Criminally Overlooked Games: Seiken Densetsu 3

There are a few injustices in this world that must be rectified: poverty, global warming, the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the fact that Seiken Densetsu 3 has never made it to American shores.

"What is Seiken Densetsu 3?" you might ask. Well, remember how great Secret of Mana was? Remember the multiplayer combat and the cool music and all the exploration in the game? Remember how much fun you had? Imagine a sequel with better music, better combat and more character customization. Imagine better graphics and better world navigation, as well as a longer game. That's Seiken Densetsu 3.
Seiken Densetsu was a series of three games that was released here in North America. You might know that Final Fantasy Adventure for the Game Boy (remade as Sword of Mana) was the first of the trilogy and that Secret of Mana was the second. Well, they made a sequel to Secret of Mana and we never got to play it over here for whatever reason. This needs to be fixed NOW.

Here's a rundown of the game: There are six different main characters you can choose from. There's Duran, the sword fighter and easiest to use. There's Angela, the sorcerer who casts offensive magic. Hawk, the thief, who strikes twice for each attack. Lise, who uses a spear in combat. Carlie, the priestess who uses recovery magic. Finally, Kevin is a beastman who turns into a werewolf at night. Each character plays slightly different, and you'll be able to pick two other ones to accompany you. As the game goes on, you'll meet up with all the characters as their stories weave around yours, but only the two extra ones you've selected will join you on your quest.

Next up, when your characters reach levels 17 and 37, they'll be able to change their class. You can pick to go with either a "light" class or a "dark" class. "Light" classes open up more recovery magic, while "dark" classes open you up to the strongest of attack magics. That means that you can have three pummeling tanks in your party, or you can try and focus on magic, or have two tanks and a healer or whatever you would like to do. The flexibility of the system makes for a ton of fun.

There are more improvements to the "Mana" formula as well. For instance, when flying around in your white dragon, they'll actually point you toward your objectives on the main map. No more wandering aimlessly like in Secret of Mana! There's more variety in locations, like a seriously creepy ghost ship full of zombies, jungles full of dark priests, ice caves with ambulatory fish, and eventually the Mana Holyland. On top of that, the characters are all interesting and not just "insert generic hero motivation" characters like the characters from Secret of Mana.

For me, the most important improvement is the improved battle system. They did away with the constant weapon switching from Secret of Mana, and it streamlines combat considerably. Also, whereas before, enemies would appear almost at random, now enemies appear when you walk into a section. You fight them, and it declares you the winner while showing you how much XP you gained from them, leaving you to explore the area once you're done with the battle. This divides the world up a little better and lets you explore without worrying about things jumping out at you that you thought you had killed. It makes backtracking and exploring a little easier.

During each combat portion, you have a meter at the bottom of the screen. The more attacks you land against your enemies, the more your meter your builds until you're able to unleash some seriously cool special attacks. This meter also gets upgraded as the game goes on, and your special attacks can change depending on your class. That means that you have a reason to go back and play as different characters.

Finally, as good as the sound and music was in Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3 tops it in many areas. The five years that Squaresoft spent coaxing excellent music out of the SNES sound chip don't go to waste, and almost every track is a winner.

In comparison to Secret of Mana, everything in Seiken Densetsu 3 is just all-around better. Please, Square Enix. I don't ask for much. All I ask is that you give Seiken Densetsu 3 the re-release it so richly deserves. You did it for Chrono Trigger. Why not give SD3 the same treatment? That's all I ask.

So Where's "Let's Make A Game?"

So you might be asking, "Where's the 'Let's Make a Game' feature? You gave up, didn't you? I knew it! I totally called it."

Slow down, partner. I didn't quit. A variety of factors led to-

"See! He's making excuses! I knew he would quit all along! He's just a-"

*GUNSHOT*

All right, now we can talk. Let's Make A Game didn't go away, but right now we're in the process of buying a home, which takes up a lot of time. My evenings are pretty much occupied with paperwork and buying supplies.

Plus, I don't like what I'm working on. I feel like I'm polishing a turd. I don't feel passionate about a dumb little shooting game. I want to make something that's more personal and, frankly, fun. I have a few ideas in mind, but nothing solid yet.

