would throw in random enemy attacks, and it was just unfair.
4. The boss battles were nothing to write home about. You just fought different versions of Bowser Jr. until he finally stopped attacking you.
5. Finally, in order to get to some of the worlds you had to take really roundabout ways to get there. You had to beat some of the world bosses with a mini-mushroom in order to unlock worlds 4 and 6, and mini-mushrooms were hard to come by.

In other words, I still liked the DS version, but we had a strained relationship.

It pleases me to say that New Super Mario Bros. Wii has cleaned up almost all of the defects of its predecessor. It has more levels that are more involved than the original and display much more imagination than the DS game. While it appeared that Nintendo's B-Team was working on the DS game, the success of the DS game convinced Nintendo to use their A-Team to make the Wii version, and it shows.

Two, getting the Star Coins unlocks levels that are reminiscent of Super Mario World's Star World in a good way. You actually feel like digging around for the Star Coins because there's a tangible reward.

Third, when the game gets difficult, it's still fair. You always know why you died and what it takes to get past that point. There will be times where you scrape through a level and legitimately feel a sense of accomplishment, not frustration over stupid decisions made by the level designer.

Fourth, the Koopalings are back. While their battles aren't amazing, they're definitely better than the drab Bowser Jr. fights of the DS game. On top of that, the final battle with Bowser even made this jaded gamer's jaw drop a little bit.

Fifth, there are no worlds that you can't get to without a little elbow grease. You should see every world on your first playthrough without having to resort to weird tactics, although there are several levels within them that can be rather difficult to find. Once you find the solution, it's head-slappingly easy to understand, but you never feel like getting there was overly esoteric.

Whoo-Hoo

In fact, just about everything in New Super Mario Bros. Wii is aces. Some have referred to it as Super Mario Bros. 5, and that's an apt description. Everything about it screams quality, from the tight, intuitive level design to the bopping, bouncing music that accompanies your journey. The controls handle like a dream, as you would expect from a Mario game. Yoshi is back, and he handles just like you would expect. The graphics are crisp and clean, looking exactly like a traditional Mario game updated for the 21st century. Everything is exactly what you would want in a new sidescrolling Mario game.

But is that a good thing? Some may complain, "The fact that everything is exactly the way you would expect means that they didn't really try." While there is a bit of deja vu throughout, there aren't a whole lot of places where you roll your eyes and say, "I've seen that before." There are intelligent nods to your skills, but most everything is something new yet familiar. If you played a Mario game back in the day and enjoyed it, playing New Super Mario Bros. Wii will put a smile on your face.

Some have also complained about Super Guide, the revolutionary new way that Nintendo plans on opening up games for inexperienced players. Basically, Super Guide can play through a level for you, allowing you to complete levels that are giving you problems and help inexperienced players to reach the end of the game. Some feel that it makes things too easy. I mean, if a game can play itself, that what's the point?

Super Guide doesn't really work like that. If you die more than eight times in a level, a green block will appear above your head at your starting point. If you hit it, it'll ask if you want to use Super Guide. If you don't, don't hit the block. Simple as that.

In fact, the game will give you a medal if you never die enough for Super Guide to come up. It's a clever way of rewarding experienced players and giving them a badge of honor of sorts. It's unobtrusive, and can be safely ignored if you don't want it. If you do want it, it's there. It's a great way for Nintendo to crank up the difficulty while still allowing everyone a seat at the table.

Oh Noooooooo

That's not to say there aren't problems. For one, while the music is nice, I would much rather have heard more traditional Mario themes than the newer New Super Mario Bros. theme. That's a little nitpicky, but one thing that separated a game like Super Mario Galaxy from previous entries in the 3-D series was the use of music from the original Mario games. If you're aiming for updated nostalgia, as Nintendo was clearly trying to do here, that music alone calls back better memories, and it would have been nice to hear more of it.

Another addition was the much-ballyhooed multiplayer, which allows four players to be onscreen at the same time. With the wrong group of people, this can be frustrating and limiting. It sucks when you're the only person who knows how to play and you end up carrying each and every level. A player that's more talented than others may find themselves having to wait for other players to catch up before proceeding, or having to bail out other players repeatedly. However, with the right group of people, this can be an extremely entertaining mode. Having someone hold off enemies while you go for a Star Coin can be really fun, and having someone to help you try out a new tactic is great. More often than not, though, the multiplayer is more frustration than anything else.

