Well, it has happened quicker than I imagined it would but I think I've made the right decision. My blog is now hosted on Destructoid. Unfortunately that immediately reverses the decision I made yesterday to allow for anonymous commenting. Sorry about that - but I decided it would be a better thing over all to sacrifice a bit of customisation in order to give the blog greater exposure to a greater number of interested people. I recommend signing up to Destructoid anyway. It has a fiercely independent outlook, where opinions are encouraged and fanboyism is laughed out quite quickly.
The relaunched blog can be found here:
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/SurplusGamer/
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
(First, a point of order. I like Blogspot for posting blogs, as it makes a lot of things very easy. However, there's not really much of a mechanism for gamers like me who might be interested to stumble upon it randomly. With that in mind I'm seriously considering moving the Surplus Gamer to a more gamer-oriented community and I'm considering a few different options for that. So far Destructoid is winning, as it seems to have a very active blogging community and a mechanism for 'promoting' particularly good blog posts to the main page. Obviously if I move then I will post the details up here and I'd consider keeping this page active by linking to my new blog, in case anyone finds it easier checking this page for updates than wherever I end up going.)
Right then, Homestar Ruiner. It's the first episode of Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People, an adventure very much in the same vein as the Sam and Max series, also by Telltale, with classic point and click style puzzles which seem to be a very good fit for the style of the Homestar Runner cartoons. It came out yesterday on PC and Wiiware (Europe gets it at the end of the week). If I'm sounding pleased but not overwhelmed, then that's good because that's how it was supposed to sound.
You see, for all that I found the game charming, funny and enjoyable, I have a problem in that I just came from playing Braid (no, not in that way, you dirty minded person). It's always strange finishing a game that you found truly special, a defining moment in your gaming history and then moving on to something that's merely very good. Braid, however, added another wrinkle to this, in that it reinforced something I've been feeling increasingly - that adventure puzzles are (on the whole) just no damned good.
Braid reminded me what a good puzzle is. Even most of the basic puzzles present you with a situation that first appears impassable but with a brief application of logic and use of the tools available to you, the solution becomes clear. Once you figure out the answer to the puzzle, it's usually an obvious 'Eureka!' moment that you've found the right answer and often during the process of working out, it happens in layers ('Okay, so if I do this I can get to this ledge, but now I need to work out how to get that thing over here at the same time'). I get it that Homestar Ruiner isn't trying (and doesn't need) to have fiendishly challenging puzzles. But it is supposed to at least have good puzzles and it seems to me that Braid not only has those more challenging puzzles but also much higher quality puzzles - something that is much harder to define.
What you usually get in adventure games are one of two or three things. You might get something that is so obvious that it isn't even a puzzle (for example, someone tells you who has something you need, you go to that person and get it). Many puzzles, then again, are ones that that fail to satisfy you with that 'Eureka!' moment I mentioned earlier, that you've cleverly figured out the trail of logic that leads you safely down the wobbly path to a solution - it's more of a tentative 'well, this might work, I'll try it... oh, neat, it worked.' To me, that's not the mark of a good puzzle. To its credit, Homestar Ruiner doesn't have difficult enough puzzles to commit that other sin of wanting you to do something that most gamers wouldn't think to do in a million years with no clear line of logic leading to it.
It's understandable that for pacing purposes you might not want every bit of gameplay in an adventure game to feature puzzles as subtle as the ones you get in Braid. Sometimes it's enough just to bring the thing to the guy so he'll give you the other thing to bring to the other guy. Also, I will acknowledge that I have played some very clever and satisfying adventure game puzzles. My complaint is that these are too much in the minority. For a genre whose bread is the story and butter is the puzzles, we've seen all kinds of variety of breads but far too much of the same old butter we've been putting up with for years. Even though the actual mechanics of how a puzzle plays out is very different between Braid and your average adventure game, seeing the former in action gives me a glimpse of some hidden potential in adventure games. I'm not sure what form that potential should take - which may seem like a cop-out - but I just know it is there, waiting to be discovered. There's a Crocodile Dundee scene playing in my head with Braid walking up and saying 'Call that puzzle? This is a puzzle.'
In the meantime, if you like adventure games and enjoy Homestar Runner, you've every reason to spend the next five months enjoying Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People.
Right then, Homestar Ruiner. It's the first episode of Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People, an adventure very much in the same vein as the Sam and Max series, also by Telltale, with classic point and click style puzzles which seem to be a very good fit for the style of the Homestar Runner cartoons. It came out yesterday on PC and Wiiware (Europe gets it at the end of the week). If I'm sounding pleased but not overwhelmed, then that's good because that's how it was supposed to sound.
You see, for all that I found the game charming, funny and enjoyable, I have a problem in that I just came from playing Braid (no, not in that way, you dirty minded person). It's always strange finishing a game that you found truly special, a defining moment in your gaming history and then moving on to something that's merely very good. Braid, however, added another wrinkle to this, in that it reinforced something I've been feeling increasingly - that adventure puzzles are (on the whole) just no damned good.
Braid reminded me what a good puzzle is. Even most of the basic puzzles present you with a situation that first appears impassable but with a brief application of logic and use of the tools available to you, the solution becomes clear. Once you figure out the answer to the puzzle, it's usually an obvious 'Eureka!' moment that you've found the right answer and often during the process of working out, it happens in layers ('Okay, so if I do this I can get to this ledge, but now I need to work out how to get that thing over here at the same time'). I get it that Homestar Ruiner isn't trying (and doesn't need) to have fiendishly challenging puzzles. But it is supposed to at least have good puzzles and it seems to me that Braid not only has those more challenging puzzles but also much higher quality puzzles - something that is much harder to define.
What you usually get in adventure games are one of two or three things. You might get something that is so obvious that it isn't even a puzzle (for example, someone tells you who has something you need, you go to that person and get it). Many puzzles, then again, are ones that that fail to satisfy you with that 'Eureka!' moment I mentioned earlier, that you've cleverly figured out the trail of logic that leads you safely down the wobbly path to a solution - it's more of a tentative 'well, this might work, I'll try it... oh, neat, it worked.' To me, that's not the mark of a good puzzle. To its credit, Homestar Ruiner doesn't have difficult enough puzzles to commit that other sin of wanting you to do something that most gamers wouldn't think to do in a million years with no clear line of logic leading to it.
It's understandable that for pacing purposes you might not want every bit of gameplay in an adventure game to feature puzzles as subtle as the ones you get in Braid. Sometimes it's enough just to bring the thing to the guy so he'll give you the other thing to bring to the other guy. Also, I will acknowledge that I have played some very clever and satisfying adventure game puzzles. My complaint is that these are too much in the minority. For a genre whose bread is the story and butter is the puzzles, we've seen all kinds of variety of breads but far too much of the same old butter we've been putting up with for years. Even though the actual mechanics of how a puzzle plays out is very different between Braid and your average adventure game, seeing the former in action gives me a glimpse of some hidden potential in adventure games. I'm not sure what form that potential should take - which may seem like a cop-out - but I just know it is there, waiting to be discovered. There's a Crocodile Dundee scene playing in my head with Braid walking up and saying 'Call that puzzle? This is a puzzle.'
In the meantime, if you like adventure games and enjoy Homestar Runner, you've every reason to spend the next five months enjoying Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People.
Monday, 11 August 2008
SBCG4AP today, etc.
Strong Bad's Cool Game For Attractive People is out today for PC and Wiiware, at least the first episode, Homestar Ruiner. It's out a little later for Wiiware if you live outside the US, so I'm getting it for PC and will be playing it on my chugging laptop - It runs Sam and Max okayishly, and I'm hoping the simpler art style of H*R will improve performance and let me bump it up to High Quality (Strong Bad with jaggies just seems wrong).
There's not much point in me talking about the game now, before I've got it, but it reminded the adventure fan in me that I forgot to post about a little opinion piece I wrote about my introduction to Monkey Island and what it did for me as a gamer. It was posted on MixnMojo's excellent Secret History feature and can be found here (just search the page for 'Peter Silk' then scroll up to the beginning of my entry.)
If the blog post I made a while back about the fall and fall of Lucasarts in my estimation focused on the end of the affair, this little piece was about the start.
There's not much point in me talking about the game now, before I've got it, but it reminded the adventure fan in me that I forgot to post about a little opinion piece I wrote about my introduction to Monkey Island and what it did for me as a gamer. It was posted on MixnMojo's excellent Secret History feature and can be found here (just search the page for 'Peter Silk' then scroll up to the beginning of my entry.)
If the blog post I made a while back about the fall and fall of Lucasarts in my estimation focused on the end of the affair, this little piece was about the start.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Braid (XBLA)
Braid is a lovely cake layered with gameplay metaphors, to be metaphorical myself.
