I have an extensive back-catalog of video games. This is, essentially, my video game TODO list (in no particular order).
1) Replay Paper Mario and Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. Those were great games, and soon enough I'll be itching for a 3DS to play the next title.
1b) Maybe finish Super Paper Mario sometime.
2) Finish Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess so that I can then feel good about buying Skyward Sword and leaving it in my back catalog for a few years.
3) Finish Ninja Gaiden 2. It's freaking ninjas yo, and apparently there's another one on the way.
4) Finish Dragon Age, play Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. I like good voice acting and stories. Why can't I finished these games?
5) Finish Dynasty Warriors 7. It's so freaking good, finish it already.
6) Finish Bastion. This should really be my first priority before someone spoils everything for me.
7) Finish Metroid Prime 3. No, you don't get to replay 1 and 2, not until you finish 3. Seriously, how are you so bad at finishing these great games?
8) Play Okami. You have it sitting around from Gamefly. If you can't be bothered to play your Gamefly games you might as well cancel your subscription you silly person.
9) Speaking of which, you have a nice long list of games to play in the form of your Gamefly queue. Dear lord, there's like 20 of them.
Can someone add a week to the year? I seriously need 7 days to make a dent in this or something.
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
20111219
20110608
E3: Wait, E3 is this week?
So all sorts of interesting stuff is being announced regarding the impending offerings of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Historically I've breathlessly followed their press conferences when new consoles were impending. Today I just walked obliviously into the fact that Nintendo announced their new console.
I'll comment more later when I've had a chance to actually watch the press conference. That said, I'm concerned Nintendo isn't taking usability into consideration these days.
The 3DS requires you maintain a perfect, motionless posture to properly view the 3D aspect. Any motion at all and portions of the screen go flat, resulting in a fairly awkward mix of 2D and 3D that strains the eyes.
The Wii U requires you look back and forth between two screens. "Ah," you say, "But did not the DS require the same?" No, it didn't. The two screens on the DS are equidistant from your face and directly next to one another. Looking between a touch screen in your hands and your TV 6-10 feet away requires actual neck movement and refocusing.
These concerns may be unwarranted and overblown, but they're my first impressions having just seen pictures of the console and its controller.
Oh, and I guess Sony is releasing a new handheld. It's name makes me think of a brand of vegetable juice. Meanwhile Microsoft is upping the ante with Halo 4: The "We couldn't be arsed to make something new so we're just rereleasing Halo again and printing money" edition.
I'll comment more later when I've had a chance to actually watch the press conference. That said, I'm concerned Nintendo isn't taking usability into consideration these days.
The 3DS requires you maintain a perfect, motionless posture to properly view the 3D aspect. Any motion at all and portions of the screen go flat, resulting in a fairly awkward mix of 2D and 3D that strains the eyes.
The Wii U requires you look back and forth between two screens. "Ah," you say, "But did not the DS require the same?" No, it didn't. The two screens on the DS are equidistant from your face and directly next to one another. Looking between a touch screen in your hands and your TV 6-10 feet away requires actual neck movement and refocusing.
These concerns may be unwarranted and overblown, but they're my first impressions having just seen pictures of the console and its controller.
Oh, and I guess Sony is releasing a new handheld. It's name makes me think of a brand of vegetable juice. Meanwhile Microsoft is upping the ante with Halo 4: The "We couldn't be arsed to make something new so we're just rereleasing Halo again and printing money" edition.
20110523
Salesmanship
Despite the fact that I never bother to advertise the videos I post on youtube, I nevertheless bristle and snarl when someone with inferior videos and grammar freely flings their misshapen works to the public and receives more attention. I am not shocked that they receive the attention given the obvious correlation, but I am riled.
Whenever this happens I briefly consider calling to light my own work in a public manner, followed quickly by perishing such thoughts. To take such a course of action would be to lower myself to the same level as these attention seekers, trying and saying anything to attract the brainless masses.
Yet in spite of this resolution I am again incensed the next time I encounter this. I am not sure I can consider myself rational.
Whenever this happens I briefly consider calling to light my own work in a public manner, followed quickly by perishing such thoughts. To take such a course of action would be to lower myself to the same level as these attention seekers, trying and saying anything to attract the brainless masses.
Yet in spite of this resolution I am again incensed the next time I encounter this. I am not sure I can consider myself rational.
20101208
Cataclysm: Launch and Initial Impressions
Cataclysm launched yesterday, an event I stayed home for. Both of the previous expansions drew me out of my hermetic cocoon to local video game emporiums in the dead of night. This latest installment offered a digital presale, allowing one to download the expansion ahead of time and be ready to play the moment it was all enabled at 12:01 PST on the 7th.