I also have to get out of the mindset that I need art assets and music RIGHT NOW or I can't program. Heck, I can make a game with rectangles and insert the art later if I want. I don't even have to insert art if I don't want to and just make it "Rectangle World."

Crap. I have to copyright that quick.

Tony La Russa Retires

I hate the Cardinals. I hate Tony La Russa. I hate how all of his teams have sticks up their collective bottoms. I hate how they think that the "right way to play" means you can't have fun.

However, Tony La Russa invented the modern bullpen, and his success is undeniable. So, happy retirement, TLR. Now get out of the NL Central and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

In Which I Pick A Hockey Team

It's time for me to pick a hockey team to follow.

I say this because usually I would start following basketball in passing around this time of year, even though I hate basketball. It just gives me someone to root for, while not necessarily caring about the sport. However, since the Bucks are frequently terrible with no hope to ever do anything worth paying attention to, it's time to focus my efforts elsewhere.

Plus, hockey has the best trophy in all of professional sports. The Lombardi Trophy is nice, but it doesn't come close to the Stanley Cup in terms of history. Hockey's also got the coolest game (pun not intended) in the Winter Classic and an awesomely rugged history.


I've always had a passing (hah!) interest in hockey, but it's difficult to follow here without any pro team in Wisconsin. Here's what baffles me:

Fact: Wisconsin is practically a solid sheet of ice for nine months out of the year.

Fact: The University of Wisconsin has one of the best hockey programs in the country.

Fact: People here actually like hockey.

Fact: There is no professional hockey team in Wisconsin (aside from the Milwaukee Admirals, who don't really count).

Fact: There are, however, hockey teams in Phoenix and San Jose, places where ice does not naturally exist unless it is in the form of a margarita, which naturally form in the Great Margarita Springs nearby Alamogordo, New Mexico. Alamogordo's slogan: "Our name means 'Fat Alamo!'"

So, yeah, Tampa Bay has a hockey team and they don't want it. Wisconsin has no hockey team and we could support it. Figure that out.

So I'd like to pick a hockey team to follow, but I have to set some ground rules first.

1. No warm-weather teams. If there is no time during the year that you can play hockey outdoors in your city, then you shouldn't have a team. That leaves out Phoenix, Anaheim, Tampa, Carolina, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Jose, Nashville, and "Florida," wherever that is.
2. Not the Blackhawks. I know it's the closest team to where I live, but I hate Chicago teams on principle. It's a Wisconsin thing.
3. I'm not going to follow a team that's currently great. I don't want to be a frontrunner or bandwagon fan. Picking a team just because they're good isn't what being a fan is about. You have to suffer through some losses before you can really call yourself a fan. That leaves out Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit and New Jersey (due to their run in the 90's).

With that in mind, here's what's left:

New York Islanders

New York Rangers

Philadelphia Flyers

Buffalo Sabres

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Toronto Maple Leafs

Washington Capitals

Winnipeg Jets

Columbus Blue Jackets

St. Louis Blues

Calgary Flames

Colorado Avalanche

Edmonton Oilers

Minnesota Wild

Vancouver Canucks

Let's narrow that down. First, I can't root for a New York team. As much as I like the city itself, rooting for a New York sports team when you don't live there is like rooting for the house at a casino. I don't want to root for the Capitals, since there's something about Ovechkin I don't like. I don't even know the guy and have never seen a picture of him, and yet he annoys me for some undetermined reason.

Ohio sucks, so no Blue Jackets. I don't like the St. Louis Cardinals, so I can't in good conscience root for the Blues. The Avalanche are out too because I hate the whole "Hey, our name is singular even though it should be plural" thing. That rules out the Minnesota Wild, too. Seriously, what is a "Wild?" Can an abstract concept even be a team name? I'm going to name any sports team I buy "The Existential Ennui." Make a logo for that.

That leaves us with:

Philadelphia Flyers

Buffalo Sabres

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Toronto Maple Leafs

Winnipeg Jets

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

Vancouver Canucks

Look at that, mostly Canadian teams. Since Wisconsin shares a border with Canada, we've always felt somewhat close to America's Hat. In many ways, due to our relative isolation, we share lots of similarities to Canada, like winter sports, lumberjacks, maple syrup and goofy accents.