At first, this can be offputting. There's lots of raspberry sauce and icing and strawberry metaphors which are the first thing you notice, and they seem ... well, a little obvious. 'Sure, I see what it did there,' you say to yourself, 'But anyone can drop strawberry and raspberry sauce metaphors on top of a cake, so what's so great?'
At that point, charming though the taste is, it's hard not to accuse Braid of showy pretentiousness with no real flavour. However once you get through that layer you get to much more subtle, clever layering of metaphors, the kind of delicious ones that it takes a true chef to concoct - the type you can't just fake. Then, the final bite delivers a taste so finely crafted and so sweet that you can't help but applaud the whole effort, strawberries and all.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Buy Braid, and eat... er, play it to completion.
At first, this can be offputting. There's lots of raspberry sauce and icing and strawberry metaphors which are the first thing you notice, and they seem ... well, a little obvious. 'Sure, I see what it did there,' you say to yourself, 'But anyone can drop strawberry and raspberry sauce metaphors on top of a cake, so what's so great?'
At that point, charming though the taste is, it's hard not to accuse Braid of showy pretentiousness with no real flavour. However once you get through that layer you get to much more subtle, clever layering of metaphors, the kind of delicious ones that it takes a true chef to concoct - the type you can't just fake. Then, the final bite delivers a taste so finely crafted and so sweet that you can't help but applaud the whole effort, strawberries and all.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Buy Braid, and eat... er, play it to completion.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 - Game finished, Nits picked
I finished Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 last night, as I thought I should at least clear one of my backlog games out before moving onto Braid. Over all I enjoyed it, although wasn't blown away with it and had a few minor issues with it.
First of all, although it sports JRPG style combat, there aren't really very many different ways to play. The item set is very specific and fairly limited, there's no wearable armour, only defense buffs and you keep the same weapon (albeit with 2 upgrades available). I don't think the game needs Diablo levels of item droppery but it would be nice to be able to have more options to customise the characters.
Secondly, the block mechanic in the game is really difficult to get the hang of and rather unforgiving, particularly considering that by the final boss, getting this right is more or less crucial to success or failure. I think it could stay about as timing-sensitive as it is now, if they added in a bar to let you know when the moment to pull the block trigger is. The enemy's health bar flashing for a split second just isn't enough. Perhaps something like the speed-reload mechanic in Gears of War would work, where a line moves across a little bar, and you have to hit the button when the line passes through a sweet spot. That would have been perfect for this game's blocking mechanism.
Finally - and more nitpickingly - the controls are really fiddly when trying to look at or select a particular item. I can be standing right in front of someone flailing about like a man posessed as the little icon flicks quickly on and off to talk to them, because I keep on turning too far to the left or right to activate it. I can't see how any playtester could have not been annoyed by this, so it should have been improved - no excuse.
There may be one or two other things, but those are the main ones that struck me. Apart from those issues, I found it fun, mostly funny and much more game than I am used to in other episodic titles like, say, Sam and Max. I'm not convinced that there's enough game in there to justify the 1,600 rather than 1,200 point price tag - I really don't see myself playing this again anytime soon. Then again, I can't honestly say I feel ripped off by the price either - it seems a decent enough reflection of the care that went into the game.
First of all, although it sports JRPG style combat, there aren't really very many different ways to play. The item set is very specific and fairly limited, there's no wearable armour, only defense buffs and you keep the same weapon (albeit with 2 upgrades available). I don't think the game needs Diablo levels of item droppery but it would be nice to be able to have more options to customise the characters.
Secondly, the block mechanic in the game is really difficult to get the hang of and rather unforgiving, particularly considering that by the final boss, getting this right is more or less crucial to success or failure. I think it could stay about as timing-sensitive as it is now, if they added in a bar to let you know when the moment to pull the block trigger is. The enemy's health bar flashing for a split second just isn't enough. Perhaps something like the speed-reload mechanic in Gears of War would work, where a line moves across a little bar, and you have to hit the button when the line passes through a sweet spot. That would have been perfect for this game's blocking mechanism.
Finally - and more nitpickingly - the controls are really fiddly when trying to look at or select a particular item. I can be standing right in front of someone flailing about like a man posessed as the little icon flicks quickly on and off to talk to them, because I keep on turning too far to the left or right to activate it. I can't see how any playtester could have not been annoyed by this, so it should have been improved - no excuse.
There may be one or two other things, but those are the main ones that struck me. Apart from those issues, I found it fun, mostly funny and much more game than I am used to in other episodic titles like, say, Sam and Max. I'm not convinced that there's enough game in there to justify the 1,600 rather than 1,200 point price tag - I really don't see myself playing this again anytime soon. Then again, I can't honestly say I feel ripped off by the price either - it seems a decent enough reflection of the care that went into the game.
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
What price fun?
I thought for a while about why I like certain types of games one week and the next I might have a different sort of craving I need to satisfy. The thing is, I couldn't really formalise it in anyway except for 'sometimes I likes one thing, sometimes I likes another.' That doesn't make a very good blog post so instead I'll talk about pricing for downloadable games, specifically in XBLA, because that's what I know most about.
I'm starting to think using a points system is a mistake, because it seems to make people forget how good value a lot of these games actually are. 4,000 Xbox Live points is the equivalent to about £34, which in turn is approximately the retail price of a new game. For 4,000 points you can buy five 800 point games. Or you could buy two 1,200 point games and two 800s. Or the most expensive XBLA game for 1,600 points (Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 - and very lengthy for an episodic title, at that) and still have enough left over to buy a 1,200, 800 and 400.
Some of the games that could be placed into the above bundles include ones that are full priced on handheld systems (such as Puzzle Quest, Lumines, Exit and arguably Worms), were once full priced and have aged really well or been updated, (such as Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Rez HD and Sensible World of Soccer) and many of the completely new titles are ones can be enjoyed as much as any full price game you care to mention (such as Geometry Wars 2, Penny Arcade Adventures and it looks like Braid, coming out tomorrow, could well be another to add to that list)
I hope that at least puts the pricing somewhat into perspective. What people are most worried about, though, is price inflation. XBLA released with a lot of cheap and small Arcade titles, low on features and only occasionally high on fun (such as with the original Geometry Wars). People understandably took 400 points to be the entry price for XBLA games but actually it has become obvious now that 800 points is more the standard - with 400 being reserved for the quick and dirty arcade ports or games with too few features to justify a higher tag.
After 1,200 point games and now 1,600 point ones started emerging, people are concerned that it's some sort of upward trend. I'm not sure it is, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are other variables involved. For example, the raising of the cap on filesize for XBLA games has enabled games of greater size and complexity to come out and so it seems only fair that these would carry a higher price tag and that more games for 1,200 or even above would start (and indeed have started) to emerge. Secondly, the decisions about pricing have been fairly consistent through this change. Older arcade games are still 400, while games with higher production values, length, etc. are often nudged up to 1,200. There have been a few exceptions to this where something has been priced surprisingly high but it mostly holds true.
The bottom line, though, is that even if we started to see more of a trend toward a 1,200/1,600 pricing scheme and away from 800/1,200, we'd still be getting a good deal - just not the truly great one we're getting at the moment. I think it's time we started recognising that and celebrating the many great games that are available and continue to be developed as I write. Roll on Braid (this Wednesday, 1,200 points).
I'm starting to think using a points system is a mistake, because it seems to make people forget how good value a lot of these games actually are. 4,000 Xbox Live points is the equivalent to about £34, which in turn is approximately the retail price of a new game. For 4,000 points you can buy five 800 point games. Or you could buy two 1,200 point games and two 800s. Or the most expensive XBLA game for 1,600 points (Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 - and very lengthy for an episodic title, at that) and still have enough left over to buy a 1,200, 800 and 400.
Some of the games that could be placed into the above bundles include ones that are full priced on handheld systems (such as Puzzle Quest, Lumines, Exit and arguably Worms), were once full priced and have aged really well or been updated, (such as Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Rez HD and Sensible World of Soccer) and many of the completely new titles are ones can be enjoyed as much as any full price game you care to mention (such as Geometry Wars 2, Penny Arcade Adventures and it looks like Braid, coming out tomorrow, could well be another to add to that list)
I hope that at least puts the pricing somewhat into perspective. What people are most worried about, though, is price inflation. XBLA released with a lot of cheap and small Arcade titles, low on features and only occasionally high on fun (such as with the original Geometry Wars). People understandably took 400 points to be the entry price for XBLA games but actually it has become obvious now that 800 points is more the standard - with 400 being reserved for the quick and dirty arcade ports or games with too few features to justify a higher tag.
After 1,200 point games and now 1,600 point ones started emerging, people are concerned that it's some sort of upward trend. I'm not sure it is, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are other variables involved. For example, the raising of the cap on filesize for XBLA games has enabled games of greater size and complexity to come out and so it seems only fair that these would carry a higher price tag and that more games for 1,200 or even above would start (and indeed have started) to emerge. Secondly, the decisions about pricing have been fairly consistent through this change. Older arcade games are still 400, while games with higher production values, length, etc. are often nudged up to 1,200. There have been a few exceptions to this where something has been priced surprisingly high but it mostly holds true.