Well, in theory anyway. In actuality digital download combined with Blizzard's plan to delay the activation of Cataclysm content on all servers until 12:01 PST meant that rather than hourly waves of players shuffling in as their ability to race home from stores in their respective time zones allowed, the entire playerbase attempted to log on simultaneously.
The end result invites a host of titular puns relating to Blizzard's beleaguered login servers.
My first impression of Cataclysm is that the leveling experience is less immersive than was the case in Wrath of the Lich King. This impression is deeply colored as my first 24 hours of Cataclysm play all came in the first 24 hours of Cataclysm, whereas it took nearly a month for me to put a similar amount of time into its predecessor. Still, I can't shake the feeling that the Wrath of the Lich King leveling experience was more polished.
Oddly, I think geography is a major culprit. In previous expansions the high level zones were segregated from the old zones on a new continent. This empty slate made it easy to learn the new geography and feel a sense of progress as one essentially explored the uncharted land from end to end. It's an effortless process that happens naturally for everyone except those truly gifted at getting lost.
Cataclysm's content is completely different, scattered around the old world seemingly at random. At the same time, the expansion revamped old areas and essentially redrew the geographic map. The effect is essentially akin to dramatically altering the system of roads around your house and at the same time moving all the notable landmarks around, all overnight. It's a cartographic nightmare that creates the constant, inescapable feeling of being lost despite knowing exactly where you are.
That and trying to compete with a thousand other players for quest objectives makes it significantly harder to immerse oneself into a game.
As a final note, and pun, I'm less impressed with Cataclysm's music thus far compared to the previous expansions. The music in both Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King set tones and themes for each zone very effectively, with signature sounds for each. You could often tell simply by the music what zone you were in. Cataclysm has sadly been far more hit and miss, with the majority of music being at best nondescript.
Just so you don't get the wrong impression, it's been definitively enjoyable thus far. These are just the matters which stood out most in my mind initially.
Well, in theory anyway. In actuality digital download combined with Blizzard's plan to delay the activation of Cataclysm content on all servers until 12:01 PST meant that rather than hourly waves of players shuffling in as their ability to race home from stores in their respective time zones allowed, the entire playerbase attempted to log on simultaneously.
The end result invites a host of titular puns relating to Blizzard's beleaguered login servers.
My first impression of Cataclysm is that the leveling experience is less immersive than was the case in Wrath of the Lich King. This impression is deeply colored as my first 24 hours of Cataclysm play all came in the first 24 hours of Cataclysm, whereas it took nearly a month for me to put a similar amount of time into its predecessor. Still, I can't shake the feeling that the Wrath of the Lich King leveling experience was more polished.
Oddly, I think geography is a major culprit. In previous expansions the high level zones were segregated from the old zones on a new continent. This empty slate made it easy to learn the new geography and feel a sense of progress as one essentially explored the uncharted land from end to end. It's an effortless process that happens naturally for everyone except those truly gifted at getting lost.
Cataclysm's content is completely different, scattered around the old world seemingly at random. At the same time, the expansion revamped old areas and essentially redrew the geographic map. The effect is essentially akin to dramatically altering the system of roads around your house and at the same time moving all the notable landmarks around, all overnight. It's a cartographic nightmare that creates the constant, inescapable feeling of being lost despite knowing exactly where you are.
That and trying to compete with a thousand other players for quest objectives makes it significantly harder to immerse oneself into a game.
As a final note, and pun, I'm less impressed with Cataclysm's music thus far compared to the previous expansions. The music in both Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King set tones and themes for each zone very effectively, with signature sounds for each. You could often tell simply by the music what zone you were in. Cataclysm has sadly been far more hit and miss, with the majority of music being at best nondescript.
Just so you don't get the wrong impression, it's been definitively enjoyable thus far. These are just the matters which stood out most in my mind initially.
20100929
Surprise
Here's a surprise!
Original Source: Time Killer
It can be a little hard to see what's going on since my blog is all black, but use arrow keys and space for fun and humor.
Original Source: Time Killer
It can be a little hard to see what's going on since my blog is all black, but use arrow keys and space for fun and humor.
20100928
Behind the Times
One of the odd things about living alone is that I no longer feel terribly inclined to play single player video games. When I'm playing, I want to be playing with people because I have plenty of time to be alone later.
The consequences of this are a giant backlog of games I haven't finished, and a strange indifference to new releases. Dead Rising 2 and another Front Mission game launch today, and the only reason I know is because someone posted a picture of a giant stuffed bear with an automatic weapon duct taped to it.
The consequences of this are a giant backlog of games I haven't finished, and a strange indifference to new releases. Dead Rising 2 and another Front Mission game launch today, and the only reason I know is because someone posted a picture of a giant stuffed bear with an automatic weapon duct taped to it.
20100702
Grace
Some time go Roger Ebert, the acclaimed movie reviewer, wrote a piece stating his opinion that video games were not, and could not be, art. As one might expect, video game enthusiasts came out in droves to dispute this assertion.
