The Grumbly Gamer

All Good Things...

2010-03-30T14:00:00.002-04:00

The domain name for The Grumbly Gamer expires tomorrow.

In theory, the whole banana should revert back to its Blogspot address (www.thegrumblygamer.blogspot.com), but I have opted not to actually renew the direct Grumbly Gamer URL. In fact, despite it probably continuing on in it's Blogspot form, I doubt I will be doing much with this going forward. It's a sad thing (but you'll manage to live on, I promise), but it's also just time.

I never intended this thing to go on as long as it did, really. The idea of a blog had been suggested to me by a friend in the video game industry. I was trying to get a job within the industry, and he said that this would be a good way to get my thoughts and writing style out there in a more effective fashion. Thus, The Grumbly Gamer was born. After that it sort of took on a life of its own, and I've really enjoyed the work that I've done. I've done some cool interviews with people like Hal Halpin (president of the ECA) and Spencer Halpin (director of the film Moral Kombat)-- hit up the search to check those out-- and I've ranted on some really bizarre gaming news stories. Overall I think that this whole experience has really helped me grow as... well, whatever it is I'm trying to grow into.

So now we come to the end of the road, at least at the moment.

See, I finally had a big interview for a big position at a big game studio. I'm currently waiting to see if I get said position, but if I do then I'd assume that I'd have to end the blog anyway. There's that whole "conflict of interest" clause that most companies (gaming or otherwise) have that will most likely prevent me from blogging about games while actually working on games.

Plus, let's be honest, my heart just hasn't been in this lately. I've gone from posts almost every day to one every couple of months. Part of it was due to dedicating myself towards getting a job (in particular the one I interviewed for), but there was another factor at play.

When I started this, I had no direction to speak of outside of "make fun of gaming news stories that are entertaining or ridiculous to me", or ranting on some issue I felt needed to be bitched about. I would peruse all sorts of news sites, find something that jumped out at me, and proceed to poke fun at it. It was fun, but it was scattershot and it was hit or miss. Over the course of my time with this blog, though, something happened: I gained a focus.

So, if I don't get this big industry job, or if they somehow let me keep a blog while working there, I'm going to start a new project, one specifically focused on stories and news about the assaults on gaming and gamers. There are so many people out there trying to take away our rights to play what we want, from people claiming that games are horribly violent "murder simulators" to people that feel that gamers are somehow less socially acceptable than "normal people". I'm sure it'll still be done with some degree of sarcasm (this is, after all, me we're talking about), but instead of just picking any random story I want to specifically talk about the issues that still plague the industry as a whole.

So that's where we stand right now. Either I'm going to be actually working and therefore not blogging, or I'm going to be still blogging but doing so with an actual purpose. Whichever one comes to pass, it means the end, even temporarily, to The Grumbly Gamer.

I want to thank everyone for their support, all of the people who have been reading and commenting and making me feel like this wasn't a complete waste of my time. I want you all to know that at some point this became not about just using a blog to get an industry job but about bringing my work to the masses (if "masses" can be described as three regular readers) and sharing my thoughts with other gamers.

Huh. This whole thing bothers me way more than I ever thought it would.

That being said: This is The Grumbly Gamer, signing off...

Really? REALLY?

2010-03-25T20:42:00.003-04:00

OK, let me see if I can explain this one rationally, and not make it sound even more crazy/ stupid/ bizarre than it already is. No promises...

A new service recently launched, called GameCrush (as reported by IGN), and it's... well, it's some sort of dating or social thing for gamers that not only feeds into the "all gamers are pathetic, dateless guys" stereotype but basically turns willing female gamers into at best a novelty and at worst virtual prostitutes.

That last part may be a little harsh, so let me continue my attempt at an explanation here. Gamecrush essentially allows males to become "players", peruse a database of female "playdates", and then pay real money to play with them on Xbox Live (other consoles, as well as WoW, are supposedly being added in the future).

With me so far? All right, so here's how this madness works: a guy signs up for the service free of charge, and can then peruse profiles, pics, and chat with the girls with no money changing hands. If the guy likes what he sees, and the girl accepts, he can then purchase "credits" and play a game with said female for about six to ten minutes. One game will run 400 credits, and 500 credits can be bought for a little over eight bucks. It's also apparently expected that the guy will be tipping the girl those last hundred points. So, for $8.25, you can play with a girl online for ten minutes.

The service is through the PC, it's not affiliated in any way with Microsoft or Live. All the setup work is done through the Gamecrush site, then game invites on Live happen as they normally would. Obviously, these girls have most likely created special gamertags just for this. The girls keep a portion of the money they bring in, can set their profiles to "dirty" or "flirty", and the guys can rate them after the session. From the IGN report (when I went on the Gamecrush site was down due to too many hits), some girls seem pretty shady while others simply appear to be gamer girls who figured on getting paid for their hobby. Only a few Live games are "supported" by the service, and they also plan to have some casual games up on their own site to play.

Still, this is a little... well, honestly I'm not even sure what to call it. It's definitely enterprising, and I have no doubt that there are plenty of guys who are going to buy into this concept. I'm sure that Gamecrush and the girls involved are going to make some decent money with this.

I read the article, read it again, blinked to make sure that it wasn't some weird illusion, then I think my first reaction was somewhere along the lines of "Are you fucking kidding me?"

OK, a small part of that reaction was because I didn't think of this first (see the aforementioned "decent money" statement), but at the same time I'm still just trying to wrap my mind around the entire thing. You've got pathetic guys sitting at home, girls who are either plying them with phony pics and talking about their website (come see naked pics!) or who are just humoring them to get a cut of the cash.

I suppose it's possible that there's some nice but lonely guy out there, just having a hard time meeting someone, who signs onto this service just looking for a girl with similar interests (like blowing away Covenant forces). Once there he meets a lovely young woman who is also looking for someone special, and they meet and be friends and eventually there's a lovely wedding ceremony with Master Chief-themed centerpieces. I mean, it could happen. The odds are slightly worse than successfully navigating an asteroid field, but whatever. There's stranger shit out there.

More than likely, though, it's going to be guys who are out of the social scene for a very valid reason trying to hit on girls who are completely fake or just playing to make some money (or C, all of the above). One girl that the IGN guys played with actually had her boyfriend in the room, and made frequent mentions to and about him, pretty much destroying the illusion of playing with a flirty single girl.

It's admirable to want to find someone who shares your interests. I have no issue with that. Hell, I have profiles on a couple dating sites, and pretty much come right out and say that I'm a gamer in the hopes of finding someone with a similar hobby. This, though, is something different: preying on guys with too much disposable income and not enough self esteem, using the female of the species as a lure. Again, there may be some pretty cool girls on here just looking to play their games and make a few bucks along the way (when the site comes back up I may even try it in the interest of journalistic integrity to see what I can find), but all in all I just see this whole thing as a recipe for disaster.

No doubt a very profitable recipe for disaster.

Lucky XIII

2010-03-12T23:05:00.002-05:00

I actually got to play a bit of Final Fantasy XIII today, which is unusual for a couple of reasons. First of all, I rarely get to play brand spanking new titles much these days. Whether for financial reasons, or the fact that I'm trying to use my free time to pore through the mountain of games I've somehow managed to build up, I just don't generally grab a game day one unless I know damn well I intend to play it right away.
Secondly, I'm simply not a big fan of the Final Fantasy franchise. That may be a statement bordering on heresy, especially given that I do enjoy RPGs, but aside from playing the original and the SNES ones I haven't really gotten into an FF game in a long time. I actually tried to play Final Fantasy VII, a title that makes most gamers hot and bothered by just mentioning it, and I found it... meh. Admittedly, I didn't get too far, but I frankly got bored and never felt the need to delve any further into it. That was the last time I ever played a Final Fantasy game.

However, I've been intrigued by lucky #13 for some time now, and frankly I want to support the fact that Squeenix has decided to bring the franchise to my console of choice, the Xbox 360 (I mean, since a Dreamcast version is probably out, they're bringing it to my second console of choice). Whether I genuinely wanted the game, or just wanted the 360 version to sell like crazy so we'll see more come our way, I couldn't say.
Yes, I know it's hypocritical to say that I want to support bringing a franchise that I don't play to the Xbox. I may not play FF, but I do enjoy seeing fanboys get all tweaked, so that's motivation enough for me.

Anyway, a friend got the game and invited me over to check it out. After reading the manual to get a vague intro on the story, and watching the beautiful opening cinematic, I played through the first battle and... I really liked what I played. I also got to see some of the stuff a bit further in by jumping to my friend's save file, and again I was impressed. The game is amazing to look at, the battle system is actually damn cool, and now I think I really need to own this game at some point. Maybe not this week, as I'm trying to finish Dragon Age and haven't actually started Mass Effect 2 yet, not to mention the fact that I'm hooked on Halo 3: ODST's Firefight mode and I keep going back to Halo Wars lately, but FF XIII is now definitely on my purchase list.

I really think Square-Enix did a good thing here, changing up the formula like they did. I know there are whiners out there complaining that it's not "classic FF" (though, if it was, there'd be an equal amount of bitching about it being TOO classic, so it really is a no win situation), but frankly I'm already hooked and I really didn't think that was going to happen. As much as I was intrigued by the previews, I ultimately didn't think I was going to like it. So I went in assuming it wouldn't hook me, and even through the admittedly gorgeous opening I was still cynical. I mean, lots of games have pretty cinematics, so while I oohed and aahed appropriately I wasn't about to be swayed by that. I did, however, get swayed by the gameplay.

Hell, maybe at some point in the future I'll even call myself a Final Fantasy fan again. That would be just weird.

Changing the Game

2010-02-13T13:32:00.002-05:00

So, here I am, unemployed. It's a state I've actually been in for over a year now, having been asked to leave my last place of employment in October of 2008. In that time, naturally, financial challenges have arisen and forced me to rethink my spending in a lot of areas.

One of those areas happens to be how and when I buy video games.