The bottom line, though, is that even if we started to see more of a trend toward a 1,200/1,600 pricing scheme and away from 800/1,200, we'd still be getting a good deal - just not the truly great one we're getting at the moment. I think it's time we started recognising that and celebrating the many great games that are available and continue to be developed as I write. Roll on Braid (this Wednesday, 1,200 points).
Monday, 4 August 2008
Miscellany
1) Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 is good. Incredibly good. The kind of good that makes you happy that the developers really 'get' what was great about the original and build on it in genuinely exciting ways, rather than just updating the graphics and adding just enough new stuff to get away with calling it a sequel. Everything is designed to perfection and the only thing I can think of to improve on it would be to have a mode where the player can design their own challenges by tweaking about the game rules - the six game modes are all great and distinct but they also made me think: 'ooh, it would be great if I could combine this thing from King mode with this other thing from Waves mode,' for example. Or maybe add in a few different ways to score the game. Anyway, if you can buy it, buy it.
2) There's actually lots of good stuff coming out soon on the so-called 'casual' platforms. XBLA has Braid and a bunch of other stuff, and I've heard a lot of good things about the PSN content coming out (is it bad that PS3 is becoming slightly tempting just for PSN and, I suppose, Little Big Planet? Oh well, they'll still need to bring the price down another £100, at least). WiiWare has Strong Bad's Cool Game For Attractive People, which is enough in itself.
3) Speaking of which, I've been noticing more than ever how my game playing tendencies ebb and flow. Right now I'm very into pick-up-and-play experiences, the kind that I could get addicted to for hours but can also have a good game in just a few minutes, like Geometry Wars. Fast, fun action. I suppose that applies to Rock Band, too, which I would be playing a lot more of except that it drove me mad for about 2 weeks with soundproofing issues. So instead I've been breaking out a lot of XBLA games and I'm finding it very hard to continue with something more drawn out, like Zelda. Meanwhile, Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 strikes a good balance - it's fairly involved and detailed but the individual story bits are cut into bitesize chunks, so I've finally started playing that. It can only be a matter of time though, before I'm looking for a world to be sucked into once again. I think I'll try to quantify my various gaming appetites for my next post.
2) There's actually lots of good stuff coming out soon on the so-called 'casual' platforms. XBLA has Braid and a bunch of other stuff, and I've heard a lot of good things about the PSN content coming out (is it bad that PS3 is becoming slightly tempting just for PSN and, I suppose, Little Big Planet? Oh well, they'll still need to bring the price down another £100, at least). WiiWare has Strong Bad's Cool Game For Attractive People, which is enough in itself.
3) Speaking of which, I've been noticing more than ever how my game playing tendencies ebb and flow. Right now I'm very into pick-up-and-play experiences, the kind that I could get addicted to for hours but can also have a good game in just a few minutes, like Geometry Wars. Fast, fun action. I suppose that applies to Rock Band, too, which I would be playing a lot more of except that it drove me mad for about 2 weeks with soundproofing issues. So instead I've been breaking out a lot of XBLA games and I'm finding it very hard to continue with something more drawn out, like Zelda. Meanwhile, Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 1 strikes a good balance - it's fairly involved and detailed but the individual story bits are cut into bitesize chunks, so I've finally started playing that. It can only be a matter of time though, before I'm looking for a world to be sucked into once again. I think I'll try to quantify my various gaming appetites for my next post.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Apollo Justice - Impressions
sThe following is as free of story spoilers as I could make it, though certain new gamplay mechanics will be explained in detail.
After finally finishing with the excellent end of the trilogy, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations (*gasp*), I have had a chance to sit down with the new kid on the block, Apollo Justice. A while back I read a few reviews and while none of them panned the game, I was left with a lingering worry that this would be a sort of zombie-esque Phoenix Wright, which went through the motions but had none of the soul. Perhaps that is a bit over-dramatic but at least a few reviewers just didn't find the game as likeable. I've just finished the second trial, which is to say the first 'full' trial and I'm about ready to say what I think so far.
Lack of soul, whatever that could mean, is a genuine worry for me because it's one of those intangible, impossible to describe things that is so easy to get wrong while getting everything else right. For example, Portal wasn't completely wonderful owing to its puzzles or even its main gameplay mechanic, as great as those were. Those alone would have made a really good game. What made it excellent, same as what makes a great book, was that feeling you get like the game is communicating directly with your brain. I think Stephen Fry described it best when talking about Douglas Adams he said that when other people say that his books are funny, you know they get the jokes, but you have a sneaky, pleasant and completely innacurate feeling that nobody quite gets it as well as you. Well it's the same as with the games you really find special - other people might enjoy them but you just know that they're not as qualified to enjoy it as you. Phoenix Wright was one of those games for me.
Well, then, without further digression I am delighted to report that Apollo Justice arrives with soul intact. There are still the weird and wonderful characters, twisty-turny plot lines, completely bizarre courtroom antics and just about everything you'd expect from an Ace Attorney game. The new protagonist is likeable, if not particularly distinct from Wright himself - except for seeming a little more unsure of himself, being a rookie and all. The extra abilities are put to reasonably good use in a similar way to the final case of the first Phoenix Wright game on DS, so you'll be dusting for fingerprints and various other activities. I've heard complaints that this side of the game is under-employed and while I'm not far enough through the game to judge, so far I'm glad that they're not over-employed. They seem to serve as a nice break in the investigative phases of the game which were - and still are - the least interesting parts of the game.
The biggest difference to the actual gameplay comes in the courtroom, in the form of an occasional use of the power of perception. At certain key moments in testimony, rather than pressing for more information or presenting contradictions, you might get the opportunity to scour it for something more subtle. Using a bracelet in a way that has not yet been explained, you watch a slowed down replay of the segment of testimony you want to examine, while on the touch screen you can scroll around a zoomed-in version of the witness. You may notice a particular nervous twitch that you weren't able to see before when they say a certain word or phrase and that is when you pull out a 'Gotcha!' on the witness. Pointing out their telltale twitch, you press them further on the exact word/phrase that caused them to twitch, which usually leads to them breaking down, with the help of evidence.
At the moment, I'm not quite sure how much I like this system. Certainly it's not as troublesome as I feared. I was worried that it would go something like:
Apollo: Aha, you wiggled your finger! That means you're lying!
Judge: That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Witness: Oh, okay I admit it!
That would be ridiculous even for the courtroom we know and love. Instead, it's something more along these (fictionalised) lines:
Apollo: You seem to have a nervous habit - why do you rub your arm with your finger whenever you mention Bob?
Witness: What? That's ridiculous.
Apollo: I've got an idea why - it's because of this evidence, isn't it:
And then you'd present evidence relevent to this new line of questioning. Often, it seems, the nature of the twitch itself is a clue as to what is being hidden - maybe, for example, the witness rubs their arm because Bob punched him in it, or something, and the evidence is some as-yet-unexplained blood on a ring. For example.
The thing is, it's never quite as well implemented as the Psyche Locks from the previous two games. Those worked well because they acted like a mini-trial to break up the investigation sections so even though it was a little contrived, it seemed to have a good purpose and it was satisfying to see those locks break open. Percieving a twitch is also satisfying but it felt like it served less of a purpose, especially considering that the trials are already plenty of fun. Also, it must be considered that if this is to be the new special power, it's going to be around for at least as long as Apollo Justice lasts, so we're stuck with it now. It's kinda interesting and kinda fun but it we were going to be stuck with a game mechanic for a while, I'd rather one that really added to the game.
Nevertheless, fans have nothing to fear from this new start to the series - from what I've played so far, the intangible core of what makes the games so enjoyable is still intact and you can feel free to enjoy the hell out of this game. Just don't think you'll be able to enjoy it as well as me.
After finally finishing with the excellent end of the trilogy, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations (*gasp*), I have had a chance to sit down with the new kid on the block, Apollo Justice. A while back I read a few reviews and while none of them panned the game, I was left with a lingering worry that this would be a sort of zombie-esque Phoenix Wright, which went through the motions but had none of the soul. Perhaps that is a bit over-dramatic but at least a few reviewers just didn't find the game as likeable. I've just finished the second trial, which is to say the first 'full' trial and I'm about ready to say what I think so far.