Let's-a Go

Most everyone who has seen New Super Mario Bros. Wii has made a judgement one way or the other. If you decided you don't want to play it, this review probably won't change your mind. But I have to ask, if you don't want to play it, why not? I mean, it recalls the older Mario games in the best possible way. It's challenging without being overly difficult. Super Guide only bothers the weaker players, and great features from previous games, like airships and keeping a stockpile of powerups, have come back.

There's a reason why New Super Mario Bros. sold a ton of copies on the DS, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii will continue tearing up sales charts: It's fun for everyone. If you're still on the fence about New Super Mario Bros. Wii, get off the fence and get it.

Final Grade: A-

121

I did it.  Pics forthcoming.  After 72 hours and 12 minutes, I just can't believe it.

118 Stars As Luigi

I'm getting achingly close here, people.  Just two more left to go, and they're both Cosmic Races (ugh).  Wish me luck.

Mother 3 and Consumerism

One of the keys of Mother 3 in the early going is "the happy box."  It's a glowing box that Fassad, the shady dealer in league with the Pigmasks, convinces everyone in the town that they need in order to be happy.  In short order, the town is full of happy boxes, and people sit and stare at them for hours.  They run home from work to see what's on the happy box.  They want bigger happy boxes.  I think you can see the analog here, but the crux is that after the happy boxes arrive, everyone wants to buy more and more things so that they'll be happy.

It's really quite a bold statement for a video game to make, and it made me think of how perfectly tuned video games are to consumerism.  It seems that as soon as a new game comes out, the question becomes, "What's next?"  Even games that are two or three years old are considered outdated and relegated to used game racks.  People who don't keep up with the newest games are considered weird.  If you have a video game system that came out eight years ago, you're behind the times and need the new gaming system that just came out.  "Have a regular TV?  You need a high-def TV!  Here are some games that look great in high-def!  Buy a high-def console!  Have a high-def TV already?  3-D games are going to come out!  You'll need a 3-D TV for that, and a powerful console to boot!"

The odd thing is that we're not really happy when we walk down that road.  The new only satisfies us for a bit, and then it's not new anymore.  This is demonstrated by the boom in retrogaming, from "Rebirth" games to Virtual Console games to emulators.  If it was in our nature to always want the new, then why would we always go back to the old?

Video games also really tap into that consumer culture in another area.  The joy of a game is in the accomplishment.  When we finish a game, we've accomplished a task, which stimulates happy parts in our brain.  If we're replaying a game, we've already accomplished the tasks at hand, which means that that little happy part in our brain isn't getting stimulated by what we've done, which means that the second time around feels empty somehow.  It's like watching someone else's vacation slides of a place we've been:  Yes, this is all very interesting, and I remember that spot, but it's not as exciting as when we saw it the first time around.

In the end, what we want as human beings is not a constant stream of new and exciting things, but rather the joy and comfort of what we like.  That's one of the lessons of Mother 3, and a lesson we could do well to learn.

(As a sidenote, it's a testament to Mother 3 that it makes you think about these things.  Play this game.)

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 5: Most Important Games of the Decade

When we talk about gaming, sometimes we make the mistake of discussing the systems or the technology behind the games instead of the games themselves.  That's a shame, because all of the technology in the world is worthless unless there are games to play it on.  To that end, here are the ten most important games of the decade.  These aren't the best games, but rather the games that had the farthest-reaching and hardest impact in gaming, in order of appearance.  If you've played these ten games, then you understand what the whole decade of gaming was about.

Super Mario Advance - Game Boy Advance - June 11, 2001

At first glance, having Super Mario Advance on this list sounds ridiculous.  Hear me out.

It wasn't just that it repackaged Super Mario Bros. 2, a Criminally Overlooked game, but it started the trend of repackaging and updating older games to modern standards.  There was a huge, untapped market for updated nostalgia that was revealed by Super Mario Advance, which in turn opened the door for the Virtual Console and the Rebirth series of games.  It also showed that 2-D platforming wasn't dead at all, and needed to be supported and nurtured.  This led to tons of new 2-D platformers, including games like Shadow Complex and the New Super Mario Bros. series, and proved that some types of gameplay never go out of style.