When I was employed (and working, incidentally, for a store that actually sold games), I purchased a lot of video games. If a new title was coming out that I was interested in, I usually had it reserved and I'd buy it day one. If there was a special edition available that was always the version I went for, and there were big weeks (particularly around the holidays) where I'd be buying more than one game within a matter of days. Of course, it was more than just new games. If someone traded in an older title that I was interested in, I'd generally pick that up as well. I usually had a list of games in my head that I was looking for, and if one came in to any area store it would be coming home with me.

This led to a pretty expansive collection of titles on my shelf, to be sure, but it also presented me with more games than I could possibly play. Titles sat, still shrinkwrapped, on my shelf for months at a time. Hot games that I "had to have" would be tried for a few minutes, just to say that I played it, and then ignored while I attempted to sift through the dizzying backlog I had created. Games would be started and never finished, money that (in perfect 20/20 hindsight) probably should have been squirreled away was spent, and even now I'm still dealing with an over-abundance of games. Hell, I'm looking at my shelf right now and LEGO Batman is staring mockingly at me. I bought it shortly after its release (something like two years ago now), and I've maybe completed two stages. Which is probably further than I've gotten in Tomb Raider: Underworld, another title I "had to have" when it hit stores.

Now, though, things have changed. I barely have enough money to cover my bills (in some cases less than enough), and I'm sitting here right now hoping that my next unemployment extension goes through without an issue. I'm not in a position to buy every cool looking game that comes out. I'm barely in a position to buy gas and food some weeks. Cue sad violins...

What this has done, though, is drastically change the way I look at releases now. A whole series of questions runs through my head when considering a game: Is it something I'm really going to play right away? Do I really need the stuff in the special edition? I actually check reviews a lot more often now, or ask friends who have purchased it. More often than not I try to borrow games from pals, and the entire process of buying a game has a whole new series of considerations.

First off is whether or not I need to get the game right away to play. Had I waited, for example, on the aforementioned LEGO Batman, I would have saved myself a ridiculous amount of money when you consider what I paid versus what it currently sells for. If I had played through it when I bought it, I generally wouldn't consider this to be an issue (if I play and enjoy a game I feel it is worth the money spent in most cases), but frankly the tiny amount of the game I've actually played doesn't justify the extra money I spent because I "had to have it" right away.

Another consideration is quality. Nobody wants to buy a bad game, but now I take reviews and word-of-mouth much more seriously than I ever did before. Especially if there's more than one option on the shelf. Also tied into this is length and replay value, in the sense of getting the most for my money. I didn't really have an issue buying Mass Effect 2, for example, because I knew that not only is it a lengthy experience but based on my time with its predecessor it's something I'll most likely play more than once.

Another good example of this new consideration is Bayonetta vs Darksiders. Both came out at roughly the same time, both are action games, and while I was more hyped up about the former I was interested in them both. I read reviews, I downloaded demos, and I weighed the options carefully. In the end, I went with Bayonetta. After some hands-on time with them both, as well as the information I had collected, I felt that it was something that I would have more fun with and probably play through more than once. Darksiders, as cool as it is, felt like a "one playthrough" sort of game, the type in which you see everything once and just don't have the need to see again. Also, I knew that a few friends had purchased Darksiders, opening up the option of lending each other the titles down the line.

There was a time when I probably would have bought both, but those days are gone.

I'm also way more prone to wait until things drop in price or go on sale. I bought Metroid Prime Trilogy at a great price by waiting and watching the ads, and the fact is I probably wouldn't have even played it back when it came out. As much as I want Halo 3: ODST, I'm waiting to get a deal on it. I managed to borrow and play through it once, and it's definitely something I want to own (given that I have all the other games in the series), but it's not something I need to spend sixty bucks on right now.

The funny thing is, I don't actually regret this change in my purchasing. I'm still working through the backlog of games I had developed over the years (it actually includes titles from the previous generation, folks), and I think that despite the reasons for it happening this experience hasn't been entirely bad. It's made me separate hype from reality, the promise of a great experience from the reality of the reviews, and in the case of more than one title released in a short time: which one do I want more? Sure, I may have bought substantially less games last year than I have in previous years, but I appreciate the ones that I have bought even more.

The change in my personal world has, in the end, made me a better consumer and a better gamer. I can actually say that I'm playing the titles that I buy, I can appreciate the tools at my disposal like reviews and demos even more, and when I can actually afford a game I definitely appreciate the game itself all the more just due to the fact that the purchase is more of a rarity than it was before.

Someday, in theory, I'll be working again. The trials and tribulations of trying to get employment is another story for another time, but even when I'm punching a clock again I have every intention of keeping this mentality at the forefront of my game purchasing. It's not about buying every game, it's about buying the right ones.

An Interview With Spencer Halpin

2009-11-18T18:58:00.007-05:00

Video game violence is, to understate the matter considerably, a source of much controversy these days. No matter where you stand on the issue, you can't deny that it's one of the hottest hot button issues facing the industry today.

The new film Moral Kombat, directed by Spencer Halpin (brother of Hal Halpin of the ECA), takes a serious look at the debate. Talking to proponents on both sides, the movie is shaping up to be a very important look at the ongoing controversy surrounding video game violence.

I had the opportunity to ask Spencer some questions about the movie, which has been described by Professor Jenkins (MIT) as "perhaps the most important film ever made about video games".

*) First off, to get everyone up to speed, please talk a bit about the project overall, the subject and how it all came together.
Spencer Halpin’s: Moral Kombat came to be as a result of dinner conversations I had with my brother, Hal. He was knee-deep in anti-games legislation when he was running the IEMA and we’d talk about the cast of characters, viewpoints, and merits of the debate. It was a subject that certainly wasn’t near-and-dear to my heart, but one that I felt told a compelling story. The more into shooting we got, the more complex and interesting I found it… so I grew to love it and it ultimately became a passion.

*) What sort of release does the film have? Is it something that will be in theaters or on TV, can it be purchased or downloaded? I don’t believe there’s been a formal announcement yet, but we have signed with a digital distribution partner, Cinetic Media in NYC. We’ve been in talks with a few networks about the TV rights and had a lot of interest in DVD distribution of differing types. After getting hung-up on the legal and IP issues for some time, I’m really excited to say that it’ll be out soon.

*) Throughout the film you talk to quite a few people, on both sides of the argument. Can you talk a bit about some of the people you talked to, and how offering them the opportunity to present their case helped the film?
Yes. Actually the full credits have just been uploaded to the film’s dedicated website (http://www.moralkombatmovie.com/credits.htm). As you scan through the interviewees, I think the roster really speaks for itself. And following the negative reaction that the trailer got on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIu3JMGxk3Q), from gamers who were concerned that the film would be biased, this… and the reaction from the industry executives who came to last week’s screenings, should put those fears to rest. Regarding each interviewee experience, it really spanned the gamut: from intensely emotional and cathartic, to combative and confrontational, to funny and a blast to shoot. One common thread between the interviewees which I found interesting was their love for what they do and a driving passion for their perspective, which shines through in the doc.

*) Does the film take a non-partisan approach to the subject? Are you working to prove one viewpoint or the other, or offering up as much information as possible on both sides and allowing the viewer to make their own decision?
…much more the latter. As an artist, it’s near impossible to say with all honesty that your own thoughts and feelings aren’t a part of the work, but the story is told in as objective and informative a way as I know how. Like any filmmaker, I wanted to take the audience on a ride while telling them the story and engaging their senses in as holistic a way as I could. The best answer I could give you is that the people on either extreme each thought that the film was biased their direction – so I took that as high praise.

*) Are there any highlights that you can think of during production, anybody who surprised you with a statement or anything that you learned about either side during the filming?
Well, there were most definitely some very surprising interviews… certainly. Without naming names, I can tell you that one of the leading software company CEOs was mislead about the project and misinformed about the nature of what we were trying to do. We had this 180 degree green screen set-up with complex dolly moves on multiple cameras and the one time that there was a fair-sized crew manning the shoot. The interviewee arrived late, because he was coming from a trade association board meeting, and flew into a tirade about the film, me, what we were doing… it was very intense and also very confusing. He cursed like a sailor and stormed off the set. As a filmmaker, it gave me a lot of perspective and made me take a step back to appreciate just how emotional and personal these interviews were going to be. While it was a very stressful moment, it was also a learning experience.

*) Finally, is there anything you want to say or add concerning the film?
I’m really just grateful to have gone through the process, learned what feels like a Master’s degree’s worth in public policy and IP law, and made some lifelong friends along the way. That the film is finally coming out and it’s touching people and engaging them in thoughtful and respectful debate and discussion, is a dream come true. I’m flattered by all of the feedback and humbled by the sources. My goal all along was for the documentary to be an important educational and historic work that inspired the audience and forced them to appreciate the complexities of the discussion. Seeing that come to fruition…

*) Again, thank you for taking the time. I'm really looking forward to seeing the movie. Any plans for a screening in the Boston area?

My pleasure, Aaron. Thanks for taking the time for the interview. As for Boston… I’m not sure. Over the past few years, we’ve taken it to film festivals, university screenings and trade and consumer shows. But all of those have been instances where we’ve been invited. I believe that Dr. (Henry) Jenkins, before leaving MIT for USC this year, said that the film is part of the curriculum and in their library… which is a great honor in and of itself. So I suppose it’s possible that an MIT event could come about at some point. I screened at USC a few years ago, but now that Henry’s there and we’ve gotten so much interest for an LA-area screening, that’s also a possibility.

I have to say, I'm looking forward to seeing Moral Kombat, and it looks like it's going to be an important film for anybody with an interest in the video game violence debate or even just with the industry in general.
The official movie site can be found at www.moralkombatmovie.com. The official trailer, credits, and press releases can be found there.

Thank you to Spencer Halpin, for taking the time to answer my questions.

OMGNEWS!!!

