So as you may have noticed, my columns drop on Fridays, and the subject depends on how many Friday's have passed since the start of the month. So what do I do when there are five Fridays in a month? Well, I could take a week off and get ahead on some of my other columns, but that seems like I'm cheating any of you who read this. So what am I going to talk about when there are five Fridays in a month? Whatever the hell I want to! Fifth Friday is a self indulgent column (unlike my other four which are produced purely for the edification of the unwashed masses) where I might talk about anything, even things non-videogame related. Expect a lot of talk about how great Batman is.
For my first installment though, I've decided to talk about something that is still a little bit videogame related, and something I'm quite interested in. Esports, in particular as they relate to three of my favorite videogames of all time, Starcraft, Starcraft 2, and League of Legends.
Esports, for those of you who don't know, is exactly what it sounds like. The organized playing of videogames, playing them like a sport. Really, any competition in video games could be called esport, but I'm going to focus on professional esports, that is, those that result in the players getting paid.
Competition has been a part of video games since the invention of the "High Score". Putting your initials in at the local arcade was a way of both showing off talented players abilities, and encouraging challengers to put in new quarters to try and beat those scores, and claim the high marks for themselves. Atari held a Space Invaders tournament in 1980 that attracted over 10,000 players. A few years later, Nintendo created a game specifically for tournament play that included the first levels of some of their most popular games, and are now highly sought by collectors. A few years later, Street Fighter 2 hit arcades, which heavily encouraged multi player competition, by allowing anyone to interrupt a single player mid match by dropping in a quarter resulting in the now famous "Here comes a new challenger" line.
In 1993, Doom, a game all the hosts here enjoyed was released. While the single player was engaging, one of us ended up giving multiplayer Deathmatch a try. It was one of the first games with support for online play, and it changed what was possible in the realm of videogame competition. Online matchmaking wasn't a thing yet, so people divided into teams, usually called clans, and would contact other clans via IRC with a time and date for match. It required a lot more investment than modern gaming, but perhaps the trade off of having a team you knew all the time was a good one.
As new shooters came out, the players of Doom followed the newest best technology, and tournaments, both online and off, started to become common, usually with little if any prize money. Fighting games which had fostered competition since Street Fighter 2 also became popular. What really changed things however, was Starcraft.
This is quickly becoming the history of esports, which is fascinating to me and since it's my column that's what counts. However it's always been my goal both with the Podcast and my columns to go beyond just reporting facts. Starcraft made esports big. For whatever reason, the game took off hugely in South Korea, so much so that it started getting televised. Once that happened, big sponsors got involved, huge crowds showed up for live events, and much like we have two ESPNs here there are 2 24/7 esports channels in South Korea. While it never took off that way outside of Korea, it started to get attention from outside the nation, jokingly called "South Korea's national sport" and the esports community began trying to make Starcraft as big elsewhere as it was there, even though they never quite made it.
What makes Starcraft a good spectator sport though? Well even as some one who has watched a lot of games, it's hard for me to say. While I'm writing this, I'm reading Shamus Young's take on things. While I admire him as a blogger and a writer, I don't think he has it quite right. His article is about how Starcraft is more intuitive than typical sports because the visual shorthand is obvious. To a layman, it's easier to understand why it's bad that all your guys with guns suddenly burned to death than it is to understand why it's bad that a guy in a purple jersey caught that weird shaped ball instead of a guy in a blue jersey. That said, Starcraft easily has as much jargon as Football or Baseball, some one watching the game for the first time probably has no idea what a Fast Expo is, or a DT Rush or what transitioning to the late game means. Even if they've played Starcraft before, they might have different terms for these things.
So what is the appeal of Starcraft as a spectator? It's hard for me to say. Whenever I've gotten real into the Starcraft esports scene, it's been when I've been playing Starcraft. Pro games serve as inspiration for new strategies to try as well as motivation to get back on the horse after a loosing streak. That said, the reason you watch Professional Football instead of going out to a high school game is to see the best of the best play. Pro Starcraft certainly has that feel for me, it's impressive to see play that I can conceive of but could never pull off myself.
As far as esports go, I think RTS is one of the best genres to spectate. First Person Shooters give me a headache after extended play, so I may not be objective on this, but I don't feel there's a good way to watch the action during them. The view we get is from the first person, and thus the camera man and player view are always the same. Imagine watching Football with the only camera being POV of Peyton Manning. Sure it might be interesting to cut to every so often, but you'd miss a ton of action, and it would rarely be the best view of it. Fighting games are better at this since you can always see all of the action on screen at once, but those tend to be brief. An average Starcraft game is 20 minutes, which means a best of 3 can be expected to last about an hour, shorter than most pro sports, especially since they have fewer advertisements and no half time celebration, but that's a respectable length. The action can be scrolled around and viewed anywhere, with picture in picture starting to become common for when multiple important events are on screen. It's easy to follow the actions, and a good "camera man" will get all of it.
At some point, I realized I stopped talking about Starcraft, and started talking about Starcraft II although the games are nearly interchangeable from a casual point of view. Starcfart II looks a lot prettier, and it's easy to see why most spectators "switched over" when it came out, forcing the players to as well. The game was sleeker, had better spectating options, and just looks better on an HD TV or monitor.
I don't know that I've said anything all that interesting about esports after all, and I didn't even get to my beloved League of Legends, but this is my self indulgent column, so I'm going to wrap it up here. I don't think esports will ever become as prolific as regular sports here in America, but thanks to the internet, high production esports shows can be put on even if they won't reach the millions required for a TV broadcast. If you've never given esports a try but are interested in Street Fighter, Starcraft of League of Legends, I recommend you give watching a few games a try. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch China stomp on North America in the LoL All Stars Game. Or maybe America will pull it out, one of the beauties of sports is that you never know.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Bonus Episode 1: Mega Man
** DISCLAIMER!!! **
Taking the Fear the Boot route, we're making bonus episodes mostly unedited. There's still a profanity filter, but other than that, it's dangerous territory. I'd recommend listening to another episode first if this is your first one. At this point, I suggest Episode 10.
** END DISCLAIMER!!! **
Geremy and Tyler utilize Zach's absence this week to replay Mega Man and record our talking about it! Tyler was going to Germany the week after, so we needed something to fill in for Excitebike. Fun times!
Download if you like shooting lemons!
(02:50) How got started on this endeavor. Spoilers: it didn't start as a podcast.
(04:40) Cool story, bros.
(07:15) Plugging our contact info!
(13:05) Mega Man! Pew pew!
(18:00) Our first Mega Games.
(26:00) Life is a super valuable commodity. Also, points!
(28:00) TL;DNL: Mega Man is fun!
Communication! You can reach us at
Taking the Fear the Boot route, we're making bonus episodes mostly unedited. There's still a profanity filter, but other than that, it's dangerous territory. I'd recommend listening to another episode first if this is your first one. At this point, I suggest Episode 10.
** END DISCLAIMER!!! **
Geremy and Tyler utilize Zach's absence this week to replay Mega Man and record our talking about it! Tyler was going to Germany the week after, so we needed something to fill in for Excitebike. Fun times!
Download if you like shooting lemons!
(02:50) How got started on this endeavor. Spoilers: it didn't start as a podcast.
(04:40) Cool story, bros.
(07:15) Plugging our contact info!
(13:05) Mega Man! Pew pew!
(18:00) Our first Mega Games.
(26:00) Life is a super valuable commodity. Also, points!
(28:00) TL;DNL: Mega Man is fun!
Communication! You can reach us at
Geremy@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Last Rant... Kinda: Age of Booty
I suspect at this point that it is no real secret that I took a German adventure recently. My oft mentioned friend, Ed, lives out there as part of his term of service with the Air Force. Coincidentally, based off of our talking about it in the Doom episode, Ed bought Age of Booty for the PS3.
While it was not quite what I expected, it certainly meets a lot of my requirements for a fun RTS without micromanagement. Between coordinating with other players and dodging enemy ships in our now dubbed "Trained Monkey Survival Mode," the game was a blast. There also exists a large pile of downloadable maps, which lends some more variety to what is otherwise a simple game.
Basically, you have firepower, speed, and armor. They all do what you expect, except that additional cannons, and to some extent, armor, slow your ship down. Generally, our strategy was to have Ed max out his cannons while I wandered about with my weakly little ship collecting more resources for further upgrades. We couldn't find any online matches at the time, which was sad, but it was rather a lot of fun, both cooperatively and competitively.
Coincidentally, the developers are planning a new expansion-esque thing for this game that includes support for the Android OS. With this, they are promising cross-platform compatibility. I could not be more pleased. If you're feeling like some pirate action, it's $5 on Steam at the time of writing. Go pillage some villages!
While it was not quite what I expected, it certainly meets a lot of my requirements for a fun RTS without micromanagement. Between coordinating with other players and dodging enemy ships in our now dubbed "Trained Monkey Survival Mode," the game was a blast. There also exists a large pile of downloadable maps, which lends some more variety to what is otherwise a simple game.
Basically, you have firepower, speed, and armor. They all do what you expect, except that additional cannons, and to some extent, armor, slow your ship down. Generally, our strategy was to have Ed max out his cannons while I wandered about with my weakly little ship collecting more resources for further upgrades. We couldn't find any online matches at the time, which was sad, but it was rather a lot of fun, both cooperatively and competitively.
Coincidentally, the developers are planning a new expansion-esque thing for this game that includes support for the Android OS. With this, they are promising cross-platform compatibility. I could not be more pleased. If you're feeling like some pirate action, it's $5 on Steam at the time of writing. Go pillage some villages!
Monday, May 27, 2013
Last Rant on Videogames: What You Wanted Wasn't What You Got
It seems we're talking about series a lot recently. There's a lot to love there, especially if there's a universe of information that's acknowledged between series. As some sort of geek, I love a good myth arc, though that's not a prerequisite for something to be entertaining. The point is that having a series or franchise allows the writers or developers to convey a large amount of information in a short amount of time to an audience that has been along other parts of the same ride.
Some series get a lot more love than others, though. I think I have the misfortune of overlapping with Geremy's discussion of this particular one, but it was serendipity that I happened to start playing games from it at the same time, so we'll just have to put up with that. Pokemon is a monstrous behemoth that engulfed the childhoods of many people in my age bracket. I maintain that it is one of the most complex stat-based battle games ever devised; the original had over 100 distinct characters, some of which grew into others, which might have doppelgangers that were distinct from their counterparts. Additionally, you had to build a team of 6 of these and memorize a mildly complicated system of weaknesses and strengths. And they were collectible. It's amazing.
For as long as I can remember after the Internet becoming truly prevalent, there has been demand from the masses for a Pokemon MMO. Nintendo has adamantly refused, though I'm not sure on what grounds. The more recent generations of the games have a Wi-Fi marketplace of sorts where you can interact with other players. The difference would be that you also have these players running around the game world together.
For me, the draw of such a game would be exploration in an open and potentially dangerous world with a team of versatile and obedient monsters. Aside from a lack of specific goals and tasks, the Pixelmon mod for Minecraft satisfies this particular itch. My one lamentation is that my hardware isn't really great for running a server and actually playing the game. A real 3D Pokemon MMO would be fantastic, however. I can't help but wonder, though, whether the Internet would quickly ruin the thrill of exploration with its rambling about the hidden areas.
At any rate, while rumors of such a thing occurring were first fueling the fires of ravening demand for it, we got a different game. I'm a little surprised by finding out recently how popular this game was, as I never heard anyone talk about it until recently. Maybe they, like I, were too ashamed to admit owning and enjoying it. Provided I've got my timing right, I will have mentioned on the show recently that I started replaying the Pokemon Trading Card Game for the Gameboy Color. There was no great demand for it and no one expected it, yet it came to be. And it was good.
