The rise of the Nintendo DS brought with it the return of a genre thought pretty much dead in gaming: the text-based adventure. They may have cool animated graphics, touch screen controls, and other modern trappings, but in the end they're the same basic experience as they've always been: talk to people, ask/ answer questions, gather clues, and solve the mystery.
Some of the titles we've seen on the dual screened handheld are really impressive. Games like the Phoenix Wright series and Hotel Dusk are shining examples of why this genre deserved a new life in current generation gaming.
Other titles are actually great examples of why the genre all but died out in the first place. Sprung is one such game.
The concept of Sprung is pretty straightforward. Playing as either a male or female "hottie" at a ski resort, your quest is nothing more than to hook up with members of the opposite sex. This task is accomplished by talking to different people, asking questions and responding to their statements, and going to different areas to do more of that.
Part of the problem with this game is that it's trying to be M-rated within the confines of a T-rating. I really don't have an issue with the rating, and I'm hardly looking to a DS game to get my fill of hot talk. Still, since the game is trying to be sexy and all, but doesn't have the freedom to go all the way, it ends up sounding like the middle school equivalent. It does have some racy moments, like a hot tub scene, but in the end it just misses the mark across the board.
Another major issue is that the game is, really, just boring to play. These types of games are generally about trial-and-error anyway, but Sprung really highlights this weakness. When in a conversation with someone, there's only one right track of text to follow, and all the others will eventually lead to failing the scene. So you'll pretty much expected to read the NPC's statement, make one of your own, and hope that it's right. If it is, you continue, but if not you'll be told off and you'll have to replay the entire conversation. In the bar, for example, you're on a mission to get more phone numbers from girls than your friend. You'll talk to the available females, trying to hit on them with the set statements, and you'll either pass or fail in getting a number. Once you've talked to all the girls, you'll go back and compare your results with your friend. If you win the contest, you move on. If you fail, you'll have to do it all over again from the beginning, and hope that you can get the right combo of lines this time around.
There is a bit of help, in the sense that you can click on a response before committing to it and watch their facial expressions. If they're smiling you're on the right track, and if they look pissed then you're going to go off the rails. Unfortunately, I never got this to work right, and even when it looked like they'd be pleased with my statement it would still end up being wrong. I suppose it is possible to get good at reading the expressions and always pick the right response, but then you're just clicking through a somewhat interactive story and there's no "game" involved.
Sprung tries, but fails. It can't spread its wings as a dirty tale of lust, shackled by its rating. It fails as a game, being nothing more than a trial-and-error text adventure that doesn't offer a challenge or much fun. If you want a cool graphic adventure, stick to playing attorney. If you'd rather watch young, oddly proportioned people try to pick each other up, flip to late night Skinemax. Either way you go, though, leave Sprung behind.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Editing Out the Jerks
We've all dealt with them, those obnoxious pricks who seem specifically put on this planet to log onto various online gaming networks and be total assholes to anyone with the bad fortune of ending up in a match with them.
There's something about anonymity, I suppose, that make people more likely to act like jerks. Maybe they're jerks in real space as well. Whatever it is, these people and their antics can make the fun act of playing a game into a miserable experience. From insults about your abilities right up to racial and sexual slurs, these gamers are the bane of online play.
These types of people are actually the reason I very rarely play online games. I'll play with friends, of course, in a closed game, but jumping into an open match of Halo 3 or something is a very rare thing for me to do.
It looks like there may be some hope out there, though, at least on the PC side of things. In an interview on Gamasutra, Stardock CEO Brad Wardell spoke about their new "Ready to Play" matchmaking system.
As Wardell puts it, "When you play online with random strangers, how many people are jerks? I don't know how else to put it. Random people are jerks. I wanted to come up with something that solved that problem."
This guy is already my hero. Of course, the knowledge that there are a lot of pricks online isn't exactly new, and there have certainly been attempts to reign in the douchebaggery, but the Ready to Play system really looks like it's on the right track. With the system, you rank a bunch of categories based on how important they are to you. What is your age group? How competitive are you? Would they rather just play for fun or are they all about winning?
By answering these traits yourself, you can paint a specific picture of your gaming preferences, and finds gamers who are compatible. The system can identify what games you own, as well as what other gamers using the system own, so you can see what other gamers like you are playing. The example Wardell uses in the interview is that you could see someone who is 84 percent compatible with your preferences starting a game of Sins of a Solar Empire, and you can then launch the game and play with them.
Ready to Play will be hitting Stardock's Impulse PC digital distribution network, with the beta dropping in September.
This right here is an amazing concept, and I really wish Stardock all the success in the world with it. If something like this is successful, than I can only hope that we'll see variants of it on other online gaming networks (*cough*XboxLive*cough*).
Until that day comes, we'll have to go with the Grumbly Gamer method (patent pending) of dealing with douchebags online: find out where they live and go there, at which point you slap them in the head. With a brick.
There's something about anonymity, I suppose, that make people more likely to act like jerks. Maybe they're jerks in real space as well. Whatever it is, these people and their antics can make the fun act of playing a game into a miserable experience. From insults about your abilities right up to racial and sexual slurs, these gamers are the bane of online play.
These types of people are actually the reason I very rarely play online games. I'll play with friends, of course, in a closed game, but jumping into an open match of Halo 3 or something is a very rare thing for me to do.
It looks like there may be some hope out there, though, at least on the PC side of things. In an interview on Gamasutra, Stardock CEO Brad Wardell spoke about their new "Ready to Play" matchmaking system.
As Wardell puts it, "When you play online with random strangers, how many people are jerks? I don't know how else to put it. Random people are jerks. I wanted to come up with something that solved that problem."
This guy is already my hero. Of course, the knowledge that there are a lot of pricks online isn't exactly new, and there have certainly been attempts to reign in the douchebaggery, but the Ready to Play system really looks like it's on the right track. With the system, you rank a bunch of categories based on how important they are to you. What is your age group? How competitive are you? Would they rather just play for fun or are they all about winning?
By answering these traits yourself, you can paint a specific picture of your gaming preferences, and finds gamers who are compatible. The system can identify what games you own, as well as what other gamers using the system own, so you can see what other gamers like you are playing. The example Wardell uses in the interview is that you could see someone who is 84 percent compatible with your preferences starting a game of Sins of a Solar Empire, and you can then launch the game and play with them.
Ready to Play will be hitting Stardock's Impulse PC digital distribution network, with the beta dropping in September.
This right here is an amazing concept, and I really wish Stardock all the success in the world with it. If something like this is successful, than I can only hope that we'll see variants of it on other online gaming networks (*cough*XboxLive*cough*).
Until that day comes, we'll have to go with the Grumbly Gamer method (patent pending) of dealing with douchebags online: find out where they live and go there, at which point you slap them in the head. With a brick.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Never Heard This One Before...
Really, this one is barely even worth reporting on. I mean, it's not like we haven't heard all of this before from a variety of sources, but it still hurts a bit as a gamer to see "research" like this still going on. I mean, why bother wasting research dollars on stuff like curing cancer or AIDS, when we can just talk about how horrible playing games is for your health.
This latest travesty of scientific research was reported here, and was apparently a joint study between the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Emory University, and Andrews University.
The basics of the findings are that game addicts are generally fatter and more depressed than non-gamers. Of course, they're not the first to spout off this sort of "research". In this case, they surveyed people in the Seattle/Tacoma area ranging in age, asking questions on subjects including demographic information, media use, health, and video game playing. They also examined internet usage, which played into the research pretty heavily.
What the study found is that the average video game addict is thirty-five years old, gamers are generally overweight and more depressed than non-gamers, and rely more on the internet for socialization. They also state that female gamers are more depressed and worse off in the health department than non-gaming girls. The study also suggests that gamers in general have poorer mental health than non-gamers, and goes on to talk about gamers' reliance on the internet.