ICO - Playstation 2 - September 24, 2001

There hadn't really been a game quite like ICO.  It was a strange game, with little dialogue, little direction, and a weird, helpless mute girl who you led around.  It's not the sort of game that flies off of shelves, and the fact that it was released two weeks after 9/11 didn't help its chances at retail.  However, those who played it found that it was a starkly personal story of affection and trust, set in a beautiful, mysterious backdrop. There was darkness around the edges, but the darkness could be dispelled with bravery and kindness.

Not only was it a great game on its own merits, but it also opened the door for other triumphs, like Beyond Good & Evil, Shadow of the Colossus, Mother 3, Braid, Okami, and a host of other atmospheric, emotional tales. In many ways, it was really the start of the prestige game: The game that won't sell a lot of copies, but is a game that the makers and publishers will be proud of.

Grand Theft Auto 3 - Playstation 2 - October 22, 2001

Rockstar Games was a standard developer with a couple of fun games to their credit, but nothing special. Then Grand Theft Auto 3 hit, and they became a household name. GTA 3 was one of the first examples of an open-world game that felt real.  You could either follow the missions or not.  You could waste hours driving around, listening to the radio, and exploring. You could get into a fight with the cops and have them bring down the military on you.  The choice was really yours.  

It also brought mass media attention to gaming, and not always in a good way. The howls of "You can have sex with hookers, run over them and take your money back!" were extremely loud, and it helped give crazies like Jack Thompson a pulpit to scream from. It's telling that these choices are built into the game, but you don't have to take them if you don't want to. You don't have to go on rampages. You can just follow the well-plotted gangland storyline if you choose. In an ironic twist of fate, what you choose to do in GTA says more about you than it does the developer. If it weren't for GTA 3, we wouldn't have the other games in the GTA series, obviously, but we also wouldn't have games stretching from Saints Row to Prototype to Just Cause.

Halo - XBox - November 15, 2001

In fact, between GTA 3 and Halo, you can almost understand the entire decade. Before Halo, console multiplayer was done split-screen, where you got a few of your friends together and played in the same room. After Halo, console multiplayer was worldwide and unified. Before Halo, shooters were an also-ran on consoles, with most being ports of PC games or just plain inferior to what the PC was doing at the time. After Halo, shooters made their homes on consoles first and then filtered down to the PC.

The archetype of a space marine doing battle versus an alien horde goes back to DOOM, but Halo was what prompted the next wave of grizzled space marine games. Gears of War, Killzone, Resistance, and even Metroid Prime all owe their existence and popularity to Halo.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - XBox - July 15, 2003

Bioware already had made a name for themselves with fun, deep RPGs, but this was their first time with someone else's work, and their first time outside of the constraints of Dungeons & Dragons. Lucasarts was also beginning to let others handle their license after several years of mismanagement. Could Bioware work with someone else's material?  Could Lucasarts actually make a good Star Wars game? Also, RPGs on consoles had been the province of spiky-haired angsty emo kids with gigantic swords. Could an RPG that didn't have an androgynous hero sell on consoles?

Yes, yes and yes. Not only was the gameplay great and the characters sharp ("Shall we find something to kill to cheer ourselves up?"), but KOTOR set the stage for a new type of console RPG, one where you dealt with real characters and real emotions.  It announced Bioware as a major player on consoles and set the stage for Jade Empire and Mass Effect. Additionally, along with Jedi Knight II, it brought Star Wars games back from the dead. Sure, there are still spiky-haired brooding heroes running around on consoles, but thanks to Knights of the Old Republic, there are more identifiable characters there too.

Half-Life 2 - PC - November 16, 2004

Half-Life 2 was important for a variety of reasons. It was one of the best games of the decade, no doubt. That much is a given. It also deserves a place on this list for offshoots like Team Fortress 2 and Portal, as well as for the physics-based gameplay that's become de rigeur for most games in the decade. It also proved that there was still a place for tightly-scripted single-player experiences, which led to the Call of Duty games exploding.

However, Half-Life 2 was one of the first major games that could be purchased digitally via Steam. If it wouldn't have worked or would have been a major hassle for customers, digital distribution would have been dead in the water. Instead, it gathered steam (pun not intended) and made its way into consoles, including the all-digital download PSPGo. Also, as stated before, Half-Life 2 killed the used PC games market, which hastened the gathering death of the single-player PC experience.

World of Warcraft - PC - November 23, 2004

Everquest arguably did just as much to expand the MMO audience, but it released in 1999, so it's not eligible for this list. Instead, we'll focus on the game that brought MMO gaming to the masses, World of Warcraft.