If you're unfamiliar with how the game works, I suspect you can find some rules with relative ease. It's very simple, and easily exploitable. Once one side has momentum, it's relatively hard to stop it. It was even worse early on as there weren't a large number or variety of cards to work with. This game, however, automates the tedium of a card game and lets you enjoy the parts that you actually care about: building an abusable deck and proceeding to utilize it to great effect against other people willing to play against you. The game gives you some more cards every time you stomp someone, and they're willing to keep playing regardless of which broken deck you use. Find me some opponents outside of a video game that will let you do that.
Part of what has driven the Pokemon machine over the years is how addictively collectable they are. Even the original games were sold in such a way as to encourage owning two copies, or for the more social, actually interacting with people who did own another copy. That's gotten much easier as anonymous Internet interaction has been integrated, but there's still a near manic need to finish a Pokedex when the little creatures are so easy to come by. Jokes about 10-year-olds with gods in little balls aside, even the legendary Pokemon only require patience to catch. The card game capitalized upon this perfectly. While the game was, in my opinion, mechanically flawed, the cards themselves were visually interesting and fun to have. The Gameboy game gives you all the joy of trying to complete your card collection without spending money on them, and letting you use them to stomp opponents.
There is a bit of wonky art, though. Nightmare fuel.
Sometimes a gem just falls into your lap. You just have to dust it off to realize what you've found.
Some series get a lot more love than others, though. I think I have the misfortune of overlapping with Geremy's discussion of this particular one, but it was serendipity that I happened to start playing games from it at the same time, so we'll just have to put up with that. Pokemon is a monstrous behemoth that engulfed the childhoods of many people in my age bracket. I maintain that it is one of the most complex stat-based battle games ever devised; the original had over 100 distinct characters, some of which grew into others, which might have doppelgangers that were distinct from their counterparts. Additionally, you had to build a team of 6 of these and memorize a mildly complicated system of weaknesses and strengths. And they were collectible. It's amazing.
For as long as I can remember after the Internet becoming truly prevalent, there has been demand from the masses for a Pokemon MMO. Nintendo has adamantly refused, though I'm not sure on what grounds. The more recent generations of the games have a Wi-Fi marketplace of sorts where you can interact with other players. The difference would be that you also have these players running around the game world together.
For me, the draw of such a game would be exploration in an open and potentially dangerous world with a team of versatile and obedient monsters. Aside from a lack of specific goals and tasks, the Pixelmon mod for Minecraft satisfies this particular itch. My one lamentation is that my hardware isn't really great for running a server and actually playing the game. A real 3D Pokemon MMO would be fantastic, however. I can't help but wonder, though, whether the Internet would quickly ruin the thrill of exploration with its rambling about the hidden areas.
At any rate, while rumors of such a thing occurring were first fueling the fires of ravening demand for it, we got a different game. I'm a little surprised by finding out recently how popular this game was, as I never heard anyone talk about it until recently. Maybe they, like I, were too ashamed to admit owning and enjoying it. Provided I've got my timing right, I will have mentioned on the show recently that I started replaying the Pokemon Trading Card Game for the Gameboy Color. There was no great demand for it and no one expected it, yet it came to be. And it was good.
If you're unfamiliar with how the game works, I suspect you can find some rules with relative ease. It's very simple, and easily exploitable. Once one side has momentum, it's relatively hard to stop it. It was even worse early on as there weren't a large number or variety of cards to work with. This game, however, automates the tedium of a card game and lets you enjoy the parts that you actually care about: building an abusable deck and proceeding to utilize it to great effect against other people willing to play against you. The game gives you some more cards every time you stomp someone, and they're willing to keep playing regardless of which broken deck you use. Find me some opponents outside of a video game that will let you do that.
Part of what has driven the Pokemon machine over the years is how addictively collectable they are. Even the original games were sold in such a way as to encourage owning two copies, or for the more social, actually interacting with people who did own another copy. That's gotten much easier as anonymous Internet interaction has been integrated, but there's still a near manic need to finish a Pokedex when the little creatures are so easy to come by. Jokes about 10-year-olds with gods in little balls aside, even the legendary Pokemon only require patience to catch. The card game capitalized upon this perfectly. While the game was, in my opinion, mechanically flawed, the cards themselves were visually interesting and fun to have. The Gameboy game gives you all the joy of trying to complete your card collection without spending money on them, and letting you use them to stomp opponents.
There is a bit of wonky art, though. Nightmare fuel.
Sometimes a gem just falls into your lap. You just have to dust it off to realize what you've found.
Friday, May 24, 2013
I Love Videogames: Pokemon is Amazing.
This post contains links to TvTropes. You have been warned.
I won't lie, this post is in serious danger of just being a love letter to Pokemon. As I'm going to tackle that in my next series column, I'll try to keep that in check but Pokemon as a cultural event probably had as much influence on me as getting my NES when I was four, leading me to RPGs in general, anime, my first few girlfriends, and Pokemon Gold is the game I've clocked the most hours in, though League of Legends is probably fast approaching, with over 80 hours in my main save, and a second play through that was around 30, not to mention Heart Gold.
So last week I mentioned that the back of my Nintendo Power had this little fold out magazine called "Pokemon Power" with it's stupid little "Gotta Catch em All" catch phrase, that looked stupid. What changed?
In the late 90s, Nintendo Power started releasing promotional VHS tapes for video games, mostly N64 games. Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Jet Force Gemini all got the treatment... which in hindsight are all Rareware games. I never got any of those, but for some reason, maybe they knew it was going to be big and distributed more of them or maybe it was just luck of the draw, but one day in 1998 this came in the mail.
It was a few days before I watched it, obviously it was related to Pokemon Power, while the images on that were a bit more simplistic, having a style that looked more like game concept art than anime, I could still recognize Pikachu, even if I didn't know its name. After a few days though, I got bored and popped it in. And oh boy.
I don't have my copy of the tape any more, and I'm sure it was just cheesy marketing, but the effect it had on me. I've scoured Youtube for a version, but unfortunately, it's been taken down by copyright infringement flags every time it's been posted. I don't know that I'd link it here, it's probably really simple generic marketing, and it affected me way too much, but I'd love to see it just to figure out how they got me. One little video, it was under 20 minutes long, and I went from a cynic who had stopped watching Power Rangers "cuz it was for babies" who felt the same about this Pokemon thing to quickly tearing out that copy of Pokemon power to scour it for any nuggets of new information.
I can't even really remember much about the tape. It was from the point of view of Ash Ketchem's aunt, a character that of course never showed up anywhere else, and it had everything. Clips from the cartoon, images of the game boy games and the explanation of different versions and trading pokemon, a huge collection of figurines that represented said Aunt's pokemon collection, a couple of trading cards... it was ready to launch this into a phenomenon. And something about it really, really spoke to me.
The week the cartoon started, we were going on vacation and I begged my parents to go a week earlier. No dice of course, and I missed the first five episodes, but I went from being barely able to get out of bed in time for school at 8:00 every day to being up promptly at 5:00 AM every day. The cartoon was on at 6:00 where I lived, and I have to be ready for school before I could watch any TV. I instantly started saving up money for a Gameboy, and convinced my brother to do the same so that we could get both the Red and Blue versions when they came out a few months later and begin trading. I hounded toy stores looking for Pokemon cards. I had had little obsessions before, but this was the first time I was really in the fandom for something.
And when Pokemon hit, it was really huge. It's tempting to just say "you remember" but kids born in the year 2000, when the Pokemon wave was starting to crest will be Freshman in high school this year, so perhaps some explanation is in order. It was easily the biggest fad in the 90s, other then perhaps Power Rangers, I was too young too really judge that one, but it was one of the first things to really get what could be done with multi-media. Star Wars had tried similar things, but never to this extent, and Pokemon had a huge advantage. The franchise had been going on for 2 years in Japan, there were 2 years of Comics, TV, Videogames, Trading Cards and Toys just needing a little localization. Imagine Justin Beiber and Twilight as they are today, only good. And literally having a little piece of everything kids liked.
And I stand by Pokemon being good. I recently watched some old episodes of Power Rangers, and they don't hold up at all, there was no effort put into the stories, the fight scenes were pretty good, but half of them were imported. Pokemon on the other hand, touches something fundamental. A few things really, one of the biggest things about it for me as a kid was a single minor line that I think was only in the anime. When kids turned 10 years old, they could obtain their Pokemon license and go on and adventure. I was 9 years old when Pokemon came out, and really a Pokemon adventure is all a kid could want. Independence, self reliance and adventure all abound, and 10 is about when kids start to tire of their parents and feel they could do better on their own. At the same time, Pokemon both represent friends, something every 10 year old wants more of, and pets, a responsibility that many kids try to prove themselves with. At the same time, the large amount appeals greatly to those of us who like to collect things, and adding fantastical elements to already existing animals and myths means pretty much everyone has a base line to compare this fantasy world to. Not to mention, while Pokemon design has faltered a bit recently, every generation has both really cool and really cute Pokemon, and Mewtwo and Charizard are just as iconic today as they always were.
So... I failed pretty hard core at not just making this post a love letter to Pokemon. Hopefully it makes a good companion piece to my next series article detailing what I love so much about the Pokemon videogames specifically. Next month, I'll try to go through my life after Pokemon, at least as far as videogames are concerned, and talk about the titles that have affected me from the post Nintendo 64 consoles. Try being the key word, this column is supposed to be about why I have connections with specific games, so something may well side track me. That said, Pokemon is still the only fantasy world that I still honestly wish was real.
I won't lie, this post is in serious danger of just being a love letter to Pokemon. As I'm going to tackle that in my next series column, I'll try to keep that in check but Pokemon as a cultural event probably had as much influence on me as getting my NES when I was four, leading me to RPGs in general, anime, my first few girlfriends, and Pokemon Gold is the game I've clocked the most hours in, though League of Legends is probably fast approaching, with over 80 hours in my main save, and a second play through that was around 30, not to mention Heart Gold.
So last week I mentioned that the back of my Nintendo Power had this little fold out magazine called "Pokemon Power" with it's stupid little "Gotta Catch em All" catch phrase, that looked stupid. What changed?
In the late 90s, Nintendo Power started releasing promotional VHS tapes for video games, mostly N64 games. Banjo-Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64 and Jet Force Gemini all got the treatment... which in hindsight are all Rareware games. I never got any of those, but for some reason, maybe they knew it was going to be big and distributed more of them or maybe it was just luck of the draw, but one day in 1998 this came in the mail.
It was a few days before I watched it, obviously it was related to Pokemon Power, while the images on that were a bit more simplistic, having a style that looked more like game concept art than anime, I could still recognize Pikachu, even if I didn't know its name. After a few days though, I got bored and popped it in. And oh boy.
I don't have my copy of the tape any more, and I'm sure it was just cheesy marketing, but the effect it had on me. I've scoured Youtube for a version, but unfortunately, it's been taken down by copyright infringement flags every time it's been posted. I don't know that I'd link it here, it's probably really simple generic marketing, and it affected me way too much, but I'd love to see it just to figure out how they got me. One little video, it was under 20 minutes long, and I went from a cynic who had stopped watching Power Rangers "cuz it was for babies" who felt the same about this Pokemon thing to quickly tearing out that copy of Pokemon power to scour it for any nuggets of new information.
I can't even really remember much about the tape. It was from the point of view of Ash Ketchem's aunt, a character that of course never showed up anywhere else, and it had everything. Clips from the cartoon, images of the game boy games and the explanation of different versions and trading pokemon, a huge collection of figurines that represented said Aunt's pokemon collection, a couple of trading cards... it was ready to launch this into a phenomenon. And something about it really, really spoke to me.
The week the cartoon started, we were going on vacation and I begged my parents to go a week earlier. No dice of course, and I missed the first five episodes, but I went from being barely able to get out of bed in time for school at 8:00 every day to being up promptly at 5:00 AM every day. The cartoon was on at 6:00 where I lived, and I have to be ready for school before I could watch any TV. I instantly started saving up money for a Gameboy, and convinced my brother to do the same so that we could get both the Red and Blue versions when they came out a few months later and begin trading. I hounded toy stores looking for Pokemon cards. I had had little obsessions before, but this was the first time I was really in the fandom for something.