Anyway, let's go further. We'll say no to the Flyers, because Philly fans suck. I'm cutting out the Canadiens and the Canucks because I'm not Canadian. It would be like a Canadian fan rooting for a team called "The Scooter-Riding Overeaters" or "The People Who Infest Walmart." It's same reason I'll eliminate the Leafs, besides its odd grammatical pluralization.

That leaves us with:

Buffalo Sabres

Ottawa Senators

Winnipeg Jets

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

All right, crunch time. We'll make some tough decisions here.

The Sabres have only been in the Finals twice, which certainly qualifies for the "don't pick a winner" stipulation. However, they've only been around since 1970. It would be like trying to pick a football team and ending up with the Seahawks. I'm looking for a little more tradition here. Sorry, Buffalo.

The Senators have an odd history. The original incarnation that lasted until the 30's had 11 Stanley Cup wins but folded due to financial problems. They were revived in the 1990's as an expansion team. We'll put a pin in this one, just because of the old-time history.

The Jets have a fractured history as well, but all of the team's history has stayed with the Phoenix Coyotes. It's kind of like the Frankenstein Cleveland Browns in the NFL, and I'm not sure I like that. Plus, their original incarnation (that recently moved from Atlanta) was only around starting in the 70's. I'll pass.

The Flames aren't consistent frontrunners. They've won only one Stanley Cup in their history. I even like the name "Calgary." However, the Oilers had Wayne Gretsky in the 80's. Dang. This is a tough call.

So we're down to three teams: The Senators, the Flames and the Oilers. I'm going to have to go with my gut on this one.

Calgary Flames? You have a new fan. Congratulations, I'm sure you're very proud.

Kirby and Battlefield 3: A Study In Contrasts

Kotaku does their Gut Check series and asks whether or not you should buy a certain game based on their gut instinct. The placed a big, fat "NO" on Kirby Return to Dreamland. Their explanation?

"The game is an ordinary platformer, a one to four-player game of running, jumping, inhaling enemies, appropriating their powers and occasionally wielding timed hyper-powers like a sword or hammer that are almost as big as your TV screen. In a five-minute session that's charming. At length, it's numbing and asks its players to make no interesting decisions. Kirby has an amazing amount of moves in this game, but few that make a difference... The problem is that this new game is simple without excelling at anything."

"It looks like the sort of game that will be just as entertaining a year from now as it is today, and that's why I'm giving it a pass for the time being... If my only gaming platform were the Nintendo Wii I'd be rather depressed. As it stands I am a well-adjusted multiplatform gamer, and Kirby will still be there when I'm ready for him."

Compare this to Battlefield 3's Gut Check, which received a Yes from all three writers:

"This is the new bar for online first-person shooters, when it works... [on single-player] Worse still, the Xbox 360 version of the game shows significant slow down during key firefights. I'm not sure why the game stutters and slows, but I suspect it has to do with the destructible environment, something that's a nice touch but isn't worth the cost if that's what is causing this problem."

"I'm giving it a conditional yes. A half-assed response, maybe, but this seems a half-assed game."

OK, so let's review:

Kirby is a side-scrolling platformer which provides exactly what it advertises. Battlefield 3 is a first-person shooter which provides exactly what it advertises. The multiplayer in Kirby is boring according to some. The multiplayer in Battlefield 3 is great according to some. The single-player in Kirby is entertaining. The single-player in Battlefield 3 is boring. Kirby is polished.  The 360 version of Battlefield 3 has some slight technical issues with slowdown and early server problems.

Yet, one is worth your time and one is not. Gotcha.

This sort of thing bugs me. I'm not the kind of person who looks for bias and screams about it when it's not there, but come on. It's so obvious that the writers were predisposed to like Battlefield 3, so therefore they gloss over its issues. They were not predisposed to like Kirby Return to Dreamland, so therefore the minor issues they find are magnified.

I've harped on this before but I'll say it again: Game reviews need to change. You can't look at them through the lens of what you want the game to be, but what it offers itself up as. Kirby offers itself up as a Kirby game updated for the Wii. At this, it excels. Battlefield 3 offers itself up as a competitive first-person shooter. At this, it excels. It's not a binary function of "this game good, this game bad," nor should it be.