More recently, Ebert wrote a follow up in which he had the incredible grace to concede two very important points, and essentially the entire debate. Having not played any video game his opinion, by his own admission, was effectively irrelevant. Moreover, because he had not and was not interested or willing to play video games, he could not make an informed argument against them being, or eventually becoming, art. In our modern age of stubbornly holding to opinions as though they were immutable and informed absolutes, this public declaration of ignorance stands as a beacon of refreshing honesty.
The honesty of this article comes in many forms and facets. It's not a matter of the article being forthright or factually correct, but the manner in which Ebert engages the discussion and, by extension, himself. He takes an honest look at the counter arguments, he takes an honest look at his own mistakes, and with honesty and humility admits the irrelevancy of his own opinion yet also acknowledges that it is still his honest opinion. This response is faultless, and a shining example of how to gracefully engage a debate.
Sadly, in today's world this careful, thoughtful and introspective approach is misunderstood. Many comments on this follow up from gamers indicate the exact type of predetermined observational bias which they decried as Ebert's error. Rather than reading and attempting to understand, they have read and attempted to directly translate.
It's an odd comparison, but I think it apt. Translators, at their best, are not concerned so much with wording as they are with communicating the meaning of one language and culture into another. That requires, above all else, understanding of both one and the other. A direct translation, however, is only concerned with running the words or text through a set of preexisting rules. The result of this second process is warped and alien, bent to the preconceptions or ignorance inherent in the rules themselves.
I find it odd that these comments even bother to declare that Ebert is a jerk, or that he's still a stuck up old fart or any other silly insults. The man admitted, as we had wanted him to from the moment the debate started, that he is not an authority on video games, that he can't declare them to not be art, and that he can not know whether they are or will become art. What more do we want? Is he to prostrate himself before the gates of E3, kiss the feet of Nolan Bushnell 7 times, and swear to never defile the sacred wakka wakka wakka ever again?
Gamers have in this article a great victory. Don't ruin it by being exactly the type of person we complained Ebert was.
More recently, Ebert wrote a follow up in which he had the incredible grace to concede two very important points, and essentially the entire debate. Having not played any video game his opinion, by his own admission, was effectively irrelevant. Moreover, because he had not and was not interested or willing to play video games, he could not make an informed argument against them being, or eventually becoming, art. In our modern age of stubbornly holding to opinions as though they were immutable and informed absolutes, this public declaration of ignorance stands as a beacon of refreshing honesty.
The honesty of this article comes in many forms and facets. It's not a matter of the article being forthright or factually correct, but the manner in which Ebert engages the discussion and, by extension, himself. He takes an honest look at the counter arguments, he takes an honest look at his own mistakes, and with honesty and humility admits the irrelevancy of his own opinion yet also acknowledges that it is still his honest opinion. This response is faultless, and a shining example of how to gracefully engage a debate.
Sadly, in today's world this careful, thoughtful and introspective approach is misunderstood. Many comments on this follow up from gamers indicate the exact type of predetermined observational bias which they decried as Ebert's error. Rather than reading and attempting to understand, they have read and attempted to directly translate.
It's an odd comparison, but I think it apt. Translators, at their best, are not concerned so much with wording as they are with communicating the meaning of one language and culture into another. That requires, above all else, understanding of both one and the other. A direct translation, however, is only concerned with running the words or text through a set of preexisting rules. The result of this second process is warped and alien, bent to the preconceptions or ignorance inherent in the rules themselves.
I find it odd that these comments even bother to declare that Ebert is a jerk, or that he's still a stuck up old fart or any other silly insults. The man admitted, as we had wanted him to from the moment the debate started, that he is not an authority on video games, that he can't declare them to not be art, and that he can not know whether they are or will become art. What more do we want? Is he to prostrate himself before the gates of E3, kiss the feet of Nolan Bushnell 7 times, and swear to never defile the sacred wakka wakka wakka ever again?
Gamers have in this article a great victory. Don't ruin it by being exactly the type of person we complained Ebert was.
20100623
20100512
Crossing the Streams
I am tempted to set up a live video stream of my StarCraft II games. It seems to be the "in" thing to do these days.
The concept creates a tempest of confused half-thoughts suddenly ceasing as--livestreaming, would I really--my skill is barely--would that affect my computer--maybe I should play Zerg.
The concept creates a tempest of confused half-thoughts suddenly ceasing as--livestreaming, would I really--my skill is barely--would that affect my computer--maybe I should play Zerg.
20100421
Purchasing Power
Thanks to Gamestop's current promotion by which one may obtain a StarCraft II beta key via a preorder, I am now in possession of the StarCraft II beta.
Wheeeeeeeeee...............
Wheeeeeeeeee...............