Right, once again we get to hear the idiotic generalizations about us all being fat and lazy and living on the internet and not in the real world. Exactly the sort of thing that we need to stand up against as an industry (I point to my interview with Hal Halpin for more on this). We need strong, happy, healthy gamers to stand up and point out that generalizing in this way is simply insulting and nowhere near accurate. We need to explain that many gamers, being more in touch with technology and the internet, naturally could be seen as being online more than people who perhaps aren't as comfortable with the web. This isn't some sign of us being anti-social or anything like that, just like a small cross-section of gamers can in no way dictate the whole of the industry.
The research is pointless, the need to try to paint gamers as fat and lazy nerds is insulting, and the worst part of all of this is that there are plenty of people who will read this "study" and actually believe it.
This latest travesty of scientific research was reported here, and was apparently a joint study between the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Emory University, and Andrews University.
The basics of the findings are that game addicts are generally fatter and more depressed than non-gamers. Of course, they're not the first to spout off this sort of "research". In this case, they surveyed people in the Seattle/Tacoma area ranging in age, asking questions on subjects including demographic information, media use, health, and video game playing. They also examined internet usage, which played into the research pretty heavily.
What the study found is that the average video game addict is thirty-five years old, gamers are generally overweight and more depressed than non-gamers, and rely more on the internet for socialization. They also state that female gamers are more depressed and worse off in the health department than non-gaming girls. The study also suggests that gamers in general have poorer mental health than non-gamers, and goes on to talk about gamers' reliance on the internet.
Right, once again we get to hear the idiotic generalizations about us all being fat and lazy and living on the internet and not in the real world. Exactly the sort of thing that we need to stand up against as an industry (I point to my interview with Hal Halpin for more on this). We need strong, happy, healthy gamers to stand up and point out that generalizing in this way is simply insulting and nowhere near accurate. We need to explain that many gamers, being more in touch with technology and the internet, naturally could be seen as being online more than people who perhaps aren't as comfortable with the web. This isn't some sign of us being anti-social or anything like that, just like a small cross-section of gamers can in no way dictate the whole of the industry.
The research is pointless, the need to try to paint gamers as fat and lazy nerds is insulting, and the worst part of all of this is that there are plenty of people who will read this "study" and actually believe it.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Arcade Edition
With the advent of this new generation of machines, gamers have been treated to something relatively new (at least for console gamers): the ability to download games. From classics to remakes to original fare, there's a lot that services such as Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, and WiiWare offer to players. For a relatively small price you can often get quite a bit of game, and often times you'll be treated to more original ideas than you get on store shelves.
Of course, just like in a retail setting, there are good and bad games in this virtual setting. Original titles like Penny Arcade Adventures, Outpost Kaloki X, Castle Crashers, and Braid, remakes like Pac-Man Championship Edition, and fun little puzzlers like Peggle can offer quite a bit of fun for a small investment, and there are hundreds more catering to a variety of gaming tastes.
However, this is Friday Night Fail, so we're going to discuss Wik: Fable of Souls.
Wik: Fable of Souls was one of the earlier offerings on Xbox Live Arcade, and admittedly at first I was quite inthralled by it. Cool graphics (especially when compared against some of the relatively simplistic offerings at the time), a unique premise, and some challenging gameplay made for what should have been something really special. Then again, the drooling kids wearing the crash helmets are also refered to as "special", so I suppose that description is a little double edged.
In Wik, you play a weird little creature reminiscent of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. Your forest has been overrun with evil creatures, and you set out to take back the trees with your trusty pet/ companion, a large rhino-type thing. You're armed only with a long prehensile tongue, and your primary ability is that you can pull just about anything into your mouth and then spit it back out. The game is a puzzler, in which you have to use your tongue to move up and swing around to various platforms on the screen, and all over are little slug monsters that you need to clear off of the trees before you can continue to the next area. At the bottom of the screen, your pet is slowly but constantly making his way from one side to the other. You need to figure out how to reach the slugs, suck them up into your mouth, and then spit them down into the path of your companion, who will eat anything you put in front of him. You need to do this with a set percentage of the slugs before you can move on, and if your rhino guy makes it off screen before that percentage is reached, you'll have to retry the board.
Along the way the puzzles will get more complex, and you'll also be faced with bats and other enemies that you must defeat. You can suck up pinecones and spit them out like bullets to take down these monsters, and you'll also come cross fruits that you can spit into the path of your companion to make him stop for a few seconds while he munches away and therefore offers you some more time to make it across the various platforms.
So far the game sounds like a win across the board. Good graphics, cool music and sound, a unique premise and original gameplay should make for an amazing experience. To be fair, too, for the first several levels it actually is pretty fun. I played the demo and liked it, so ended up downloading the entire game, but it wasn't long before the cracks in the facade began to show.
The sign of a really good puzzle game is that you'll be doing the same basic actions over and over again, but it will never feel monotonous. Tetris is a great example, as is Bejeweled, where a basic concept is done over and over again but ends up being addictive rather than boring. Wik, though, after the first few levels are done and the new-ness of the concept wears off, just isn't much fun anymore. The difficulty spikes hard and fast, and there are just a ton of stages where you're pretty much doing the same thing. You don't hit the zen-like puzzle "zone" like when playing Tetris, but you never get the sense of needing to progress through the light storyline either.
Wik: The Fable of Souls is an example of a great concept and execution, but ultimately the idea wasn't fleshed out enough to make the end product very compelling.
Of course, just like in a retail setting, there are good and bad games in this virtual setting. Original titles like Penny Arcade Adventures, Outpost Kaloki X, Castle Crashers, and Braid, remakes like Pac-Man Championship Edition, and fun little puzzlers like Peggle can offer quite a bit of fun for a small investment, and there are hundreds more catering to a variety of gaming tastes.
However, this is Friday Night Fail, so we're going to discuss Wik: Fable of Souls.
Wik: Fable of Souls was one of the earlier offerings on Xbox Live Arcade, and admittedly at first I was quite inthralled by it. Cool graphics (especially when compared against some of the relatively simplistic offerings at the time), a unique premise, and some challenging gameplay made for what should have been something really special. Then again, the drooling kids wearing the crash helmets are also refered to as "special", so I suppose that description is a little double edged.
In Wik, you play a weird little creature reminiscent of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. Your forest has been overrun with evil creatures, and you set out to take back the trees with your trusty pet/ companion, a large rhino-type thing. You're armed only with a long prehensile tongue, and your primary ability is that you can pull just about anything into your mouth and then spit it back out. The game is a puzzler, in which you have to use your tongue to move up and swing around to various platforms on the screen, and all over are little slug monsters that you need to clear off of the trees before you can continue to the next area. At the bottom of the screen, your pet is slowly but constantly making his way from one side to the other. You need to figure out how to reach the slugs, suck them up into your mouth, and then spit them down into the path of your companion, who will eat anything you put in front of him. You need to do this with a set percentage of the slugs before you can move on, and if your rhino guy makes it off screen before that percentage is reached, you'll have to retry the board.
Along the way the puzzles will get more complex, and you'll also be faced with bats and other enemies that you must defeat. You can suck up pinecones and spit them out like bullets to take down these monsters, and you'll also come cross fruits that you can spit into the path of your companion to make him stop for a few seconds while he munches away and therefore offers you some more time to make it across the various platforms.
So far the game sounds like a win across the board. Good graphics, cool music and sound, a unique premise and original gameplay should make for an amazing experience. To be fair, too, for the first several levels it actually is pretty fun. I played the demo and liked it, so ended up downloading the entire game, but it wasn't long before the cracks in the facade began to show.
The sign of a really good puzzle game is that you'll be doing the same basic actions over and over again, but it will never feel monotonous. Tetris is a great example, as is Bejeweled, where a basic concept is done over and over again but ends up being addictive rather than boring. Wik, though, after the first few levels are done and the new-ness of the concept wears off, just isn't much fun anymore. The difficulty spikes hard and fast, and there are just a ton of stages where you're pretty much doing the same thing. You don't hit the zen-like puzzle "zone" like when playing Tetris, but you never get the sense of needing to progress through the light storyline either.
