Review: Paper Mario: Sticker Star

Developer: Intelligent Systems
Publisher: Nintendo

If anything, you have to admire Nintendo's audacity.

One of the questions that keeps RPG designers up at night is: "How can we make RPGs lest grind-y?" Nintendo asked that question themselves, and came up with the answer: "Get rid of a progression system that requires players to grind."

That's what Nintendo tried for Paper Mario: Sticker Star. In Sticker Star, you don't gain any experience points from battles, which means you don't level up. The only thing you earn from battles are coins, and you find stickers throughout the world to improve your stats. It's an interesting choice for an RPG. Was it successful? Not really.
In Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Mario fights his battles in a turn-based fashion. You find stickers around the world stuck to walls, floors, enemies and the like. You use those stickers for your attacks. In other words, in order to use a jump attack, you need to have a Jump sticker in your inventory. When you use the sticker, it's discarded.

That means that your only important resource in the entire game is stickers. Coins are spent on stickers and the usage thereof. You get stickers that can be used for special attacks, stickers for recovery, and stickers for regular attacks. Every time you get a sticker, it's placed in your book, which has a limited amount of space.

It sounds interesting, right? What could be wrong with that system? Well, think about it. Since you have a limited amount of space in which to store your stickers, you can only have a few stickers in your sticker book. In every battle, you're using at least two or three stickers, sometimes less, sometimes more.

Do you see the problem yet? If not, I'll spell it out: It makes more sense to avoid battles than to fight them. The more battles you fight, the fewer stickers you'll end up with. Don't have the right sticker to do a basic jump attack? Too bad! You're not using a jump attack! Fighting a tough enemy and need more stickers? Hope you didn't use your stickers on other fights!

You know what's crazy? In-game, there's a museum where you can "donate" stickers to complete the collection. Now why would I want to use the only resource I have in order to fill out a museum? What possible reward do I get? I'm sure there is one, but it's never adequately explained in-game.

Not only that, but you'll sometimes get special stickers that are good against certain bosses. If you don't have these stickers, you're in for a long battle of attrition against the boss. These stickers are huge, most of the time, so they take up a lot of space in your sticker book. You never know which sticker is going to work on the boss, so you have to keep a few different ones in your inventory. That takes up even more space and makes you afraid to use them, because what if you need them later? It's a wildly mismanaged system from top to bottom.

So what about a lack of a level progression system? Does removing the grind make Paper Mario: Sticker Star better than previous Paper Mario games?

There's something that's intrinsic to the appeal of an RPG. When your character is at level 1, you may have trouble beating up a low-level, cannon-fodder enemy. When your character is at level 30, you can go back and wipe the floor with them. They can't land a hit on you, and you can kill them in one shot. That feeling of growing power is key to the success of the RPG genre.

Paper Mario: Sticker Star doesn't give you that feeling. Right after you've completed the first world, the game gives you the chance to go to World 2 or World 3. I stepped into World 3, nervous that I was going to get killed right away. I didn't. I didn't need to be any stronger than I already was, because the enemies were the same in World 3 as in World 2.

So then the story is worth playing, right? After all, previous Paper Mario games had a great story, and the Mario & Luigi games always have fun stories too. What about Paper Mario: Sticker Star?

Yes, what about it? Miyamoto had them remove the story from Sticker Star, the same as he did with Super Mario Galaxy 2. Why? Because people who played Super Paper Mario didn't notice the story as much as they did the gameplay. Therefore, he viewed the story as unimportant.

So that means that in Sticker Star, Nintendo excised all the reasons that someone would play an RPG: Story, progression, everything. What did they leave behind? Inventory management. Wheeeee.

So are we playing Paper Mario: Sticker Star wrong? Maybe we're supposed to play it like a platformer and not an RPG, right?

That would make sense, except for these reasons:

1. The battles are turn-based.
2. There's a TON of inventory management.
3. It looks like an RPG and is marketed as one.
4. The levels aren't super-exciting to make up for the lack of RPG elements.

I do have to give Nintendo credit for trying something different. Yet, there are reasons that certain RPG tropes remain. The grind is there for a reason. The story is there for a reason. Removing them just creates a two-dimensional experience, much like a paper cutout of a beloved hero.

Final Rating: D

Read This: How The Worst Commissioner In Sports Broke The NHL

This is a great article Jonathan Mahler. I would like to like the NHL, but it's hard when the commissioner keeps shooting the league in the foot.