Everquest proved that there was a market for MMOs. World of Warcraft showed how big that market was, and in so doing, opened the door for myriads of MMOs. Before World of Warcraft, setting up an online game was a risky proposition that could very easily fail. Once indoctrinate players understood what an MMO was, the market was enlarged to the point that more MMOs could coexist. Sure, some failed, like Asheron's Call 2 and Tabula Rasa, but many free-to-play MMOs leapt into the gap and opened the door for a new type of experience. Even Facebook games like Farmville owe their existence to forerunners like World of Warcraft.

Guitar Hero - PS2 - November 8, 2005

NEEEEEOOOOOWWWWNNNN! (throws up horns)

The second half of the decade was owned by music games, and Guitar Hero led the way. Harmonix developed a fun and unique experience that went supernova within the space of two years. Guitar Hero III quickly became one of the biggest-selling games of all-time, but it came with a stark warning for future companies: When a game becomes popular, the knee-jerk reaction of most companies is "let's make more of them." That's not a bad idea, obviously, but within the space of five years, here's the list of Guitar Hero games and derivatives:

Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero 2, Guitar Hero 3, Guitar Hero World Tour, Guitar Hero 5, Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80's, Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, Guitar Hero: Metallica, Guitar Hero: Van Halen, Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, Guitar Hero: On Tour, Guitar Hero: On Tour Decades, Band Hero, DJ Hero, Rock Band, Rock Band 2, Rock Band Track Packs, Rock Band Unplugged, The Beatles: Rock Band

That's 19 games in five years, or almost four a year. That's insane. Of course, the brand is starting to weaken. The Beatles: Rock Band sold on name recognition of the Beatles alone. DJ Hero and Band Hero are flopping. Guitar Hero 5 isn't selling up to expectations. While there's a tendency among publishers to want to do what's successful, it has to be measured against long-term success, and that's the lesson we can learn here.

Brain Age - DS - April 16, 2006

Brain Age got scoffed at when it first launched, and with good reason. Who wants to play a game with nothing but math problems? The answer: About 17 million people.

Brain Age showed that there was a market for games beyond the established boundaries of gaming. You can make games that appeal to a wider audience, and they'll sell. Despite what many people thought at the time, lots of people want to play games but can't find an entry point. The most popular games are too complex and scary, and most people don't want to start out by playing kids games. Nintendo hit upon a viable idea: How about making a game that is mature but at the same time allows new people to play? It's absurdly simple, but this premise opened the door for the Expanded Audience, which, for better or worse, begat the Wii.

Wii Sports - Wii - November 19. 2006

Wii Sports is one of the most controversial games of the decade. It's not because it's violent, because it isn't. It doesn't deal with adult subject matter, and there's nothing objectionable about it. However, it's become a flashpoint for the biggest debate of the decade:  hat constitutes a game? When is a game too slight? Is this the direction that games should go in? Is this the future of gaming?

The answer, of course, is that there's room for everyone at the table. There's room for Modern Warfare 2 and Game Party 2. There's room for Mass Effect and Deca Sports. There's room for Halo 3: ODST and Rayman Raving Rabbids TV Party. Perhaps the biggest lesson from Wii Sports is that fun is universal. Maybe everyone can enjoy gaming. Maybe they won't want to jump in to Manhunt 2, but that's OK. It's a big market out there, and every can have a share.

Also receiving votes:

• Deus Ex - Real moral choices in a game, along with wide-open decision making and multiple routes. The only reason this didn't rate higher is because of the abysmal, immersion breaking voice-acting and the lack of true successors.
• Diablo II - Fantastic action-RPG that created a lot of imitators, but merely an improvement on the original Diablo, which had already spawned lots of imitators.
• Metal Gear Solid 2 - One of the leaders in cinematic story-telling and the first game that truly announced the new generation of consoles. Also way too long-winded and convoluted.
• Final Fantasy X - The first Final Fantasy in full 3D and with realistically-proportioned characters that spawned loads of imitators. However, the typical console RPG still hasn't changed in 20 years, so not as influential as you would think.
• Call of Duty 4 - One of the biggest games of the decade, with shocking, disturbing twists and one of the most supported online games to boot, but hasn't really influenced a lot of newer games yet.
• Super Mario Galaxy - A rousing return to form for Mario after the disappointing Super Mario Sunshine, but hasn't had a lot of influence in other games yet.