Wik: The Fable of Souls is an example of a great concept and execution, but ultimately the idea wasn't fleshed out enough to make the end product very compelling.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The STFU Post: Activision Edition
There are certain people in the industry who, as a general rule, probably shouldn't be allowed to hold press conferences or really just talk to anybody outside of their immediate office area. These are people who generally come out to say something and, no matter what the initial intention of the statement was, end up putting their foot in their mouth and just making things worse.
Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights is one such individual, with his very vocal and adamant insistence that Too Human would be the greatest video gaming experience in history and then making it worse by badmouthing gamers and critics for not "getting it" when they played the very mediocre title. I've always found Kaz Hirai of Sony to be insufferable, very arrogant to the point of annoyance around the launch of the PS3. I really felt that, at least within the circle of people who follow the industry, he did more harm than good in interviews and press releases concerning the system.
Now, though, we get Bobby Kotick of Activision spouting off some amazing remarks. Of course, it was Mr. Kotick who publicly stated, when his company dropped titles such as Ghostbusters and Brutal Legend from their lineup (after their merger with Vivendi), that they weren't interested in any titles that they couldn't milk with annual sequels. I mean, that's a pretty dumb reason in the first place to pass on fan-fave games like those (especially one with such geek cred as Ghostbusters), but pointing out the reason to everyone really just made it all worse.
Then, of course, there was the whole lawsuit thing where Activision tried to sue EA over the release of Brutal Legend, saying that they hadn't really dropped the title like a kid giving up a toy then wanting it back when someone else played with it. I don't even recall any direct quotes from Kotick on the matter, but I'm sure he was involved somehow. He is the president of the company and all, so guessing he got a memo or something about it.
It wasn't too long ago that he threatened to pull Activision's support of the PS3 and PSP if Sony didn't make with the price drops, which Sony then dismissed as just talk. Of course, with Sony's recent price drop, we'll never know if Bobby would have made good on the threat.
More recently, when it was announced that the European version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 would cost more than average games by about 5 pounds, good old Bobby stated (in an Activison Blizzard earnings call Q & A session) that he would raise prices even higher if he could. So in a global recession, when lots of people are already complaining about the high price of the hobby, he thinks we should be paying more. Bobby, if that's what you think then that's fine, but it's just not one of those things you say out loud.
Of course, the amazing combinations of words that pour out of Mr. Kotick's mouth hasn't stopped there. The most recent example of his need to stop talking came just last week in and interview with The Economist (the link to the interview sadly does not work anymore). Essentially, Kotick stated that gamers prefer sequels to original IPs, saying "A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year. Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them".
Sadly, this one is harder to argue with. Sequels do tend to sell way better than original games, and even I'll admit to enjoying a return to a game world or experience that I really had fun with (hell, I'm excited for Fable 3 over a year out, just from a teaser and a paragraph of vague information), but to basically say that gamers don't want new games is ridiculous. Add in the fact that he essentially boiled down the most loyal and hardcore who have been playing since the Atari days to a "small segment of very vocal gamers", and what you end up with is nothing more than another Kotick-ism.
Bobby really does need to STFU, but at the same time it's almost a fun game in itself to wait and see what "brilliant" idea is going to come out of his head next. Still, at this point his ranting isn't doing Activision any favors in the eyes of a lot of gamers, so the company would be wise to appoint a new spokesperson to handle all the press and hopefully make fewer stupid statements than Kotick.
They should get a chimp, wearing a sparkly hat. I'd totally tune in for more Activision press conferences if a monkey sporting a jaunty sequined chapeau was doing the presentations.
Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights is one such individual, with his very vocal and adamant insistence that Too Human would be the greatest video gaming experience in history and then making it worse by badmouthing gamers and critics for not "getting it" when they played the very mediocre title. I've always found Kaz Hirai of Sony to be insufferable, very arrogant to the point of annoyance around the launch of the PS3. I really felt that, at least within the circle of people who follow the industry, he did more harm than good in interviews and press releases concerning the system.
Now, though, we get Bobby Kotick of Activision spouting off some amazing remarks. Of course, it was Mr. Kotick who publicly stated, when his company dropped titles such as Ghostbusters and Brutal Legend from their lineup (after their merger with Vivendi), that they weren't interested in any titles that they couldn't milk with annual sequels. I mean, that's a pretty dumb reason in the first place to pass on fan-fave games like those (especially one with such geek cred as Ghostbusters), but pointing out the reason to everyone really just made it all worse.
Then, of course, there was the whole lawsuit thing where Activision tried to sue EA over the release of Brutal Legend, saying that they hadn't really dropped the title like a kid giving up a toy then wanting it back when someone else played with it. I don't even recall any direct quotes from Kotick on the matter, but I'm sure he was involved somehow. He is the president of the company and all, so guessing he got a memo or something about it.
It wasn't too long ago that he threatened to pull Activision's support of the PS3 and PSP if Sony didn't make with the price drops, which Sony then dismissed as just talk. Of course, with Sony's recent price drop, we'll never know if Bobby would have made good on the threat.
More recently, when it was announced that the European version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 would cost more than average games by about 5 pounds, good old Bobby stated (in an Activison Blizzard earnings call Q & A session) that he would raise prices even higher if he could. So in a global recession, when lots of people are already complaining about the high price of the hobby, he thinks we should be paying more. Bobby, if that's what you think then that's fine, but it's just not one of those things you say out loud.
Of course, the amazing combinations of words that pour out of Mr. Kotick's mouth hasn't stopped there. The most recent example of his need to stop talking came just last week in and interview with The Economist (the link to the interview sadly does not work anymore). Essentially, Kotick stated that gamers prefer sequels to original IPs, saying "A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year. Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them".
Sadly, this one is harder to argue with. Sequels do tend to sell way better than original games, and even I'll admit to enjoying a return to a game world or experience that I really had fun with (hell, I'm excited for Fable 3 over a year out, just from a teaser and a paragraph of vague information), but to basically say that gamers don't want new games is ridiculous. Add in the fact that he essentially boiled down the most loyal and hardcore who have been playing since the Atari days to a "small segment of very vocal gamers", and what you end up with is nothing more than another Kotick-ism.
Bobby really does need to STFU, but at the same time it's almost a fun game in itself to wait and see what "brilliant" idea is going to come out of his head next. Still, at this point his ranting isn't doing Activision any favors in the eyes of a lot of gamers, so the company would be wise to appoint a new spokesperson to handle all the press and hopefully make fewer stupid statements than Kotick.
They should get a chimp, wearing a sparkly hat. I'd totally tune in for more Activision press conferences if a monkey sporting a jaunty sequined chapeau was doing the presentations.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
PS3 Price Cut: Smart Plan or Desperate Measure?
Sony recently announced that not only would their high priced console, the Playstation 3, be getting cut down to the more competitive price point of $299, but they'll be releasing a smaller version of the machine called the PS3 Slim.
For a lot of people, this is what they've been waiting for, and I know several folks who plan to pick one up now that the price is going to be "reasonable". In fact, the high price tag is one of the reasons that Sony has gone from the top dog (with the Playstation 2) to third place.
Amazon is reporting a huge spike in sales numbers since the price drop was announced (on preorders of the Slim), and there is quite a bit of buzz surrounding this move. It'll put the PS3 into competitive territory with the other two players, and no doubt Sony is hoping to regain the lead they enjoyed in the previous generation.
After the initial spike of sales, though, will the momentum hold? The PS3 has the nice Blu-Ray feature, but its library isn't as strong as that of the Xbox 360 (nor does it capture the casual market like the Wii). So once it's priced in the same range as its counterparts, will it be able to keep the lead it will most likely see in the first few weeks?