Lack of soul, whatever that could mean, is a genuine worry for me because it's one of those intangible, impossible to describe things that is so easy to get wrong while getting everything else right. For example, Portal wasn't completely wonderful owing to its puzzles or even its main gameplay mechanic, as great as those were. Those alone would have made a really good game. What made it excellent, same as what makes a great book, was that feeling you get like the game is communicating directly with your brain. I think Stephen Fry described it best when talking about Douglas Adams he said that when other people say that his books are funny, you know they get the jokes, but you have a sneaky, pleasant and completely innacurate feeling that nobody quite gets it as well as you. Well it's the same as with the games you really find special - other people might enjoy them but you just know that they're not as qualified to enjoy it as you. Phoenix Wright was one of those games for me.
Well, then, without further digression I am delighted to report that Apollo Justice arrives with soul intact. There are still the weird and wonderful characters, twisty-turny plot lines, completely bizarre courtroom antics and just about everything you'd expect from an Ace Attorney game. The new protagonist is likeable, if not particularly distinct from Wright himself - except for seeming a little more unsure of himself, being a rookie and all. The extra abilities are put to reasonably good use in a similar way to the final case of the first Phoenix Wright game on DS, so you'll be dusting for fingerprints and various other activities. I've heard complaints that this side of the game is under-employed and while I'm not far enough through the game to judge, so far I'm glad that they're not over-employed. They seem to serve as a nice break in the investigative phases of the game which were - and still are - the least interesting parts of the game.
The biggest difference to the actual gameplay comes in the courtroom, in the form of an occasional use of the power of perception. At certain key moments in testimony, rather than pressing for more information or presenting contradictions, you might get the opportunity to scour it for something more subtle. Using a bracelet in a way that has not yet been explained, you watch a slowed down replay of the segment of testimony you want to examine, while on the touch screen you can scroll around a zoomed-in version of the witness. You may notice a particular nervous twitch that you weren't able to see before when they say a certain word or phrase and that is when you pull out a 'Gotcha!' on the witness. Pointing out their telltale twitch, you press them further on the exact word/phrase that caused them to twitch, which usually leads to them breaking down, with the help of evidence.
At the moment, I'm not quite sure how much I like this system. Certainly it's not as troublesome as I feared. I was worried that it would go something like:
Apollo: Aha, you wiggled your finger! That means you're lying!
Judge: That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Witness: Oh, okay I admit it!
That would be ridiculous even for the courtroom we know and love. Instead, it's something more along these (fictionalised) lines:
Apollo: You seem to have a nervous habit - why do you rub your arm with your finger whenever you mention Bob?
Witness: What? That's ridiculous.
Apollo: I've got an idea why - it's because of this evidence, isn't it:
And then you'd present evidence relevent to this new line of questioning. Often, it seems, the nature of the twitch itself is a clue as to what is being hidden - maybe, for example, the witness rubs their arm because Bob punched him in it, or something, and the evidence is some as-yet-unexplained blood on a ring. For example.
The thing is, it's never quite as well implemented as the Psyche Locks from the previous two games. Those worked well because they acted like a mini-trial to break up the investigation sections so even though it was a little contrived, it seemed to have a good purpose and it was satisfying to see those locks break open. Percieving a twitch is also satisfying but it felt like it served less of a purpose, especially considering that the trials are already plenty of fun. Also, it must be considered that if this is to be the new special power, it's going to be around for at least as long as Apollo Justice lasts, so we're stuck with it now. It's kinda interesting and kinda fun but it we were going to be stuck with a game mechanic for a while, I'd rather one that really added to the game.
Nevertheless, fans have nothing to fear from this new start to the series - from what I've played so far, the intangible core of what makes the games so enjoyable is still intact and you can feel free to enjoy the hell out of this game. Just don't think you'll be able to enjoy it as well as me.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
I love Zelda, but...
I got Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii) for my birthday. That's good, because I wanted it, but it's already done things to annoy me, things which I only really forgive because it's Zelda and I know I have lots of good stuff to come.
I'm about an hour in and I'm yet to even look at a sword. Things I have done: fishing, throwing a hawk at things, riding around on a horse herding goats, catching goats with my bare hands, trying to lure a cat, walking around the town talking to people. I expected some of the latter, but all of the things in that list were either things I had to do or was doing because I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be doing next. Now everyone knows that the game hasn't even really started yet, and what's more, even when it starts this is a Zelda game - so it will only really get going after a good few more hours in. Okay, but is it really so much to ask to have the game start, well, straight away?
On the back of the box it says something like 'The biggest Zelda adventure of all time!' Nowadays, that doesn't particularly excite me. Was anyone seriously thinking - 'Wow, I really love the Zelda games, but I wish they were bigger!'? I'm guessing not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really looking forward to the point where it gets into the swing of things but I can't help feeling that I should have got the game a few days before my birthday, so that by the time the big day arrives I'd be past all the introductory fluff.
I'm about an hour in and I'm yet to even look at a sword. Things I have done: fishing, throwing a hawk at things, riding around on a horse herding goats, catching goats with my bare hands, trying to lure a cat, walking around the town talking to people. I expected some of the latter, but all of the things in that list were either things I had to do or was doing because I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be doing next. Now everyone knows that the game hasn't even really started yet, and what's more, even when it starts this is a Zelda game - so it will only really get going after a good few more hours in. Okay, but is it really so much to ask to have the game start, well, straight away?
On the back of the box it says something like 'The biggest Zelda adventure of all time!' Nowadays, that doesn't particularly excite me. Was anyone seriously thinking - 'Wow, I really love the Zelda games, but I wish they were bigger!'? I'm guessing not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really looking forward to the point where it gets into the swing of things but I can't help feeling that I should have got the game a few days before my birthday, so that by the time the big day arrives I'd be past all the introductory fluff.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Rock Band 2
To follow on from what I was talking about before, Rock Band 2 has now been officially announced, and from what I can tell it's very good news.
Here are the headlines:
1) All downloadable content will be cross-compatible between all Rock Band games.
Cross-compatible, mind, so Rock Band 1 owners don't need Rock Band 2 to keep enjoying songs.
2) Same goes for instruments.
I'm sure that in the UK we're all very pleased about not being asked to shell out a ton of money yet again for the peripherals.
3) But they're releasing updated models anyway.
There's hope that they might do something along the lines of the optional cymbals that double up on the regular pads, like the third part MadCatz kit. If so, count me in (so to speak) for the drums, at least.
4) As for content, we're talking about 80-ish songs.
Similar number to the next Guitar Hero, then. Which is great value, compared to the price of downloadable content - but no announcements of what the songs will be like yet. Of course, they're talking them up big-style.
5) New game modes that let you enjoy the songs in new and exciting ways.
No idea what this could possibly mean, but it all adds value, I suppose. We shall see.
6) Most of the little gripes that people had with the original have been heard and fixed.
Well, we can believe it when we see it, but their online community is very active and they do read it regularly, so I think we'll find many improvements.
So, what it amounts to is a refinement of what we had before. It's no reinvention, and I don't suppose anyone expected it to be. I think that it's more of a definitive version, in that it looks like it is trying to take the 'but...' out of 'I love Rock Band, but...'
As for me, I love Rock Band, but, for example...
*I wish there was more flexibility with the characters you create - such as allowing them to take more than one instrument, or using them as band members when you're playing solo, instead of the defaults. A small point really, but I've always liked customisable characters, so I'd like to see them better.
*I do worry about the durability of this drum kit, and I'd like to see lessons learned next time.
*I wish the songs would cater to a slightly wider range of tastes.
*
Here are the headlines:
1) All downloadable content will be cross-compatible between all Rock Band games.
Cross-compatible, mind, so Rock Band 1 owners don't need Rock Band 2 to keep enjoying songs.
2) Same goes for instruments.
I'm sure that in the UK we're all very pleased about not being asked to shell out a ton of money yet again for the peripherals.
3) But they're releasing updated models anyway.
There's hope that they might do something along the lines of the optional cymbals that double up on the regular pads, like the third part MadCatz kit. If so, count me in (so to speak) for the drums, at least.
4) As for content, we're talking about 80-ish songs.
Similar number to the next Guitar Hero, then. Which is great value, compared to the price of downloadable content - but no announcements of what the songs will be like yet. Of course, they're talking them up big-style.
5) New game modes that let you enjoy the songs in new and exciting ways.
No idea what this could possibly mean, but it all adds value, I suppose. We shall see.
6) Most of the little gripes that people had with the original have been heard and fixed.
Well, we can believe it when we see it, but their online community is very active and they do read it regularly, so I think we'll find many improvements.
So, what it amounts to is a refinement of what we had before. It's no reinvention, and I don't suppose anyone expected it to be. I think that it's more of a definitive version, in that it looks like it is trying to take the 'but...' out of 'I love Rock Band, but...'
As for me, I love Rock Band, but, for example...
*I wish there was more flexibility with the characters you create - such as allowing them to take more than one instrument, or using them as band members when you're playing solo, instead of the defaults. A small point really, but I've always liked customisable characters, so I'd like to see them better.