Reggie: "The addition of HD capability will not be the next step for us."

Taken from this article:

"The fundamental issue in the logic flow is that — and this is what I'm hearing, whether it's from you or Geoff or Michael himself — is that, gosh it's such an opportunity to take HD capability and link it with the Wii. And what we have said, repeatedly, is that that's not the way we at Nintendo do things. The way we at Nintendo do things is, you know, when we will move to a new generation, it's because there are some fundamental things the [current] console cannot do. What that says is that simply the addition of HD capability will not be the next step for us. There will be more to it. There will be additional capability. There will be additional elements, and, given that, it is far into the future."

Fair enough.  However, there are some fundamental things that the Wii can't do, technologically speaking.  The reason why guys like Activision don't make Modern Warfare or Assassin's Creed for the Wii is because it can't keep up with the big boys graphically.  Therefore, they're not able to just port the game, but rather have to remake it.  Why would you want to spend tons of money on doing something so extensive for a non-guaranteed return, especially in a down economy?

DJ Hero's Sales Tank

Wow.  What bad sales for DJ Hero, but not entirely unexpected.  Of course, Activision claims that it's a "new property" and they always have trouble getting off the ground, but Borderlands is also a new property and TRIPLED the sales of DJ Hero with LESS promotion.  DJ Hero's review scores were even better than Borderlands, and it's still flopping.

What's the lesson here?  First, don't release PS2 versions anymore, as DJ Hero sold about 3000 PS2 versions.  No one is buying new PS2 games.  If someone is still playing their PS2, they're playing old, cheap games for it.

Second, yes, we're coming out of a recession, but we're STILL IN A RECESSION.  Don't release expensive peripherals in the middle of one, okay?  That means you, Tony Hawk Ride.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 4: Everything Is Set In Motion

Up until recently, there was really only one way to control a game: You plugged in a controller and pressed buttons to make the character on the screen move.  It was a seemingly simple system, and everyone seemed to be fine with this system, but there were a few flaws in it.  For instance, in order to add more functions to games, controllers needed to get more and more complex.  From 1990 to 1999, they'd jumped from three or four face buttons and a D-pad to two analog sticks, four face buttons, and four shoulder buttons.  The Dualshock 2, released in 2001, made those analog sticks pressure-sensitive, adding essentially two more buttons, while the D-pad stayed behind and got reassigned to create even MORE face buttons.

So, now we're dealing with what amounts to 10 face buttons, two analog sticks, and four shoulder buttons.  For the gamer who had been brought from basic, two-face-button controls on to more complicated controllers it was easily manageable.  There was a curve of difficulty that we followed and we had no problems managing it.  New users had no chance whatsoever.  Add in wacky button layouts like the Gamecube controls, and it was all getting a little ridiculous.  At the rate things were going, games would soon be demanding full-size keyboards within a short while.  Clearly, controllers needed to be simplified.

The first shot across the bow was the DS.  At the time, the touch-screen mechanic was looked at as "interesting, but why?"  The only game that Nintendo showed that really utilized the screen was Yoshi Touch N' Go, and it was awful.  It was only until Kirby: Canvas Curse launched that developers and gamers alike understood the potential of a touchscreen:  Making simple motions easily accessible and understandable for the average user.  It didn't take long for other developers to jump on board with the idea, and the DS has become one of the most successful systems of all time.

However, the DS was just the beginning.  Nintendo experimented with motion controls with the Power Pad and Power Glove back in the NES days.  They were sloppy and confusing, and died quick and well-deserved deaths.  Sega even released the Activator, which was an absolute mess.  For those who don't remember the Activator, it was a ring you placed on the floor.  When you moved your arms or legs over the Activator, it was akin to pressing buttons on the controller.  You couldn't use it in areas of low ceilings, you couldn't use it with reflective ceilings, and I think you can see the problem with trying to hold down multiple buttons at once.  The Activator basically turned your gaming experience into high-speed, inaccurate Twister.  So we can see that the concept of motion controls were nothing new, but they never caught on.  They were either too clumsy or not accurate enough to make a difference.