One Final Reason Why Standalone Handheld Devices Are Here To Stay

There's one final reason that standalone handheld gaming devices are here to stay.

5) A different market. My wife loves her iPod Touch, and my sister-in-law loves her's too. They use it all the time and have a great time getting apps and trying out different functions on them.

My sister-in-law plays a lot of games on it, but if you would ask her if she was a gamer, she would probably respond that videogames are dumb and she doesn't waste her time with them right before she goes back to play Cut The Rope for two hours. My wife would also say the same thing before she spends hours playing Bookworm.

If I ask them to play a game on the DS or even the Wii, they'll scoff because "those are too hard." If they really try one of them, they find that it's not too hard at all, but there's still that perception that it's too difficult and they can't do it.

To be sure, the iOS and Android market is eating into Nintendo and Sony's handheld market share to some extent, but it may not be as widespread as you think. Sometimes, we end up seeing some rather misleading graphs that could make us think one thing instead of the other.

For instance, take a look at these two hypothetical pie charts. They're both in percentages. Which chart shows the fewest amount of DS and PSP users?

It's obvious, right? It's the second graph! However, percentages don't tell the whole story. In the first graph, we've worked the figures so that there are 1,000 people in our sample size. In the second graph, there are 2,000 people. Here's how that breaks down in a bar chart:

Data used for the first pie chart

Data used for the second pie chart

The percentages work out exactly the same, but the amount of gamers has changed. We're not seeing a decrease in one market, but an increase in another which skews the percentages. "Percentage of decrease" isn't always a good indicator of how healthy the system is doing. We need more data to see whether or not the market for the DS, PSP and 3DS is shrinking. Fortunately, we have this:

"Android was listed as the best-selling smartphone platform worldwide in Q4 2010 by Canalys with over 190 million Android devices in use by October 2011." - Source

"Recorded sales have been growing steadily thereafter, and by the end of fiscal year 2010, a total of 73.5 million iPhones were sold... Approximately 6.4 million iPhones are active in the U.S. alone. ... Over 1 million 4S models were sold in the first 24 hours after its release in October 2011." - Source

Now, consider this: Even with the staggering amount of Android and iOS devices being sold and currently in use, most people STILL prefer to do their gaming on a standalone gaming device. Now, tell me that doesn't count for something.

Why Standalone Handheld Gaming Devices Won't Die

To some degree, we are seeing the end of the dominance of standalone handheld gaming systems.

We will never see another run like Nintendo had between 1989 through 2010, where every handheld device they offered was a bestseller, no matter how underpowered it was. I mean, the Game Boy sold countless units with a green, blurry screen. The original Game Boy Advance had no backlight in the screen. The original DS was bulky and weird and went up against the technically superior PSP. Yet, whatever they did found success.
That's not going to happen again, ever. Handheld gaming devices are starting to tail off, and some people are already shoveling dirt on them before the body is even cold. It's not completely over for handheld gaming devices. How come?

1) Quality. The gaming library for iOS is enormous, and Android is catching up fast. Yet, of all these games, how many are actually good?

See, a game that's released through a major company like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA, Ubisoft, or others has to go through a vetting process. You make your prototype, determine if it plays well and will sell, and then you release it. If the game doesn't pass the early steps it's not going to make it out the door, since there are quality controls in place to make sure what's being released is halfway decent.

Does that mean that crap gets out the door anyway? Oh, absolutely. However, the ratio of chaff to quality is much higher when there's more money at stake for a developer and publisher.

If you, as a developer, have nothing to lose, there's less incentive to make sure you're releasing a solid product. That's why reviewers go wild over something like Infinity Blade or Jetpack Joyride: Because someone actually took the time to make a decent game in an environment where no one does that.

2) Complexity. Look at the controls for some of the more major games. Angry Birds is just sliding and tapping on the screen. Cut The Rope is sliding your finger. Plants Vs. Zombies is tapping the screen. Infinity Blade is sliding your finger.

These are all very simple games at their core. You could say, "Well, yes, and simple games have been proven to be effective. Take a look at the DS: The DS enabled simple controls in a game, and it was successful. The Wii and Kinect both allow for simple controls, and those have been successful. You yourself have championed simplicity in games. Now you're saying that simple controls aren't effective? Make up your mind!"