Forbes doesn't think so. In fact, writer Brian Caulfield thinks it's "too little, too late" to make a difference even with this drastic move. He feels that, with the price still being higher than the competition (the Wii is $249, and the Xbox 360 starts at $199 with its bare-bones Arcade model), people will still go for the cheaper consoles. Plus, with the Wii offering its motion sensitive control and the Xbox's advanced online network, he states that the PS3 is the "least mature where it matters most". He also points out Nintendo's Wii Motion Plus/ Wii Sports Resort and Microsoft's various entertainment options (movies, games, and interactive game shows like the upcoming 1 vs. 100) as advances that Sony just doesn't have.
So is it really too little, too late for Sony in this generation? They'll no doubt see a surge in sales at first, with the people who have been waiting for this to come about rushing out to pick up a PS3, but will it hold? It's a safe bet that both Nintendo and Microsoft have war plans to counter Sony's move, whether it be price cuts of their own (the Xbox 360 has seen cuts, but the Wii is still at its original launch price), game bundles, or some other hook to keep their respective leads.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Caulfield on this. Sure, there will be some big sales at first, and Sony will probably lead the charts for a month or so and crow about how they're number one, but ultimately I just think they have less to offer than the other consoles on the market. Each of the other manufacturers has pretty much picked their audience (the Wii with their more family-oriented stance, and the 360 luring in the hardcore gamers), and Sony is stuck in the middle with no real plan for either. Honestly, all of the people I've talked to who plan to buy one already own one or both of the other consoles and just want to round out the collection, and more than one (myself included) mainly want it for the Blu-Ray movies and not as much for gaming (there are a few titles I'd grab, but really games would be secondary to the movie watching). So once the shiny price cut rush wears off, I think Sony is going to end up back in third place where they've been for most of this generation.
Time will tell, and this holiday season is going to be the bloodiest battle yet in this console war. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, and we probably won't know either way for quite some time.
In the end, though, this move is going to shake things up in all three camps, and it's all going to be pretty interesting to watch.
For a lot of people, this is what they've been waiting for, and I know several folks who plan to pick one up now that the price is going to be "reasonable". In fact, the high price tag is one of the reasons that Sony has gone from the top dog (with the Playstation 2) to third place.
Amazon is reporting a huge spike in sales numbers since the price drop was announced (on preorders of the Slim), and there is quite a bit of buzz surrounding this move. It'll put the PS3 into competitive territory with the other two players, and no doubt Sony is hoping to regain the lead they enjoyed in the previous generation.
After the initial spike of sales, though, will the momentum hold? The PS3 has the nice Blu-Ray feature, but its library isn't as strong as that of the Xbox 360 (nor does it capture the casual market like the Wii). So once it's priced in the same range as its counterparts, will it be able to keep the lead it will most likely see in the first few weeks?
Forbes doesn't think so. In fact, writer Brian Caulfield thinks it's "too little, too late" to make a difference even with this drastic move. He feels that, with the price still being higher than the competition (the Wii is $249, and the Xbox 360 starts at $199 with its bare-bones Arcade model), people will still go for the cheaper consoles. Plus, with the Wii offering its motion sensitive control and the Xbox's advanced online network, he states that the PS3 is the "least mature where it matters most". He also points out Nintendo's Wii Motion Plus/ Wii Sports Resort and Microsoft's various entertainment options (movies, games, and interactive game shows like the upcoming 1 vs. 100) as advances that Sony just doesn't have.
So is it really too little, too late for Sony in this generation? They'll no doubt see a surge in sales at first, with the people who have been waiting for this to come about rushing out to pick up a PS3, but will it hold? It's a safe bet that both Nintendo and Microsoft have war plans to counter Sony's move, whether it be price cuts of their own (the Xbox 360 has seen cuts, but the Wii is still at its original launch price), game bundles, or some other hook to keep their respective leads.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Caulfield on this. Sure, there will be some big sales at first, and Sony will probably lead the charts for a month or so and crow about how they're number one, but ultimately I just think they have less to offer than the other consoles on the market. Each of the other manufacturers has pretty much picked their audience (the Wii with their more family-oriented stance, and the 360 luring in the hardcore gamers), and Sony is stuck in the middle with no real plan for either. Honestly, all of the people I've talked to who plan to buy one already own one or both of the other consoles and just want to round out the collection, and more than one (myself included) mainly want it for the Blu-Ray movies and not as much for gaming (there are a few titles I'd grab, but really games would be secondary to the movie watching). So once the shiny price cut rush wears off, I think Sony is going to end up back in third place where they've been for most of this generation.
Time will tell, and this holiday season is going to be the bloodiest battle yet in this console war. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, and we probably won't know either way for quite some time.
In the end, though, this move is going to shake things up in all three camps, and it's all going to be pretty interesting to watch.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Some News Stories
I'm back from vacation everybody!
Before we jump into tonight's post, I just want to say something: for my trip, I went to visit family in Montana. I had no consoles, had a DS that I used on the plane and occasionally in the evenings before bed, and only limited computer use on a very slow connection. I didn't watch much TV, and went to places like Glacier National Park and the National Bison Range. I stared out from upon a mountain, looking at nothing but open land and sky in every direction, surrounded by nature and not technology.
It is very easy, in our hectic urban lives, to get out of touch with the world and get wrapped up in the everyday insanity. As much as I love games and the game industry, as much as I love tech and stuff like that, nothing centers you like getting back to the natural world. I recommend that everyone do it, as much as you can, to balance out your mind and your soul.
Enough of the "wise Jedi Master" talk. Now onto the news.
The biggest story involves the announcement of the PS3 Slim, a smaller version of the gigantic George Foreman Grill-looking machine that is the Playstation 3. Of course, this isn't surprising to anybody. After the PS One and the PS Two, both smaller versions of the original consoles, it was pretty much a given that this would happen eventually. With this new console, due out September 1, comes a new price point of $299.
It's interesting that Sony is releasing their inveitable slim machine this early in the PS3's life cycle, as the previous two generations came out much later. Generally they saved the "relaunch" for the decline of the system sales, but given that the PS3 sales have never really taken off in the first place, then this reboot could be the jumpstart that the console really needs. Of course, the new price certainly doesn't hurt, as it finally puts the PS3 into the competitive range of the Xbox 360 and Wii.
Sony's going to need to really push this new price and new machine, though the initial sales numbers are probably going to be really impressive. Lots of people (myself included) have been waiting for a real price drop, so there's most likely going to be a rush and a lot of consoles are going to be moved. What we'll have to see is if the momentum can be kept, or if after the initial pop we'll go back to the PS3 in third place.
Next up is an interesting story that's been popping up around the intertron, involving two major retailers and a video game price war in a town called West Jordan, Utah. The Best Buy in this town recently unveiled that they'd be matching new game prices to their used counterparts in stores such as Gamestop and Game Crazy. Used prices are generally about three to ten dollars less than those on new games, but now these Utah shoppers can go into Best Buy and get the same game brand new for the cheaper price.
Not to be outdone, the Gamestop in West Jordan dropped several of their "newer" used games (new releases like Legend of Starfy for the DS) upwards of fifteen dollars less than the new games in some cases. While this may make people come right to Gamestop to get the game at the low price, it also forces Best Buy to sell the game new for the same discount, seriously cutting into their profit. Gamestop, with their high markup on low trade prices for the used product, can afford to take the hit for a while, but new games don't have much of a profit margin to begin with, so Best Buy is going to be losing money with every title they match.
So the fight is taking an interesting turn, with gamers in the West Jordan area reaping the rewards of some nice deals on hot games. If Best Buy decides that the risk is worth the rewards, then we could see this test program rolling out nationwide, but if Gamestop wins the day then this will just be another minor skirmish in the war for the dollars of gamers.
So that's it for my first post-vacation post. I'm still not sure what time zone I'm in, but then again that's pretty normal for me even when I haven't gone anywhere.
Before we jump into tonight's post, I just want to say something: for my trip, I went to visit family in Montana. I had no consoles, had a DS that I used on the plane and occasionally in the evenings before bed, and only limited computer use on a very slow connection. I didn't watch much TV, and went to places like Glacier National Park and the National Bison Range. I stared out from upon a mountain, looking at nothing but open land and sky in every direction, surrounded by nature and not technology.