*I do worry about the durability of this drum kit, and I'd like to see lessons learned next time.
*I wish the songs would cater to a slightly wider range of tastes.
*
Sunday, 22 June 2008
5 Reasons why Rock Band will hold its own against Guitar Hero: World Tour
Since I bought Rock Band today, I've been looking with interest at the reaction to the unveiling of Guitar Hero's answer to it. On the face of it, it looks like the new Guitar Hero is an attempt to finish what Rock Band started, almost in the same way that Rock Band itself was a natural progression on from Guitar Hero. Indeed, I believe that the new Guitar Hero may have plenty going for it - particularly that drum kit. However, I don't think it's game over for Rock Band by any stretch. Here's why:
1) Rock Band has a big head start
This is significant not just because the people who already shelled out for a Rock Band kit are unlikely to want to do so all over again - let alone where to put all this stuff. It's also important because Rock Band has also had time to release some fine, fine downloadable tracks which Guitar Hero has to work hard to catch up to.
2) The Rock Band franchise is less obnoxious
Not everyone is totally into the RAWK!! posturing and attitude of the Guitar Hero games, and Rock Band has some of this too. However, its cleaner interface, and general toned-down-ness in this respect comes off as more mature and will likely appeal to people with a wider range of tastes.
3) Not everyone cares about the drums
I care about the drums, but not everyone does and when you take those out of the equation, the peripherals aren't really that different at all.
4) Even those who do care about the drums aren't definitely going to base a purchasing decision on that.
If I had free choice of drum set, there's no doubt I'd pick the Guitar Hero ones over Rock Band. But given that they only work with their respective games, I'm afraid that the general feel of the game and the songs it provides are far, far more important to me and for a while at least (see 1) the outlook seems brighter for Rock Band. I'm sure others will agree.
5) The games will naturally develop distinct audiences
I believe that Guitar Hero will become the franchise that appeals to the big rhythm game enthusiasts, while Rock Band will manage to reach across several audiences. Imagine that Guitar Hero is a PSP and Rock Band a DS. Sure, the PSP is flashier and has some really cool features which are impossible on the DS - and it has big appeal for serious gamers. However the DS is the popular choice for providing simple variety, and delivering more consistently good content.
I hope both games do well in their own right and then again it might not play out the way I predict at all but hey - at least I can enjoy playing Doolittle by Pixies, however it turns out!
1) Rock Band has a big head start
This is significant not just because the people who already shelled out for a Rock Band kit are unlikely to want to do so all over again - let alone where to put all this stuff. It's also important because Rock Band has also had time to release some fine, fine downloadable tracks which Guitar Hero has to work hard to catch up to.
2) The Rock Band franchise is less obnoxious
Not everyone is totally into the RAWK!! posturing and attitude of the Guitar Hero games, and Rock Band has some of this too. However, its cleaner interface, and general toned-down-ness in this respect comes off as more mature and will likely appeal to people with a wider range of tastes.
3) Not everyone cares about the drums
I care about the drums, but not everyone does and when you take those out of the equation, the peripherals aren't really that different at all.
4) Even those who do care about the drums aren't definitely going to base a purchasing decision on that.
If I had free choice of drum set, there's no doubt I'd pick the Guitar Hero ones over Rock Band. But given that they only work with their respective games, I'm afraid that the general feel of the game and the songs it provides are far, far more important to me and for a while at least (see 1) the outlook seems brighter for Rock Band. I'm sure others will agree.
5) The games will naturally develop distinct audiences
I believe that Guitar Hero will become the franchise that appeals to the big rhythm game enthusiasts, while Rock Band will manage to reach across several audiences. Imagine that Guitar Hero is a PSP and Rock Band a DS. Sure, the PSP is flashier and has some really cool features which are impossible on the DS - and it has big appeal for serious gamers. However the DS is the popular choice for providing simple variety, and delivering more consistently good content.
I hope both games do well in their own right and then again it might not play out the way I predict at all but hey - at least I can enjoy playing Doolittle by Pixies, however it turns out!
Friday, 13 June 2008
On Review.
I've been thinking about that review of Gamespot's LostWinds review I posted up, and how it relates to my opinion of the reviewing process in general.
See, I'm not one to get pissy about reviews or precious about the games I like. However, it seems there is a fine line between someone having a subjective opinion that clashes with your own and someone being genuinely unfair on a game. The latter very rarely happens, on professional sites, because they're, well, professional. That said, my feeling about the LostWinds review is that it was on just the wrong side of fair.
Now, to put this next bit in to context, I've only played through one Metal Gear Solid game, and that's the second one (which I hear a lot of people consider to be the worst in series). So, my interest in the series is minimal. Certainly, I enjoyed it and I wouldn't even mind playing the 4th one, or any of the other ones, but I haven't been swept up in the hype like some. To clarify even further, I'm fairly confident it's a great game series and that MGS4 is all sorts of wonderful, it's just that there are other things I'd rather play first. Okay, fans?
What gets me worked up is when a site like Eurogamer dares to give MGS4 such a punishingly low score as 8 out of 10 and then every single fanboy and girl, not just of MGS but of the PS3 in general, crawls out of the woodwork with extreme indignance at such a personal insult. The 360 fanboys aren't innocent, either, with their laughing at MGS4 fans because their game recieved such a... well, a perfectly respectable score (the same one awarded to Gears of War, incidentally, to some but not quite as much outcry).
I joined in the ensuing discussion to see if I could bring about some sort of modicum of sense to it (along with a few allies) but this is the sort of discussion we are talking about:
Us: Come on, 8 out of 10 is a good score. It means it's a great game for anyone to play (with a few caveats), and a must buy for fans, surely?
Them: No, it's worth at LEAST a 9 even though I haven't played it because it isn't out yet, so the reviewer must be some sort of MGS hating idiot.
Us: But he liked the game, a lot!
Them: Oh, clearly his anti-MGS/PS3 bias is written all over the review.
Us: Really, where? I think you're just reading what you want to read.
Them: [Quote taken out of context]
Us: Sigh...
I could see that I wasn't going to convince them that it really was a positive review of the game and so I hoped to attack their assumption that reviews should be objective. My argument went something like this:
There's very little that can objectively said about a game and still be useful. The objective facts about a game are things that can be found out without even playing it. Of course, in a review you need some facts: perhaps some information about the control system, or what you can change in the options menu, or a summary of the general premise of the game and so on. However, the real meat of the review is a highly subjective account of the reviewer's experience with the game.
So, why do we read reviews when we don't know if we can trust the opinions?
Well, what we usually do is we find a web site or magazine whose opinions tend to tally quite closely with our own, because those are the subjective opinions which are likely to be of use to us. But the best thing is, even if there are opinions in the review that seem to differ to our own, we can still find them useful as a guide to whether to buy the game or not.
For instance, in the MGS4 review, the reviewer complains a little bit about just how long some of the cutscenes are. To me, that is something worth complaining about, so I'll take that in to consideration if I ever consider buying MGS4. But to Joe MGS Fan, the long cutscenes might be one of his favourite things about the series, so he can turn that negative into a positive right away. He can even mentally add a point to the score if he wants to. In fact he can add another point just for being an MGS fan, so that's 10 out of 10 already!
Reviews are not handed down on tablets of stone. They are the collected opinions of a gamer whose only responsibility is to approach the game with an open mind, in order that he might assist other people in a decision to buy or not.
The first thing reviews are not, is written-for-fans. Joe MGS fan, this review wasn't even for you. You're only reading it to satisfy some craving that is to do with your excitement about the game. I'm not knocking that - I do it all the time. I read the Lost Winds Gamespot review, after all.
What annoyed me about the aforementioned review was that it may put a lot of people off the game who would otherwise have really liked it. But you can't really say the same about an 8/10 review for MGS4. It tells fans what they already know - you'll love it and buy it. And it tells non-fans, the target audience, what they need to know - it's a great game but you may find that you have a few issues with it if you're not used to this sort of thing. That way the non-fan can make an informed decision about whether those issues are things she can live with in order to play what's supposed to be a very good game, or whether they'll be too annoying for her and so she'll pass this time around. Sounds reasonable to me.
... but of course, they didn't listen.
See, I'm not one to get pissy about reviews or precious about the games I like. However, it seems there is a fine line between someone having a subjective opinion that clashes with your own and someone being genuinely unfair on a game. The latter very rarely happens, on professional sites, because they're, well, professional. That said, my feeling about the LostWinds review is that it was on just the wrong side of fair.
Now, to put this next bit in to context, I've only played through one Metal Gear Solid game, and that's the second one (which I hear a lot of people consider to be the worst in series). So, my interest in the series is minimal. Certainly, I enjoyed it and I wouldn't even mind playing the 4th one, or any of the other ones, but I haven't been swept up in the hype like some. To clarify even further, I'm fairly confident it's a great game series and that MGS4 is all sorts of wonderful, it's just that there are other things I'd rather play first. Okay, fans?