And when Pokemon hit, it was really huge. It's tempting to just say "you remember" but kids born in the year 2000, when the Pokemon wave was starting to crest will be Freshman in high school this year, so perhaps some explanation is in order. It was easily the biggest fad in the 90s, other then perhaps Power Rangers, I was too young too really judge that one, but it was one of the first things to really get what could be done with multi-media. Star Wars had tried similar things, but never to this extent, and Pokemon had a huge advantage. The franchise had been going on for 2 years in Japan, there were 2 years of Comics, TV, Videogames, Trading Cards and Toys just needing a little localization. Imagine Justin Beiber and Twilight as they are today, only good. And literally having a little piece of everything kids liked.
And I stand by Pokemon being good. I recently watched some old episodes of Power Rangers, and they don't hold up at all, there was no effort put into the stories, the fight scenes were pretty good, but half of them were imported. Pokemon on the other hand, touches something fundamental. A few things really, one of the biggest things about it for me as a kid was a single minor line that I think was only in the anime. When kids turned 10 years old, they could obtain their Pokemon license and go on and adventure. I was 9 years old when Pokemon came out, and really a Pokemon adventure is all a kid could want. Independence, self reliance and adventure all abound, and 10 is about when kids start to tire of their parents and feel they could do better on their own. At the same time, Pokemon both represent friends, something every 10 year old wants more of, and pets, a responsibility that many kids try to prove themselves with. At the same time, the large amount appeals greatly to those of us who like to collect things, and adding fantastical elements to already existing animals and myths means pretty much everyone has a base line to compare this fantasy world to. Not to mention, while Pokemon design has faltered a bit recently, every generation has both really cool and really cute Pokemon, and Mewtwo and Charizard are just as iconic today as they always were.
So... I failed pretty hard core at not just making this post a love letter to Pokemon. Hopefully it makes a good companion piece to my next series article detailing what I love so much about the Pokemon videogames specifically. Next month, I'll try to go through my life after Pokemon, at least as far as videogames are concerned, and talk about the titles that have affected me from the post Nintendo 64 consoles. Try being the key word, this column is supposed to be about why I have connections with specific games, so something may well side track me. That said, Pokemon is still the only fantasy world that I still honestly wish was real.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Episode 15: Ghosts, Goblins, and Another Plural Noun, Oh My [Ghosts 'n Goblins]
Zombies are everywhere, and it's not a good thing. Ghosts n' Goblins assaults you with undead
on every side, and only you can save your necrophiliac girlfriend while
in your boxers! Come give us a listen as we hurl the javelins, torches, and shields of justice at an arcade classic that truly deserves the description of Nintendo Hard!
Download yourself out of your underwear and into our hearts!
(01:40) What we've been playing and why subjective taste is terrible for criticism. Doesn't stop us, though! Front Mission is a game about giant robots taking turns firing at each other and also their pilots.
(06:40) Steam box and its extant competitors.
(15:00) Talking about motion controls. I totally lied about the GBC having an accelerometer; it was just one Kirby game that had it built into the cartridge.
(16:00) Tutorial levels! When they're done well, and when they're done poorly.
(19:00) Speaking of tutorials, Mega Man X. Go watch the Egoraptor Sequelitis on Mega Man!
(20:30) Should tutorials be optional, or completely integrated. Limbo has a pretty awesome integrated tutorial. We talk about Killswitch being awful about this, but upon watching the first few minutes, it's not that bad. I think that game may have had a plot.
(24:20) We actually get to the game. It just dumps you right in, doesn't it? The controls aren't as tight as other games of this ilk.
(28:20) Fighting the devil in your underwear!
(31:45) While I generally don't condone the Irate Gamer, the pre-level pan will become a familiar site.
(33:30) We again come back to the difference between challenge and frustration.
(37:00) Check points rock!
(40:30) The game Tyler's talking about is the Universe Project.
(42:10) Dream sequences: terrible idea, lame excuse, or potentially awesome?
Next week, we're actually not doing Excitebike yet. Zach was (is?) sick, so Geremy and I actually record an episode on Mega Man! Now you can all be caught up on our legacy! Mostly...
Thankfully, we've got the Man Man power at
Download yourself out of your underwear and into our hearts!
(01:40) What we've been playing and why subjective taste is terrible for criticism. Doesn't stop us, though! Front Mission is a game about giant robots taking turns firing at each other and also their pilots.
(06:40) Steam box and its extant competitors.
(15:00) Talking about motion controls. I totally lied about the GBC having an accelerometer; it was just one Kirby game that had it built into the cartridge.
(16:00) Tutorial levels! When they're done well, and when they're done poorly.
(19:00) Speaking of tutorials, Mega Man X. Go watch the Egoraptor Sequelitis on Mega Man!
(20:30) Should tutorials be optional, or completely integrated. Limbo has a pretty awesome integrated tutorial. We talk about Killswitch being awful about this, but upon watching the first few minutes, it's not that bad. I think that game may have had a plot.
(24:20) We actually get to the game. It just dumps you right in, doesn't it? The controls aren't as tight as other games of this ilk.
(28:20) Fighting the devil in your underwear!
(31:45) While I generally don't condone the Irate Gamer, the pre-level pan will become a familiar site.
(33:30) We again come back to the difference between challenge and frustration.
(37:00) Check points rock!
(40:30) The game Tyler's talking about is the Universe Project.
(42:10) Dream sequences: terrible idea, lame excuse, or potentially awesome?
Next week, we're actually not doing Excitebike yet. Zach was (is?) sick, so Geremy and I actually record an episode on Mega Man! Now you can all be caught up on our legacy! Mostly...
Thankfully, we've got the Man Man power at
Geremy@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Categories:
Capcom,
Episodes,
Geremy,
Nintendo Entertainment System,
Platformer,
Tyler,
Zach
No comments:
No comments:
Zach's Griping Again: A Social Issue
Social networks are a fact of our lives now, from Facebook to Google+, so we are almost always connected to everyone in our lives. Video games have started to get connected to these and seeing as how many of them are social experiences it makes a certain amount of sense. So this connection between the social nature of humans and video games is a natural element right? Well I believe it depends. Insert a quarter to continue.
So I'm going to assume my quarter is in the mail. Video games are a social experience in large part. Rather obviously in one way that can happen is through a few friends chatting about a mutual experience with a video game. Another way we get video games as a social experience is when we play them together. Finally and the most irritating social specter that hovers over video games are the so-called "social" games in one of the more redundant names in the world.
First off, the talking point. A lot of companies have branched into this by creating methods to share things, a good example of this is the Dirt 3 link to your youtube account. I don't know if the sequel kept it but I would imagine that it kept the feature. It allowed you to post things that you were proud of in order to run bragging rights on the internets. This allows single player games to contribute. I mean hells look at our Podcast, for the most part we're just doing what we do anyways; talking about video games. Some games really encourage this type of discussion to determine what exactly was going on. I played, and beat, Bayonetta and I wish that I'd had someone to talk to about what in hells was going on in that story. Talking about it can help alleviate frustration with games so that you can get that other people are having the same kind of struggles with a given point. I mean the other person doesn't even need to have played a game to allow you to talk about it. Tyler once saw me trying to beat a boss in Record of Agarest War and get wiped out. Long strings of expletives followed and I talked at Tyler for the most part but it helps to talk this kind of thing out. And I think we mentioned this on the podcast, some games come down to talking about the glitches, this is mainly the Elder Scrolls games where the procedural gameplay creates all sorts of minor bugs that creep in and create those kind of funny moments. So now moving along we get to actual social gameplay.
Playing them together. Well with some games this is technically not an option but as Geremy mentioned on the podcast, before I joined, when I played the first Portal I did so with both Geremy and my brother helping work through each one of the puzzles. Rather obviously thought when someone thinks about playing a game with someone else usually they are referring to playing it at the same time either against or cooperatively with that person. Now both of those have different connotations, take me for example. I have no problem with going head to head with people, in fact I enjoy doing so. However I will only play co-op when I'm playing with a person I know. The reasoning here is simple: when working toward a common end I want to know that I can count on the person I'm playing with to help me, also with a co-op game I play more for fun. It certainly doesn't hurt that many of these co-op games are shooters, which as we have stated I'm fair at. When you get into the competitive aspect things become more about winning. I'll admit it when I'm playing a game I like to win, enough said. Because of this desire to win I get much more into a game that I'm playing against the other two hosts and take things much more seriously. Thankfully the other hosts, and a few other people, have taken my obsessive drive to win as red and I don't catch that much crap for it anymore. However back to my point here, a competitive game also has a competitive drive, as Tyler said he likes competition and to prove that he is better, he isn't, but that is the point of competition. Rather obviously this all ratchets back to my first point about talking about games and using a collective experience to hang out with people who you occasionally want to make sure you keep around to help you move later in life.
The last social gaming deal is more of a nuisance in my opinion. This particular one is where the game makers, either the devs or the publishers, force social interactions as part of the mechanics of the game. This is mainly in the so called "social" games that we see on Facebook and the like. The issue here is that it is creating an element that is forcing people to at least make an appearance of socializing. This wouldn't be a problem if the games held back certain elements of progress from you unless you have a certain number of friends that play the game. For some people, like me, who are not as likely to go hunting for someone to play a game this leads to a brick wall against which I am no longer allowed to advance. The funny thing about this is while it claims to be a social aspect it really isn't. The social aspects of games that people truly remember are the strange moments that happen through gameplay, learn to look behind you Tyler, or the common experience of playing a god-awful game. This progress block unless you have a certain number of people playing with you is awkward and annoying if you are the only one of your friends who enjoys playing these games. I blame the aspect of Facebook that lets people add hundreds of people whom they will never actually meet to their feed. This goes back to my previous post, about the microtransactions or sponsorships. They want more people to play the game, not because they think the game is something that someone would enjoy but because it can make them more money which I think defeats the main purpose of playing a game. Only being a game player I don't quite get it but I would expect, as a creative mind, that the main reward for a developer is just that someone is playing the game. Granted though the people paying the dev may not agree.
Well that's it for this one so I'll let all of you go until I think up something else to go on about.
So I'm going to assume my quarter is in the mail. Video games are a social experience in large part. Rather obviously in one way that can happen is through a few friends chatting about a mutual experience with a video game. Another way we get video games as a social experience is when we play them together. Finally and the most irritating social specter that hovers over video games are the so-called "social" games in one of the more redundant names in the world.
First off, the talking point. A lot of companies have branched into this by creating methods to share things, a good example of this is the Dirt 3 link to your youtube account. I don't know if the sequel kept it but I would imagine that it kept the feature. It allowed you to post things that you were proud of in order to run bragging rights on the internets. This allows single player games to contribute. I mean hells look at our Podcast, for the most part we're just doing what we do anyways; talking about video games. Some games really encourage this type of discussion to determine what exactly was going on. I played, and beat, Bayonetta and I wish that I'd had someone to talk to about what in hells was going on in that story. Talking about it can help alleviate frustration with games so that you can get that other people are having the same kind of struggles with a given point. I mean the other person doesn't even need to have played a game to allow you to talk about it. Tyler once saw me trying to beat a boss in Record of Agarest War and get wiped out. Long strings of expletives followed and I talked at Tyler for the most part but it helps to talk this kind of thing out. And I think we mentioned this on the podcast, some games come down to talking about the glitches, this is mainly the Elder Scrolls games where the procedural gameplay creates all sorts of minor bugs that creep in and create those kind of funny moments. So now moving along we get to actual social gameplay.