2009-11-17T00:25:00.004-05:00

A few somewhat interesting stories came about last week, so here we go:

Kid forced to buy a PS3 at gunpoint, or when the marketing campaign just isn't enough:
According to the Naples news, an eighteen year old kid was held up and forced to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a Playstation 3 console. The story is a bit more involved, of course, and begins when the young man was confronted by a pair of armed guys. One was allegedly carrying an assault rifle, while the other carried a semi-automatic pistol. That one was described by the victim as an "Asian looking man".
Apparently Kaz Hirai is pretty serious about selling those Sony machines...
Anyway, they first made the teenager drive to his own home and steal his stepfather's credit card and some jewelry. They then took him to the local Wal-Mart (some would argue that shopping there is a crime in itself), with the intention of making him purchase a shotgun. When they found the gun counter closed, they had him buy a PS3 instead and then let him go. One of the men is now in custody, though the other (the Asian looking one) is still at large.
You know, how many times has this happened to you? Not the being held at gunpoint part, of course, but the "going in for one thing and walking out with something else". Hell, just the other day I went looking for a rocket launcher, but when I found that my local shop didn't have one I just bought a DS instead. Really, it's almost the same thing.

Life on the mean street dates:
Street dates, the releasing of a title (or book, or DVD, or music) on a specific date across all retailers, is pretty standard practice in the entertainment world. While many smaller games aren't held to such rigid concerns, most big releases are given specific release dates by the publisher and all stores must adhere to this date or suffer the consequences. By that I mean fines and often having less in the way of future shipments, and not a hit squad of angry goons hell-bent on breaking kneecaps, though I bet the latter would better insure the following of said dates.
With some of the latest big titles (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2,Left 4 Dead 2), the release dates have been broken by none other than mega-retailer Gamestop.
The first such incidents occurred during the CoD launch, when some stores were told by the corporate office to go ahead and sell the game a day ahead of the official date. This was done, supposedly, to stem lost sales as a result of smaller "mom and pop" stores breaking the date and selling the game ahead of time. In a press release, a Gamestop spokesperson did confirm that the decision was made at the corporate level, though he did state that Activision had given the company permission to do so.
Activision then released a statement of their own, claiming that they had not approved any such early sales for any retailer.
Despite the finger-pointing, I doubt anything serious is going to come of this. Activision needs Gamestop as much as Gamestop needs Activision, so I'm sure they'll kiss each others' asses and make up soon enough. Which is a shame, because if Activision were to make an example of such a large retailer you can bet everyone else is going to fall the hell into line.
More recently, some New Jersey Gamestop stores were allowed by their corporate office to sell AC2 and L4D2 early, as "local independent retailers" were doing so. No word yet from Ubisoft or Valve in terms of them giving Gamestop the bitch slapping they so rightly deserve.

Really? Game violence is still a "thing"?
Recently, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has been catching some flak over a violent level that has you playing as a terrorist sort of person. While an option is available to skip the level, from what I understand it really does hammer home the evil-ness of the enemy that your character will be fighting throughout the game.
Speaking to Industry Gamers, Rockstar Games head Dan Houser chimes in on the controversy (being no stranger to it himself), and rightly points out that the entire argument is just getting a bit ludicrous. Says Houser:
"It feels at last like we’re moving on from that debate. The audience is getting past 30 so it all becomes a bit silly. That’s not to say that all games are for all people; we’ve never said that. GTA has always been rated 18 and we’ve always been very happy with that. Nevertheless, we do get frustrated when video games are singled out and movies are given a free pass. Manhunt 2 was banned in the same week that Saw was released. The arguments become quite ludicrous quite quickly when people argue that games are somehow more dangerous than full-motion video."
Well said, Mr. Houser, especially that part about Manhunt 2 and Saw.
Really, it amazes me that this is still even an argument.

Fail from a land down under:
Here's one from Gamepolitics.
To set this one up a bit, Australia currently doesn't have any sort of "mature" rating classification for games, meaning that adult games are lumped in with others. As a result, all sorts of violent games are banned or have their content altered as to not be banned. Apparently there has been a push to get an 18+ sort of rating so Aussie gamers can get their mature gaming on, but the Australian Attorney General has no intention of making it happen.
He at first acknowledges that many gamers are adults, having grown up with electronic entertainment. He goes so far to say that his 22 year old son plays computer games.
He then praises the Wii console for offering "many games to challenge and develop skill, physically and intellectually, without depraved sex, gore, or cruelty".
Two things here, my Kiwi friend: go play Madworld and/ or No More Heroes. Both of these great games offer all sorts of violence, and NMH doesn't skimp on the sexual innuendo. Also, most of the damn minigame compilations on the console kill more brain cells than develop intellectual skills.
Apparently he can't understand why supporters of the rating want "more cruel sex and extreme violence". I've played some pretty violent games, but which games have the cruel sex? I want to play them for... ummm.... research purposes...
He also states that his constituents are more concerned with real life issues than with imaginary worlds. Dude, look at the real life issues. People live in these imaginary worlds because the real one seriously sucks.

Isn't one world enough?
It was recently revealed that Two Worlds 2 has been pushed back to a 2010 release. Gamers pretty much shrug without interest and go back about their lives.

OK, that's enough news for now. It's been a big week for games, so I'm off to play Dragon Age, Phantasy Star Zero, and Assassin's Creed 2. Maybe not all at the same time.

Friday Night Fail: Buckle those Swashes Edition

2009-11-14T13:28:00.003-05:00

I am, as a general rule, a huge fan of pirates. By which of course I mean the eyepatch-and-parrot type and not the douchebag that I spoke about in a recent post. So I approach any game involving privateers with excitement, though sometimes that initial burst of pirate-y happy is burst like a scurvy-ridden soap bubble.

Such is the case with Pirates of the Caribbean for the original Xbox. What could have been an enjoyable and deep title, in the end, ends up walking the plank and taking a dive into a sea of fail.

PotC was developed by Bethesda Softworks, of Elder Scrolls fame, and was in fact touted as being very similar to those popular open world RPG titles. The game itself began its life as a title called Sea Dogs (#2, if memory serves), but as the PotC movie gained steam the development shifted to bring the game under the license. This also meant that, since they wanted the game to release with the film, it was rushed through development. Interestingly enough, with the exception of the name change and a few in-game narrations by Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann in the films), the game really has nothing at all to do with the movie.

In PotC, you play Nathaniel Hawk, and you roam through an open RPG world. Like the Elder Scrolls games, you do have an over-arching questline but when and how you approach it is pretty much up to you. The game is presented in a third person perspective, the battles are action combat, and throughout the game you will be helming your ship on the open seas. Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? It's pretty amazing how such a cool concept on paper can sink so quickly in real life.

The graphics are muddy, the sound is uninspired, and the controls are passable. So, from a technical standpoint, there's really nothing worthwhile about the game. The ship battles, which should be the crowning achievement in a game like this (being about pirates and all) are slow to the point of being broken: even turning your vessel is a lesson in patience. While this may make for some realism, it also makes for some serious frustration. You can also board vessels, at which point the action shifts to the third person combat system. This actually isn't too bad, pretty standard action overall, but even in this area the game has some serious issues.

Not so much with the boarding parts, but with the land combat. As you travel you'll dock at different ports, explore various cities and shops, and can also walk into the wilderness seeking treasure and danger. Again, while there's nothing basically wrong with the sword-and-flintlock combat, the problem lies in the enemies themselves. They just seem to have a ton of hidden friends who will swarm and overtake you, leading to a lot of needless death. If you're wandering outside, for example, you may come across two or three shady characters and you figure that you can easily handle such a small band of miscreants. You then launch yourself into battle, but within seconds the tide shifts as several more enemies just happen to climb out of the bushes (apparently they were napping) and attack you. So what should have been a reasonably challenging but possible fight against a few foes now becomes impossible as you're quickly surrounded and cut down.

The game does offer some conversations with various people, governors of port cities and the like, and you can receive quests and make alliances, but none of the cool aspects are enough to counteract the bad ones.

If you want to get your virtual swashbuckler on, there are some very well-made ways to do so, most notably Sid Meier's Pirates. As for Pirates of the Caribbean... that one should probably just be sent to Davy Jones' locker.

Pirates Have Feelings Too!

2009-11-11T16:17:00.004-05:00

Some British kid pirated a bunch of Xbox 360 games, got caught and banned from Live, and is now all pissy about it.

So the BBC let him talk about the experience, because apparently it was a slow news day.

The kid admitted to having copied "roughly 30 or 40 games". He apparently got surprised when he was booted off of Live for, you know, doing something illegal, so he tried to sign in again and when he was denied a few more times he thought something was wrong.

Which prompted him to complain through BBC, because obviously this can't be his fault!

The best part is when he compares getting booted off Live to finding out that your "dog just died". Really, kid? That's the connection we're going with here? Comparing losing the ability to play video games online with the death of a pet? I mean, I'm a hardcore gamer who loves him some Xbox Live, but I'm also an owner of both a dog and cats, and I'm going to say that losing a pet is a wee bit tougher emotionally than losing your online gaming.

Especially because, to review, the kid was a freaking pirate! So, more accurately, it's like poisoning your dog and being surprised when the pooch keels over.

He then explains that he had been considering whether or not to move over to Playstation 3 or get another Xbox. He says that he's not sure he wants another Xbox after this, though he also claims that he won't be pirating games anymore.

Seriously, at no point did he stop and go "Wow, I was being a total doucheknocker and doing something illegal. I got caught, and got lucky in the sense that I just got banned from Live and didn't have Scotland Yard banging on my door, so I'm going to call this a win and go to bed."

No, he whined about being booted and likened it to losing a pet. Seriously epic fail, British dude. I say to you good day.

I say good day, sir!

Building the Perfect RPG

2009-11-09T23:32:00.003-05:00

So I've been playing Lost Odyssey lately, and am currently on disc 4 out of 4. I'm trying to finish it before diving into Dragon Age: Origins, as I really don't want to have too many deep RPG's running in my brain at the same time (I'm also working through Super Robot Taisen OG Saga: Endless Frontier on the DS). I've been occasionally working through the action RPG Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, and keep meaning to finally sit down and start Knights in the Nightmare. Oh, and I'm picking up Phantasy Star Zero this week.