Windows 8 Observations

After spending some time with Windows 8, here are my observations:

1. Windows 7 applications are mostly completely compatible with Windows 8. I haven't run into one game, application or utility that I used on Windows 7 that hasn't worked in Windows 8. Compared to the messy transitions from Windows 98 to XP or from XP to Vista, that's really good work.
2. The Start Screen can be safely ignored, if you don't like it. I have all of my icons on my old Windows 7 desktop. They're still there, and they all open like normal. I'm sure there are some Windows 8 apps that will open on the Start Screen instead, but I haven't run into them yet.
3. Startup and shutdown are fast. Really, really fast. I'm very impressed.
4. The Charm Bar is mostly unneccesary. Since all the functions remain the same in Windows 8, the only thing I've used the Charm Bar for is shutting down my computer.
5. Windows 8 is, in some ways, more complicated than Windows 7. If you're on the Start Screen and want to look for the Control Panel, you could find a truncated Control Panel in the Charm Bar, but that doesn't reveal all the functions that are typicall in the Control Panel. Instead, you have to go to the Start Screen and start typing the words 'Control Panel.' Within a second, you'll have an icon for the old Control Panel. Most standard users aren't going to know that exists.
6. Losing the Start Menu structure is going to hurt more than it helps. The Start Menu in Windows 7 is nice and organized. All of your programs are tucked away safely in their respective folders. It's clean and easy to use.
   
   In Windows 8, the program list is a hot mess. Every single program is revealed in a giant list, and that includes weird utilities that sometimes come along with main programs, like level editors, help applications, and the like. It's a headache, and much easier to search for the program you're looking for.
7. It's not going to be good for the stereotypical user of Windows. I've found myself pulling my hair out from time to time trying to figure out how to do things, and I work with computers every day. How is your grandma going to figure it out?
   
   Even Apple, with the most successful tablet interface out there, doesn't use the same interface for their computers and their tablets. The PC interface is one thing, because it has specific requirements and ways that people use it. The tablet interface is another interface, because it has specific requirements and ways that people use it. Trying to pile them together pleases neither group.

So what's my final verdict? For the price that Microsoft is selling the upgrade for ($39.99 through the end of January, if I recall correctly) it's not bad. If the price is much higher than that? Skip it and wait to see if Microsoft fixes their mistakes in Windows 9.

NES Replay: The Adventures of Rad Gravity

Developer: Interplay
Publisher: Activision
Released: 1990
Since This Game Is Lazy: I will be too
and not capitalize this

In NES Replay, we go through each NES game from A-Z to see if they're any good. Today: The Adventures of Rad Gravity.

I have a friend who's a woodworker. He learned the trade from his father, and one of the lessons he learned from his father was the phrase, "Finish the back." In other words, it doesn't matter if the part you're working on is going to be seen during normal use or not, you still have to treat it like it's going to be visible.

When we talk about games that are "polished," that's what most of us are generally referring to: Games that follow the mantra of "finish the back." It doesn't matter that only a few people are going to notice that the arrow that you use to select menu options pulses with the background music. It doesn't matter that only a few people are going to reach a super-secret special room. Finish the back. Make sure every corner of your game counts.

Some games are very highly polished, so much so that they sparkle. I'm thinking about games like Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger and others. Some, on the other hand, aren't, which doesn't necessarily have to doom them. One of my favorite games is Dark Cloud for the Playstation 2, and it's one of the least polished games I've ever enjoyed (not to mention really, really weird). Sometimes there's a bit of a ramshackle charm to some less-polished games that gets lost once you start applying a gentle sheen to it.

EXCITING

However, The Adventures of Rad Gravity is a game that's sloppy in a bad way, and for a game that appears to want to be a big, fun game, that's a problem. Here are some quick examples:

Just like every other any game, there are barriers that you have to jump over, usually in the form of solid blocks. You're not supposed to be able to walk through them, just like every other game ever. However, some of them you can move through by jumping at them instead of trying to walk through. Some of them you don't even need to jump through to walk through them. This doesn't appear to be on purpose.

Look at the screenshot to your right. Tell me what blocks are supposed to be solid blocks and what is supposed to be part of the scenery. For example, my character is standing on a block that doesn't appear to have a solid line across the top. The next block over looks different. There is no difference between the two blocks. For that matter, look at all those different blocks in the background as well. It's ugly and serves no purpose, while being headache-inducing and bland. This isn't level design, it's level diarrhea.

Here's another one, and it's going to sound like nitpicking. There are areas where you can press up or down and go from level to level. They behave exactly like a ladder or a vine in any other game. When you climb on them, to reflect that you're going up and down. There's no little elevator below you, nothing other than your  character hovering in mid-air stupidly.

Like I said, this sounds nitpicky, but this has a point. It comes down to this: Finish the back. They honestly couldn't change his sprite to indicate he's standing on some sort of ladder? If it's supposed to be a "gravity ladder" or something, why not change his sprite so that his hair stands up a bit and he looks like he's floating? Mega Man games did this in 1987, why can't Rad Gravity three years later?

Not only that, but this game has the worst music in the history of ever. It's so bad that I thought that my emulator was broken. I ran it in a different emulator, and no, it's really this bad. Take a listen to the title screen.

With an extra pass through the level design, the graphics or really anything at all related to this game, this could have been a fun space adventure. Instead, The Adventures of Rad Gravity just looks, plays and feels lazy.

Final Rating:

Next Week: The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle

Got A Wii U Today

I got the Wii U Deluxe edition with New Super Mario Bros. Wii U. Yes, I'm weak. So sue me.