20100309
Suspense
So, Portal 2 is on its way this Christmas. At the same time, a sequel to Tron is on its way this Christmas. Oddly enough, the former prospect excites me while the latter prospect frightens me.
I think this is largely because the worst case scenario for Portal 2 is that it tries to be Portal. In such a scenario, you'll have the charm of the mind-bending puzzles, though perhaps you won't experience a plot that's quite as original, creepy, and involving. I can live with Portal 2's worst case scenario, and the potential jubilation the best case scenario represents is off the scale.
Tron Legacy is very different. The worst case scenario is an absolute disaster. The movie is clearly trying to be two things at once, a call back to arcade nostalgia and a flashy special effects film. Those are two very different beasts, and yoking them together will take a great feat of directorial and editorial strength. I suppose the best case scenario is that Tron 2 becomes the Starcraft of 3D special effects films, perfecting the formula and setting standards for decades to come. I'd definitely enjoy that, but I don't harbor a shred of hope that's what will happen.
I think this is largely because the worst case scenario for Portal 2 is that it tries to be Portal. In such a scenario, you'll have the charm of the mind-bending puzzles, though perhaps you won't experience a plot that's quite as original, creepy, and involving. I can live with Portal 2's worst case scenario, and the potential jubilation the best case scenario represents is off the scale.
Tron Legacy is very different. The worst case scenario is an absolute disaster. The movie is clearly trying to be two things at once, a call back to arcade nostalgia and a flashy special effects film. Those are two very different beasts, and yoking them together will take a great feat of directorial and editorial strength. I suppose the best case scenario is that Tron 2 becomes the Starcraft of 3D special effects films, perfecting the formula and setting standards for decades to come. I'd definitely enjoy that, but I don't harbor a shred of hope that's what will happen.
20090730
Koei Hates Me
It's effectively official at this point. All that's left is for Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 2 to come out for the final nail in the coffin.
For those of you who have not followed this saga, Koei addicted me to Dynasty Warriors with Dynasty Warriors 3. It was a lot of fun, though obviously had room for improvement, and I played it a lot in college. Good times.
There was one feature I particularly appreciated, specifically the ability to choose the original Japanese voice actors. It was a very welcome reprieve from the amazingly horrible performances by their English-speaking counterparts. In fact, this feature made all the difference for me. Playing with the ear grating English voice acting was at best a distraction, and at worst impossible to deal with. Call me a snob, but giving an ancient mystic the voice of a surfer dude is only a good idea when you're attempting parody.
I skipped the fourth installment in the series as I was still enjoying the third, didn't have much money, and heard the fourth sucked anyway. I waited with anticipation for the fifth, but was grieved to hear it would not feature the original Japanese voice actors.
Reluctant to purchase the game when I knew my ears would forever curse me, I eventually gave in and bought it for the PS2. The very next day it was announced that an Xbox version was in the works, complete with an option for the Japanese language tracks.
Cursing my luck, I turned to Samurai Warriors, also by Koei. This game had the original language track available and so I thought my troubles were over. It turned out that the game punished you for improving your character. If you recall the review I posted in this blog, I didn't view this odd mechanic favorably.
Fast forward a few years and I purchase my first console of the new generation, the Xbox 360. One of its features was limited backwards compatibility with Xbox games. Irony itself must have compiled that list, as the only Dynasty Warriors game present was the fourth installment, the only installment to lack an original language track on the Xbox.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued with the releases of Samurai Warriors 2, Warriors Orochi, and Dynasty Warriors 6. All of these games looked promising, and all of them lacked the original language track. From the trailers and videos I watched, the voice acting remained as terrible as always. Dynasty Warriors 6 was notable for reducing the number of buttons to mash from two to one. I decided to simulate playing it by smashing my head against my desk.
At this point I had all but assumed that Koei was no longer interested in providing the original voice track. Despite the HD-DVD versus Blu-ray content war, they were content to avoid meaningless extras. I comforted myself with this thought and sought to move on.
Then they released Dynasty Warriors: Gundam. I had no interest in this game, and the demo didn't really impress me all too much. However, the game has its original language track intact and available.
Koei was toying with me.
I have spent considerable time on the internet attempting to find an answer to the question "Does Warriors Orochi 2 have an option for the original language track?" I was unable to do so for some time, so I added the game to my GameFly rental queue and waited patiently. My patience wore thin when after three returns they had still bypassed the game at the top of my queue for something in the middle.
In my frustration I searched one last time, and found an announcement for a PSP version of the game. The announcement made it clear that A) the 360 version has no original language track and B) Koei has been plotting to make me miserable all this time.
You see, the abominable PSP version is going to have the original language track. Not the 360 version with all its disc space, not any predecessors. No, the PSP version is the one they decide to bless with this feature.
Koei officially hates me. When Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 2 comes out and also sports this feature Koei's hate will be upgraded to pure malicious spite. I have no other explanation for my situation.