All right, then, how would you port a game like Uncharted on the iPhone? You would have to simplify movement and dumb down lots of functions of the game, while removing lots of other features. You would end up with a very neutered version of Uncharted at the end that wouldn't please fans of the original and wouldn't win any converts.

A game like Super Mario Bros. would also be problematic. Can you put the buttons on the screen? Yes, but now you're covering up screen real estate. Can you make the movement be handled by tilting and tapping the screen? Maybe, but now you're losing precision. You would have to make the game far easier and more forgiving of missteps.

Heck, even Pac-Man would be rough. You would also have to take up screen real estate to fit a joystick or controls. Conversely, you could have the player touch the playing field itself for control, but that obscures the position of the ghosts and pellets and isn't that accurate.

The point of all this is that touchscreen and smartphone gaming doesn't have universal appeal. There are certain games that they do well, and certain games that they do not do well.

Now, take a look again at the DS and Wii. Originally, the DS did indeed show that simple touch-based controls were effective. After a few short years, the games grew more complex and were no longer quite so simple.

The Wii's controls were also very simple, but the market for the Wii quickly died out. The audience grew beyond the Wii, while those who made games for it just kept rehashing the same simply controlled games that they always did. (By the way, who's up for some Just Dance 3? Anyone up for Game Party 2? No?)

The point is this: There will be some people who absolutely love those very simple games. Heck, I've fallen in love with Jetpack Joyride and Angry Birds. But just because I like to eat popcorn every once in a while doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good steak, and there will always be people who want a deeper experience than smartphone gaming can provide.

3) Battery life. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Battery life is what makes portable gaming work. Looking at the example of Infinity Blade: Yes, it looks beautiful, but that beauty comes at a price. I'm not going to be able to play Infinity Blade on a plane or extended trip. My battery will run out before too long.

That's part of why graphics on portable systems aren't that amazing. While graphics technology has improved dramatically over the last twenty years, batteries are still pretty much batteries. That means that you have to work within those limits unless you want to drain it.

That was one of the major reasons why Nintendo's handhelds were so successful. The Game Boy could run for ten hours on four AA batteries. The Game Boy Pocket ran for the same amount on two AAAs. The Game Boy Color ran for twenty hours on two AAs. The Game Boy Advance ran for ten hours on two AAs, and the GBA SP ran for ten hours on a single battery charge, as did the DS.

Did all of these systems have the best graphics possible at the time? God no. The Game Boy's screen was blurry and green, when the Game Gear clearly demonstrated you could have full color. The Game Boy Advance couldn't do any 3D, and the DS paled in comparison to the technically superior PSP. And yet, with handhelds, graphics are never the most important thing.

It's no coincidence that all of Nintendo's most successful handhelds had insane battery lives, and their least successful ones don't (although the 3DS isn't entirely unreasonable, at about seven hours in 2D mode, which most people are using anyway).

Do iPods, iPhones and Android devices have good battery life? Yes, when they're playing games that aren't that demanding to the system or sitting idle. When they're playing a game that competes head-to-head with the DS or PSP, it's horrible. Therefore, the graphical advantage that these devices present is negated by the lack of battery power.

4) The purpose. If you buy a DS, PSP, 3DS or Vita, you know why you're buying it. You know that you're purchasing this device to play games, and anything else it can do is secondary. It's great if your system can take pictures or play music, but its primary function is for gaming.

You also know that you're going to be paying $30 and above to play games on this device, and that's OK for you. You recognize that if you want quality gaming on a device that can handle it, you have to pay for it.

If you're buying an iOS or Android device, you're buying it for other reasons. Maybe it's your phone, or your tablet PC, or you just plan on using it as a PDA. Gaming is probably not the first thing you plan on doing with it, although it may have influenced your decision strongly.

The point is this: Over four million 3DS users are all willingly buying games at $29.99 and up. They're also buying several of them, since you can't just buy one game and be satisfied. Since there's only one function of the system, people are spending money to make sure that function continues being useful.

----

There's one more thing that's not getting discussed when we're talking about the expanding role of smartphones in gaming, and it has to do with misleading graphs. We'll cover that tomorrow.