NES Replay: Adventures of Lolo 3

Developer: HAL Laboratory
Publisher: HAL Laboratory
Released: 1991
A Different Title Screen: It Has It

In NES Replay, we go through each NES game from A-Z to see if they're any good. Today: Adventures of Lolo 3.

I'm running out of things to say about Adventures of Lolo.

That's not because these games are bad. Not at all. They're a lot of fun, each and every one of them. It's just that they all have the same mechanics, with very little deviation. I could show you three separate screenshots of Lolo games, and you would be hard-pressed to figure out which one belongs to which game.

However, that doesn't stop me from declaring Adventures of Lolo 3 as the best Lolo game of the bunch for two simple reason: It eschews the "lives" system and introduces an overworld.

The Lolo series is all about planning, experimentation and trial-and-error. Since previous games only gave you five lives to play with, you had to be a lot more cautious, which means you're experimenting less and having less fun. It also makes things exponentially more frustrating.

Since Lolo 3 removes the lives system entirely, you now can play with more trial-and-error and testing out new ideas. Lolo 3 is still difficult like the first two games, but in a much less frustrating way, and it all comes down to them removing the "five lives and you're dead" system.

I know for a fact that this screenshot is from
Lolo 3. You can tell by the pixels.

The overworld is also a seemingly minor addition, but it also adds a feeling of progression. You're not just solving puzzles in one endless tower, but a succession of smaller towers. It's a tiny little change, but it's significant. You feel like you're moving forward to some degree and it actually makes Lolo 3 a lot more fun.

If you're at all interested in playing this series, I would say that Adventures of Lolo 3 is the place to start. It's fun and fair without being frustrating. It's just as mind-bending as the previous entries, and if you like it, you'll have fun solving more puzzles in the other Lolo games.

I'd like to talk about one more thing, if you'll permit me. Lolo used to be HAL Laboratory's mascot before Kirby waltzed on to the scene. Lolo and his female companion even make an thinly-veiled appearance in a few Kirby games as enemies as well.

So who owns the Lolo series now? HAL is a wholly owned subsidary of Nintendo, as far as I know. Did HAL Laboratory's IP go with them? Does Nintendo own Lolo? If they do, why the heck haven't they revived this series? I mean, wouldn't a revived Lolo game be perfect for the eShop? Get on it, Nintendo!

Either way, if you like puzzlers, the Lolo series is a ton of fun, and Adventures of Lolo 3 is a standout.

Final Rating:

The Adventures of Lolo Series Rating:

1. Adventures of Lolo 3
2. Adventures of Lolo
3. Adventures of Lolo 2
4. Practically any other game with "Adventures of" in the title

Next Week: The Adventures of Rad Gravity

NES Replay: Adventures of Lolo 2

Developer: HAL Laboratory
Publisher: HAL Laboratory
Released: 1990
These games are so similar: I'm not even sure I'm
using the right screenshots

In NES Replay, we go through each NES game from A-Z to see if they're any good. Today: Adventures of Lolo 2.

What do we really want in a game's sequel? Do we want a sequel that's entirely different from the original? Do we want some incremental improvements, where we see the developers to use the basic building blocks of the previous game in new and unexpected ways, or do we want more of them same?

My tremendously wishy-washy answer to this question is: Depends.

For example, I have an irrational love for Super Mario Bros. 2. It played entirely different from the the first Mario game, and for that reason some people hated it. That's the reason I loved it. Your mileage may vary. Super Mario Bros. 2 is a good example of a sequel-in-name-only, a game that's entirely different than the original and just happens to be numbered sequentially.

Super Mario Bros. 3, on the other hand, took the original game and just exploded it. It was definitely based on Super Mario Bros, but it used the basic building blocks to great effect. They expected you to understand the basic principles of the first game, and then exploited them or changed them, which forced you to rethink what you thought you knew about Mario games.

I'm pretty sure this is Adventures of Lolo 2.
Some nitpicker will point it out, I'm sure.

The Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 (otherwise known as The Lost Levels), on the other hand, was "more of the same." It used the same sprites, threw in one or two extras, and made the levels harder. Some people love it. Some people don't.

Adventures of Lolo 2, is cut from the "more of the same" mold. It's same basic game as Adventures of Lolo, using the same sprites. It even uses the same title screen with "2" overlaid on it. It's just a heck of a lot harder. How much you'll like Lolo 2 depends on how much you liked the first one. If you thought the first one was great, you could view this one like an expansion pack.

The difference being, though, that Adventures of Lolo 2 is much harder than the original. There are a few introductory puzzles to get you started, but Lolo 2 steps things up quickly, much quicker than the first one. Some puzzle solutions are almost a little unfair, as they expect you to know moves that supposedly aren't in the instruction manual or aren't explicitly stated. That means that if you've played the first Lolo, you'll find a little more to like in this one. If you haven't, it's suggested to steer clear.

I was always a fan of sequels being more iterative: Stripping away what didn't work in the first game in favor of new additions that will play better. Adventures of Lolo 2 doesn't do that. It's a rehash of the first game with more difficulty, and that's OK for some people. For me, I'm ambivalent.

Final Rating:

Next Week: Adventures of Lolo 3