What gets me worked up is when a site like Eurogamer dares to give MGS4 such a punishingly low score as 8 out of 10 and then every single fanboy and girl, not just of MGS but of the PS3 in general, crawls out of the woodwork with extreme indignance at such a personal insult. The 360 fanboys aren't innocent, either, with their laughing at MGS4 fans because their game recieved such a... well, a perfectly respectable score (the same one awarded to Gears of War, incidentally, to some but not quite as much outcry).
I joined in the ensuing discussion to see if I could bring about some sort of modicum of sense to it (along with a few allies) but this is the sort of discussion we are talking about:
Us: Come on, 8 out of 10 is a good score. It means it's a great game for anyone to play (with a few caveats), and a must buy for fans, surely?
Them: No, it's worth at LEAST a 9 even though I haven't played it because it isn't out yet, so the reviewer must be some sort of MGS hating idiot.
Us: But he liked the game, a lot!
Them: Oh, clearly his anti-MGS/PS3 bias is written all over the review.
Us: Really, where? I think you're just reading what you want to read.
Them: [Quote taken out of context]
Us: Sigh...
I could see that I wasn't going to convince them that it really was a positive review of the game and so I hoped to attack their assumption that reviews should be objective. My argument went something like this:
There's very little that can objectively said about a game and still be useful. The objective facts about a game are things that can be found out without even playing it. Of course, in a review you need some facts: perhaps some information about the control system, or what you can change in the options menu, or a summary of the general premise of the game and so on. However, the real meat of the review is a highly subjective account of the reviewer's experience with the game.
So, why do we read reviews when we don't know if we can trust the opinions?
Well, what we usually do is we find a web site or magazine whose opinions tend to tally quite closely with our own, because those are the subjective opinions which are likely to be of use to us. But the best thing is, even if there are opinions in the review that seem to differ to our own, we can still find them useful as a guide to whether to buy the game or not.
For instance, in the MGS4 review, the reviewer complains a little bit about just how long some of the cutscenes are. To me, that is something worth complaining about, so I'll take that in to consideration if I ever consider buying MGS4. But to Joe MGS Fan, the long cutscenes might be one of his favourite things about the series, so he can turn that negative into a positive right away. He can even mentally add a point to the score if he wants to. In fact he can add another point just for being an MGS fan, so that's 10 out of 10 already!
Reviews are not handed down on tablets of stone. They are the collected opinions of a gamer whose only responsibility is to approach the game with an open mind, in order that he might assist other people in a decision to buy or not.
The first thing reviews are not, is written-for-fans. Joe MGS fan, this review wasn't even for you. You're only reading it to satisfy some craving that is to do with your excitement about the game. I'm not knocking that - I do it all the time. I read the Lost Winds Gamespot review, after all.
What annoyed me about the aforementioned review was that it may put a lot of people off the game who would otherwise have really liked it. But you can't really say the same about an 8/10 review for MGS4. It tells fans what they already know - you'll love it and buy it. And it tells non-fans, the target audience, what they need to know - it's a great game but you may find that you have a few issues with it if you're not used to this sort of thing. That way the non-fan can make an informed decision about whether those issues are things she can live with in order to play what's supposed to be a very good game, or whether they'll be too annoying for her and so she'll pass this time around. Sounds reasonable to me.
... but of course, they didn't listen.
Monday, 9 June 2008
LEC and me.
I don't care what the truth behind this article is. Either way, it's indicative of the general mood and gives me reason to look back and think about how it all went wrong for Lucasarts Entertainment Company. Of course, doing that in any detail would involve, y'know, actual research, so instead I'm just going to vent some spleen for a while.
"They're brilliant," I enthused at a classmate, years ago, "I'd buy anything with LucasArts written on the box." It was true, as well. I couldn't say it about any other developer that I can think of. I didn't fall in love with every LucasArts game I encountered, but the hit rate was high enough and I could at least come away from the shop knowing that I'd got myself something of unmatched quality and style. I don't remember the last time that was true but even around the time of Grim Fandango - my all time favourite LEC game, no less - that faith was starting to waver.
It was 1998, then, and it seems that 10 years is a long time in gaming, because nowadays the words 'LucasArts' on a box are, if not an outright condemnation (after all, some outsourced projects like those LEGO games have been rather good), at least something of a warning.
With the Star Wars prequels, the merchandising machine got all fired up again but we LucasArts faithful were unconcerned. For a start, Star Wars games had always been part of LEC history. It was only be expected that games would accompany the film. What was more disappointing was the standard of most of these games as compared to the X-Wing/TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight fare we'd been treated to in the past. Even then, though all was not lost in our minds.
'So they had a few cash-in games,' we thought, naively, 'Fine. Just leaves them more money to do the stuff we know they really love, such as those lovely adventure games.'
I suppose the first clue should have been the disappointingly substandard Escape from Monkey Island which clearly had neither the time or budget attention paid to it as the same-engine but far more polished Grim Fandango. But everyone can make mistakes, right? At least they're still trying.
Then came Full Throttle 2 - or not, as it turned out. Not much was ever revealed about the project, but by all accounts it was less true to its roots as people had perhaps hoped and it was ditched after a surprisingly candid admission that it just wasn't up to standards. The cancellation caused a few wobbles in the community but most people - myself included - genuinely believed that it was better this way. It gave us hope that LEC were still concerned with quality.
When Sam and Max 2 was announced, it gave people more hope still. Steve Purcell fully on board and all accounts saying it was shaping up to be a great sequel; the little tidbits provided delighting fans everywhere, this was to be where LucasArts found its way again. Then, to everyone's (not least Steve Purcell's) surprise, it was cancelled, most-way through its production.
The reason?
'Current marketplace realities.'
Have a look at that. That's the actual wording on the press release. That's how LucasArts were willing to represent themselves to the world. I had always seen them as a group of people who derived genuine joy from the creation of games. Almost like they were indie developers, except with more money, so they couldn't have collided 3 more dismaying words together. How could I possibly have any enthusiasm for anything they ever did again after that statement?
The answer is that I couldn't, and I still can't. I can't even muster up much enthusiasm for the next part of the story. Basically, all the familiar names and faces from the LucasArts we loved had left and formed their own studios, and some have gone on to bring back some of that magic we missed too, in the shape of the excellent Psychonauts and Telltale's Sam and Max episodes (with which I nevertheless have a few issues). For all that, however, nothing could match the power of all those people working in the same place, at the height of its powers.
It's long dead now. I imagine a giant, lumbering zombiefied LucasArts, unaware of its own demise, searching for franchises upon which to feast. I only hope someone does the kind thing and brings a shotgun to its head before it goes for anything I truly hold dear, like another Monkey Island or -heaven forbid- Grim Fandango.
"They're brilliant," I enthused at a classmate, years ago, "I'd buy anything with LucasArts written on the box." It was true, as well. I couldn't say it about any other developer that I can think of. I didn't fall in love with every LucasArts game I encountered, but the hit rate was high enough and I could at least come away from the shop knowing that I'd got myself something of unmatched quality and style. I don't remember the last time that was true but even around the time of Grim Fandango - my all time favourite LEC game, no less - that faith was starting to waver.
It was 1998, then, and it seems that 10 years is a long time in gaming, because nowadays the words 'LucasArts' on a box are, if not an outright condemnation (after all, some outsourced projects like those LEGO games have been rather good), at least something of a warning.
With the Star Wars prequels, the merchandising machine got all fired up again but we LucasArts faithful were unconcerned. For a start, Star Wars games had always been part of LEC history. It was only be expected that games would accompany the film. What was more disappointing was the standard of most of these games as compared to the X-Wing/TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight fare we'd been treated to in the past. Even then, though all was not lost in our minds.
'So they had a few cash-in games,' we thought, naively, 'Fine. Just leaves them more money to do the stuff we know they really love, such as those lovely adventure games.'
I suppose the first clue should have been the disappointingly substandard Escape from Monkey Island which clearly had neither the time or budget attention paid to it as the same-engine but far more polished Grim Fandango. But everyone can make mistakes, right? At least they're still trying.
Then came Full Throttle 2 - or not, as it turned out. Not much was ever revealed about the project, but by all accounts it was less true to its roots as people had perhaps hoped and it was ditched after a surprisingly candid admission that it just wasn't up to standards. The cancellation caused a few wobbles in the community but most people - myself included - genuinely believed that it was better this way. It gave us hope that LEC were still concerned with quality.
When Sam and Max 2 was announced, it gave people more hope still. Steve Purcell fully on board and all accounts saying it was shaping up to be a great sequel; the little tidbits provided delighting fans everywhere, this was to be where LucasArts found its way again. Then, to everyone's (not least Steve Purcell's) surprise, it was cancelled, most-way through its production.