Playing them together. Well with some games this is technically not an option but as Geremy mentioned on the podcast, before I joined, when I played the first Portal I did so with both Geremy and my brother helping work through each one of the puzzles. Rather obviously thought when someone thinks about playing a game with someone else usually they are referring to playing it at the same time either against or cooperatively with that person. Now both of those have different connotations, take me for example. I have no problem with going head to head with people, in fact I enjoy doing so. However I will only play co-op when I'm playing with a person I know. The reasoning here is simple: when working toward a common end I want to know that I can count on the person I'm playing with to help me, also with a co-op game I play more for fun. It certainly doesn't hurt that many of these co-op games are shooters, which as we have stated I'm fair at. When you get into the competitive aspect things become more about winning. I'll admit it when I'm playing a game I like to win, enough said. Because of this desire to win I get much more into a game that I'm playing against the other two hosts and take things much more seriously. Thankfully the other hosts, and a few other people, have taken my obsessive drive to win as red and I don't catch that much crap for it anymore. However back to my point here, a competitive game also has a competitive drive, as Tyler said he likes competition and to prove that he is better, he isn't, but that is the point of competition. Rather obviously this all ratchets back to my first point about talking about games and using a collective experience to hang out with people who you occasionally want to make sure you keep around to help you move later in life.
The last social gaming deal is more of a nuisance in my opinion. This particular one is where the game makers, either the devs or the publishers, force social interactions as part of the mechanics of the game. This is mainly in the so called "social" games that we see on Facebook and the like. The issue here is that it is creating an element that is forcing people to at least make an appearance of socializing. This wouldn't be a problem if the games held back certain elements of progress from you unless you have a certain number of friends that play the game. For some people, like me, who are not as likely to go hunting for someone to play a game this leads to a brick wall against which I am no longer allowed to advance. The funny thing about this is while it claims to be a social aspect it really isn't. The social aspects of games that people truly remember are the strange moments that happen through gameplay, learn to look behind you Tyler, or the common experience of playing a god-awful game. This progress block unless you have a certain number of people playing with you is awkward and annoying if you are the only one of your friends who enjoys playing these games. I blame the aspect of Facebook that lets people add hundreds of people whom they will never actually meet to their feed. This goes back to my previous post, about the microtransactions or sponsorships. They want more people to play the game, not because they think the game is something that someone would enjoy but because it can make them more money which I think defeats the main purpose of playing a game. Only being a game player I don't quite get it but I would expect, as a creative mind, that the main reward for a developer is just that someone is playing the game. Granted though the people paying the dev may not agree.
Well that's it for this one so I'll let all of you go until I think up something else to go on about.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Last Rant on Videogames: Objectionable Practices
It seems inconceivable to me that anyone who plays videogames with some regularity hasn't heard of the Phoenix Wright series by now, but every day someone learns something new.
I fell in love with the first game in this series after the first 15 minutes. In a vaguely dystopian future, you take on the role of a lawyer in a legal system where someone decided bureaucracy and due process were terrible ideas. Apparently, because the cost of legal proceedings became so exorbitant, all trials have 3 day limits. Also, it's based more on the Japanese legal system than the American flavor, so there's a lot more arbitration by the judge. By a lot more, I mean it's all that. There's no jury.
Phoenix Wright is a young attorney just cutting his teeth. Not to long into the game, for potentially spoilerriffic reasons, he's left on his own to run the firm he was a part of. With the help of his mentor and her younger psychic sister, you must gather evidence and fight to prove innocence of your client at all costs. There's plenty of melodrama and crazy plot twists, all wrapped up in a logic and puzzle oriented package. The whole presentation is tremendously enjoyable and gets to be fairly challenging in later chapters. Each subsequent game follows the same formula with a continuous story. Nods to continuity make the sequels fairly enjoyable, and the cases are usually quite interesting.
Nothing beats the feeling of being on a roll in court. Really, quick, here's a breakdown of the mechanics. The game alternates between the "evidence gathering" mode and the "courtroom craziness" mode. Generally, you start each chapter in the first mode. You go around, talk to people, and poke about various scenes for clues. The actual movement is done via a menu system, essentially just presenting the player with a series of scenes to interact with. At any point, a scene may be occupied by a character with a list of conversation topics. Additionally, you can use your stylus on the DS versions, or just move the cursor with the D-pad on the GBA versions, to look for evidence around the scene. At various points, you may need to present that evidence to get someone to talk. After you've gathered all that you can, Phoenix takes over and declares that he's done for the day. In the later games, your psychic sidekick's adorable niece gives you a family heirloom that lets you tell when people are lying or otherwise withholding information, so you can be assured that Mr. Wright always has a trustworthy client. Dodged a bullet there.
When you get to court, you listen to witness testimony, cross-examine, and present evidence that contradicts the their statements. At some points, you start positing scenarios, and fire out 6 or 7 steps in a logical chain of events in a row, all with wonderfully dramatic background music pumping up your enthusiasm for lawyering. Your rival lawyers are pretty camp, and have fairly complex characters that are revealed over the course of battling them in the courtroom. After a day in court, you usually have to go sleuthing again to find something that will help finalize your case against the opposition.
The meat of this game is presenting an interesting narrative while giving the player enough clues to logically deduce the next series of events. There's always some room for error, so you can take a couple stabs at the more convoluted events. Additionally, the game allows you to save at basically every point where you have control of advancing the text, so you can always get through a day in court without any missteps. The actual gameplay focuses on logical puzzle solving, and it's quite a thrill to see the pieces fall into place.
If you've never played these games, you can get them on the Wii VC, the GBA, or the DS. Zany stories and lovable characters populate a world of insane lawyer battle. If that sounds at all interesting, I highly recommend you give Phoenix Wright a try.
I fell in love with the first game in this series after the first 15 minutes. In a vaguely dystopian future, you take on the role of a lawyer in a legal system where someone decided bureaucracy and due process were terrible ideas. Apparently, because the cost of legal proceedings became so exorbitant, all trials have 3 day limits. Also, it's based more on the Japanese legal system than the American flavor, so there's a lot more arbitration by the judge. By a lot more, I mean it's all that. There's no jury.
Phoenix Wright is a young attorney just cutting his teeth. Not to long into the game, for potentially spoilerriffic reasons, he's left on his own to run the firm he was a part of. With the help of his mentor and her younger psychic sister, you must gather evidence and fight to prove innocence of your client at all costs. There's plenty of melodrama and crazy plot twists, all wrapped up in a logic and puzzle oriented package. The whole presentation is tremendously enjoyable and gets to be fairly challenging in later chapters. Each subsequent game follows the same formula with a continuous story. Nods to continuity make the sequels fairly enjoyable, and the cases are usually quite interesting.
Nothing beats the feeling of being on a roll in court. Really, quick, here's a breakdown of the mechanics. The game alternates between the "evidence gathering" mode and the "courtroom craziness" mode. Generally, you start each chapter in the first mode. You go around, talk to people, and poke about various scenes for clues. The actual movement is done via a menu system, essentially just presenting the player with a series of scenes to interact with. At any point, a scene may be occupied by a character with a list of conversation topics. Additionally, you can use your stylus on the DS versions, or just move the cursor with the D-pad on the GBA versions, to look for evidence around the scene. At various points, you may need to present that evidence to get someone to talk. After you've gathered all that you can, Phoenix takes over and declares that he's done for the day. In the later games, your psychic sidekick's adorable niece gives you a family heirloom that lets you tell when people are lying or otherwise withholding information, so you can be assured that Mr. Wright always has a trustworthy client. Dodged a bullet there.
When you get to court, you listen to witness testimony, cross-examine, and present evidence that contradicts the their statements. At some points, you start positing scenarios, and fire out 6 or 7 steps in a logical chain of events in a row, all with wonderfully dramatic background music pumping up your enthusiasm for lawyering. Your rival lawyers are pretty camp, and have fairly complex characters that are revealed over the course of battling them in the courtroom. After a day in court, you usually have to go sleuthing again to find something that will help finalize your case against the opposition.
The meat of this game is presenting an interesting narrative while giving the player enough clues to logically deduce the next series of events. There's always some room for error, so you can take a couple stabs at the more convoluted events. Additionally, the game allows you to save at basically every point where you have control of advancing the text, so you can always get through a day in court without any missteps. The actual gameplay focuses on logical puzzle solving, and it's quite a thrill to see the pieces fall into place.
If you've never played these games, you can get them on the Wii VC, the GBA, or the DS. Zany stories and lovable characters populate a world of insane lawyer battle. If that sounds at all interesting, I highly recommend you give Phoenix Wright a try.
Friday, May 17, 2013
The Table Top: Videogames Vs. Table Top Games
Warning, this post has links to TVTropes. You have been warned.
When Microsoft released their Xbox, and afterwards the Xbox 360, they had a very wise look at marketing. They weren't looking to compete with Nintendo and Sony, the other major consoles, they were looking to compete with entertainment. Movies, books, television, anything you could spend free time and money on, Microsoft saw as competition. This strategy obviously worked brilliantly for them, as they've defeated both Nintendo and Sony, and in many ways removed the idea of exclusive titles from the minds of video game players. This article isn't about that though, rather, it's about the basic differences between the fun of Table Top RPGs and videogames, as I see them anyway.
As I said in my last article, Table Top games and my interest in them spilled out of my interest in videogames, in a rather indirect way but if I'd never had that NES, I don't think I'd ever make the jump to being a Dungeon Master. And when we were younger, table top games were just seen as another thing we could be doing. When we got a new videogame, whatever table top game we were playing, be it Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons or even Dragon Ball Z took a back seat while we devoured the new thing. We always came back to Table Top RPGs though, even when new videogames would eventually become old news. Often we felt a need to restart with new characters, but we always went back. There was something in those games you just couldn't find in videogames.
Back in the days of the N64 and prior, I might have said one of these elements was imagination. Graphics were quite limited, while the Nintendo 64 looked amazing at the time, going back to it, it can be hard to remember how that was ever acceptable, let along considered cutting edge. A Table Top game however, is mostly pictured through imagination. This is supplemented by various bits of art, and novel like descriptions from the game master and players, but as the old cliche goes, the power of the imagination is unlimited. However, we didn't really start playing Dungeons and Dragons until the Game Cube and Play Station 2 had cozy spots in our homes, so it was something more then that.
One of the hardest things about teaching people coming into the RPG hobby is one of the first questions they ask. "What can I do?" It seems simple and easy, but the answer is "Anything". "Anything... like can I flap my arms and fly away?" Usually the answer to that is no, it depends on the world you're in. The more qualified answer is that you can "try" anything, and it's up to a third party, either the Game Master or the dice, to determine if you succeed. Timid personalities will let other people in the game dictate what they do. They might here "you're the fighter, you just hit things." While the person saying it means well, they're trying to express that hitting things is what they're good at, many players will hear this, and think like a videogame. Their creativity will shut off, and they'll treat it like a game with only an attack button.
But that ability to do literally anything is one of Table Top gaming's greatest strengths over videogames. New GMs are often flustered by the way that their players will prod at their worlds. Trying to find places where things will break, killing the big bad when he's supposed to just be taunting them or giving them exposition or trying to convince one of the big powerful NPCs to deal with a problem so the players don't have to are just the most common examples. And while these are irritating, especially when they're done just for the sake of breaking the game, they can end up making it much better.
In fact, I've of the opinion that the pervasiveness of video games into pop culture have probably harmed the Table Top gaming scene, especially for new players. There's a lot of overlap in the hobbies, they both cater to power fantasy enthusiasts, and both put you in direct control of the "hero". However, videogames require very strict rules, after all, the entire world is defined by them. Table Top games can be a little more loose, it might make a better story if you're able to talk down or team up with the villain instead of having to kill him for example. Most videogames won't allow this option, even more open RPGs like Mass Effect can only bend the story so far. Saren has to die at the end, you can influence how that goes down and what his final moments are like, but you can't save him and join his crew, nor can you decide to help the Reapers for the next part. That's fine for a videogame there are only so many branching choices a game can offer, but it can put Table Top players in a mindset that they have to go to the villains base, kill his minions, then kill him and it makes any other outcome seem like a failure state.