So, obviously, I have a thing for this particular genre.

All this recent role playing, though, has gotten me thinking about the pros and cons inherent in each game. I mean, Lost Odyssey has some great stuff going for it: a deep and mature story, awesome graphics, a decent battle system, but it also has random battles (ugh) and save points that are often too far apart. It's good, but hardly perfect.

Which leads me to the point of today's post (yep, it's nice to know that I was going somewhere with this): what features would have to be put into the perfect RPG? I've thought back through a lot of the games that I've played and cobbled together the best aspects of them all to create the best RPG of all time.

An epic tale: gamers play RPGs, at least in part, for the story. Shooters and action games may have storylines, and maybe even some good ones, but there's nothing quite like an epic tale that unfolds over sixty hours or so of gameplay. Amazing cinematics, intense conversations, twisting plot points, and an intelligent narrative need to come together to create a tale that's going to hold a player's interest for as long as the game could take to complete.
Any RPG gamer knows the cliche: a spiky haired little kid, often an amnesiac or village outcast, brings together his equally spiky haired friends to embark on an epic quest to save the world from some horrible evil that has come back from the past to wreak havoc. We laugh about it, but it does still come up in a surprising amount of titles.
So the first aspect of our perfect RPG needs to be a story that breaks the norm. I mean, these stories obviously work in a sense (since we all keep playing them over and over again), but the perfect story would be something so epic and new that players will keep going well into the night just to see what happens next. Mass Effect had a great story, and one that made you want to play "just one more mission" until you realized that you've been playing for several hours. On the flipside, though, Eternal Sonata tried to be different and started out pretty intriguing before falling into a spiral of complete nonsense. So there's a fine line on both sides, I suppose.

Save points: Anybody who has been reading this blog from the beginning knows that save points, especially in RPGs, are one of my biggest gaming pet peeves. It was one of my earliest posts. Games, especially long epic sorts, should allow players to save anywhere. It's fine to put a few restrictions up, like no saving in the middle of a fight or something, but otherwise the option to just save and stop should be available. I'm not going to rant too long on this point (read the old post if you'd like to hear more of my thoughts), but simply put the perfect game won't rely on the archaic save point system but will instead allow players to save their game at any point.

Random battles: I hate random battles, and the perfect RPG will not have them. I like seeing my enemies on the screen, and have the option of fight or flight. I also like the idea that a lot of games implement with this, where if you hit the enemy from the back you get a surprise attack, but if they catch you from behind they get the drop.
Blue Dragon had this down really well. Not only could you see every enemy in the area, and could affect the start of the battle based on positioning, but they had a ring you could activate and sometimes catch several monsters at once. When the battle began you'd have to fight each group in sequence, but often the monsters themselves would turn on each other. It was a clever addition.
There's simply nothing worse than limping through a dungeon, low on healing items and just wanting to make it back to a town for supplies, and constantly getting assaulted by battles you can't see ahead of time. It's frustrating more than fun, so in the perfect RPG we're building we're going to implement the aforementioned Blue Dragon system.

The battle system: Here I'm actually pretty open. Whether a turn-based affair like Lost Odyssey or an action system like Fable, as long as the system is well constructed it's fine. Personally, I like Lost Odyssey's method of turn-based battles with a bit of an action kick: your combatants can activate a "ring" system that, if timed perfectly, can cause additional damage. It adds a bit of action to the otherwise straightforward turn system.
The biggest thing to avoid is getting too complicated and creating a monstrosity like The Last Remnant. The combat in that one was so complex that it wasn't fun as much as it was obnoxious to deal with. Simple, whether it be a shooting mechanic or a turn-by-turn system, works just fine. For the benefit of our perfect game, though, we'll stick with the classic RPG turn-based style of combat.

Collections: Unless your game starts with the word Pokemon, I don't want to see any little collection things in my perfect game. I don't want to miss out on a cooler ending or an achievement or whatever because I missed one goddamn puppy at the beginning of the game.

Epic-ness: I'm sort of lumping a few categories together here, but what a true perfect RPG needs is that sense of amazement. We're talking about thundering music at the right moments, jaw-dropping cinematics that thrust the story forward, and sprawling maps in a massive world. This is different from the story aspect I discussed earlier, as the epic feel that we get from the graphics and the music is what drives and invests us in the tale. Whether it be a gritty, realistic look like Final Fantasy 7 and Lost Odyssey, or the gorgeously colorful world of Eternal Sonata, pick a style and make it as amazing as the technology will allow.

Character progression: There's nothing worse than the following scenario- you have a group of several characters, but your party can only be made up of a few of them. You find yourself always using the same ones, especially later in the game when they're higher levels and the "rejects" in the group never got any action. Suddenly the story takes a turn and you find yourself needing to command the losers you forgot about hours ago, and they're not strong enough now to battle the crazy creatures you're battling.
While this mechanic has probably been in place before, I first saw it in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic: your backup party also gains levels. If you swapped in a character that you hadn't been using, they would immediately be elevated to match your main character's level upon leaving the base. Eternal Sonata allowed every party member, regardless of usage, to gain experience, though the ones not in battle gained less than the ones on the front lines.
The perfect RPG will have something in place to allow even second-stringers to gain enough XP to not be totally useless when the time comes.

Final bosses: One form is enough, thank you. I just used up all of my healing items and every magic point trying to fry your ass, and now you're suddenly coming back as a dragon or something? Screw that. One big epic battle is enough, thanks, unless you're going to give me the option to heal up and save between forms. After all , you've somehow gotten all of your life and magic back (sometimes even more than you had before), so really it's only fair.

So, to sum up, our perfect RPG will have:
*) A deep and coherent narrative that sucks us in and keeps us enthralled.
*) A generous save system.
*) A battle system that is fun without getting bogged down.
*) No collecting doodads.
*) A system to allow the rejects to feel like they're useful.
*) Graphics, music, and an epic feel befitting the story.
*) An epic finale that doesn't become a three-form marathon of pain.

I'm sure there's lots more to this perfect RPG, though. What about you guys? What do you feel would add to this perfect game (or what have I added that you disagree with)? How long should the perfect RPG be? What features have you found in other games that you feel should be included here?

The Movie Game

2009-11-04T23:37:00.002-05:00

So there's the trailer for the Prince of Persia movie that's due out next year. It actually looks pretty damn good, though of course a trailer is intended to make a movie look as good as possible. So while a couple short minutes is hardly indicative of the project's overall quality (which we won't know about for sure until it's actually released), a few things leap right out and make me think that perhaps this film won't fall into the trap of suckage that so many game-based movies have.

Obviously, there's the whole line of atrocious-beyond-rational-thought movies by Uwe Boll, whose films (Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, and House of the Dead, among many others) have really done terrible things for the entire concept of adapting games into movies. Even when serious attempts are made to bring video game experiences to life on the big screen, though, the end product usually falls short.

There have been some decent attempts along the way as well. Tomb Raider and Resident Evil were both solid movies and enjoyed some degree of box office success, though to be fair both of those were only loosely related to the games from which they were borne. Tomb Raider is similar only in the sense that the character is still named "Lara Croft" and she jets around the world raiding tombs, and Resident Evil also takes basic story elements from the games but crafts a new tale with a somewhat different mythology. Silent Hill, on the other hand, stuck closer to the game to the point that people who hadn't played the series were left a bit confused, and therein lies a lot of the issue with bringing a game to the cinema.

People who play the games are, for the most part, going to be watching the movie in the hopes that it keeps what they love about the game intact. So any major deviation, especially without a valid cause, will leave them disappointed and probably flaming the film on forums shortly after leaving the theater. Stick too close to the game mythos, though, and you run the risk of only appealing to the gamers and leaving moviegoers who aren't familiar with the title out in the cold.

It's a delicate line, and one on which a perfect balance has yet to be achieved.

Hopefully Prince of Persia won't suck too badly. The trailer does seem to indicate that they're keeping the story somewhat intact, what with the sands of time and the ability to rewind and such. I particularly like the banter between the Prince and Farrah in the trailer, as anybody who has played the game knows that those two characters engaged in similar verbal sparring there as well. So based on a short view that was specifically designed to entice moviegoers, I'm definitely intrigued.

Maybe this will be the film that really breaks down the barriers between the two mediums, that fans of the games (such as myself) can really appreciate but those unfamiliar with the franchise will enjoy as well.

Then, of course, we can start dealing with the issue in reverse: why is it that games based directly on movies generally suck?

Friday Night Fail: Halloween Edition

2009-10-30T21:53:00.006-04:00

It's Halloween (my favorite holiday), so it's only right that I present a special Halloween edition of Friday Night Fail.

This started as a search for costumes, more specifically bad costumes that relate to video gaming. It culminated in this:This, my friends, is an Asteroids costume. I'm not sure when it was made, though based on the old plastic-mask-with-vinyl-printed-bodysuit style I'd say it came out back when Asteroids was still a somewhat relevant game in pop culture. However, that does not excuse the timeless fail of this particular costume.

The biggest fail actually has nothing to do with the style of costume. When I was a kid I wore some of those types of Halloween get-ups, they were popular back in the day, so the mask/ bodysuit thing isn't the issue here. The biggest problem is that there are no characters in this game to speak of. It's not like you get to dressed up as Darth Vader or Spider-Man or Ponch from CHiPs or someone. No, you get to wear a costume designed around a little triangle that shoots dots at jagged round things.

"Who are you supposed to be, sweetie?"
"I'm Asteroids."
"Oh, how... nice. Here's... ummm... some raisins for you."

The bodysuit looks like it's a screenshot from the game. Again, with no character's outfit to replicate, there's really not a lot of content to work with here. You're not the hero of some epic tale when you wear this, you're a poor representation of the game itself.