The reason?
'Current marketplace realities.'
Have a look at that. That's the actual wording on the press release. That's how LucasArts were willing to represent themselves to the world. I had always seen them as a group of people who derived genuine joy from the creation of games. Almost like they were indie developers, except with more money, so they couldn't have collided 3 more dismaying words together. How could I possibly have any enthusiasm for anything they ever did again after that statement?
The answer is that I couldn't, and I still can't. I can't even muster up much enthusiasm for the next part of the story. Basically, all the familiar names and faces from the LucasArts we loved had left and formed their own studios, and some have gone on to bring back some of that magic we missed too, in the shape of the excellent Psychonauts and Telltale's Sam and Max episodes (with which I nevertheless have a few issues). For all that, however, nothing could match the power of all those people working in the same place, at the height of its powers.
It's long dead now. I imagine a giant, lumbering zombiefied LucasArts, unaware of its own demise, searching for franchises upon which to feast. I only hope someone does the kind thing and brings a shotgun to its head before it goes for anything I truly hold dear, like another Monkey Island or -heaven forbid- Grim Fandango.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Review of the Gamespot Review of LostWinds
Reviews are a subjective thing, and I like it that way. If all a review consists in is pointing out facts, there's no reason to read more than one. People have favourite review websites because the opinions on it are those that most coincide with their own - so they have some confidence that they can trust said opinions.
On the other hand, sometimes you see a review of a game which is in such stark contrast with your own (and almost everybody else's) experience that you have to wonder whether they were playing the same game, or perhaps being coerced at gunpoint to come to such conclusions. Such is the Gamespot review of LostWinds.
Let's have a look.
"One of the launch titles for Nintendo's new WiiWare downloadable games service, LostWinds is overflowing with unrealized potential."
- So opens the review. I'm already worried but let's see where he's going with this...
"The sometimes sloppy controls and occasional camera glitches are the first evidence that something is not quite right here."
- I'd love to know how he thinks the controls are sloppy, but I assume he'll say so later. As for these camera glitches - well, sometimes it hasn't quite been where I want it to be, but I haven't come across anything I'd term a 'glitch.' But I'm a patient man, let's read on.
"It's the sleepy presentation and all-too-easy puzzles that ultimately doom LostWinds."
- I don't even want to address the 'all-too-easy puzzles' comment because it seems so unimportant to me. It gets gently more difficult as it goes, ending up not very difficult. Sometimes I needed to try things a few times to get them right. I wouldn't have said no to a few trickier puzzles but then again that runs the risk of replacing a pleasant experience with a frustrating one. Anyway, I'll give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here: he wants a more difficult game, and that's his subjective opinion.
- It's the 'sleepy presentation' comment which astounds me. Really? Do you mean that it's lazy, or that you found it boring? Either way - REALLY? The way the scenery blows in the breeze gently as you move your cursor past it is sleepy? The stylised characters and clean, clear level design is sleepy? Are you sure? Well, we'll see. Maybe it's just not to his taste, but that's not the same as saying 'sleepy.'
"Frontier Developments should be applauded for bringing something truly unique to the Wii, showing how motion controls can fundamentally change how a genre is played, but LostWinds just isn't a good enough game to make people take notice."
- Well, this would be an interesting comment, Tom McShea, were it not for the fact that everyone else has taken notice, except for you. Maybe that says something.
He goes on to complain about how the characters lack personality, and I don't know, really. I didn't pay much attention to what they were saying, but they seemed cute enough to me, and they had a great visual style. But I can't say much about that because the individual characterisations seemed rather unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things. I certainly didn't find myself thinking 'Wow, I wish these characters were better!'
Ah, here we go, we're getting to the complaints about the visuals.
"Beautiful green hills and vibrant cherry blossoms fade away, replaced by a suffocating cavern of dreary blue rock. It's a shame that half of this three-hour adventure takes place in the dank underbelly of this fantastic little village."
- I'm not sure what he's hoping for, really. They're still pretty and filled with detail with glowing crystals and various plants and fungi, but obviously not as pretty as a scenic village. Because, you know, they're mines. I certainly didn't get the feeling that suddenly the visuals weren't as good as they were before. I don't see how they could have made them better so it's as if he's having a go at the game just for having caves in it and then daring to make them look like caves, which seems a bit unfair.
"Combine this with the dreamy woodwind soundtrack accompanying your every move, and you have a game that simply lacks any semblance of energy."
- I'm not sure what about the game, before he played it, gave him the impression that he was in for some sort of rollercoaster ride. By its very nature the game has a sort of, well, dreamy woodwind feel to it. It's starting to seem to me that Tom McShea is a sort of tortured soul, easily swayed by the tiniest of stimuli so that being in a cave leads him to depression and a slow soundtrack sends him to sleep. No - more likely he was bored even before he switched the game on.
He summarises the control system well enough, then goes on to say:
"The problem with controlling a powerful force of nature is that wind doesn't have a fine touch. Objects not bolted to the ground tend to blow around the environment like dandelions, which makes precise maneuvers something of a chore."
-You're right Tom. That could be a real problem, if the game required precise maneuvers, which is doesn't, really. The weight-activated switches are large and have a forgiving boundary box, and equally forgiving are the ledges you have the main character jumping to and from. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, the game slows down when you go to use a wind power, which means there's no need to rush into making a move - a fact that he hasn't seemed to acknowledge.
"Using the vortex command to make objects hover in air is unpredictable--sometimes the rock will stay right where you want it to, but other times it will fall back to the ground with the vortex winds still circling it."
- One of the things that struck me about the vortex power is that drawing a circle around an object has never been more - and this is a word I've used before - forgiving. The first time I tried it I accidentally jiggled my hand and ended up drawing something that nobody would call a circle - but as long as you do a loop of some description, the game tends to accept it and react accordingly.
"The wind also doesn't always blow young Toku where you would expect. For instance, horizontal commands are sometimes reversed. Even if you clearly move the Wii Remote from the left side of the screen to the right, the wind will sometimes blow in the opposite direction."
- No it won't. I don't even know what to say to this. I've never once had this happen, so I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the reviewer is just bad at using the Wiimote.
At this point, I must add something. Believe me, I know what this guy is getting at. When I heard about this game I said to myself 'Wow, using the Wiimote to do jumps by using the wind? Sounds like an exercise in frustration to me!' Exactly the sort of frustration the reviewer here seems to be describing, in fact. But I've played it now, and the amount of thought that has gone into making the controls as minimally frustrating and as maximally fun as possible is admirable.
Well we're getting to the end and it seems that he never went on to talk about the 'all too easy' puzzles after all. This seems strange as that was one of the two things that apparently spelled 'doom' for the game. In the closing paragraph he does say something about 'puzzles that never push the innovative gameplay mechanics.' This is something I understand, as I've occasionally recognised it in the otherwise fun Boom Blox but I didn't feel the same way about LostWinds, mostly because it doesn't feel like a game that needs difficult puzzles. No description of those 'camera glitch' problems that I never experienced, either.
Perhaps his dissatisfaction partially stems from the fact that it is very episodic in feel, in that you get to the end of the game feeling that you haven't achieved a mighty deed - rather you've just experienced your first taste of things to come. It's not like Portal's story which leaves room for more but is in itself quite a closed-off experience. This is explicitly the start of a bigger story and if you're not expecting that I can understand how someone might think: 'Is that all?' Treat it as an introduction to a larger story, though, and everything from the puzzles to the length to the story sits much more comfortably.
Finally, I don't mean to imply that LostWinds is the best thing that anyone has made ever. It's not. It doesn't have that sort of ambition. The thing is, that same unassuming nature is exactly the thing that has made it entirely charming.
On the other hand, sometimes you see a review of a game which is in such stark contrast with your own (and almost everybody else's) experience that you have to wonder whether they were playing the same game, or perhaps being coerced at gunpoint to come to such conclusions. Such is the Gamespot review of LostWinds.
Let's have a look.
"One of the launch titles for Nintendo's new WiiWare downloadable games service, LostWinds is overflowing with unrealized potential."
- So opens the review. I'm already worried but let's see where he's going with this...
"The sometimes sloppy controls and occasional camera glitches are the first evidence that something is not quite right here."
- I'd love to know how he thinks the controls are sloppy, but I assume he'll say so later. As for these camera glitches - well, sometimes it hasn't quite been where I want it to be, but I haven't come across anything I'd term a 'glitch.' But I'm a patient man, let's read on.
"It's the sleepy presentation and all-too-easy puzzles that ultimately doom LostWinds."
- I don't even want to address the 'all-too-easy puzzles' comment because it seems so unimportant to me. It gets gently more difficult as it goes, ending up not very difficult. Sometimes I needed to try things a few times to get them right. I wouldn't have said no to a few trickier puzzles but then again that runs the risk of replacing a pleasant experience with a frustrating one. Anyway, I'll give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here: he wants a more difficult game, and that's his subjective opinion.