It is very easy, in our hectic urban lives, to get out of touch with the world and get wrapped up in the everyday insanity. As much as I love games and the game industry, as much as I love tech and stuff like that, nothing centers you like getting back to the natural world. I recommend that everyone do it, as much as you can, to balance out your mind and your soul.
Enough of the "wise Jedi Master" talk. Now onto the news.
The biggest story involves the announcement of the PS3 Slim, a smaller version of the gigantic George Foreman Grill-looking machine that is the Playstation 3. Of course, this isn't surprising to anybody. After the PS One and the PS Two, both smaller versions of the original consoles, it was pretty much a given that this would happen eventually. With this new console, due out September 1, comes a new price point of $299.
It's interesting that Sony is releasing their inveitable slim machine this early in the PS3's life cycle, as the previous two generations came out much later. Generally they saved the "relaunch" for the decline of the system sales, but given that the PS3 sales have never really taken off in the first place, then this reboot could be the jumpstart that the console really needs. Of course, the new price certainly doesn't hurt, as it finally puts the PS3 into the competitive range of the Xbox 360 and Wii.
Sony's going to need to really push this new price and new machine, though the initial sales numbers are probably going to be really impressive. Lots of people (myself included) have been waiting for a real price drop, so there's most likely going to be a rush and a lot of consoles are going to be moved. What we'll have to see is if the momentum can be kept, or if after the initial pop we'll go back to the PS3 in third place.
Next up is an interesting story that's been popping up around the intertron, involving two major retailers and a video game price war in a town called West Jordan, Utah. The Best Buy in this town recently unveiled that they'd be matching new game prices to their used counterparts in stores such as Gamestop and Game Crazy. Used prices are generally about three to ten dollars less than those on new games, but now these Utah shoppers can go into Best Buy and get the same game brand new for the cheaper price.
Not to be outdone, the Gamestop in West Jordan dropped several of their "newer" used games (new releases like Legend of Starfy for the DS) upwards of fifteen dollars less than the new games in some cases. While this may make people come right to Gamestop to get the game at the low price, it also forces Best Buy to sell the game new for the same discount, seriously cutting into their profit. Gamestop, with their high markup on low trade prices for the used product, can afford to take the hit for a while, but new games don't have much of a profit margin to begin with, so Best Buy is going to be losing money with every title they match.
So the fight is taking an interesting turn, with gamers in the West Jordan area reaping the rewards of some nice deals on hot games. If Best Buy decides that the risk is worth the rewards, then we could see this test program rolling out nationwide, but if Gamestop wins the day then this will just be another minor skirmish in the war for the dollars of gamers.
So that's it for my first post-vacation post. I'm still not sure what time zone I'm in, but then again that's pretty normal for me even when I haven't gone anywhere.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Vacation
Figured I would update all of my fans (both of you):
I will be on vacation this week, returning late on Monday the 17th. I am in Montana, slightly west of the middle of nowhere. I doubt I'll have much opportunity to post until I get back home, at which point my regular shenanigans should resume.
As a special note to the video game industry: please refrain from doing anything noteworthy or sarcasm-worthy for the remainder of this week. Thank you.
--Aaron, the Grumbly Gamer
I will be on vacation this week, returning late on Monday the 17th. I am in Montana, slightly west of the middle of nowhere. I doubt I'll have much opportunity to post until I get back home, at which point my regular shenanigans should resume.
As a special note to the video game industry: please refrain from doing anything noteworthy or sarcasm-worthy for the remainder of this week. Thank you.
--Aaron, the Grumbly Gamer
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Frenzy Edition
Fuzion Frenzy for the original Xbox console wasn't a great game, but it was a tolerable game. A disc full of mini-games, designed to attract a more casual audience to a machine known for shooters and... more shooters, it was fast and colorful and did serve the required "pointless party game" part of the library.
For the Xbox 360, Microsoft Game Studios opted to bring the franchise into the next generation, but apparently forgot to bring along even the low level of quality that the first title had. Fuzion Frenzy 2 is an prime example of a shoddy game across the board.
A lot can be forgiven in this sort of game. Graphics, sound, and setting generally take a back seat to the mini games, and as long as the title is fun to play than not much else matters. People want to get together and play, laugh, and have a good time with a game like this. Unfortunately, Fuzion Frenzy 2 fails to offer even a bit of fun.
The setting is some futuristic game show, hosted by one of the most annoying characters in all of videogame-dom. His voice is a grating game show host caricature, and he repeats himself way too often. The graphics are pretty basic, colorful for the most part but in no way taxing for the Xbox 360. Again, graphics don't really matter in a game like this, but looking better than the original game would have been nice. This doesn't. The characters are attempts at "extreme" futuristic people, all of them silly and obviously more marketing than art. They all control and handle the same, so there's no advantage in choosing one over the other, and you'll have that same hollow feeling regardless of who you play.
The game is just boring, the games aren't fun, and outside of some easy achievements there's really no reason to play this. Some games are simple fare, like rolling around in balls trying to knock your opponents off the edge, others are needlessly complex like trying to deactivate a reactor before getting zapped, but they all fail to excite. None have that quick, fun, party style feel to them.
If you have an Xbox 360, and you're having a party, there are definitely better game options out there. Music games like Rock Band will have your guests cheering and laughing together, a fighting game like Dead or Alive 4 will bring out some trash talking and competitive spirit, and there are even some hot downloads like Castle Crashers.
If you whip out Fuzion Frenzy 2, though, expect people to suddenly remember that they have to be up early, and watch them walk out the door, leaving you with clean-up duty and a lame-ass game spinning in your console.
For the Xbox 360, Microsoft Game Studios opted to bring the franchise into the next generation, but apparently forgot to bring along even the low level of quality that the first title had. Fuzion Frenzy 2 is an prime example of a shoddy game across the board.
A lot can be forgiven in this sort of game. Graphics, sound, and setting generally take a back seat to the mini games, and as long as the title is fun to play than not much else matters. People want to get together and play, laugh, and have a good time with a game like this. Unfortunately, Fuzion Frenzy 2 fails to offer even a bit of fun.
The setting is some futuristic game show, hosted by one of the most annoying characters in all of videogame-dom. His voice is a grating game show host caricature, and he repeats himself way too often. The graphics are pretty basic, colorful for the most part but in no way taxing for the Xbox 360. Again, graphics don't really matter in a game like this, but looking better than the original game would have been nice. This doesn't. The characters are attempts at "extreme" futuristic people, all of them silly and obviously more marketing than art. They all control and handle the same, so there's no advantage in choosing one over the other, and you'll have that same hollow feeling regardless of who you play.
The game is just boring, the games aren't fun, and outside of some easy achievements there's really no reason to play this. Some games are simple fare, like rolling around in balls trying to knock your opponents off the edge, others are needlessly complex like trying to deactivate a reactor before getting zapped, but they all fail to excite. None have that quick, fun, party style feel to them.
If you have an Xbox 360, and you're having a party, there are definitely better game options out there. Music games like Rock Band will have your guests cheering and laughing together, a fighting game like Dead or Alive 4 will bring out some trash talking and competitive spirit, and there are even some hot downloads like Castle Crashers.
If you whip out Fuzion Frenzy 2, though, expect people to suddenly remember that they have to be up early, and watch them walk out the door, leaving you with clean-up duty and a lame-ass game spinning in your console.
Friday, August 7, 2009
More Rules
Good to see you all again, glad that I didn't scare you away with the rules that I listed the other day. Hopefully you've brought your notes back to your studios and implemented everything that we discussed, and I think we'll all see some improvements in game quality as a result.
As long as we're all here, though, I think we should continue our conversation. I'll lay out some more rules, and hopefully everybody will get on board. There will be a test later.