For those of you who have not followed this saga, Koei addicted me to Dynasty Warriors with Dynasty Warriors 3. It was a lot of fun, though obviously had room for improvement, and I played it a lot in college. Good times.
There was one feature I particularly appreciated, specifically the ability to choose the original Japanese voice actors. It was a very welcome reprieve from the amazingly horrible performances by their English-speaking counterparts. In fact, this feature made all the difference for me. Playing with the ear grating English voice acting was at best a distraction, and at worst impossible to deal with. Call me a snob, but giving an ancient mystic the voice of a surfer dude is only a good idea when you're attempting parody.
I skipped the fourth installment in the series as I was still enjoying the third, didn't have much money, and heard the fourth sucked anyway. I waited with anticipation for the fifth, but was grieved to hear it would not feature the original Japanese voice actors.
Reluctant to purchase the game when I knew my ears would forever curse me, I eventually gave in and bought it for the PS2. The very next day it was announced that an Xbox version was in the works, complete with an option for the Japanese language tracks.
Cursing my luck, I turned to Samurai Warriors, also by Koei. This game had the original language track available and so I thought my troubles were over. It turned out that the game punished you for improving your character. If you recall the review I posted in this blog, I didn't view this odd mechanic favorably.
Fast forward a few years and I purchase my first console of the new generation, the Xbox 360. One of its features was limited backwards compatibility with Xbox games. Irony itself must have compiled that list, as the only Dynasty Warriors game present was the fourth installment, the only installment to lack an original language track on the Xbox.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued with the releases of Samurai Warriors 2, Warriors Orochi, and Dynasty Warriors 6. All of these games looked promising, and all of them lacked the original language track. From the trailers and videos I watched, the voice acting remained as terrible as always. Dynasty Warriors 6 was notable for reducing the number of buttons to mash from two to one. I decided to simulate playing it by smashing my head against my desk.
At this point I had all but assumed that Koei was no longer interested in providing the original voice track. Despite the HD-DVD versus Blu-ray content war, they were content to avoid meaningless extras. I comforted myself with this thought and sought to move on.
Then they released Dynasty Warriors: Gundam. I had no interest in this game, and the demo didn't really impress me all too much. However, the game has its original language track intact and available.
Koei was toying with me.
I have spent considerable time on the internet attempting to find an answer to the question "Does Warriors Orochi 2 have an option for the original language track?" I was unable to do so for some time, so I added the game to my GameFly rental queue and waited patiently. My patience wore thin when after three returns they had still bypassed the game at the top of my queue for something in the middle.
In my frustration I searched one last time, and found an announcement for a PSP version of the game. The announcement made it clear that A) the 360 version has no original language track and B) Koei has been plotting to make me miserable all this time.
You see, the abominable PSP version is going to have the original language track. Not the 360 version with all its disc space, not any predecessors. No, the PSP version is the one they decide to bless with this feature.
Koei officially hates me. When Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 2 comes out and also sports this feature Koei's hate will be upgraded to pure malicious spite. I have no other explanation for my situation.
20090625
Worst Video Game Ever
Leave it to a nutcase like me to come up with a game about office management of all things.
Seriously, while I was at work I thought to myself, "Hey, an interesting game would be one where you manage a software engineering project from start to finish, assigning engineers to important tasks based on their abilities, ratcheting up pressure through your managers, dealing with unexpected events and failures, and avoiding engineer burnout!"
I think I'm going to go into a corner and sob.
Seriously, while I was at work I thought to myself, "Hey, an interesting game would be one where you manage a software engineering project from start to finish, assigning engineers to important tasks based on their abilities, ratcheting up pressure through your managers, dealing with unexpected events and failures, and avoiding engineer burnout!"
I think I'm going to go into a corner and sob.
20090415
History Repeating
Demigod is a new PC game in the style of Defense of the Ancients, much like how the famous Tower Defense games are moving beyond their minority status.
I've read a few reviews, all glowing, none of which were able to categorize the genre with any particular ease. "RTS-RPG" was thrown around a fair amount, and I suppose that's fairly accurate. The old genres of gaming are now so interbred that any notion of purity has been long since lost, so it makes sense to label them accordingly.
But the RTS-RPG is not new, however much the reviews may imply it. Demigod is not the first video game outside of the customized maps of Starcraft and Warcraft to explore the genre. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years.
Alright, so Dynasty Warriors is more like an Action-RTS mutt, but really the differences are smaller than you think. In fact, the core difference effectively boils down to how you control your avatar. Do you A) Mash buttons to attack and use special abilities or B) Select targets, auto attack, and hit the odd key for a special? To auto-attack, or not to auto-attack, that is the question.
We could drive down into the minutiae of it, but in the end DotA is Dynasty Warriors with fewer buttons to mash and a different camera angle. This isn't a bad thing, it's just the truth of the RTS-RPG genre.