Speaking of Mass Effect, as videogames have gotten more and more complex, with better and better graphics, one of the main advantages that Table Top games are thought to have now is the ability to tailor a story to a group. Part of this is that the Game Master, who has the most control over the direction of the story, has instant feed back from the rest of the group. He can see the eyes rolling, or hear the players making fun of his tropes, and if he's savvy, turn them around. Imagine if mid way through Mass Effect 3, the game suddenly realized that you were tired of all the fetch quests, or that you thought the Star Child plot was dumb, or what you really wanted was another villain like Saren, and it was able to turn around and give that to you. The new ending Bioware released was seen as pandering, but in a Table Top RPG you can change things around before the players even realized anything changed at all.
Episodic gaming, which seems to have more downsides then upsides these days, may be a way to start to fix this. Unfortunately, Mass Effect, while not episodic, was presented in three segments, and my opinion, as well as most of the opinions I've heard believe that each installment was a little bit worse than the last. The first introduced a new, unique science fiction world that included bits of Star Trek, Star Wars and Buck Roger without feeling too much like any of them. It introduced an interesting political system, a great Bioware villain and while the twist wasn't the best the company has ever given us, it set up and dangerous new threat to deal with in future installments. It was both a perfect contained story and it got you excited for the next episode.
The second episodes tried something new. The focus was on the characters, and while two of the old crew returned, they mostly focused on a new cast. This was rather hit and miss, most people found Miranda caustic, and Jacob boring, but all of the characters were "strong" in their way, and it all built up to a very novel, and in my mind very exciting ending. A suicide mission, where depending on how loyal your crew was and what duties they were assigned, some would likely not come back. Unfortunately, the main "plot" is absolutely terrible, and it will often interrupt your bonding experiences with the crew due to its "urgency". It's a rant for another time though. I'll admit, I never actually played Mass Effect 3, but everything I heard was that they threw the best parts of 2 out like they almost never happened, kept the terrible "villain" and had a poor ending. Rather then listen to their audience (or the portion that agreed with me that the characters were strong but the story weak) they went ahead with their story and... well they lost at least one customer in me.
As a Game Master, I'd like to say that I'd never let a group of players experience Mass Effect 3 if their reactions to 2 were cold, and that I'd for sure change the ending if it got the reaction most people gave it. That said... sometimes you just want to try and make a story work, you think it'll be good in the end, and over-commit, and no one likes the game. That's what happened with Mass Effect. Hopefully, more episode based games like the Walking Dead coming out in the future will take story feed back as seriously as game play feed back, and videogames can start to become a great interactive story telling medium just like table top games.
When Microsoft released their Xbox, and afterwards the Xbox 360, they had a very wise look at marketing. They weren't looking to compete with Nintendo and Sony, the other major consoles, they were looking to compete with entertainment. Movies, books, television, anything you could spend free time and money on, Microsoft saw as competition. This strategy obviously worked brilliantly for them, as they've defeated both Nintendo and Sony, and in many ways removed the idea of exclusive titles from the minds of video game players. This article isn't about that though, rather, it's about the basic differences between the fun of Table Top RPGs and videogames, as I see them anyway.
As I said in my last article, Table Top games and my interest in them spilled out of my interest in videogames, in a rather indirect way but if I'd never had that NES, I don't think I'd ever make the jump to being a Dungeon Master. And when we were younger, table top games were just seen as another thing we could be doing. When we got a new videogame, whatever table top game we were playing, be it Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons or even Dragon Ball Z took a back seat while we devoured the new thing. We always came back to Table Top RPGs though, even when new videogames would eventually become old news. Often we felt a need to restart with new characters, but we always went back. There was something in those games you just couldn't find in videogames.
Back in the days of the N64 and prior, I might have said one of these elements was imagination. Graphics were quite limited, while the Nintendo 64 looked amazing at the time, going back to it, it can be hard to remember how that was ever acceptable, let along considered cutting edge. A Table Top game however, is mostly pictured through imagination. This is supplemented by various bits of art, and novel like descriptions from the game master and players, but as the old cliche goes, the power of the imagination is unlimited. However, we didn't really start playing Dungeons and Dragons until the Game Cube and Play Station 2 had cozy spots in our homes, so it was something more then that.
One of the hardest things about teaching people coming into the RPG hobby is one of the first questions they ask. "What can I do?" It seems simple and easy, but the answer is "Anything". "Anything... like can I flap my arms and fly away?" Usually the answer to that is no, it depends on the world you're in. The more qualified answer is that you can "try" anything, and it's up to a third party, either the Game Master or the dice, to determine if you succeed. Timid personalities will let other people in the game dictate what they do. They might here "you're the fighter, you just hit things." While the person saying it means well, they're trying to express that hitting things is what they're good at, many players will hear this, and think like a videogame. Their creativity will shut off, and they'll treat it like a game with only an attack button.
But that ability to do literally anything is one of Table Top gaming's greatest strengths over videogames. New GMs are often flustered by the way that their players will prod at their worlds. Trying to find places where things will break, killing the big bad when he's supposed to just be taunting them or giving them exposition or trying to convince one of the big powerful NPCs to deal with a problem so the players don't have to are just the most common examples. And while these are irritating, especially when they're done just for the sake of breaking the game, they can end up making it much better.
In fact, I've of the opinion that the pervasiveness of video games into pop culture have probably harmed the Table Top gaming scene, especially for new players. There's a lot of overlap in the hobbies, they both cater to power fantasy enthusiasts, and both put you in direct control of the "hero". However, videogames require very strict rules, after all, the entire world is defined by them. Table Top games can be a little more loose, it might make a better story if you're able to talk down or team up with the villain instead of having to kill him for example. Most videogames won't allow this option, even more open RPGs like Mass Effect can only bend the story so far. Saren has to die at the end, you can influence how that goes down and what his final moments are like, but you can't save him and join his crew, nor can you decide to help the Reapers for the next part. That's fine for a videogame there are only so many branching choices a game can offer, but it can put Table Top players in a mindset that they have to go to the villains base, kill his minions, then kill him and it makes any other outcome seem like a failure state.
Speaking of Mass Effect, as videogames have gotten more and more complex, with better and better graphics, one of the main advantages that Table Top games are thought to have now is the ability to tailor a story to a group. Part of this is that the Game Master, who has the most control over the direction of the story, has instant feed back from the rest of the group. He can see the eyes rolling, or hear the players making fun of his tropes, and if he's savvy, turn them around. Imagine if mid way through Mass Effect 3, the game suddenly realized that you were tired of all the fetch quests, or that you thought the Star Child plot was dumb, or what you really wanted was another villain like Saren, and it was able to turn around and give that to you. The new ending Bioware released was seen as pandering, but in a Table Top RPG you can change things around before the players even realized anything changed at all.
Episodic gaming, which seems to have more downsides then upsides these days, may be a way to start to fix this. Unfortunately, Mass Effect, while not episodic, was presented in three segments, and my opinion, as well as most of the opinions I've heard believe that each installment was a little bit worse than the last. The first introduced a new, unique science fiction world that included bits of Star Trek, Star Wars and Buck Roger without feeling too much like any of them. It introduced an interesting political system, a great Bioware villain and while the twist wasn't the best the company has ever given us, it set up and dangerous new threat to deal with in future installments. It was both a perfect contained story and it got you excited for the next episode.
The second episodes tried something new. The focus was on the characters, and while two of the old crew returned, they mostly focused on a new cast. This was rather hit and miss, most people found Miranda caustic, and Jacob boring, but all of the characters were "strong" in their way, and it all built up to a very novel, and in my mind very exciting ending. A suicide mission, where depending on how loyal your crew was and what duties they were assigned, some would likely not come back. Unfortunately, the main "plot" is absolutely terrible, and it will often interrupt your bonding experiences with the crew due to its "urgency". It's a rant for another time though. I'll admit, I never actually played Mass Effect 3, but everything I heard was that they threw the best parts of 2 out like they almost never happened, kept the terrible "villain" and had a poor ending. Rather then listen to their audience (or the portion that agreed with me that the characters were strong but the story weak) they went ahead with their story and... well they lost at least one customer in me.
As a Game Master, I'd like to say that I'd never let a group of players experience Mass Effect 3 if their reactions to 2 were cold, and that I'd for sure change the ending if it got the reaction most people gave it. That said... sometimes you just want to try and make a story work, you think it'll be good in the end, and over-commit, and no one likes the game. That's what happened with Mass Effect. Hopefully, more episode based games like the Walking Dead coming out in the future will take story feed back as seriously as game play feed back, and videogames can start to become a great interactive story telling medium just like table top games.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Episode 14: Hell Needs a New HR Department [Doom]
Mars is red not due to its mineral composition, but due to the massive amount of demon blood you've spilled there! Someone ought to clean that up... This week, upon Zach's suggestion, we topple a demon dominated Deimos and take the fight right back to them! There are biomechanical chaingun demons, bull demons, fireball demons, demon possessed soldiers, and... more demons. There are a lot of them. Good thing you have a lot of guns.
If you want to download, you're Doomed to have to click this link
(01:00) What we've been playing! Zach's transgressions... On a side note, try an elliptical or stationary bike while gaming!
(06:00) Geremy's gone through some demos from the XBLA. Check out an awesome theme song. Also, a terrible LotR game. Also, Age of Booty! If you're wondering about the comment thread we mentioned, it's on my post on adventure games.
(09:30) Since we're all table top RPG guys, here's some links to Fear the Boot's Dan's Danverse (Epoch of Rysos) and the general site for Skies of Glass.
(12:00) Sabin loves some train...ing.
(15:15) Our first objective and multiplayer FPS games and our feelings on them in general.
(19:20) We finally get to Doom and our first impressions!
(23:30) Zach was right about it being on the PSX. Also, we talk briefly about the differences between all the versions we played.
(27:00) Imagery in Doom. It's actually got a pretty consistent theme and tone, with enemies becoming progressively more organic and the environment becoming more obviously hellish. Also, lots of exploration in this game.
(33:45) Shareware games. We don't see a lot of those any more, but their spirit lives on in demos.
(35:00) Doom helping completionist OCD without arbitrary grades.
Next time, it's Ghosts 'n Goblins! In addition to arcade cabinets and being on the NES, you can find this game in both forms on the Wii Virtual Console. Join us next week for some crazy javelin throwing adventures and princess/girlfriend rescuing!
You have our ax! And lance! And other weapons at
If you want to download, you're Doomed to have to click this link
(01:00) What we've been playing! Zach's transgressions... On a side note, try an elliptical or stationary bike while gaming!
(06:00) Geremy's gone through some demos from the XBLA. Check out an awesome theme song. Also, a terrible LotR game. Also, Age of Booty! If you're wondering about the comment thread we mentioned, it's on my post on adventure games.
(09:30) Since we're all table top RPG guys, here's some links to Fear the Boot's Dan's Danverse (Epoch of Rysos) and the general site for Skies of Glass.
(12:00) Sabin loves some train...ing.
(15:15) Our first objective and multiplayer FPS games and our feelings on them in general.
(19:20) We finally get to Doom and our first impressions!
(23:30) Zach was right about it being on the PSX. Also, we talk briefly about the differences between all the versions we played.
(27:00) Imagery in Doom. It's actually got a pretty consistent theme and tone, with enemies becoming progressively more organic and the environment becoming more obviously hellish. Also, lots of exploration in this game.
(33:45) Shareware games. We don't see a lot of those any more, but their spirit lives on in demos.
(35:00) Doom helping completionist OCD without arbitrary grades.
Next time, it's Ghosts 'n Goblins! In addition to arcade cabinets and being on the NES, you can find this game in both forms on the Wii Virtual Console. Join us next week for some crazy javelin throwing adventures and princess/girlfriend rescuing!