I'd like to start with something that's gained a lot of popularity in this generation: Achievements/ Trophies. Collecting these little accomplishments, adding to some nebulous score, has driven gamers crazy. Whether it be a throwback to the old-school "high score" mentality, or simply the desire for bragging rights, Achievements have really caught on.
That being said, there are some ways to improve the system, so here we go:
Difficulty: This is something that has definitely gained traction recently, and I thank everyone who has gone ahead and taken care of this. Basically, if you're going to offer an achievement for each difficulty the game is completed on, the achievements should "cascade" down if a gamer starts on a higher level. If I can beat a game on the ultra-insane-legendary-impossible mode, then there's a good chance I can get through it on beginner, so I'd appreciate just getting that one as well. A game has to be really good to warrant multiple plays on different difficulties (Mass Effect), and in most cases it's best to assume that your game isn't that good. Trust me on this.
Kills: A popular type of achievement is the "get X number of kills" one, and outwardly I have no problem with this. However, if you are going to put these into your game, then by a new federal law I'm implementing right now you MUST put a counter somewhere in your game. If you expect me to get 500 headshots, then I expect you to put a running total in the pause menu. Seems fair enough, and many of you have already gone ahead with this. For those of you lagging behind, get with the program here.
Value: Our next rule concerns the point value of achievements, more accurately what you're expecting gamers to do for the points. In other words, the harder the achievement is to get, the more it should be worth. If I just killed ten thousand bloodthirsty demons using only a toothpick, I damn well want more than five points for it. Likewise, completing the tutorial probably isn't worth a hundred.
Single/ Multiplayer: If your game has both a single player and multiplayer mode, then make sure that you have achievements/ trophies that acknowledge that. Don't put all of them on one side or another, but balance them out. Half-and-half is fine, or whatever, but there's nothing worse than not being able to get any achievements because you don't play online or pull off a really cool multiplayer game and get nothing to show for it.
Too Easy: Achievements, by their very name, are meant to be "achieved". While giving out achievements early on is a good way to get people hooked and wanting more, doling out all the points within the first few minutes isn't much good either. I hate to tell you this, though I'm a little surprised I even have to: once people get the points, very few are going to bother going any further. In fact, the only reason they rented the game at all is to boost their gamerscore. You may think that "hey, at least they're playing the game", but that's not really true. They're not paying attention to anything other than that familiar little "achievement unlocked" noise.
Be Creative: Have some fun. Make some original achievements, give them clever names, make them something that people are going to want not only to show off to their friends, but also because they had fun getting it. Also, for the record, collecting every flag hidden in the game is NOT considered fun. I'd like to show you Fable 2 as an example here, class. They had some great ones, including one for getting an orgy going. Personally, luring a bunch of hookers into a depraved sexual encounter strikes me as more entertaining than searching the same area over and over for the last freaking flag that you can never find without a strategy guide/ FAQ. I'm not saying that every game needs to include hooker-based achievements (might look a little weird in Disney's UP), but it is an example of something out of the ordinary.
Make replays worth it: Some of you seem to think that we have nothing better to do than play your game over and over again. It's not like we don't have plenty of other games to be playing, but you seem to insist on multiple plays just to get all the achievements. With this in mind, I am expecting two rules to be immediately implemented:
1) Kills or whatever you're tracking must carry over from one play to the next.
2) Make the game worth playing again. Good/ Evil storylines, new areas that unlock the second time, or whatever you need to do to keep it interesting. If you expect us to play it again, we expect you to make it worth doing.
I think that about covers this lesson. I'm sure there's more, but frankly some of you are looking a bit confused, so I don't want to overburden your mind with too much. Again, thank you to all those that took notes and paid attention, and weren't slacking in the back playing DS.
Class dismissed.
As long as we're all here, though, I think we should continue our conversation. I'll lay out some more rules, and hopefully everybody will get on board. There will be a test later.
I'd like to start with something that's gained a lot of popularity in this generation: Achievements/ Trophies. Collecting these little accomplishments, adding to some nebulous score, has driven gamers crazy. Whether it be a throwback to the old-school "high score" mentality, or simply the desire for bragging rights, Achievements have really caught on.
That being said, there are some ways to improve the system, so here we go:
Difficulty: This is something that has definitely gained traction recently, and I thank everyone who has gone ahead and taken care of this. Basically, if you're going to offer an achievement for each difficulty the game is completed on, the achievements should "cascade" down if a gamer starts on a higher level. If I can beat a game on the ultra-insane-legendary-impossible mode, then there's a good chance I can get through it on beginner, so I'd appreciate just getting that one as well. A game has to be really good to warrant multiple plays on different difficulties (Mass Effect), and in most cases it's best to assume that your game isn't that good. Trust me on this.
Kills: A popular type of achievement is the "get X number of kills" one, and outwardly I have no problem with this. However, if you are going to put these into your game, then by a new federal law I'm implementing right now you MUST put a counter somewhere in your game. If you expect me to get 500 headshots, then I expect you to put a running total in the pause menu. Seems fair enough, and many of you have already gone ahead with this. For those of you lagging behind, get with the program here.
Value: Our next rule concerns the point value of achievements, more accurately what you're expecting gamers to do for the points. In other words, the harder the achievement is to get, the more it should be worth. If I just killed ten thousand bloodthirsty demons using only a toothpick, I damn well want more than five points for it. Likewise, completing the tutorial probably isn't worth a hundred.
Single/ Multiplayer: If your game has both a single player and multiplayer mode, then make sure that you have achievements/ trophies that acknowledge that. Don't put all of them on one side or another, but balance them out. Half-and-half is fine, or whatever, but there's nothing worse than not being able to get any achievements because you don't play online or pull off a really cool multiplayer game and get nothing to show for it.
Too Easy: Achievements, by their very name, are meant to be "achieved". While giving out achievements early on is a good way to get people hooked and wanting more, doling out all the points within the first few minutes isn't much good either. I hate to tell you this, though I'm a little surprised I even have to: once people get the points, very few are going to bother going any further. In fact, the only reason they rented the game at all is to boost their gamerscore. You may think that "hey, at least they're playing the game", but that's not really true. They're not paying attention to anything other than that familiar little "achievement unlocked" noise.
Be Creative: Have some fun. Make some original achievements, give them clever names, make them something that people are going to want not only to show off to their friends, but also because they had fun getting it. Also, for the record, collecting every flag hidden in the game is NOT considered fun. I'd like to show you Fable 2 as an example here, class. They had some great ones, including one for getting an orgy going. Personally, luring a bunch of hookers into a depraved sexual encounter strikes me as more entertaining than searching the same area over and over for the last freaking flag that you can never find without a strategy guide/ FAQ. I'm not saying that every game needs to include hooker-based achievements (might look a little weird in Disney's UP), but it is an example of something out of the ordinary.
Make replays worth it: Some of you seem to think that we have nothing better to do than play your game over and over again. It's not like we don't have plenty of other games to be playing, but you seem to insist on multiple plays just to get all the achievements. With this in mind, I am expecting two rules to be immediately implemented:
1) Kills or whatever you're tracking must carry over from one play to the next.
2) Make the game worth playing again. Good/ Evil storylines, new areas that unlock the second time, or whatever you need to do to keep it interesting. If you expect us to play it again, we expect you to make it worth doing.
I think that about covers this lesson. I'm sure there's more, but frankly some of you are looking a bit confused, so I don't want to overburden your mind with too much. Again, thank you to all those that took notes and paid attention, and weren't slacking in the back playing DS.
Class dismissed.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Chicken vs. Egg: FIGHT!
There was a time, way back in the olden days, when we didn't go home to play "video games", or relax with some "interactive entertainment", but we played "Nintendo". The name was synonymous with the industry itself, like saying "Band-Aid" instead of "adhesive bandage". Most gamers include NES and SNES stories when discussing their favorite gaming memories, and Nintendo franchises such as Mario and Zelda are amongst the best known and loved in the history of the hobby.