Incidentally, I plan on trying Demigod. Maybe now that Koei and Tecmo have merged a better Dynasty Warriors may result, but in the meantime I need my massive army slaughtering fix. If all the reviewers are as horribly addicted as they claim, Demigod might just be it.
I've read a few reviews, all glowing, none of which were able to categorize the genre with any particular ease. "RTS-RPG" was thrown around a fair amount, and I suppose that's fairly accurate. The old genres of gaming are now so interbred that any notion of purity has been long since lost, so it makes sense to label them accordingly.
But the RTS-RPG is not new, however much the reviews may imply it. Demigod is not the first video game outside of the customized maps of Starcraft and Warcraft to explore the genre. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years.
Alright, so Dynasty Warriors is more like an Action-RTS mutt, but really the differences are smaller than you think. In fact, the core difference effectively boils down to how you control your avatar. Do you A) Mash buttons to attack and use special abilities or B) Select targets, auto attack, and hit the odd key for a special? To auto-attack, or not to auto-attack, that is the question.
We could drive down into the minutiae of it, but in the end DotA is Dynasty Warriors with fewer buttons to mash and a different camera angle. This isn't a bad thing, it's just the truth of the RTS-RPG genre.
Incidentally, I plan on trying Demigod. Maybe now that Koei and Tecmo have merged a better Dynasty Warriors may result, but in the meantime I need my massive army slaughtering fix. If all the reviewers are as horribly addicted as they claim, Demigod might just be it.
20090403
Bad Game Designs: Rewards*
*Rewards are not guaranteed to actually reward, and may in fact turn you into a zombie, destroy your prize heirlooms, eat your soul, or otherwise act as the opposite of a reward.
When a player accomplishes something, whether it be a quest, a level, or a tricky puzzle it is natural to reward their success with a prize or acknowledgment of some sort. This isn't always necessary, but often adds to the experience.
No one would argue that one should penalize a player for succeeding.
Despite this, I recently encountered a game which did exactly that. Upon reaching level 8 in Runes of Magic I was awarded an item which would upgrade my weapon. In fact, I was lovingly gifted an entire stack of this item, promising the potential for a sizable increase in my character's potential. The fine print did note that "there is a chance of failure which may downgrade the weapon", but any reasonable person would understand based on such wording that the chance of failure was small, and the chance of a downgrade even smaller.
Woe.
The stack, ten in all, resulted in one upgrade and nine failures. The very first failure removed all the good the upgrade had done, and the second removed the intrinsic good my weapon already had. If you're trying to encourage people to explore and enjoy new and interesting game features, such a mechanic is a dismal failure.
If I wanted to take one step forwards and two steps backward, I'd go play Ninja Gaiden on Master Ninja mode and stab myself after each death.
When a player accomplishes something, whether it be a quest, a level, or a tricky puzzle it is natural to reward their success with a prize or acknowledgment of some sort. This isn't always necessary, but often adds to the experience.
No one would argue that one should penalize a player for succeeding.
Despite this, I recently encountered a game which did exactly that. Upon reaching level 8 in Runes of Magic I was awarded an item which would upgrade my weapon. In fact, I was lovingly gifted an entire stack of this item, promising the potential for a sizable increase in my character's potential. The fine print did note that "there is a chance of failure which may downgrade the weapon", but any reasonable person would understand based on such wording that the chance of failure was small, and the chance of a downgrade even smaller.
Woe.
The stack, ten in all, resulted in one upgrade and nine failures. The very first failure removed all the good the upgrade had done, and the second removed the intrinsic good my weapon already had. If you're trying to encourage people to explore and enjoy new and interesting game features, such a mechanic is a dismal failure.
If I wanted to take one step forwards and two steps backward, I'd go play Ninja Gaiden on Master Ninja mode and stab myself after each death.
20090106
Crayons and Physics
Sometimes, I just can't help but be impressed by the awesome some people have wrought. This puzzle game comes out tomorrow, and it's something I think even my Dad might consider a worthy investment.
Crayon Physics Deluxe from Petri Purho on Vimeo.
Doesn't hurt that the music makes you want to be a peace with anything and everything.
Crayon Physics Deluxe from Petri Purho on Vimeo.
Doesn't hurt that the music makes you want to be a peace with anything and everything.
20080828
Rant: Stories and MMOs
So my brother made a blog post a few days ago about MMOs, and that spawned this thought process.
The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.
But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.
The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.
What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.
In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.
It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.
Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?
But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.
Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.
The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.
But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.
The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.
What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.
In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.
It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.
Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?
But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.
Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.
20080716
E3 2008: The Doldroms
It wasn't long ago that the entire gaming community was breathless every May as the much vaunted E3 exploded with fantastic claims of supremacy by the big three console makers, amazing demos of soon to be blockbuster games, and plenty of speculation as to the market's future.