You have our ax! And lance! And other weapons at
Geremy@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
The Encroaching Problem
I've noticed that my fellow hosts target triple A game developers for criticism rather often in their posts. Now I believe they're completely valid but there is a bigger problem that is beginning to encroach on gaming. While I would love to say that the most troubling thing being played by gamers is the Wii U or Wii. Comment on how I'm wrong, I know someone will, but it really isn't. Devs might be having a hard time programming for those I don't know. But that's another rant for another time. No the most troubling thing that I see in gaming is the use of microtransactions. The use of these insidious little turds is an irritating one. Yet game companies, especially on casual games, will use them to milk their customers for egregious amounts of money, this is made worse by kids that don't understand that they're actually paying real money to game companies for some of these things. Which I can't help but think is the goal after all a company wants to make money and if they're getting someone to pay for something without realizing it that's great. So I'm going to run down the major ways that devs are creating certain "Free" games.
Rather obviously a free game still has people who developed it and would like to be paid but since their product is available for nothing they have limited options, one of these is to make the game full of advertisements, ala Angry Birds. Which doesn't bother me, hell some triple A games are guilty of this I'm looking at you Madden 13. Another way that a company can get money is through the use of a Freemium model. Ala Tibia, which was a MMORPG that me and the other hosts used to play, 200 LTOVG points to the first one who guesses why I stopped playing that game! This model, in brief, is a free game that also has a subscription pay plan that a person can pay for additional content. But the worst one is the one that works through massive amounts of microtransactions. Which I explained up top. So let's move into them in depth shall we?
Well the use of advertising. This isn't really a big deal I mean in our society we see this all over the place. From movies where everyone drives a Toyota, or at least the main character does and they make sure you know it, to books where the main character drinks only coke. Sometimes they can get annoying as with my Madden example up above where the announcers are constantly mentioning the product placement things, which follows the theme. Watch any sports broadcast and that's what they do. The only realm of issue with this one is that many of the product placement is more prevalent with the Angry Birds example where they actually run an advertisement while you are playing the game. Most other examples in this area are Triple A games that, very likely, had to pay the owner to show something. Most games that sit in this area are driving games where they have to have a large number of real vehicles for their audience to pick from. And those companies make money from the game and the people who decide they want one from driving it in the game. Probably very few but I wouldn't discount it as a possibility.
Next up is the Freemium model. Admittedly I haven't seen this used that often. The games that characterize this are mostly MMOs that went free to play. However even many of those fall under the third category. The best example is the game Tibia that I mentioned above. It was a top down MMO that even if you didn't pay for it you could play and access most of the content. However if you had a paid subscription you could get upgraded things like access to the premium spells and the island that sold them. While they were powerful abilities nothing said that you had to have them to enjoy the game. I have to admit I think this is the least obtrusive model. Because it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of anyone who just wants to play for free and it enhances the experience of the people who really want to get everything out of the game and are willing to pay for it. It has been a while since I played, again those 200 points are out there, but if I recall correctly the paid players didn't get obvious bonuses like xp boosts, perhaps one or two additional character models and again the island they could go to. I think they could also buy houses but I quit before I had enough gold to buy one anyway so I don't remember. One of the other two hosts might have the answer. Again I like this model because it doesn't browbeat me with ads for things I don't care about or come across as a blatant money grab.
The last major one that I can think of is the microtransaction model and I cannot express my disgust with this model. As Tyler has mentioned on the podcast he doesn't mind if stuff is hidden if it isn't attached to the main game. Well that's my opinion for paid-content. Skins and the like are nice for the people who really like the game and are willing to pay for them but they don't affect game play. In some ways this is really the only thing that a lot of Triple A devs have gotten right. While Live was spammed with downloadable skins for guns and the like in COD Blops 2 none of them did anything to change the game other than show the people who really loved the game. The area where this is a real problem is in the casual games like those found on Facebook. Now I've played a couple of those games and I have found that I enjoy the building type of game. Unfortunately many of those also have content that you either need to put large numbers of hours into the game or else pay for advancement. I don't care if it exists in small doses so that a person can pay for it if they want to advance quicker but creating this sheer wall of a time sink to advance unless you pay up is obnoxious. It comes off as a blatant money grab and it is off-putting. The worst part here is that as I said up top, there are several articles of children not realizing that some of the resources that they can use in the game is real money and make outlandish purchases that their parents later find themselves on the hook for. This type of bait and switch must end. I've said on the podcast that I hate it when devs hide content, either perceived or true, this is taking that to the next level. Now not only do devs hide content they want you to fork over real money in order to get it.
Zach "Hambone"
I only wanted Rainbow Dash damn it!
Monday, May 13, 2013
Last Rant on Videogames: Indie Cred
I think it should be no secret that I love the indie gaming scene. My Steam library has no small number of games that a lot of people have never heard of, which is a shame. It's not a shame due to their being there, but because they really ought to see the light of day. As such, I'm going to talk briefly about why indie games are awesome for everyone and plug a few mildly obscure ones in hopes that someone reading this might play them.
Being an attempted indie game developer myself, I've looked in a fair number of places about how well a decent game might be expected to perform. While my efforts have largely been fruitless, I have found a few useful sources. Primarily, Hitbox, the team behind Dustforce, published their sales figures. So far, this has been the only place I've managed to find anything resembling reliable information about publishing an indie game. The results here are encouraging, though. A team of four people sacrificed almost everything for a year and a half, and made enough money to give themselves, all of them, at least two years to work on a new game.
Published on Steam, the game saw most of its sales after initial release from various indie game packs which Steam makes available fairly regularly. To me, this is an amazing example of capitalism at work. A good product is made and rewarded for it by the consumers, driven mostly by incentive oriented sales. It's a beautiful thing, especially since there's a huge backlash against the heavily mass-produced games we generally get out of the AAA industry.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with that term, the AAA industry refers to the cadre of huge publishers that drive the console game market. Companies like Nintendo, Square-Enix, Ubisoft, EA, and, to some extent, Valve make up this group.
Since the advent of 64-bit hardware and beyond, we've seen a trend in demanding that new releases be as visually stunning as they are mechanically detailed and, in appropriate cases, narratively driven. Unfortunately, the drive for increasingly better graphics, while it has definitely had nice results, also drives up the cost of game development. Whereas you used to need a team of 3 or 4 people to do the art for an entire console launch, at least a dozen are now required, and they're working much harder and for longer to make the assets necessary for the same length of game. Additionally, we're starting to see games that focus on spectacle, the impressive visuals in a game, over actual gameplay or narrative.
A prime example of this for me was FF12, which was gorgeous, but a combination of worthless protagonists and boring gameplay made it impossible for me to slog through. With that series, I've seen a number of arguments that this trend started as far back as FF7, which I'm inclined to agree with. While that particular game didn't hold up well to a recent replaying, it at least had an interesting plot with a number of foreshadowed twists that kept the player engaged. Contrast that with the next entry, FF8, which had a surly main character, interchangeable party members with only barely distinct personalities, and a plot so convoluted and full of hastily buried plot holes that I'm surprised I ever finished it. I've got to mention that I really like FFX, though, so it's not all bad.
I'm sure most everyone reading this has heard of this, but the most recent Tomb Raider game sold incredibly well, better than every previous game in the series combined. It was still a financial failure. This is an excellent example in the problem that the game industry has created for itself. We, the consumers, are not entirely without fault in this, either. Increasing demand for visual masterpieces has driven the cost of development so high that it's incredibly difficult to make a profit on a game that isn't either an old engine or extremely well managed.
This is where indie games come in. They come in a variety of scopes, but these games are generally produced by less than ten person teams. While they don't necessarily do much in the way of realistic 3D graphics, they can still be visual rapture and generally focus much more on actual gameplay and overall aesthetic rather than pure presentation. Braid manages to do everything extremely well, despite its lack of a 3D environment.
A lot of indie games tend to be 2D, though from the perspective of a programmer, there's not a good reason for this other than that the art is hard to obtain. Sure, there's a fair amount of math that goes into determining the player's view, but that's all been done before and is freely available to anyone with an Internet connection. Instead, it's much easier to design a 2D game. Because the cost of producing a game in a small team is so much lower than in the AAA market, new ideas can be tried without the same level of risk.
You know what? It works.
There have been quite a few indie games that manage to incorporate new ideas in interesting manners, and have been commercial successes. Even games that are just tight platformers, like the previously mentioned Dustforce, manage to find their niche and let the developers continue to make more fun for the masses. There's a big surge in indie development, and I don't think it's hard to see why.
Rather than continue to extol the virtues of this type of game development, I'm gonna throw out a list of some indie games I've enjoyed that you might, too.
First up is Guns of Icarus, a short game about defending your blimp-style airship from sky pirates in a post-apocalyptic world with a variety of guns. You run about your decks fending off foes while keeping your ship in repair. Depending on your performance, you get a variety of new artillery to choose from at the end of the level to help you succeed in delivering your goods to a hope starved world. It's a fun experience, though the short narrative between levels represents some of the worst of what indie games are known for. Still, it paints a bleak picture and is rather a lot of fun, so you should check it out!
My next highlight might be familiar to anyone who watches Extra Credits, but the demo might have me sold on it. The game is Pulse. In it, you are blind, but blind in the same way as Toph; you see the world through a sort of echolocation. I should note that this game violates the "indie games are 2D" rule. Certain objects in the environment make noise, allowing you to "see" where the immediate vicinity. Additionally, running gives you a short field of vision around yourself. The environment is populated by adorable little bunny-esque creatures and large bipedal dinosaurs that would love to nom on you. The focus is on survival and progress, though there's a fair bit of exploring to be done if you're brave enough. The Kickstarter ended recently, so this game should be coming out in the nearish future.
The last one I really want to mention, though I haven't played it as much as it deserves, is Flotilla. It's a Rogue-like game in space. For those who don't know, Rogue was a dungeon crawler of sorts featuring permadeath. Also, ASCII art.
Coincidentally, check out ADOM. It has a high learning curve, but it's a lot of fun if you're in the mood to die a lot.
Back to the game I'm ostensibly plugging. The game is Flotilla, a game of random encounters in space. Basically, weird stuff is in the universe, you encounter it, and it's hilarious. Occasionally, you'll have to fight other people with space craft, which is where most of this game's challenge comes from. You have a fleet of customizable ships that you must pit against opponents. Movement takes places in a 3D grid. In turn based combat, every move is decided in advance. You tell your ships where to move and how to orient themselves. At the same time your opponent is doing the same. When both sides are ready, the turn happens and lots of shots are fired. It's really quite enjoyable watching your ships be blown to bits, but it can be a bit frustrating as well. It plays out a bit like a round of combat in Burning Wheel. It's a lot of fun, but takes time to master.
Though I'm done giving specific plugs, I feel I should mention Bastion. It's awesome.
Being an attempted indie game developer myself, I've looked in a fair number of places about how well a decent game might be expected to perform. While my efforts have largely been fruitless, I have found a few useful sources. Primarily, Hitbox, the team behind Dustforce, published their sales figures. So far, this has been the only place I've managed to find anything resembling reliable information about publishing an indie game. The results here are encouraging, though. A team of four people sacrificed almost everything for a year and a half, and made enough money to give themselves, all of them, at least two years to work on a new game.
Published on Steam, the game saw most of its sales after initial release from various indie game packs which Steam makes available fairly regularly. To me, this is an amazing example of capitalism at work. A good product is made and rewarded for it by the consumers, driven mostly by incentive oriented sales. It's a beautiful thing, especially since there's a huge backlash against the heavily mass-produced games we generally get out of the AAA industry.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with that term, the AAA industry refers to the cadre of huge publishers that drive the console game market. Companies like Nintendo, Square-Enix, Ubisoft, EA, and, to some extent, Valve make up this group.