Plus, what the hell is up with that mask? Is it an asteroid? Is it a mass of eyeballs? A pile of Life Savers mints? I'm really not sure, but I'm reasonably sure that whatever it is never appeared in the actual game. I've played multiple versions of the game, on a variety of gaming machines, and I never saw anything resembling a calamari sushi plate.

So there you have it. Quite possibly the most fail-tastic example of a Halloween/ video game convergence: the Asteroids costume.

Bonus fail points, incidentally, for this store-bought gem:It's an arcade machine, which could almost be seen as somehow clever on some level. However, the choice of game (Snake) is a little silly. The biggest issue, though? The placement of the controls. The stick, adorned with a red ball on the tip, is sticking straight up from around crotch level. Meaning that, if I were wearing this atrocity, I'd spend my entire evening going around to hot girls trying to get them to play with my joystick.

Life Imitating Art, or the Other Way Around

2009-10-28T21:15:00.002-04:00

In yesterday's post, I made up a few entertaining news stories intended to show... well, to show that I'm a real odd duck whose brain doesn't always spin in a normal orbit. It was also poking fun at the media that often blames tragedies on video games simply because some messed up kid happened to play Left 4 Dead.

So imagine my surprise when I read a news story that sounded like something I could have made up for yesterday's piece. However, this is a real tale, reported by GameSetWatch, involving a confused man and the game Silent Hill.

According to the story, a man shut off the electricity to a hospital because he thought he was playing the game. This actually happened last April, at Sophia Hospital in the Netherlands, and the man in question is a 35 year old known only as Jan H.

Seems Mr. H was looking to acquire a toothbrush, which he believed could be done by manipulating the levers and switches in the basement of the hospital. These rather important switches, of course, controlled the medical facility's electricity. Nobody was seriously hurt during the blackout, which involved forty-five minutes of doctors manually respirating patients and being stuck in elevators and other fun power outage activities. The man, claiming he was suffering a psychosis, was found not guilty last Tuesday. The court believed that he "had no idea the true consequence of his deeds".

So there you go. I slave over a hot laptop, trying to create some amusing news stories about video games and people trying to imitate them, and then reality goes and tries to one-up me. Damn you, reality!

Badly Influenced

2009-10-27T12:13:00.007-04:00

To any gamer who follows industry news, it's an old story: stupid person commits a crime (usually one of violence against another person), stupid person happens to be a video gamer, video games get blamed for stupid person's stupidity.

Generally there are specific games that are used in the news to indicate why one of these morons committed the crime. Halo and Grand Theft Auto are two of the most common ones, Left 4 Dead came up not too long ago; Generally the media will pick out a game or two from the person's collection and then form tenuous connections between the crime and the interactive entertainment the dumbass enjoyed playing.

Now, anybody with half a brain knows that the criminals in question were pretty fucked up to begin with, and that their games really played very little to no part in the unfortunate situations that occurred because of this fact. No rational, reasonably well adjusted person is going to sit down and play Halo for an hour and then go to the local mall and start shooting it up. Although playing Halo online, to be fair, has made me want to commit acts of violence more than once, but that's just against the doucheknocker kids that also play Halo online.

It got me thinking, though, what if games were the reason? What if these electronic adventures were so persuasive that they could cause a person to actually imitate the actions of their in-game avatars? Then, we could see stories like this:

--Rash of Thefts Occur in Small Town, Final Fantasy Blamed
A young woman was arrested today for walking into strange houses and rummaging through their dressers and desks. She in no way threatened any of the occupants in any of the homes, and when confronted by police she stated that she was looking for "money or other goods that could help her on her quest".
One resident whose home was invaded by the girl had the following to say:
"It was strange. We had left the door unlocked, and she just walked right in and started opening drawers. When I approached her, she just asked me if I knew how to get past the ice at the entrance to the frost cave. She then took a handful of change from my dresser and walked out the door."
When the young woman was put in prison, she didn't seem at all surprised or upset. Reports from the precinct indicate that she said "the heroes always end up in jail at some point in the adventure".

--Domestic Disturbance Call, Man Found Yelling at Inanimate Objects
Police responded to calls last night from residents of an apartment complex who claimed that another tenant was yelling and moving furniture around late last night.
When officers responded they found that the man had in fact stacked all of his furniture, obviously trying to fit it all together without any spaces in between.
"It was weird," one officer told our reporter, "He had stacked the long couch next to the square ottoman, and was trying to fit the L-shaped corner desk in when we arrived".
The man was reportedly very agitated, and yelling that he had "made a line" but it "wasn't disappearing" and that if he reached the ceiling he was going to die.
A search of the man's home uncovered a Nintendo DS system with a copy of Tetris, which officials believe caused this unusual scene.

--Man Arrested for Bringing Whip to Castle
A man was arrested yesterday while on a tour of a historic castle. Witnesses say he had brought a whip, and was using it to destroy all of the candelabras and sconces that lined the walls of the building.
When questioned, the man stated that he was hoping to find coins and "hearts" within the destroyed candles. These items, he claimed, would make it easier to "defeat the vampire master of this evil castle".
The man also assaulted two employees of the castle when they attempted to stop him, whipping them repeatedly. Each time they stood back up he whipped them again, and witnesses state he was yelling about the "damn zombies".
At this time, the man's obsession with the video game Castlevania is believed to be what sent him into such a state.

--Man Removed From Zoo, Possible Drug Use Involved
A man was removed in handcuffs from a local zoo yesterday afternoon after climbing over the wall of an enclosure and leaping onto the backs of tortoises.
Witnesses stated that they had seen the man, described as short and sporting a heavy black moustache, eating what looked like mushrooms shortly before the incident.
The man, who told police he was a plumber, had climbed into the large open tortoise habitat and jumped onto the back of one of the animals. He then jumped onto the next, and had made it to one more before security managed to catch him and remove him from the exhibit.
A search of the man's home, conducted to determine what would cause such behavior, found that he was an avid player of the game Super Mario Brothers. While gaming advocates firmly state that there is no way this caused the man's delusions, state psychologists assigned to the case feel it may be more than coincidence.

If gaming were truly the cause of some of the violent acts we see in the real news, then it's only a matter of time before we see stories like the ones above. A chilling look at the possibilities, to be sure, and one that this humble reporter hopes never comes to pass.

Friday Night Fail: Seriously? Edition

2009-10-24T09:26:00.004-04:00

Crimson Skies. Beyond Good and Evil. Eternal Darkness.

These games are definitely not fail, but they do share one commonality: they all deserve (worthy) sequels. The original games were great examples of their genres, and the fact that nobody has brought these series into the new generation is actually pretty surprising.

However, what is fail, and the focus of tonight's post, is the fact that Two Worlds 2 is happening.

The first game was a disaster, one of the lowest rated games if this generation (and the subject of my second FNF), and simply an experience that makes the average gamer want to stab their eyes out after just a few minutes of play. You would think that, given these facts, the developer and publisher responsible (Reality Pump and Southpeak, respectively) would want to distance themselves from the title and let it be forgotten amid the annals of gaming history.

Like a moth who gets burned by a porch light and then goes right back, though, that dynamic duo has teamed up again to unleash a sequel upon the world of interactive entertainment.

Of course, is it fair for me to announce Two Worlds 2 as a failure, given that the game is still some ways away from release and I haven't even played a demo, much less a finished product? Ordinarily I would say no, that I'm just judging without cause, but in this case I think my statements are valid. After all, we are talking about a sequel to Two Worlds.

A recent press release very proudly announced the game, and offered up a glimpse at the fail on the horizon. They showed a couple of screenshots (which I have very little faith in, as there were some nice pics from the first game), and then offered up some "sweet" information: that when you walk through the swamps there's a squishy noise.

Yes, the marketing department felt that the biggest announcement they could make about their game was that "...the marshy ground sucks at the character’s feet hindering his movement more so then if he was on dry land. Additionally, dynamic sounds have been constructed to further demonstrate the game’s attention to detail. When the hero steps into the marshy ground, he will hear a terrifyingly disgusting squishing noise that will make the player cringe with delight."

So your big reveal, the first information that is supposed to make gamers get excited about your project, is that they move slower in mud and it makes a squishy noise? Wow. Let me rush out today and preorder this exciting gaming experience.

What they don't reveal, though, is whether or not any of the myriad faults from the first game have been addressed. You know, little flaws like: terrible graphics, some of the worst voice acting in gaming history, abysmal controls, a laughable story, et cetera, et cetera.

Is it fair for me to condemn a game that hasn't been released yet? Probably not, and ordinarily I'd like to think that I have just enough journalistic integrity not to do so.

In the case of Two Worlds 2, though, I think I can make an exception.

Tomb Raider: Arkham Asylum

2009-10-22T10:35:00.003-04:00

Dear Eidos and WB Interactive,

Recently I have been playing a game that your companies published, by the name of Batman: Arkham Asylum, and I can say that it is truly an amazing experience. I'm not the biggest fan of Batman, but this game has really taken my breath away.

As I play this excellent title, though, it makes me think of another franchise that your companies are known for. I am speaking, of course, about Tomb Raider. Yes, I understand that these games are developed by different studios (Rocksteady and Crystal Dynamics, respectively), but since you published these titles I am going to bring this discussion directly to you.

Batman: Arkham Asylum has done very well in terms of sales. Of course, a large part of this success is due directly to it being a Batman game, but strong reviews and a solid gaming experience are certainly helping. The fact is, if it were simply a piece of licensed trash, the sales would have reflected this. The other game in question, Tomb Raider Underworld, did not do nearly as well as you had hoped. Reviews were mediocre, and subsequent press releases by your company stated that sales fell short of expectations.

One of my earliest posts discussed this, as well as your decision to rework the franchise and take a more "family friendly" approach. In that post I had expressed my fear over what this could mean for the venerable series. I had stated, and I still believe, that you are going completely in the wrong direction in this case and need to get your collective heads out of your asses and rethink this issue.

Now my point here is this: Batman is a spectacular game. Tight controls, amazing graphics, smooth combat, action, puzzles, adventure, et cetera. There are wide open spaces, there are claustrophobic caves, and there's a pretty cool story tying it all together. It is, to be blunt, exactly what a Tomb Raider game should be.