That changed when Nintendo launched the Wii.  Here, in a tiny little remote control, were simple, responsive and fun motion controls.  On top of everything, the Wii was cheap and inoffensive.  It may be hard to convince your grandma to play Gears of War, but ask her to try Wii Bowling?  She's on board right away.  Anyone could grasp the simplicity of swinging the controller to imitate playing tennis, or moving your arm to bowl.  In a sense, the Wii brought gaming full circle.  Gaming didn't automatically start with an audience, but it built one up over the years.  Similarly, the Wii started a whole new group of people along the path of gaming goodness.

At first, Sony and Microsoft scoffed at the Wii, only seeing the poor graphics and not noticing how people connected with the controller.  After seeing the Wii take off, there was a motion-control-induced panic, as Sony and Microsoft both tripped over themselves to come up with their own motion controls.  Sony especially jumped the gun with their Sixaxis controls.  Instead of focusing on one thing, like the Wiimote did, they tried to meld traditional controls with motion and ended up pleasing no one.  Microsoft took a longer view and unleashed Natal, a controller-less system that looks promising.  As of yet, there's no release date or pricing, but the tech behind it promises to further reduce the barrier between the gamer and the system.  Sony is also giving it another go with their Wand that they hope to launch, but there are still a lot of hurdles for Sony to overcome.

Some have decried motion controls, calling them "waggle" and complaining about the amount of crapware on the Wii.  First, waggle can be defined as unnecessary movement in a game that doesn't need it.  It is an issue, as developers race to place motion controls in places where they're not needed.  The same issue plagues early developers of the DS, as they tried to cram stylus controls in every nook and cranny.  Now, they use the stylus more judiciously, if at all.  Motion developers will also learn when is the right time and the wrong time to deploy motion.  Second, crapware comes with the territory.  The NES had oodles of crapware as well, as developers tried understanding this new medium and how to make it work.  Motion controls represent a paradigm shift in game design, so there are bound to be some growing pains.  Add in the fact that many people purchasing the Wii are first-time buyers and don't what games to avoid and you can see where the problems come from.  Over time, these problems will be ironed out, as developers learn how to make games that handle motion controls judiciously while still providing good content, and consumers get savvier with which games they purchase.

That's really the crux of the matter here:  Reducing the amount of barriers to success.  With a standard controller, in order to pilot a character onscreen, you need to have a substantial knowledge of hand placement, hand-eye coordination and muscle memory in order to accomplish anything.  Most gamers have that ability since we have experience in gaming.  Those who are new to gaming don't, and motion controls provide them with a helping hand while allowing old hands like us to view games in a different light.  It's a win-win.

The Gaming Landscape 2000 to 2009 Part 3: Microsoft, Or The Terrifying Large Corporate Behemoth That Could

In 2000, there were three players in the console race:  Sony, Sega, and Nintendo. They were all established companies, they'd all been in the game for a bit, and they were all Japanese. That's how the industry had worked for 15 years, and there seemed to be no reason to change it. True, Sega was a little shaky, but the Dreamcast was a good machine and things were looking up all around.

When Microsoft threw their hat into the ring with their XBox, derisive snorts from the playerati were all over the place. How could Microsoft, a software company, make usable hardware? How could they whip together a game studio that could compete with the stables that Sega, Nintendo and Sony had developed? When they first released their giant controller, howls of laughter pealed across the internet. Surely Microsoft would be out of the gaming business within two years, three years tops.

However, there were a few things that people forgot.  Microsoft had already unified software developers with the DirectX platform. The basic underpinnings of a console were already there:  It just need a computer to run on, and that's what the XBox was. Second, Microsoft had been making hardware for years, with the Sidewinder game pads being the de facto standard for PC gaming for a while and Microsoft keyboards and mice being solid equipment. Therefore, it wasn't a huge stretch to make something a little more complex. Lastly, Microsoft has money. Gobs and gobs of the stuff. If they want to be successful at something, they will be.

The success started with Halo. Halo isn't exactly a great shooter. In fact, it pales in comparison to some of the other shooters that were gracing the PC, like the No One Lives Forever series, Half-Life, Counterstrike, the Thief series, and the Medal of Honor games.  However, it did a few things very well:  Unique, realistic-handling vehicles, good physics and easy-to-set-up online multiplayer.  The first two things could have been done easily on the PC, and they have.  The third was what really revolutionized console gaming.  The Dreamcast had done online gaming over dialup speeds, but what Microsoft did changed things.