Since the advent of 64-bit hardware and beyond, we've seen a trend in demanding that new releases be as visually stunning as they are mechanically detailed and, in appropriate cases, narratively driven. Unfortunately, the drive for increasingly better graphics, while it has definitely had nice results, also drives up the cost of game development. Whereas you used to need a team of 3 or 4 people to do the art for an entire console launch, at least a dozen are now required, and they're working much harder and for longer to make the assets necessary for the same length of game. Additionally, we're starting to see games that focus on spectacle, the impressive visuals in a game, over actual gameplay or narrative.
A prime example of this for me was FF12, which was gorgeous, but a combination of worthless protagonists and boring gameplay made it impossible for me to slog through. With that series, I've seen a number of arguments that this trend started as far back as FF7, which I'm inclined to agree with. While that particular game didn't hold up well to a recent replaying, it at least had an interesting plot with a number of foreshadowed twists that kept the player engaged. Contrast that with the next entry, FF8, which had a surly main character, interchangeable party members with only barely distinct personalities, and a plot so convoluted and full of hastily buried plot holes that I'm surprised I ever finished it. I've got to mention that I really like FFX, though, so it's not all bad.
I'm sure most everyone reading this has heard of this, but the most recent Tomb Raider game sold incredibly well, better than every previous game in the series combined. It was still a financial failure. This is an excellent example in the problem that the game industry has created for itself. We, the consumers, are not entirely without fault in this, either. Increasing demand for visual masterpieces has driven the cost of development so high that it's incredibly difficult to make a profit on a game that isn't either an old engine or extremely well managed.
This is where indie games come in. They come in a variety of scopes, but these games are generally produced by less than ten person teams. While they don't necessarily do much in the way of realistic 3D graphics, they can still be visual rapture and generally focus much more on actual gameplay and overall aesthetic rather than pure presentation. Braid manages to do everything extremely well, despite its lack of a 3D environment.
A lot of indie games tend to be 2D, though from the perspective of a programmer, there's not a good reason for this other than that the art is hard to obtain. Sure, there's a fair amount of math that goes into determining the player's view, but that's all been done before and is freely available to anyone with an Internet connection. Instead, it's much easier to design a 2D game. Because the cost of producing a game in a small team is so much lower than in the AAA market, new ideas can be tried without the same level of risk.
You know what? It works.
There have been quite a few indie games that manage to incorporate new ideas in interesting manners, and have been commercial successes. Even games that are just tight platformers, like the previously mentioned Dustforce, manage to find their niche and let the developers continue to make more fun for the masses. There's a big surge in indie development, and I don't think it's hard to see why.
Rather than continue to extol the virtues of this type of game development, I'm gonna throw out a list of some indie games I've enjoyed that you might, too.
First up is Guns of Icarus, a short game about defending your blimp-style airship from sky pirates in a post-apocalyptic world with a variety of guns. You run about your decks fending off foes while keeping your ship in repair. Depending on your performance, you get a variety of new artillery to choose from at the end of the level to help you succeed in delivering your goods to a hope starved world. It's a fun experience, though the short narrative between levels represents some of the worst of what indie games are known for. Still, it paints a bleak picture and is rather a lot of fun, so you should check it out!
My next highlight might be familiar to anyone who watches Extra Credits, but the demo might have me sold on it. The game is Pulse. In it, you are blind, but blind in the same way as Toph; you see the world through a sort of echolocation. I should note that this game violates the "indie games are 2D" rule. Certain objects in the environment make noise, allowing you to "see" where the immediate vicinity. Additionally, running gives you a short field of vision around yourself. The environment is populated by adorable little bunny-esque creatures and large bipedal dinosaurs that would love to nom on you. The focus is on survival and progress, though there's a fair bit of exploring to be done if you're brave enough. The Kickstarter ended recently, so this game should be coming out in the nearish future.
The last one I really want to mention, though I haven't played it as much as it deserves, is Flotilla. It's a Rogue-like game in space. For those who don't know, Rogue was a dungeon crawler of sorts featuring permadeath. Also, ASCII art.
Coincidentally, check out ADOM. It has a high learning curve, but it's a lot of fun if you're in the mood to die a lot.
Back to the game I'm ostensibly plugging. The game is Flotilla, a game of random encounters in space. Basically, weird stuff is in the universe, you encounter it, and it's hilarious. Occasionally, you'll have to fight other people with space craft, which is where most of this game's challenge comes from. You have a fleet of customizable ships that you must pit against opponents. Movement takes places in a 3D grid. In turn based combat, every move is decided in advance. You tell your ships where to move and how to orient themselves. At the same time your opponent is doing the same. When both sides are ready, the turn happens and lots of shots are fired. It's really quite enjoyable watching your ships be blown to bits, but it can be a bit frustrating as well. It plays out a bit like a round of combat in Burning Wheel. It's a lot of fun, but takes time to master.
Though I'm done giving specific plugs, I feel I should mention Bastion. It's awesome.
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Series: Sequels
Videogame sequels are ubiquitous in our day and age. Honestly, their ubiquity is almost as old as I am. In my initial video game collection, gained entirely from my aunt in one large chunk, I had Super Mario Bros. 3, GI Joe 2, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II and 2 different Batman games. Three of those admittedly are parts of multimedia franchises. The Batman games weren’t related to each other at all, and both GI Joe and TMNT were sequels made by different companies than the originals, with a much higher level of quality. Higher quality is the key there; sometimes a sequel can far outshine the original, but today they're seen by some as artless cash ins, attempts to remake the same game over and over. So today I ask, why do we have so many sequels, and is this really a bad thing?
Super Mario, to me and I’m sure many other people in the 80s and 90s, and maybe even today, was the video game character. He was the franchise. And when I started playing video games, he already had three games out, with a fourth out quickly after. In the case of Mario, Mega Man and Sonic though, it could be said that companies were trying to take the games and make a multibillion dollar crossmedia franchise. Sonic and Mario both had multiple cartoons, and Mario even had a live action movie it was so popular. There are other advantages to sequels as well though. An audience for the first game is already there, and if they’re loyal, eager for more game to play. It lets programmers take the lessons they learned making the first game, and do a second one better. It lets level designers be a bit more creative, since they have an audience that might forgive them for a few odd ideas. It also might give artists a break, Mega Man didn’t really change in appearance for his first five games, though there were plenty of robot masters and backgrounds to draw.
As technology started to advance though, and more and more videogames flooded the market, standards became higher. Super Mario may have been a trend setter in this regard, Super Mario Bros. 2 was a completely different game than the first one, and 3 really upped the ante with better graphics, new power ups and a map screen that let you see the world and levels to come. Super Mario Bros. 4, released as Super Mario World in North America leveraged the power of the Super Nintendo, and while it didn’t add anything to three that was revolutionary, the revised look combined with all the little things 16 bits could do made the game seem amazing.
Thus games became more spread out. There was only one other “true” Mario game on the Super Nintendo, which featured you playing as Yoshi. Instead, many spin offs were made, including Mario Kart, which was good enough it became a series on its own. The Nintendo 64 had only one real Mario game, and the spin offs dominated, bringing us such great games as Mario Party and Mario Tennis. For a while there, franchises really died down. Final Fantasy got to absurd numbers, and none of them really died, but a lot like Metroid sort of relapsed. This is in part due to 3D, some games like Mario adapted brilliantly, others like Mega Man were good, but lost a lot of core fans, and others like Sonic just couldn’t seem to get it right. Also, 3D graphics are a lot more expensive and time consuming then 2D graphics, which meant that games took longer to develop, and needed to make more money in order to be profitable.
3D sure as hell sold games though. It’s funny, going back to early Nintendo 64 games, the graphics are terrible, to the point where they can be some times hard to play. The first time I went back to play Ocarina of Time after I’d played Game Cube games, I couldn’t believe how poor the graphics were in comparison to my memory of them. “Better graphics” became an easy way to compete though, after all, you didn’t need good ideas for them, just talented artists and time to let them draw pretty things. If Mortal Kombat proved anything, it was that a game's look could sell just fine even if quality game play wasn’t quite there. So as hardware became capable of running better and better looking games, more and more money was spent to make them. At the same time, these games started to get shorter, less game meant less art, which meant the time and money could be spent on making the current art assets better.
The problems with this model are many. For one thing, you’re paying the same amount of money for “less” game. You can argue that the game is more dense, artistically speaking, but whether or not it's more dense game play wise can often vary wildly. Second, you hit a point where you can’t make the game any shorter, and the price to develop the game just keeps going up and up. Since the price of videogames is already very high, you can’t raise that, and have to sell more and more copies in order to make a game profitable. This heavily limits the risks you can take. Which is why we have things like Call of Duty coming out every year. Call of Duty was a popular game, CoD 4 had new and interesting mechanics, a multiplayer mode that was good enough to make it almost infinitely replayable, and word of mouth that made it sell well. Upping the schedule to making one a year was like printing money. Unfortunately, this means there’s more crunch on things, developers don’t have the time to think up new ideas, let alone test them to see if they work. And implementing new things has the risk of scaring off customers, which makes the money not worth it from a business perspective.
Unfortunately, we’re hitting the point where even this is costing too much money. Tomb Raider (2013) sold more copies than any other Tomb Raider game in history. But it didn’t make the money back that was spent on development. The obvious problem here, is why would anyone give a game a budget that was in excess of previous games' total income? But if you think about it a little more, if you don’t give a game more money, how is it supposed to improve? It’s sort of a catch 22, where we can either have safe business models (which get less safe every release) or innovative new games that may not sell even as well as the first.
The obvious exception to this problem is indie games, and while whatever points you have about them are probably right, they’re out of the scope of this article. The ultimate question is, are video game sequels bad? And the answer is, of course not. It’s just easy to slap together an artless sequel to something that’s made a lot of money and rely on the fans to continue supporting it. While I hope every Call of Duty game will result in plummeting sales, the audience that wants more of them is obviously there, just like I’m there every launch day for Zelda and Mario. Is there really a difference? Well, while lots of people complain about Zelda and Mario being the same game over and over again since 1985, I’ve never really seen the fans complaining. Usually, we either are happy with what we get, or complain they’re not enough like older games. I have seen some CoD fans starting to grate at the release schedule though, so maybe?
After all this negativity and doom and gloom speak, I think I need to write something that will make me happy, so next time on The Series, I’ll take on a game franchise that I think I’ve spent more hours in then any other, and can never remember complaining about. Next month, Pokemon.
Super Mario, to me and I’m sure many other people in the 80s and 90s, and maybe even today, was the video game character. He was the franchise. And when I started playing video games, he already had three games out, with a fourth out quickly after. In the case of Mario, Mega Man and Sonic though, it could be said that companies were trying to take the games and make a multibillion dollar crossmedia franchise. Sonic and Mario both had multiple cartoons, and Mario even had a live action movie it was so popular. There are other advantages to sequels as well though. An audience for the first game is already there, and if they’re loyal, eager for more game to play. It lets programmers take the lessons they learned making the first game, and do a second one better. It lets level designers be a bit more creative, since they have an audience that might forgive them for a few odd ideas. It also might give artists a break, Mega Man didn’t really change in appearance for his first five games, though there were plenty of robot masters and backgrounds to draw.
As technology started to advance though, and more and more videogames flooded the market, standards became higher. Super Mario may have been a trend setter in this regard, Super Mario Bros. 2 was a completely different game than the first one, and 3 really upped the ante with better graphics, new power ups and a map screen that let you see the world and levels to come. Super Mario Bros. 4, released as Super Mario World in North America leveraged the power of the Super Nintendo, and while it didn’t add anything to three that was revolutionary, the revised look combined with all the little things 16 bits could do made the game seem amazing.