So I believe that, to fix the fallen franchise, the answer is actually pretty simple: take it out of the hands of Crystal Dynamics and give it to Rocksteady. Let them use the same brilliant less-is-more mentality, the same attention to detail, and the same engaging gameplay that they used in Batman: Arkham Asylum. Rather that make the Tomb Raider series more family friendly, how about treating it with a bit more maturity?

Thank you for your time, and have a lovely day.

--The Grumbly Gamer

Downward Slide

2009-10-19T23:33:00.002-04:00

I've been working my way through Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, which I'm going to state now is not a terrible game by any means. Regardless of whatever ranting I do after this point, I have been enjoying my time with this title.

I was a really big fan of the first game, and had been looking forward to the sequel from the day it was announced. I spent my hard-earned birthday money to buy it, and very eagerly jumped right into the adventure.

Like I said, it's definitely a decent game. It's just... not as good as the first game.

Which brings me to tonight's discussion: when a good game is brought down by a sub-par sequel. When you purchase a game based on your enjoyment of the first one, hoping that you'll be playing an experience that takes all the great concepts laid out previously and expanding upon them, and finding that you're actually being let down.

Like I said, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 isn't a bad game when considered on its own merits. It has a decent roster of super heroes and villains, a cool storyline that splits and encourages multiple plays to see everything, and the same frantic action-RPG gameplay that made the first one so much fun. You can now switch team members at almost any time without looking for a special access point, as well as save just about anywhere, and the "fusion" attacks are a cool addition.

When compared to the first game, though, it definitely falls short. The second one isn't as long as the first, there are fewer heroes and they just don't seem as fun (I miss Ghost Rider and Moon Knight in particular, but the entire roster seems to be a shadow of that of its predecessor), and some of the key strategic elements have been pulled out. Sure, we have the inclusion of the team boosts, which is pretty cool, but the whole costume thing bothers me.

For those who haven't played the first game: throughout the adventure, you'd unlock costumes for your characters through combat. Each hero had four costumes available to them, and changing these costumes actually changed the powers the hero had. So there was a strategic element to the game in deciding which costume you wanted your heroes to don, based upon the abilities they would get as a result. The second game completely pulled this, making the costume changes nothing more than cosmetic and subsequently removing part of the strategy involved in the first game.

Of course, MUA2 is hardly the first game to take a downward slide from its predecessor. It actually made me think back to a similar situation: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The first game was amazing, a deep RPG set in the Star Wars universe. The sequel, which had been done by a different studio, fell short of the expectations set by the quality of the first. Sure, there were some cool new touches (like the ability to sway the alignments of your team members), but overall it was a let down when compared to the first title. The story didn't flow as well, and there were just a bunch of little issues that made it less fun than the first.

Part of it, I suppose, is the fact that there's an expectation that the sequel is going to be an improvement from the first game. Not only in graphics and the technical aspects, but in the gameplay and the experience. In something like KOTOR, the first game was something new and exciting, something that we really hadn't seen before. When the sequel rolled around, we had already seen it, meaning that initial amazement was gone and therefore we required more to keep our interest. It wasn't a terrible game, it just wasn't a great follow-up to the previous title.

Of course, games aren't the only form of media where this happens. Movies (*cough*Transformers 2*cough*) have the same issue, perhaps even more often than games do. Which adds nothing to the point, but I wanted to state how atrocious Transformers 2 really was.

Sadly, I think that there's an inherent assumption that fans are just going to buy the game no matter what (and in most cases we do). Sometimes in an effort to preserve what made the first game special there's no advancement, or maybe it's a marketing decision to keep things the same because that's what sold well the first time.

It's too bad, because I do like MUA2, but while I play all I can think is:
"The first game was better."

Preview: Bayonetta

2009-10-13T12:49:00.002-04:00

Preview time!

I'm not usually one for writing previews, but every now and again a game comes along that I'm excited enough for to make an exception. Right now, that game is Bayonetta. Originally slated for a holiday release in the US, it has been pushed back to early next year, but a demo was recently released on Xbox Live in Japan and I got my greedy little hands on it.

Bayonetta is an action game, and a lot of the press on the title compares it to another fast-paced action title: Devil May Cry. As I have never played DMC I won't be making any such comparisons, and will instead be judging Bayonetta without any preconceived notions.

The demo opens with a cinematic done in a sepia-toned movie style right down to the perforated edges seen on strips of film. Thus far I have very little idea as to what's going on in the story, but I do know a few things. As the character Bayonetta, you're a witch who is battling "halos", but these are no feathery angels. In fact, they're horrific monsters who happen to have shining halos hovering over their misshapen heads.

Let me see if I can describe this and have it make a lick of sense. I've tried, and so far I'm not sure if I've succeeded: Bayonetta is a sultry, leather-clad, woman with pistols in her hands and a gun strapped to each ankle. She also has melee weapons, so she can slash and shoot as she tears through her opponents. However, the skin-tight catsuit actually isn't leather, but it's made up entirely of her hair. As she fights and performs longer and more elaborate combos, the hair starts whipping around and becomes a weapon itself, which also means that it's stripping away from her body until she's virtually nude and there's giant fists or boots of black hair pounding on enemies. When the combo string stops, the hair resumes its place on her body and once again looks like black leather.

Nope... still no sense at all.

The action in Bayonetta is fast and brutal, and what I really like is how easy it is to pull of crazy combos and feel like a bad-ass. The controls are pretty simple: one button kicks, another punches, and there's also shoot and jump buttons. One trigger locks on, and the other performs a dodge move. As you string together combinations of kicking and punching your attack gets more brutal, and if you've got some magic energy stored up (which generates by attacking) you'll unleash a powerful move at the end of the string. An example would be a portal opening behind your character from which a giant stiletto boot (made entirely of writhing black hair) emerges and kicks you opponent right as your own boot strikes him. You can also, right as an enemy is swinging at you, dodge and avoid the attack. If done right this will send everything into slow motion that for a few moments that will allow you to attack almost unimpeded. Really, you can (at least in the battles presented in the demo) button-mash and still feel like a killer action hero. The combat is fluid and visceral, blood splatters as enemies explode from your assault, and at no time was I stopping to try to remember a specific combo. I also really liked that these magic attacks happened naturally: there was no stopping to cast a spell or engage some sort of extra button presses to make something happen. It's a natural part of the combat, which means you can keep attacking and the combat will keep flowing.

At times you can pick up a fallen enemy's weapon for a few minutes, and they'll also drop items that you'll pick up just by being near them. You can pick up health herbs that give your meter an immediate boost, as well as purple butterflies that will fill your magic meter. You can also pick up "halos", money that presumably will play into the final game for upgrading weapons or abilities. There were also points awarded at the end of each stage.

If you've got some energy in your magic meter, and you get close to an enemy, you can perform a "punishing attack" that has you hit two buttons at once and grab onto your foe. You'll then rapidly press the button indicated to power up the attack, and when the timer hits zero you'll unleash a brutal move that generally obliterates your opponent. There was also an opportunity to perform a similar move at the end of one of the demo's boss battles: when you had the boss down to virtually no health, there was a chance to hit the correct button (shown on the screen) and start a punisher. Rapidly pressing the X button filled the power meter, and then a cinematic finishing move ensued in which a giant black dragon made of hair appeared and chomped the enemy in half. This ended in a gratuitous skin shot of Bayonetta, as her hair swirled back down around her and reformed into clothing.

The demo consisted of two levels. In one, the sultry star was on a falling clock tower, fighting as debris rained down from the sky. It was weird and gothic and fit the motif of witches battling angels. The second took place in a city garden, amid pleasant white cobbled streets. Both featured a ton of enemies coming at you, the combat rarely letting you catch your breath. The graphics were impressive, the action smooth even with all sorts of things happening on screen. There's plenty of detail, and everything is crisp and colorful. The sound is what you'd expect: pistols firing, swords clashing, the roars and grunts of combat. Bayonetta herself is prone to spouting comments (like a chiding "naughty" as she pounds a foe into oblivion), and from what I've seen in the demo and the videos the voice acting looks about on par for this sort of game.

The game is fast, fun, and bizarre. The combat is easy to pick up but complex for those who are really into learning combos. It all looks gorgeous, and runs smoothly.

This demo has done nothing to curb my enthusiasm for Bayonetta, in fact it only serves to make the wait for the US release even tougher. Hopefully, the full game will be as impressive as these two short levels are.

Ninety Nine Friday Night Fails

2009-10-09T21:20:00.003-04:00

It's no secret that I enjoy playing bad games. In fact, some of the more reviled titles in recent history (Too Human, Bullet Witch, Grabbed by the Ghoulies) I actually had quite a good time with. I mean, I draw the line at really horrific (I'm looking at you, Two Worlds), but I can often look past the flaws and glean some measure of fun out a game.

That doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge their flaws, and know damned well that I'm playing a piece of crap and enjoying it. Such is the case with tonight's victi... umm, I mean... subject, Ninety Nine Nights.

Often referred to as N3, Ninety Nine Nights is a hack-and-slash action game. Over the course of the adventure you'll play as several characters, tearing through hordes of enemies using a variety of attacks and magical powers. On paper it sounds just fine, and even at the start the game seems promising. The graphics aren't that bad, the controls work, and the storyline may not be inventive but it serves its purpose.

After a little while, though, the initial positive impressions give way to the major flaws of N3.

First off, while the game does have an impressive amount of enemies onscreen with no slowdown, there are actually only a small handful of different monsters throughout the entire adventure. The same four or five are repeated by the hundreds throughout the entire game, and with the exception of the occasional boss you won't see any variety regardless of which character you're playing.