The weird thing is that PC makers had been trying (and failing) to make a unified place for online gaming for years. They tried with Kali, Battlenet, Steam, and GameSpy, among others. None were really sufficient, so gamers had to make due with expensive private servers and different usernames. It was all right, and it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but this was the next step. It took Microsoft to accomplish what no other company could, and that's what changed gaming.

Their competitors reacted in different ways. Sega gave up. Sony tried decentralizing multiplayer gaming. Nintendo tried sidestepping the issue and avoiding it. However, it was inevitable. The people had spoken, and they liked this brave new multiplayer world, where you didn't have to make sure that the servers were working before connecting, didn't have to download 50 custom sound files in order to connect to a server, and were able to keep track of your friends in one place. The die was cast. Nintendo was even begrudgingly forced to admit their mistake and try and include some semblance of online multiplayer in their next console.

One area of concern for Microsoft is their inability to break into Japan's market. So far, they've only sold 3 millions units in Japan of the original XBox and the 360. However, that's not a huge deal. The Japanese are big spenders, but Japan's gaming market is also shrinking. They're not as big a deal as they used to be, and if Microsoft decided that they were just going to forget about Japan, they wouldn't have any appreciable profit loss. The cost of shipping and marketing in Japan is probably negating any net gain that they would have gotten from selling their consoles, but Microsoft is stubborn and will probably keep plugging away until they've broken the market there.

Either way, Microsoft has accomplished something pretty startling in the space of 10 years. They went from industry laughingstock to innovator. They've done it by cannibalizing the PC market, but the PC market was on its way out anyway. It'll be interesting to see what the next 10 years hold for them.

Mother 3 and Characters

Another area where Mother 3 seems to excel is with characters.  When you're playing as a character, that character doesn't speak.  They transfer the baton of control from one character to another, and the old character now speaks.  This shows that they have a very clear idea of internal and external characters, and what they mean for the experience.  To sum up for people who don't want to read the whole article, in an internal character, you, the gamer, personally feel their emotions.  An external character feels their own emotions.

One of the ways this is accomplished is by developing the characters surrounding the main character.  You learn who your character is by how other people treat you.  That's exactly what Mother 3 does.  You don't feel like Tazmily Village is just a random town with cookie-cutter residents, you feel it's more of a place with real people.  It requires an enormous amount of trust by the developer that you'll understand what he's doing and why.  It's a gamer's game, in other words.

The Curious Case of Modern Warfare 2

Would this happen in any other type of media?

From the moment Modern Warfare 2 was announced, was there any doubt as to what its final review score would be?  To paraphrase Tycho, reviewers are torn between trying to decide whether the game is awesome or too awesome.  To a man, they all state that it's fantastic.  Here's the Frankenreview from Kotaku.  What's telling is the little two line sentence at the end:

Anyone surprised?

Isn't this a little weird?  I mean, everything has its detractors.  If you ask 15 different music reviewers what their album of the year is, they'll more than likely give you very different answers.  However, you ask 15 reviewers what their Game of the Year is, and you can be guaranteed that a good chunk will mention Modern Warfare 2. As soon as it was announced, you could pencil it in as most people's Game of the Year, sight unseen. Yes, it's well-crafted. That's not the issue. It is a very good game, but the accolades heaped upon it prior to release are a little weird, and the resounding reception that it's received from day one is intriguing.

So, the question becomes "Why?" Some have ideas revolving around conspiracies between the "gaming media" and the "gaming industry," and others decry that it's just marketing in action, nothing else. There's actually something going on that's far less insidious and shocking, but exposes a very large flaw in the gaming firmament.

If you're reading this, more than likely you are a male under 40 years of age. Since you are a male under 40 who is on the internet, you probably like Star Wars. You've probably seen and enjoyed some war movies in your time. More than likely, you have a passing interest in kung-fu movies. I'm just throwing possibilities out there, but my point is this: Males under 40 have some pretty standard interests. It's not hard to figure out what we like, especially if you're another male under 40 years old.

The gaming industry, gaming journalists, and the playerati alike are mostly populated by males under 40 years of age. Therefore, it's only natural that a game that's as well-crafted, adrenaline-soaked, and explosion-heavy as Modern Warfare 2 would excite your average male under 40. We kind of get each other. The industry knows what we like since we are the industry. The only difference between most game devs and gamers is what side of the screen they're on. So, when devs make a game such as Modern Warfare 2, they're aiming it straight at our flabby hearts because they are us. That's why it's getting such great reviews, because it's a love letter to us from us.