This year, very little of that happened.
The E3 of old is truly dead and gone, a relic of an era coming to a close. The first steps toward making videos an accepted form of mass media have been taken, and the rest can only follow.
What makes E3 2008 so unremarkable is not the shift of focus to a wider audience, but rather how little things have changed in the past year. Nintendo is still reaping the incredible rewards of their strategy, Microsoft is still blindly scrambling to hop on board, and Sony is still drifting. There's nothing new under the sun.
There were various points of interest. Nintendo announced a new attachment for their Wiimote, supposedly this one will allow for true 1:1 mapping of movement to control. Microsoft announced more changes to their Xbox Live interface including insidiously familiar avatars (they essentially look like the "hip" version of Miis), and Sony once again heaped incredible pre-rendered footage and promises at our feet, begging for just one more year to get their act together as another exclusive title became not so exclusive.
Nothing that particularly shook the status quo happened.
Sure, the usual herds of insanely rabid fanboys swarmed the internet trolling forums and news sites claiming X, Y or Z spelled the ascension or continued dominance of one company while A, B or C spelled doom for another. This time, however, people largely didn't bite. No one cared to, what was the point?
Sure, Final Fantasy 13 is no longer a PS3 exclusive, but it's not like any of their exclusives thus far have been that spectacular. Harping on the PS3s games library at this point is like harping on President Bush for his bad foreign relations.
Sure, the new Wii attachment could be seen as basically admitting that the Wiimote alone wasn't sufficient for true 1:1 motion capture. That revelation is as old as the Wii's release date. It's sudden rerevealing doesn't mean that Nintendo suddenly loses its profits, marketshare or mindshare.
Sure, Microsoft's presentation once again stank of their impossible attempts to understand the house that Miyamoto built. Once again, this has been pretty obvious from the get go. Acting as though their continued inability to comprehend what lies beyond the realm of teenage to college-aged male gaming is anything new is disingenuous considering they've been at it since last generation.
So for the hardcore gamer, this year's E3 was something of a bust. Both Nintendo and Microsoft were focused largely on people other than you, and Sony had nothing interesting except the stuff we we've been hearing about for two to four years already. At a time when typically salvos of new games taking hardware and game design to new peaks are being revealed, instead we find ourselves watching as our kid sibling the "casual gamer" gets all the attention.
It's a tough pill to swallow for people who've been the center of attention for two decades. The pendulum is swinging away, and for a while the old guard is going to be largely ignored except for misguided attempts at more Halo-like FPSs. Eventually it'll swing back our way, then forth again, and back again until eventually the momentum dies entirely and we have a nice equilibrium.
For now, I'll just look forward to Spore, the next WoW expansion and my currently vastly underplayed library of cool games that have already come out but I haven't beaten (Twilight Princess, Trauma Center, Ninja Gaiden 2, Armored Core 4 etc).
This year, very little of that happened.
The E3 of old is truly dead and gone, a relic of an era coming to a close. The first steps toward making videos an accepted form of mass media have been taken, and the rest can only follow.
What makes E3 2008 so unremarkable is not the shift of focus to a wider audience, but rather how little things have changed in the past year. Nintendo is still reaping the incredible rewards of their strategy, Microsoft is still blindly scrambling to hop on board, and Sony is still drifting. There's nothing new under the sun.
There were various points of interest. Nintendo announced a new attachment for their Wiimote, supposedly this one will allow for true 1:1 mapping of movement to control. Microsoft announced more changes to their Xbox Live interface including insidiously familiar avatars (they essentially look like the "hip" version of Miis), and Sony once again heaped incredible pre-rendered footage and promises at our feet, begging for just one more year to get their act together as another exclusive title became not so exclusive.
Nothing that particularly shook the status quo happened.
Sure, the usual herds of insanely rabid fanboys swarmed the internet trolling forums and news sites claiming X, Y or Z spelled the ascension or continued dominance of one company while A, B or C spelled doom for another. This time, however, people largely didn't bite. No one cared to, what was the point?
Sure, Final Fantasy 13 is no longer a PS3 exclusive, but it's not like any of their exclusives thus far have been that spectacular. Harping on the PS3s games library at this point is like harping on President Bush for his bad foreign relations.
Sure, the new Wii attachment could be seen as basically admitting that the Wiimote alone wasn't sufficient for true 1:1 motion capture. That revelation is as old as the Wii's release date. It's sudden rerevealing doesn't mean that Nintendo suddenly loses its profits, marketshare or mindshare.
Sure, Microsoft's presentation once again stank of their impossible attempts to understand the house that Miyamoto built. Once again, this has been pretty obvious from the get go. Acting as though their continued inability to comprehend what lies beyond the realm of teenage to college-aged male gaming is anything new is disingenuous considering they've been at it since last generation.