Next up we have the combat. While fast and furious, it really boils down to just hitting the attack buttons a lot and occasionally unleashing a super ability. There are some light RPG elements: levels and items that can enhance your attack and defense or offer up some other buff, but they're reasonably superficial in the end. There's one single choice of direction you get throughout the game. With all the levels, the different characters, and everything, there's only one point where you actually get to decide which level you go to next. This choice affects whether or not you get the secret level at the very end, but other than that doesn't really make any major differences. At the start of each level you choose your back-up army to lead from a small selection of options (archers, pikemen, etc), but they mostly serve as cannon fodder and don't really add anything to the combat.

The game mostly seems full of ideas that were started, but never seen through.

Then, we have the story. I'm willing to overlook some flaws if the narrative is gripping, but N3's story is maddeningly incoherent. There are seven different characters that you'll play throughout the game, each one with his or her own tale. The different stories do intersect at times, but more often than not they actually contradict each other. Characters that you kill off in one story are playable characters later, and you'll be striking down the characters you were playing in the earlier tale. So it's impossible to really get into the narrative, since the next story could completely disagree with what you just accomplished. Granted, there are two "main" characters, so I think their stories (which do mostly coincide with each other) are the real ones, but in the end even that narrative wasn't strong enough to make me care about any of it.

I had fun with Ninety Nine Nights, but that's hardly an endorsement of quality given some of the other games I've enjoyed. It's repetitive, nonsensical, and most of the good ideas aren't fleshed out enough to make a difference. It's too bad, because with a stronger story, more variety, and more choices to make throughout the tale it could have been a pretty impressive title.

The Sad Panda

2009-10-08T00:45:00.002-04:00

If you're into the show South Park, like I am, you may remember the episode that featured the character "Sexual Harassment Panda". If you're unfamiliar: he was a man in a panda suit that went to schools to educate the kids about, obviously, sexual harassment, a subject that made him a "sad panda".

That reference is only there to lead into the subject of tonight's post: game-related things that, lately, are making me a sad panda. So, in no particular order:

Games that looked better than they play: I'm going to just come out and give a solid example here... Scribblenauts. After E3, every press outlet was hailing this game as one of the year's best, heaping awards onto it and raving about it in previews and hands-on articles. Everything I heard and saw made me want it more and more, so I reserved it and bought it day one.
It's... not great. The controls are pretty crappy, some of the puzzles are needlessly esoteric, and it has a lot of issues. I still find it fun, and I do play it, but it looked way better before it came out.
Scribbenauts is hardly the only example, though. Lots of titles look amazing in preview, get cool videos and write-ups based on only the little bit of game the press are allowed to see, and when they finally hit retail they're disappointing.
Maybe it's the fault of the "show us more" culture in the industry, that need gamers have to know as much as possible about a game before even playing it. Maybe it's the hype machine that marketing departments need to unleash in order to even get noticed on crowded shelves. Maybe it's both or none of those.
Either way, playing a game I was uber-excited about only to be let down makes me a sad panda (see how I worked that in there?)

Concepts that don't translate into good gameplay: Again, I'm going to pick on Scribblenauts for a moment. As I said, it's not really that bad, but when compared against all the hype it's certainly a let down. In this case, the concept of "writing anything" to solve puzzles just doesn't translate as well into gaming as I had hoped. It can get entertaining, but it's very clearly an example of the concept being more than the game could ever be.
Another offender is Last Remnant, an RPG that had some unique concepts for the battle system that could have been pretty cool but ended up being frustrating and overly complex. Whatever the designers had in mind on paper just didn't work in the virtual sense of the game.

Sequels that let down the original: I'm looking at you, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2...
I'm playing this game now, having been really excited for its release because I greatly enjoyed the first one. While the sequel is a decent game, it's actually less fun than its predecessor. They took out some cool aspects (like different costumes offering different powers), and didn't really replace them with anything. The end result seems like a watered down follow-up instead of a sequel that added to the franchise.
Another offender, going back a ways here, is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2. Now, I loved this game, but compared to the original title it simply didn't hold up. It did add one cool new feature: the ability to sway your companions to the light/ dark sides, but other than that it failed to capture the excellence of the first game. The narrative was weaker, there were technical issues that had been present in the previous game and were never corrected, and throughout the adventure I couldn't help feeling like number one was superior.

Kids games that treat kids like idiots: I bitched about this yesterday, but it bears another mention, as does the game I focused on in my last post: Star Wars: Republic Heroes. Poor gameplay, graphics that look like an early Gamecube title, and not much of a fun factor all add up to a game that isn't much fun to play regardless of age group. I'll probably still play it (it does have Kit Fisto as a playable Jedi, after all), but I'll be really grouchy about it the entire time.
Realistically, though, you could replace that title with any licensed kids game and the basics would still hold true (except for that Kit Fisto part).

Amazing games that are overlooked while crap games sell tons: This is less the fault of the games themselves, and I'm more looking at consumers who are afraid to take risks and marketing departments that pour all their focus into the "big" titles and steamroll over the smaller ones that (in many cases) are way better.
I recently completed The World Ends With You for the DS. It was, hands-down, one of the best things I've played all year. Original, challenging without being frustrating, and just fun to play, but it didn't sell nearly as well as it should have. Meanwhile, the latest movie-licensed shovelware is selling like crazy. People cry out that they want innovation and quality, but quite often end up sticking to the "safe" games and never give some of these more unusual titles a chance.
Right now I'm playing Super Robot Taisen for the DS. Just picked it up because I thought it looked cool, and it turns out that it's a lot of fun.

New game return policies: Again, something that I grumbled about recently, but again bears a quick mention again. More people would take risks on games if they weren't scared of wasting their hard-earned gaming dollars on something they wouldn't necessarily like.

There's at least a small list of gaming woes that make me sad. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure I'll eventually make another one of these lists to complain about all of them.

Dumbing Down

2009-10-06T22:25:00.003-04:00

I just downloaded and played the demo for Star Wars: Republic Heroes. While I don't think it's very fair to judge a game based on a fairly small bit of play, a couple of things became very obvious very early: This game is obviously designed for a younger crowd, and this game is not very good.

I really want to like it. I mean, it's Star Wars, which is inherently awesome, and I do like to find fun multiplayer games that I can play with my daughter. We get quite a bit of enjoyment out of playing the various Lego games, and I was really hoping that Republic Heroes could be another good time. Really, though, I think we'll stick to those little brick characters.

At which point did a "kid game" translate into a "puerile and bad game"?

[Random anecdote alert] When I worked at a game store, I had a woman come in and purchase a PS2 console. She was planning on surprising her 9-year-old son with it when he got home from school that day. She was probably early 30's, pleasant, and seemed fairly well educated. Typical suburban soccer mom in every way.
She called me about an hour after leaving the store. She and her husband had decided to hook it up before the son got home, but it was her suspicion that there was some sort of malfunction with the hardware as it wasn't coming on or anything, so I offered to hold her one of the (at the time) fast-selling consoles so she could exchange it later in the day.
She called back a few hours later, apologizing and letting me know that I could sell the held system. When her 9-year-old son came home, he quickly rewired the set-up and everything worked perfectly.

My point with that story is that kids these days are way more tech-savvy than most adults are. Yet there are way too many "kids games" out there that treat them like brain-dead zombies without functioning thumbs. While the Wii is often seen as the worst offender of this, in reality many games geared for kids suck on any console. They're simplistic, with poor controls and dumbed down goals, and generally bad graphics and overall quality. They're quite often churned out to coincide with a licensed property, depending on the license to move the product.

There are, of course, exceptions. The Lego games are classified as "kids" titles but are really good for any age group. I own all three (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Batman) and intend to purchase Harry Potter when it's released next year. I play them with my kid, sure, but also have put in plenty of hours on my own. The Pokemon games are deep, long, requiring strategy and thought, and are seen by most as meant for kids. Hell, one of my daughter's favorite games was Dragon Quest Monsters: Rocket Slime for the DS, an action RPG full of puzzles and some pretty involved combat.

Kids aren't dumb (well, some are), but the industry continues to see them as such. Games insult their intelligence, expecting them to like the title just because it features a "popular" character, and developers rarely take into account that these kids have been weaned on technology. I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and have been playing since my childhood, but my kid regularly beats me at games like Mario Kart and Dance Dance Revolution (OK, that last one is because I'm out of shape and as coordinated as a drunk walrus).

People are very quick to write off this nation's youth as morons and losers. Maybe if we stopped treating them like that, we'd see a change.

Friday Night Fail: Flame Broiled Edition

2009-10-03T08:47:00.003-04:00

In terms of really creepy spokespersons, there's a good chance that the King from Burger King tops the list. However, the glassy-eyed meat monarch is apparently a gamer, since his empire released some Xbox 360 titles a few years back in a pretty unique cross promotion between Burger King and Microsoft.

Three games were released, all of them working on both the original Xbox and Xbox 360 consoles (complete with achievements on the 360). They were cheap enough, just $4, and were sold exclusively through the Burger King restaurants. The promotion was a huge success, the "adver-games" selling like crazy.

The question is, though: were the games any good?

It should be pointed out that, in some cases, "entertaining fun" and "good game" are sometimes not the same thing. These titles are perfect examples. They're cute, and amusing for a short while (partly due, of course, just to the concept of Burger King games), but they're hardly quality experiences.

Sneak King: My fave of the three. Play the creepy king through a variety of levels, sneaking up on people and handing them Burger King... food. Use the environment to hide, then jump out at unsuspecting passerby and shove a burger in their face. You have to only offer meals to those who are hungry (depicted by a word bubble with a pic of a sandwich over their heads), you have to do so before they faint from hunger, and you can't get caught by anybody while doing so. Also, you can "flourish", in which you perform one of three elaborately animated dance routines when offering their burger.
It's really entertaining at first, but the concept wears pretty thin after a few hours of doing the same thing over and over. There's nothing more to the game than handing strangers food after jumping out of a porta-potty. The graphics and sound are below original Xbox standards, and the controls get a little wonky on occasion (which is frustrating when you're trying to avoid detection). Once the novelty wears off, you'll realize that the game itself isn't very good, and stands entirely on the absurdity of the idea.