Therein lies the problem. That's kind of unsustainable. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of people aren't males under 40. We're actually a pretty small group. Now, we buy a lot of things so that makes us valuable to advertisers and executives, but we're less than a sixth of the total world population. That means that there are lots of people who really aren't getting served, who don't have an interest in a game like Modern Warfare 2, and who are wondering why the heck we're wasting so much time with our Nintenders, Playwhatsits and Xwhatevers.

That's the challenge facing designers in the 21st century.  They've figured out what we like.  Now it's time to figure out what the rest of the world likes, too.

Mother 3 and Death

I'm a little over an hour into Mother 3, and already I have a feeling like this is going to be a very emotional type of game.  The first chapter is called "A Funeral," so it's expected that someone is going to die.  They introduce you to several different characters, so you're not sure who's going to die.  When it's finally revealed, it hits with an unexpected punch for a couple of reasons.  I'm trying to limit how much I say about it, since I don't want to give too much away.  However, this all happens right at the beginning, so I don't know how spoiler-y it is.

First, Mother 3 seems relatively grounded in reality.  Sure, there are robotic caribou and dragons, but the town feels shockingly real.  Everyone has a name.  There are no villagers named "Villager."  They have personalities.  There's the town drunk, the old man who knows he's not as useless as everyone says, and others.  They converse with you like you're a real person and don't just say "Mystic seaport is that way."  There's a lot of depth to the city, so you feel more interested in the world when the death happens.

Second, in most video game deaths, the main character gets down on his knees and screams "Noooooooo!" overdramatically, or they mope around and vow revenge on "whatever did this."  That's not how death is in real life.  In real life, there's a powerlessness, a helplessness that pervades everyone.  It doesn't matter what you do, that person is dead, the person sitting next to you will die someday, and you will also die.  The death of one person reminds us of our own mortality.  That's how it's handled in Mother 3. The characters react in an astoundingly realistic manner.  The character most affected doesn't behave heroically.  He actually behaves like a big jerk, which is what happens at times.

I have to say that so far, Mother 3 is living up to the expectations.  If the rest of the game is just as gripping as the beginning is, I'm in for a great ride.

The Peripheral-Pocalypse Has Begun

With rhythm games, anyway.  Despite good reviews and strong word-of-mouth, DJ Hero's sales are being reported as "modest."  It's a shame.  If Activision wouldn't have overmilked the "Hero" cow, there would still be room for another game.  As it is, it'll be interesting to see what happens to Tony Hawk Ride.

Zelda Posters!

My Zelda posters arrived in the mail today!  They were nicer than I thought they'd be:

Phantom Hourglass:

A nice size, too:

Twilight Princess:

 The history of Zelda!

And me, after seeing how nice the posters were:

Two More Games I Forgot:

A Boy and His Blob

Spyborgs

Games I Need To Get On The Wii Yet

These are just games from this year.

The Conduit

Muramasa

Klonoa

Wii Fit Plus

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Little King's Story

Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat

Dawn Of Discovery

That's a pretty good group.  Some may look at this list and make a "pfft" noise and go back to playing Halo, and that's okay.  You've got your system, and I've got mine, and that's totally okay.  I'm just saying that this year is shaping up to be much, much better than last year.

My Most Played Wii Games

I love stats.  I'm a stat fiend.  So it makes me really happy that the Nintendo Channel keeps track of the playtimes of your games.  Here's my top ten games along with some notes:

Super Mario Galaxy - 66 hrs. 13 min.  (Sitting at 99 stars for Luigi)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl - 52 hrs. 33 mins.
Wii Sports - 42 hrs. 28 mins. (This one got a lot of play at first, especially when people came over)
MLB Power Pros. 2008 - 41 hrs. 5 mins. (I'm surprised by this number myself!  I wish they'd make a new one.)
Mario Kart Wii - 38 hrs. 56 mins. (One of the most requested games)
Rock Band 2 - 20 hrs. 47 mins.
Metroid Prime Trilogy - 20 hrs. 29 mins. (I've only had it for two weeks.  Crazy.)
Beatles: Rock Band - 17 hrs. 24 mins.
Animal Crossing City Folk - 15 hrs. 40 mins. (This is primarily my wife's doing.)
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 14 hrs. 8 mins. (Got to the Fire Temple and quit.)