Now, though, the company faces some pretty harsh criticism from the industry it helped push forward. The Wii console is seen as underpowered, made for "casual" gamers (more on that later), a home for too many mini-game discs and shovelware with poorly implemented "waggle" controls. It sells better than its competitors, but has slowed down considerably from its status as the hard-to-find, have-to-have machine.
So, basically, what the hell happened?
Let's focus on one of the biggest complaints facing the system: the lack of "hardcore" titles. The first question I have, I suppose, is what constitutes the label of hardcore in the first place? Does it mean M-rated, with blood and profanity and boobies? Is there a certain type of content required to be considered a hardcore game instead of a casual one? Assuming that we're talking about "adult" titles (mature rated for the sake of the argument here), it's commonly assumed that a mature game is going to sink on the console. The basic fact is that there have been some really good "hardcore" games on the Wii, but not enough people bought and played them. No More Heroes is a great example: bloody, sexy, profane, and crazy difficult at time, it pretty much epitomizes the idea of an adult hardcore game. MadWorld is another good one, an original title that's really bloody and really cool, but not enough people bought it. So the game makers feel that the hardcore games aren't worth doing on the Wii, not enough to get a return on the investment, so they avoid it. Meanwhile, if the people crying about a lack of hardcore games bought these titles and those like them, then maybe more studios would be game to keep trying. I'm not sure where it started (hence the title of this post), but it seems that it's caught the Wii in a pretty serious cycle of failure.
There have also been some really fun, but not mature games on the Wii. One original, fun, well designed example is Zack and Wiki, a puzzle game that does a lot right, but not enough people tried. So, if the "hardcore" mature games aren't selling, and the fun original games aren't selling, then what do the publishers do? Shove out the stuff that is, the licensed "kiddie" games, and call it a day.
Then, of course, we have the lack of Nintendo's first party software. For a company known for some of the most memorable titles in gaming history, they've been playing this one a little too close to the chest. The machine lauched with the amazing Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, we've seen Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart and Super Smash Brother Brawl, but not much else. It's too far in between big Nintendo titles (at this year's E3 show, the hottest Nintendo games weren't even slated for a 2009 release), and it's almost like Nintendo doesn't understand that there are a lot of people who bought the Wii in order to play these franchises and not just pretend to play musical instruments in Wii Music.
As a side note concerning the aforementioned Mario games, these appeal to both the "hardcore" and "casual" audiences, and both camps hold these games up high as an example of why they own the Wii system.
Is it too late for the Wii to convince the hardcore gamers to stay, and as they let more shoddy title fill the shelves are they going to start losing the casual gamers? Let's face it, a bad game is a bad game, regardless of whether you've been playing for twenty years or twenty minutes, and Nintendo needs to stop crowing about "appealing to everyone" and actually start appealing to someone. There's so much to like about the console: the controls can be a lot of fun if well implemented, if a game is fun to play nobody is going to care that it's not as technically impressive than its competitors, and the online shops feature some great classic titles as well as some really impressive original games (World of Goo). Sure, a better implemented online play system would be nice, but frankly I think the Wii fills the "playing together in the same room" niche than the other consoles anyway.
Nintendo, here's my advice: step back for a minute, and re-figure your game plan. Stick to what you're good at, creating memorable gaming experiences, and stop trying to focus on getting everyone's grandmother to play games. If the titles are good, if the controls are easy to learn, and if they're fun, then people will play them.
Gamers, you're not off the hook either: before crying about the crappy library, stop and take a good look at it. Sure, there may not be as much blood or nudity as there is on other systems, but there is still a lot of quality gaming to be had regardless of ratings. There are some great mature titles out there if that's your thing, and maybe if you started buying them other developers would take a chance.
The industry has changed a lot since the days when we raced home from school to "play Nintendo", and the landscape is altered a little more every day. It's time for Nintendo to start taking it seriously again, so we can do the same for them.
Now, though, the company faces some pretty harsh criticism from the industry it helped push forward. The Wii console is seen as underpowered, made for "casual" gamers (more on that later), a home for too many mini-game discs and shovelware with poorly implemented "waggle" controls. It sells better than its competitors, but has slowed down considerably from its status as the hard-to-find, have-to-have machine.
So, basically, what the hell happened?
Let's focus on one of the biggest complaints facing the system: the lack of "hardcore" titles. The first question I have, I suppose, is what constitutes the label of hardcore in the first place? Does it mean M-rated, with blood and profanity and boobies? Is there a certain type of content required to be considered a hardcore game instead of a casual one? Assuming that we're talking about "adult" titles (mature rated for the sake of the argument here), it's commonly assumed that a mature game is going to sink on the console. The basic fact is that there have been some really good "hardcore" games on the Wii, but not enough people bought and played them. No More Heroes is a great example: bloody, sexy, profane, and crazy difficult at time, it pretty much epitomizes the idea of an adult hardcore game. MadWorld is another good one, an original title that's really bloody and really cool, but not enough people bought it. So the game makers feel that the hardcore games aren't worth doing on the Wii, not enough to get a return on the investment, so they avoid it. Meanwhile, if the people crying about a lack of hardcore games bought these titles and those like them, then maybe more studios would be game to keep trying. I'm not sure where it started (hence the title of this post), but it seems that it's caught the Wii in a pretty serious cycle of failure.
There have also been some really fun, but not mature games on the Wii. One original, fun, well designed example is Zack and Wiki, a puzzle game that does a lot right, but not enough people tried. So, if the "hardcore" mature games aren't selling, and the fun original games aren't selling, then what do the publishers do? Shove out the stuff that is, the licensed "kiddie" games, and call it a day.
Then, of course, we have the lack of Nintendo's first party software. For a company known for some of the most memorable titles in gaming history, they've been playing this one a little too close to the chest. The machine lauched with the amazing Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, we've seen Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart and Super Smash Brother Brawl, but not much else. It's too far in between big Nintendo titles (at this year's E3 show, the hottest Nintendo games weren't even slated for a 2009 release), and it's almost like Nintendo doesn't understand that there are a lot of people who bought the Wii in order to play these franchises and not just pretend to play musical instruments in Wii Music.
As a side note concerning the aforementioned Mario games, these appeal to both the "hardcore" and "casual" audiences, and both camps hold these games up high as an example of why they own the Wii system.
Is it too late for the Wii to convince the hardcore gamers to stay, and as they let more shoddy title fill the shelves are they going to start losing the casual gamers? Let's face it, a bad game is a bad game, regardless of whether you've been playing for twenty years or twenty minutes, and Nintendo needs to stop crowing about "appealing to everyone" and actually start appealing to someone. There's so much to like about the console: the controls can be a lot of fun if well implemented, if a game is fun to play nobody is going to care that it's not as technically impressive than its competitors, and the online shops feature some great classic titles as well as some really impressive original games (World of Goo). Sure, a better implemented online play system would be nice, but frankly I think the Wii fills the "playing together in the same room" niche than the other consoles anyway.
Nintendo, here's my advice: step back for a minute, and re-figure your game plan. Stick to what you're good at, creating memorable gaming experiences, and stop trying to focus on getting everyone's grandmother to play games. If the titles are good, if the controls are easy to learn, and if they're fun, then people will play them.
Gamers, you're not off the hook either: before crying about the crappy library, stop and take a good look at it. Sure, there may not be as much blood or nudity as there is on other systems, but there is still a lot of quality gaming to be had regardless of ratings. There are some great mature titles out there if that's your thing, and maybe if you started buying them other developers would take a chance.
The industry has changed a lot since the days when we raced home from school to "play Nintendo", and the landscape is altered a little more every day. It's time for Nintendo to start taking it seriously again, so we can do the same for them.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The New Rules
OK, here's the thing: I think it's safe to stop calling this batch of consoles the "next generation" machines and pretty much go with "current generation". I mean, the 360 has been out since November of 2005, the PS3 and Wii followed a year later, and with the exception of certain hardware that just doesn't know when to bow out gracefully (cough...PS2...cough), we've pretty much embraced these systems and abandoned those that came before.