- It's the 'sleepy presentation' comment which astounds me. Really? Do you mean that it's lazy, or that you found it boring? Either way - REALLY? The way the scenery blows in the breeze gently as you move your cursor past it is sleepy? The stylised characters and clean, clear level design is sleepy? Are you sure? Well, we'll see. Maybe it's just not to his taste, but that's not the same as saying 'sleepy.'
"Frontier Developments should be applauded for bringing something truly unique to the Wii, showing how motion controls can fundamentally change how a genre is played, but LostWinds just isn't a good enough game to make people take notice."
- Well, this would be an interesting comment, Tom McShea, were it not for the fact that everyone else has taken notice, except for you. Maybe that says something.
He goes on to complain about how the characters lack personality, and I don't know, really. I didn't pay much attention to what they were saying, but they seemed cute enough to me, and they had a great visual style. But I can't say much about that because the individual characterisations seemed rather unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things. I certainly didn't find myself thinking 'Wow, I wish these characters were better!'
Ah, here we go, we're getting to the complaints about the visuals.
"Beautiful green hills and vibrant cherry blossoms fade away, replaced by a suffocating cavern of dreary blue rock. It's a shame that half of this three-hour adventure takes place in the dank underbelly of this fantastic little village."
- I'm not sure what he's hoping for, really. They're still pretty and filled with detail with glowing crystals and various plants and fungi, but obviously not as pretty as a scenic village. Because, you know, they're mines. I certainly didn't get the feeling that suddenly the visuals weren't as good as they were before. I don't see how they could have made them better so it's as if he's having a go at the game just for having caves in it and then daring to make them look like caves, which seems a bit unfair.
"Combine this with the dreamy woodwind soundtrack accompanying your every move, and you have a game that simply lacks any semblance of energy."
- I'm not sure what about the game, before he played it, gave him the impression that he was in for some sort of rollercoaster ride. By its very nature the game has a sort of, well, dreamy woodwind feel to it. It's starting to seem to me that Tom McShea is a sort of tortured soul, easily swayed by the tiniest of stimuli so that being in a cave leads him to depression and a slow soundtrack sends him to sleep. No - more likely he was bored even before he switched the game on.
He summarises the control system well enough, then goes on to say:
"The problem with controlling a powerful force of nature is that wind doesn't have a fine touch. Objects not bolted to the ground tend to blow around the environment like dandelions, which makes precise maneuvers something of a chore."
-You're right Tom. That could be a real problem, if the game required precise maneuvers, which is doesn't, really. The weight-activated switches are large and have a forgiving boundary box, and equally forgiving are the ledges you have the main character jumping to and from. Also, as mentioned in my previous post, the game slows down when you go to use a wind power, which means there's no need to rush into making a move - a fact that he hasn't seemed to acknowledge.
"Using the vortex command to make objects hover in air is unpredictable--sometimes the rock will stay right where you want it to, but other times it will fall back to the ground with the vortex winds still circling it."
- One of the things that struck me about the vortex power is that drawing a circle around an object has never been more - and this is a word I've used before - forgiving. The first time I tried it I accidentally jiggled my hand and ended up drawing something that nobody would call a circle - but as long as you do a loop of some description, the game tends to accept it and react accordingly.
"The wind also doesn't always blow young Toku where you would expect. For instance, horizontal commands are sometimes reversed. Even if you clearly move the Wii Remote from the left side of the screen to the right, the wind will sometimes blow in the opposite direction."
- No it won't. I don't even know what to say to this. I've never once had this happen, so I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the reviewer is just bad at using the Wiimote.
At this point, I must add something. Believe me, I know what this guy is getting at. When I heard about this game I said to myself 'Wow, using the Wiimote to do jumps by using the wind? Sounds like an exercise in frustration to me!' Exactly the sort of frustration the reviewer here seems to be describing, in fact. But I've played it now, and the amount of thought that has gone into making the controls as minimally frustrating and as maximally fun as possible is admirable.
Well we're getting to the end and it seems that he never went on to talk about the 'all too easy' puzzles after all. This seems strange as that was one of the two things that apparently spelled 'doom' for the game. In the closing paragraph he does say something about 'puzzles that never push the innovative gameplay mechanics.' This is something I understand, as I've occasionally recognised it in the otherwise fun Boom Blox but I didn't feel the same way about LostWinds, mostly because it doesn't feel like a game that needs difficult puzzles. No description of those 'camera glitch' problems that I never experienced, either.
Perhaps his dissatisfaction partially stems from the fact that it is very episodic in feel, in that you get to the end of the game feeling that you haven't achieved a mighty deed - rather you've just experienced your first taste of things to come. It's not like Portal's story which leaves room for more but is in itself quite a closed-off experience. This is explicitly the start of a bigger story and if you're not expecting that I can understand how someone might think: 'Is that all?' Treat it as an introduction to a larger story, though, and everything from the puzzles to the length to the story sits much more comfortably.
Finally, I don't mean to imply that LostWinds is the best thing that anyone has made ever. It's not. It doesn't have that sort of ambition. The thing is, that same unassuming nature is exactly the thing that has made it entirely charming.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
LostWinds
I've just started playing LostWinds on WiiWare and so far I'm really impressed.
It has the same sort of economy of design that you get from a game like Portal (and I hear it's a similar length, which I welcome). What I mean by that is that there's nothing in there that seems to be done with a 'because we can' attitude. There's exactly as much stuff going on in both the gameplay and the background - like the excellent art style and minimalist story - as is needed. The basic premise is that it's a platform-ish game where you use various powers of a wind spirit (brought to life by the Wii pointer) to help the player perform jumps and tinker with the environment in various ways to solve puzzles and progress. So far, the execution of these ideas has been excellent and it doesn't look like it's going to overcomplicate itself any time soon.
It almost comes as a relief after 40 hours of GTA IV. That game, while excellent fun and easily recommendable, tries to do everything and in doing so, when you find something you can't do, it's often all the more disappointing. There is certainly a place for that kind of design philosophy but it's more the sort of thing that inspires awe ('Wow, I can do this! And THIS!') rather than respect. Portal was a game that I not only enjoyed more than I have anything else for a couple of years but one that gave me enormous respect for the developers.
I'm not sure I'll come to love LostWinds as much - but I already respect it for some great design touches. There's the button to remind you where you were going when you last played the game. There's the way that when you hit the A-button to use a wind power the game goes into slow motion - much less frustrating than having to time moves to within a split second, but much more fluid than just making the game pause in a jarring way.
I had to think for a moment about if I'd encountered any negatives, so far. Off the top of my head, perhaps a map might be helpful as progression isn't always linear but then I haven't got lost yet. Also, maybe the game ought to give a bit more feedback about whether you are in danger of being damaged or not, because a couple of times I've got hurt falling when I thought I was safe.
Those minor things aside, I look forward to finishing it and I'll probably post more then. If this is the shape of WiiWare to come, though, I suspect we're in for a treat.
It has the same sort of economy of design that you get from a game like Portal (and I hear it's a similar length, which I welcome). What I mean by that is that there's nothing in there that seems to be done with a 'because we can' attitude. There's exactly as much stuff going on in both the gameplay and the background - like the excellent art style and minimalist story - as is needed. The basic premise is that it's a platform-ish game where you use various powers of a wind spirit (brought to life by the Wii pointer) to help the player perform jumps and tinker with the environment in various ways to solve puzzles and progress. So far, the execution of these ideas has been excellent and it doesn't look like it's going to overcomplicate itself any time soon.
It almost comes as a relief after 40 hours of GTA IV. That game, while excellent fun and easily recommendable, tries to do everything and in doing so, when you find something you can't do, it's often all the more disappointing. There is certainly a place for that kind of design philosophy but it's more the sort of thing that inspires awe ('Wow, I can do this! And THIS!') rather than respect. Portal was a game that I not only enjoyed more than I have anything else for a couple of years but one that gave me enormous respect for the developers.
I'm not sure I'll come to love LostWinds as much - but I already respect it for some great design touches. There's the button to remind you where you were going when you last played the game. There's the way that when you hit the A-button to use a wind power the game goes into slow motion - much less frustrating than having to time moves to within a split second, but much more fluid than just making the game pause in a jarring way.
I had to think for a moment about if I'd encountered any negatives, so far. Off the top of my head, perhaps a map might be helpful as progression isn't always linear but then I haven't got lost yet. Also, maybe the game ought to give a bit more feedback about whether you are in danger of being damaged or not, because a couple of times I've got hurt falling when I thought I was safe.
Those minor things aside, I look forward to finishing it and I'll probably post more then. If this is the shape of WiiWare to come, though, I suspect we're in for a treat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)