Pocketbike Racers: Various Burger King spokes...creatures (the King, the Subservient Chicken, Brooke Burke [?], and a handful of others) ride around tracks on little motorcycle things.
I couldn't get past the loose controls on this one. I kept getting stuck on random environmental objects. To be fair, though, I pretty much suck at racing games, so maybe that was just me. The game has the same low production values (graphics, sound, etc) as the others, but of course they were available for four bucks at a fast food burger joint, so I don't think anybody brought them home expecting Gears of War.
The problem here is that Pocketbike Racers isn't a very good game on all fronts, and doesn't have the bizarre concept to keep it afloat (for a while, anyway) like Sneak King. Unless you're a huge fan of some of the characters in the game, it's nothing more than a sub-standard bike racing game.

Big Bumpin': Part racing game, part bumper cars, part last-man-standing sort of competition, this one (like Sneak King) survives for a while on its concept if not its basic quality. It's also perhaps the most raw fun of the three, especially when playing with friends. Strap into a bumper car and slam into your opponents through a variety of stages. In some, you'll be just shooting for points, while in others you'll be knocking your competitors off the edge or navigating a bumper car maze. There are a variety of mini-games, and as a result this one feels like it has more content than it. It really doesn't, but this one will take the longest to get bored with. Plus, it has the benefit of being the most fun for multi-player.
Still hardly a great game. It survives on a bit of entertainment value, some laughs when you sit down with your friends to mess with it, but it won't be long before you've all moved on to something with some more... ahem... meat to it.

The games were worth the four bucks each, at least for novelty value (well, maybe not Pocketbike Racers so much), and it's still entertaining now and again to point out that I own them, but I can't say that I find myself putting down Lost Odyssey for a heated Sneak King play session. Then again, the games don't exactly aspire to much and they know it. They serve a purpose, they for the most part succeed at this, and that's pretty much it.

Then again, if I ever get the urge to hide in a barrel at a construction site so I can pop out and hand strangers a burger with an elaborate dance routine, it's good to know I have an option available to me.

Overload II

2009-10-01T22:40:00.002-04:00

So yesterday I spoke of the upcoming holiday season, and the fact that many publishers may have finally realized that flooding the market with hundreds of games a week could actually be counter-productive in the long run. In many cases, high profile titles are being moved into next year so that other games can shine and not be cannibalizing one another for precious gift dollars.

One reason I'm thrilled by this decision is, quite simply, that I may have the time to play the big holiday games without being totally overwhelmed.

It happens every time there's a big glut of releases: a bunch of hot games come out within a few weeks of each other, I buy all of the really cool looking ones, and then don't have time to get to them all. I get involved in one, another sits shrink-wrapped on the shelf for far longer than it should before I ever find the time to give it attention. Then I just feel crappy for spending the money on the game in the first place, when I could have just waited until I was actually going to play it.

There's not much worse than buying a game at full price, not playing it, then finding out later that it's been marked down and if you had waited you could have saved cash.

This year, I'm pretty glad that games are being spaced out. There's one tough stretch in November when I plan on picking up Dragon Age Origins, Assassin's Creed 2, and Phantasy Star Zero, but other than that there's nothing that I need to purchase day one. There's other games I want, like Brutal Legend and maybe Star Wars: Republic Heroes, but I don't feel the need to have those in my hands day one.

As much as I want to play it, I'm glad that Bayonetta got moved to early next year. It'll give a chance to work through the aforementioned titles (not to mention all the games I still happen to be playing), and by the time I'm done with those I'll be ready for a new game to play.

This spacing out can only be good for the consumer, in my opinion, and for those who want their games to be enjoyed by the people playing them.

Overload

2009-09-29T23:49:00.003-04:00

So it's a bit refreshing to see the publishers finally realizing what we have known for years: way too many games come out during the holiday season, more than the market can possibly handle and consumers can possibly deal with.

Every year a lot (I believe the technical term is actually "shitload") of games come out, publishers hoping to score as many gift dollars as humanly possible. While the pursuit of money is certainly an admirable one, and sort of necessary where business is concerned, what ends up happening is that a simply obscene amount of games come out every week from around mid-October to early December. When I worked game retail, there were weeks where over one hundred new titles would drop within a matter of days. Granted, not every one of these is a big blockbuster Halo game; Some are little DS titles that nobody had ever heard of until they day they're put out onto the shelf, but they're still out there looking all shiny and trying to entice someone into a purchase. So over the course of a couple months you literally have hundreds of new titles coming out. Many of them are never highlighted, shoved down to that bottom area of the section that nobody ever looks at because all you can see are the spines of the cases, and while the ones deemed worthy are more prominently displayed there's still just a ton being pushed out there.

So we have retailers with limited space trying to highlight the few games they think are going to sell the best and make them the most money, meaning that the other 95 games that came out the same week are being all but ignored. We have publishers pouring advertising dollars into a select few games, but still releasing a bunch of others in the hopes of getting some clueless grandmother to totter into a store and pick up Kevin's Exciting Suburban Adventure (now with 65% more lawn-mowing action!). We have games cannibalizing the sales of other games, sometimes from the same studios. We have shoppers still gravitating towards the big releases, and by the end of the season the gamers simply have too many games to play.

That's a whole separate issue, that I'll probably touch upon in the near future (like tomorrow): so many games coming out that a person simply can't play them all.

This year, though, publishers seem to be getting a new idea: space out the releases a bit. Games are being pushed back, in many cases into next year, to free up the overbearing glut that usually assaults retailers and consumers during the holiday season. Ubisoft shifted Splinter Cell Conviction from it's fall release into next year so that it wouldn't be battling for space and sales with the publisher's other big release, Assassin's Creed 2.

So why does this make sense? Well, in the first case, publishers can pour their marketing efforts into one or two big titles, instead of splitting their attention across too many. Their games won't be stealing each others' thunder, and with the financial situation of the world consumers may not be buying as many games this year anyway. Gamers, as they finish the game they got as a present, will have the next blockbuster coming out to buy. There's all that gift cash/ gift card money burning holes in pockets, so giving them a big release to use it on a month or so after the holiday season has waned is a pretty good strategy.

This year should be a little different on the retail front, and if it pans out we could see this strategy continuing into the future. Personally, I'd rather see big releases throughout the year than everything shoved into the last couple months, and if the marketplace responds well this holiday season than we may start seeing just that.

Friday Night Fail: Turtle Soup

2009-09-25T20:46:00.006-04:00

I'm not sure, in the grand scheme of gaming, there can be much worse a sin than making a game based upon the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles that is only meant for one player.

The series, whether it be the original dark black-and-white comic or the lighter toned cartoons, is all about teamwork between the four turtles. The previous video games have also highlighted this basic tenant of the franchise, in most cases offering multiplayer mutant hijinks.

So it's a bit of a letdown that with TMNT, the game based on the recent CGI movie, Ubisoft opted to stick to a completely single player adventure. For a series so firmly rooted in the ideas of family and friendship and cooperation, you'll be playing through this lackluster adventure alone.

The game loosely follows the plot of the movie, and plays a lot like Prince of Persia-lite: run along walls, vault up onto ledges, swing from poles, and perform all sorts of other crazy acrobatics throughout a variety of levels. The movement is actually pretty fast and smooth, and at times really does feel like the Persian princes upon which the game is obviously based, but it never manages to capture the real flavor of those other (superior) titles. The controls and camera flake out at random times, meaning that you'll plummet to your death on a jump that you thought was perfectly lined up, and some of the fancy moves just never seem to work exactly the way you think they're supposed to. It doesn't break the game, but it shows that less care was put into this game than into similar titles.

There's some combat, mostly against enemy ninjas and street punks, plus the occasional boss battle, but none of it really rises past the "generic action game" level.

Then, of course, we have the unforgivable sin of no multiplayer. Throughout the story you will play each of the turtles, one at a time, but it's never your choice. You'll play the one that you're supposed to play on each level, and the only time you'll see your brothers is when you initiate one of the super attacks in which they pop onscreen for a few seconds and go back to whatever limbo they were waiting in. In a game about teamwork, from a series about teamwork, it's pretty lame that the game itself offers no chance for real teamwork.

Oh, and the game can be completed, all achievements gained, in a matter of three to four hours. At no point is the game particularly challenging: you'll occasionally fall to your death and a few of the bosses pose some annoying challenge, but you'll always start right where you left off and you've got a pool of unlimited lives, so you can just try again until you get it right. The game isn't very long to begin with, there's not much along the way to really cause you much concern, and you'll just coast through the generic cityscape levels until you've reached the end.

Then again... I suppose if you're going to be playing this game (unless you say it's just for the gamerpoints), you won't want to get your friends to join in anyway. Then they'll just make fun of you for playing this crappy game.

Gaming: Path to Enlightenment

2009-09-21T23:14:00.002-04:00

Generally, a week doesn't go by without some old and out of touch someone-or-other bitching about how video games are evil and are rotting young people and turning them into mindless killing machines and elven heroes and stuff like that.

So it's refreshing to see someone say something positive about gaming for a change. Not just any someone, either, but the Karmapa Lama. For those of you who aren't up on your Buddhism, he's the only Buddhist leader recognized by the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian governments.

At 24, Trinley Dorje is a lot like other young folks. He has an iPod, which among its selections includes some hip-hop tracks, and he also likes popping in the occasional video game.

In an interview with the Times of India, the young monk stated that he played games, and that he felt they could relieve stressful emotions:

"Well, I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise.

So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards.

The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."

So, there's a refreshing statement, though hardly surprising to anyone who does regularly play games to blow off some steam. Still nice to hear, especially from such an unusual source as a Buddhist monk.

He didn't, though, mention which games he uses to "decompress". Do you suppose the Karmapa Lama is a Halo player? More into the fast and furious fisticuffs of Soul Calibur 4, or the fast cars of Need for Speed?

Personally, I like to imagine the young bastion of Buddhism sitting back with some Grand Theft Auto 4. Just an entertaining visual, really.