That being said, now that we've been playing with consoles for a bit, I think it's time we laid out some rules. Microsoft and Sony are both claiming ten year life-cycles for their machines, so we've got some time to kill, and if we're all going to be stuck together for the foreseeable future there needs to be some guidelines.
Really, I'm doing this for your own good, guys. I'm sure nobody has wanted to tell you this up to this point, what with the "next generation" thing as an excuse, but now it has to be said. I'm not just looking at the "big three" here, either, but anybody who is out there making games. Pay attention, folks. There's going to be a quiz later.
The Rules:
Save points: I actually brought this up once before, but since a few of you were obviously absent that day I'm going to revisit the point.
It's time to abandon the antiquated "find a special point" method of saving games. It's not fun, it's not challenging, it's just annoying. Wanting to finish up a game, but needing to play for another forty-five minutes just to find a little glowing orb is not only pointless, but it serves to suck a lot of enjoyment out of the game. Especially when some games feel the need to space them so far apart, without checkpoints, so a death means replaying a substantial amount of content.
I'm OK with saving, and then restarting at the nearest checkpoint ( Tomb Raider), as long as there is a way to stop whenever you want and still keep your items, levels, and character progress intact. I'm also OK with a "quick save" option, basically allowing you to save anywhere but the file is deleted once resumed. As long as there is a way to stop playing and save should something come up, I'm cool.
Speaking of quick saves, going forth, this should be mandatory for every handheld game, on any handheld system. A save anywhere feature is better, but the point is having the ability to save when the bus ride is over or the dentist calls you or whatever. Sleep mode is a good start, but it's all too easy to get distracted and not go back for a while (incidentally, a fully charged DS Lite can sleep for over twenty-four hours, just so you know).
Unskippable cinematics: I know you guys are proud of your work. Hell, you did a bang up job there on the facial expressions and all. Of course, I've died here six times, so I've seen that same cinematic several times now. I'd love to just hit start and go on playing, but since that's not an option, I've got to watch the scene again. And again. And... you get the idea.
The only way this is OK is if you're using the scene to cover a load time, as a cutscene is still preferable to a loading screen. Otherwise, all games from this point forward must allow the player to skip over a cinematic.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Especially you, Silicon Knights.
Content: Now, this one is a bit touchy, but it's been remarked that many games are too short or too easy or otherwise not worth the money. This is more of an issue now that games cost more money than they did in the previous generations. Now, I know that some of you are raising your hand, ready to offer me the "they cost more to produce/ create/ market" speech, and I understand your concerns, but you have to see our side of it here. Not only are you expecting us to pay more for a game, but if it only lasts four hours we're going to feel pretty ripped off, regardless of how much it cost you to make it.
Acceptable solutions are multiplayer, enough content to warrant multiple play-throughs (like good and evil campaigns, or different character storylines), or an experience that's addicting enough to warrant playing the game a few times.
Licensed properties: Really, just stop. Now. Especially you, Activision. No, don't look all offended. Just realize that churning out crap based on every movie, TV show, cartoon, or breakfast cereal that comes down the pike isn't helping anybody. There are certainly some licenses worth pursuing, and it is possible to make a solid licensed game (Ghostbusters, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed), but these are the exceptions to the rule. The fact that they're based upon older properties, and are new stories within the licensed universes and not just quick movie cash-ins certainly helps.
Southpeak Games: So far you've given us Two Worlds and X-Blades. Please stop making games. I recommend trying a bakery, as cupcakes are easier to create than interactive entertainment.
Difficulty settings: All games need to allow for the adjustment of difficulty. I know, some of you are squirming, mumbling about wanting to make a "hardcore" experience or a "casual" game. Great. So, why not do both with the same title? Instead of separating them, why not give hardcore players and casual players the option to both play the same games?
That's enough for now. I'm sure that you'll need time to process and implement these. I saw a few of you taking notes, and I'll be checking your work closely to insure that you took these lessons to heart.
Thank you for your time, and have a lovely night.
That being said, now that we've been playing with consoles for a bit, I think it's time we laid out some rules. Microsoft and Sony are both claiming ten year life-cycles for their machines, so we've got some time to kill, and if we're all going to be stuck together for the foreseeable future there needs to be some guidelines.
Really, I'm doing this for your own good, guys. I'm sure nobody has wanted to tell you this up to this point, what with the "next generation" thing as an excuse, but now it has to be said. I'm not just looking at the "big three" here, either, but anybody who is out there making games. Pay attention, folks. There's going to be a quiz later.
The Rules:
Save points: I actually brought this up once before, but since a few of you were obviously absent that day I'm going to revisit the point.
It's time to abandon the antiquated "find a special point" method of saving games. It's not fun, it's not challenging, it's just annoying. Wanting to finish up a game, but needing to play for another forty-five minutes just to find a little glowing orb is not only pointless, but it serves to suck a lot of enjoyment out of the game. Especially when some games feel the need to space them so far apart, without checkpoints, so a death means replaying a substantial amount of content.
I'm OK with saving, and then restarting at the nearest checkpoint ( Tomb Raider), as long as there is a way to stop whenever you want and still keep your items, levels, and character progress intact. I'm also OK with a "quick save" option, basically allowing you to save anywhere but the file is deleted once resumed. As long as there is a way to stop playing and save should something come up, I'm cool.
Speaking of quick saves, going forth, this should be mandatory for every handheld game, on any handheld system. A save anywhere feature is better, but the point is having the ability to save when the bus ride is over or the dentist calls you or whatever. Sleep mode is a good start, but it's all too easy to get distracted and not go back for a while (incidentally, a fully charged DS Lite can sleep for over twenty-four hours, just so you know).
Unskippable cinematics: I know you guys are proud of your work. Hell, you did a bang up job there on the facial expressions and all. Of course, I've died here six times, so I've seen that same cinematic several times now. I'd love to just hit start and go on playing, but since that's not an option, I've got to watch the scene again. And again. And... you get the idea.
The only way this is OK is if you're using the scene to cover a load time, as a cutscene is still preferable to a loading screen. Otherwise, all games from this point forward must allow the player to skip over a cinematic.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Especially you, Silicon Knights.
Content: Now, this one is a bit touchy, but it's been remarked that many games are too short or too easy or otherwise not worth the money. This is more of an issue now that games cost more money than they did in the previous generations. Now, I know that some of you are raising your hand, ready to offer me the "they cost more to produce/ create/ market" speech, and I understand your concerns, but you have to see our side of it here. Not only are you expecting us to pay more for a game, but if it only lasts four hours we're going to feel pretty ripped off, regardless of how much it cost you to make it.
Acceptable solutions are multiplayer, enough content to warrant multiple play-throughs (like good and evil campaigns, or different character storylines), or an experience that's addicting enough to warrant playing the game a few times.
Licensed properties: Really, just stop. Now. Especially you, Activision. No, don't look all offended. Just realize that churning out crap based on every movie, TV show, cartoon, or breakfast cereal that comes down the pike isn't helping anybody. There are certainly some licenses worth pursuing, and it is possible to make a solid licensed game (Ghostbusters, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed), but these are the exceptions to the rule. The fact that they're based upon older properties, and are new stories within the licensed universes and not just quick movie cash-ins certainly helps.
Southpeak Games: So far you've given us Two Worlds and X-Blades. Please stop making games. I recommend trying a bakery, as cupcakes are easier to create than interactive entertainment.
Difficulty settings: All games need to allow for the adjustment of difficulty. I know, some of you are squirming, mumbling about wanting to make a "hardcore" experience or a "casual" game. Great. So, why not do both with the same title? Instead of separating them, why not give hardcore players and casual players the option to both play the same games?
That's enough for now. I'm sure that you'll need time to process and implement these. I saw a few of you taking notes, and I'll be checking your work closely to insure that you took these lessons to heart.
Thank you for your time, and have a lovely night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