So for the hardcore gamer, this year's E3 was something of a bust. Both Nintendo and Microsoft were focused largely on people other than you, and Sony had nothing interesting except the stuff we we've been hearing about for two to four years already. At a time when typically salvos of new games taking hardware and game design to new peaks are being revealed, instead we find ourselves watching as our kid sibling the "casual gamer" gets all the attention.
It's a tough pill to swallow for people who've been the center of attention for two decades. The pendulum is swinging away, and for a while the old guard is going to be largely ignored except for misguided attempts at more Halo-like FPSs. Eventually it'll swing back our way, then forth again, and back again until eventually the momentum dies entirely and we have a nice equilibrium.
For now, I'll just look forward to Spore, the next WoW expansion and my currently vastly underplayed library of cool games that have already come out but I haven't beaten (Twilight Princess, Trauma Center, Ninja Gaiden 2, Armored Core 4 etc).
20080619
Spore: First Impressions
Spore is that game at its conception blew me away. Three years after my father bemoaned the eventual sycophantic siphoning of his sons' creativity, the leeching has finally begun.
Earlier this week EA released what one might call a minuscule portion of Spore to the public. Though the game itself will not be available until September, the editor allowing the creation and sculpting of creatures is available for download. In true EA fashion it costs money, but thankfully there's a version sporting only 25% of the available biology one can try for free.
I spent a meager hour and half with the editor last night in order to give first impressions. Realize that not only have I little experience with this super playdough, but I also was working with only 25% of its potential.
As is my wont I pushed the limits of what the editor allowed me to do. In doing so I made a few interesting creatures I'll have to share later. However, I encountered the following nuisances. It may be that I'm still a novice and haven't found the mystical keys to overcoming these obstacles, but the barriers were present and, as always, vexed me.
1) Forward is forced. There's a pointy end to the disk upon which you play creator, and that is the direction your creature considers forward. Feet will always face that direction, and creature actions will all function based on the assumption that this is their facing. This results in humorous, if frustrating, results when you have a creatures slimy maw on the other side of its body. It will dash in the game's sense of "forward", but fail to turn around for its strike. It also doesn't seem to want to walk backwords, often awkwardly turning in ways that doesn't look natural depending on your creature's design.
2) Multi-pronged limbs are limited. It may be that lacking multi-jointed limbs prevented this form of exploration, but I wasn't able to have limbs branch off one another. Given some of the demonstrated creatures, this was disappointing.
3) Complexity is very abstract. There's a meter indicating the complexity of your creature. When it fills, nothing more may be added. However, some seemingly simple changes can fill the meter much faster than adding dozens of doodads one might consider complex.
Despite these setbacks the editor is a lot of fun. I could easily lose an evening perfecting my mutant races like the Xel'naga. I do hope some of the limiting issues are dealt with before release, though if they're releasing the creature editor at this point I have my doubts there'll be much difference.
Earlier this week EA released what one might call a minuscule portion of Spore to the public. Though the game itself will not be available until September, the editor allowing the creation and sculpting of creatures is available for download. In true EA fashion it costs money, but thankfully there's a version sporting only 25% of the available biology one can try for free.
I spent a meager hour and half with the editor last night in order to give first impressions. Realize that not only have I little experience with this super playdough, but I also was working with only 25% of its potential.
As is my wont I pushed the limits of what the editor allowed me to do. In doing so I made a few interesting creatures I'll have to share later. However, I encountered the following nuisances. It may be that I'm still a novice and haven't found the mystical keys to overcoming these obstacles, but the barriers were present and, as always, vexed me.
1) Forward is forced. There's a pointy end to the disk upon which you play creator, and that is the direction your creature considers forward. Feet will always face that direction, and creature actions will all function based on the assumption that this is their facing. This results in humorous, if frustrating, results when you have a creatures slimy maw on the other side of its body. It will dash in the game's sense of "forward", but fail to turn around for its strike. It also doesn't seem to want to walk backwords, often awkwardly turning in ways that doesn't look natural depending on your creature's design.
2) Multi-pronged limbs are limited. It may be that lacking multi-jointed limbs prevented this form of exploration, but I wasn't able to have limbs branch off one another. Given some of the demonstrated creatures, this was disappointing.
3) Complexity is very abstract. There's a meter indicating the complexity of your creature. When it fills, nothing more may be added. However, some seemingly simple changes can fill the meter much faster than adding dozens of doodads one might consider complex.
Despite these setbacks the editor is a lot of fun. I could easily lose an evening perfecting my mutant races like the Xel'naga. I do hope some of the limiting issues are dealt with before release, though if they're releasing the creature editor at this point I have my doubts there'll be much difference.
20080403
Grayscale
This is another interesting comparison between movies and video games. As is par for the course, video games lose.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