Thus games became more spread out. There was only one other “true” Mario game on the Super Nintendo, which featured you playing as Yoshi. Instead, many spin offs were made, including Mario Kart, which was good enough it became a series on its own. The Nintendo 64 had only one real Mario game, and the spin offs dominated, bringing us such great games as Mario Party and Mario Tennis. For a while there, franchises really died down. Final Fantasy got to absurd numbers, and none of them really died, but a lot like Metroid sort of relapsed. This is in part due to 3D, some games like Mario adapted brilliantly, others like Mega Man were good, but lost a lot of core fans, and others like Sonic just couldn’t seem to get it right. Also, 3D graphics are a lot more expensive and time consuming then 2D graphics, which meant that games took longer to develop, and needed to make more money in order to be profitable.
3D sure as hell sold games though. It’s funny, going back to early Nintendo 64 games, the graphics are terrible, to the point where they can be some times hard to play. The first time I went back to play Ocarina of Time after I’d played Game Cube games, I couldn’t believe how poor the graphics were in comparison to my memory of them. “Better graphics” became an easy way to compete though, after all, you didn’t need good ideas for them, just talented artists and time to let them draw pretty things. If Mortal Kombat proved anything, it was that a game's look could sell just fine even if quality game play wasn’t quite there. So as hardware became capable of running better and better looking games, more and more money was spent to make them. At the same time, these games started to get shorter, less game meant less art, which meant the time and money could be spent on making the current art assets better.
The problems with this model are many. For one thing, you’re paying the same amount of money for “less” game. You can argue that the game is more dense, artistically speaking, but whether or not it's more dense game play wise can often vary wildly. Second, you hit a point where you can’t make the game any shorter, and the price to develop the game just keeps going up and up. Since the price of videogames is already very high, you can’t raise that, and have to sell more and more copies in order to make a game profitable. This heavily limits the risks you can take. Which is why we have things like Call of Duty coming out every year. Call of Duty was a popular game, CoD 4 had new and interesting mechanics, a multiplayer mode that was good enough to make it almost infinitely replayable, and word of mouth that made it sell well. Upping the schedule to making one a year was like printing money. Unfortunately, this means there’s more crunch on things, developers don’t have the time to think up new ideas, let alone test them to see if they work. And implementing new things has the risk of scaring off customers, which makes the money not worth it from a business perspective.
Unfortunately, we’re hitting the point where even this is costing too much money. Tomb Raider (2013) sold more copies than any other Tomb Raider game in history. But it didn’t make the money back that was spent on development. The obvious problem here, is why would anyone give a game a budget that was in excess of previous games' total income? But if you think about it a little more, if you don’t give a game more money, how is it supposed to improve? It’s sort of a catch 22, where we can either have safe business models (which get less safe every release) or innovative new games that may not sell even as well as the first.
The obvious exception to this problem is indie games, and while whatever points you have about them are probably right, they’re out of the scope of this article. The ultimate question is, are video game sequels bad? And the answer is, of course not. It’s just easy to slap together an artless sequel to something that’s made a lot of money and rely on the fans to continue supporting it. While I hope every Call of Duty game will result in plummeting sales, the audience that wants more of them is obviously there, just like I’m there every launch day for Zelda and Mario. Is there really a difference? Well, while lots of people complain about Zelda and Mario being the same game over and over again since 1985, I’ve never really seen the fans complaining. Usually, we either are happy with what we get, or complain they’re not enough like older games. I have seen some CoD fans starting to grate at the release schedule though, so maybe?
After all this negativity and doom and gloom speak, I think I need to write something that will make me happy, so next time on The Series, I’ll take on a game franchise that I think I’ve spent more hours in then any other, and can never remember complaining about. Next month, Pokemon.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Episode 13: "F" is for Fun, but "Ph" is for Phantasy Star [Phantasy Star]
Apparently this game is revered as a classic. It certainly has classical game aesthetics. Is it truly worthy of that title, though? Hack n' slash your way through the futuristic bugbears of the Internet, and hear what we have to say about it!
Download the future here!
(00:30) That one segment we do where we talk about what we've been playing.
(06:40) Setting goals in games and how this relates to intentional obfuscation in games.
(13:20) We finally start talking about Phantasy Star. In good form, we start with an apology.
(15:30) The plot hook! Also some setting... I guess? It's got good art direction!
(18:20) Combat and how you can't direct attacks.
(21:30) The economy of retries.
(24:45) Plot investment, or lack thereof. This finally loops back around to our obfuscation rambling.
(29:05) Random encounters, outside of combat mechanics. What constitutes grinding as opposed to normal progression.
(32:30) We talk about what's good in this game. It's pretty and a bit snarky.
(37:30) The end of Zach's pledge!
Next week, we're bad enough dudes to shoot space zombie-demons. Doom, the DOS classic, is available on everything, so grab yourself a copy and suit up!
We've got BFGs at
Download the future here!
(00:30) That one segment we do where we talk about what we've been playing.
(06:40) Setting goals in games and how this relates to intentional obfuscation in games.
(13:20) We finally start talking about Phantasy Star. In good form, we start with an apology.
(15:30) The plot hook! Also some setting... I guess? It's got good art direction!
(18:20) Combat and how you can't direct attacks.
(21:30) The economy of retries.
(24:45) Plot investment, or lack thereof. This finally loops back around to our obfuscation rambling.
(29:05) Random encounters, outside of combat mechanics. What constitutes grinding as opposed to normal progression.
(32:30) We talk about what's good in this game. It's pretty and a bit snarky.
(37:30) The end of Zach's pledge!
Next week, we're bad enough dudes to shoot space zombie-demons. Doom, the DOS classic, is available on everything, so grab yourself a copy and suit up!
We've got BFGs at
Geremy@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Categories:
Episodes,
Geremy,
JRPG,
Phantasy Star,
RPG,
Sega,
Sega Master System,
Tyler,
Zach
No comments:
No comments:
Monday, May 6, 2013
Last Rant on Videogames: Blatant Cashins on Others' Success
I don't believe I've mentioned on the show before a particular tidbit. I'm a huge fan of the Professor Layton series. Silly contrivances for making the player solve puzzles aside, the games have a wonderful art style, decent plot, and a colorful world. The music is relaxing, the puzzles usually challenging, and the characters, while more accurately caricature, are all unique and memorable. I'm waiting in great anticipation of the North American release of the Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright game. Surprising very few, I also glean a certain amount of enjoyment from Phoenix Wright as well.
Today, I'm rambling a bit about a game that was probably vastly overlooked and, I think, unfairly treated by those who actually picked it up. The title is Doctor Lautrec and the Forgotten Knights. I think that if you're familiar with the Layton games, you might see how this relates to the title of the post. Herein lies the problem this game makes for itself.
Before I delve into what this game is and what I think of it, I must say that it seemeddoomed to perceived mediocrity simply due to its title. It's obviously trying to mirror the Layton style in this regard, and I'm under the impression that no small number of those who picked it up were expecting a rather patent abuse of that game's style. I wonder, then, why they bothered to pick it up in the first place. I, for one, was goaded, though only slightly, by Alex to grab it as a way to tide us over until the next Layton release. What we got, however, was something entirely different.
The vast majority of reviews I've read for this game panned it for not being what we expected: a terrible Layton clone. This seems something odd to fault it for, considering that it would have been faulted for being just that. While the title is similar, the eponymous doctor hardly bares any resemblance to Layton himself. i almost wonder whether it was a coincidence that the games ended up with similar English translations.
At any rate, I was pleasantly surprised by what I got. The title is for the 3DS, though it makes scant use of that system's notable features. It does, however, open with an amusing and fairly well-rendered 3D cutscene. Doctor Lautrec is a misanthropic archaeologist driven to collect a set of living treasures occupied by spirit guardians while accompanied by an assistant who is around for the apparently sole purpose of telling him whether a treasure is guarded. He combs the sewers of Paris looking for these dangerous baubles in competition with a failing entrepreneur and self-proclaimed rival. His leads come from a mysterious and beautiful bar keep, and is aided by the bar's most devoted patron, a layabout millionaire.
Lautrec eventually finds himself allied with a mysterious waif who ends up being quasi-royalty and must defend her against a vague criminal syndicate. Also, there's a group of knights living underground in a vaguely futuristic tunnel system ostensible powered by the living treasures.
Really, the premise of the game is amazing, though the implementation is a bit lacking. While the stories are fairly well presented, they aren't told sequentially since you can select quests in fairly arbitrary orders. This isn't much of a problem, but occasionally you're presented with a story in which the characters act as if they don't have the information revealed in the previous quest.
The biggest problem here lies within the quests themselves. Each one follows a painfully formulaic pattern. You begin by receiving a quest from the bar keep, Milady, in the form of a cryptic clue. Lautrec and his assistant, Sophie set out to solve the puzzle. Unfortunately, the puzzles either require an inordinate amount of knowledge about French history, or moon logic. Alternatively, they're not puzzles at all. Most of these puzzles are solved by the duo tossing out possible locations which you, the player, must run to and examine. After you visit the right one, you either get more to run to, or you're told to find the entrance to the sewer.
Looking for the entrance is mildly amusing, especially with the 3D effect on. You get a pre-rendered area of the game's envisioning of Paris to visually scour for a symbol. Once you find it and zoom in on it, you get to enter the labyrinth, which proceeds to give you another round of formulaic dungeoneering. The mazes consist of some occasionally, though not usually, clever puzzles that mostly involve moving blocks and evading guards. Along the way, you can collect treasures to bolster your stash. This is important to do for reasons I'll explore in a moment. Aside from the physical conundrums, you're occasionally given more traditional style puzzles to solve.
For a game ostensibly about solving puzzles, this is where I feel it falls short the most. I was already enjoying the game fairly thoroughly until I found out that there are only four types of puzzles to solve. You get the inventive "spot the difference" puzzles, a game vaguely resembling Minesweeper, a crossword where you just have to place the words in the right spots, and an ordeal wherein blocks of various shapes must be arranged within a confined space. None of these are terribly original, nor are they challenging. The further you progress, the more complicated each type becomes, but it never really changes. As I've talked about before, you're rewarded for progression with changes in depth rather than changes in scope, which makes it hard to maintain interest.
The most exciting part of the game comes when you collect either the secondary or primary Treasure Animatus, the living treasures. The system seems daunting at first, but due to some unexplained mechanics that you quickly discover, it's actually quite simple. Since the treasures try to fight off would-be explorers, you must first subdue them. To do this, you must place treasures you posses, along with special gems that pass as weak treasures, on pedestals around the center one upon which your target sits. Every time you place a treasure, your treasure and the prize trade blows. There's something of a 5-way rock-paper-scissors going on, so you can plan your placement accordingly. Placing your treasures near other ones they're weak to or strong against affects the damage you deal to the center one. The pedestals can also have certain effects and limitations, though none are terribly exciting. The true challenge here is figuring out how to do enough damage to subdue the hostile treasure without killing it. Barring special circumstances, once a treasure takes enough damage, it dies and becomes an ordinary item without a guardian spirit. There are a couple different models for each element of treasure, and the attacks are mildly interesting to watch.
The problem with all of this is that it never changes. It's exciting and even - dare I say it? - fun for the first couple hours or so. The overarching plot and the discovery of the other characters' backstories kept me playing well past this point. However, my fatigue with essentially performing the same task ad nauseum led to the actual nausea that phrase implies. I got too bored with running around the same locations, tackling minorly different dungeons, and solving the same damned puzzles that I just gave up.
It's sad, too, because I feel a fair amount of polish went into this game. The visuals are pretty nice, almost every scene has pretty good voice acting, including your rival with the best French accent in a videogame I've heard for a long time, and the plot's not bad, if a little hackneyed. The eventual mundanity of what starts as a fantastical premise kills whatever interest I may have had in the game.
I maintain, however, that this game was never really trying to be a Layton ripoff. Nothing about this game plays remotely similar, and the only resemblance I can see is in the titles. However, Layton is much better executed, even if the premise of Lautrec is more immediately interesting. I suppose this is a case study in the power of a simple story told well over an amazing story told poorly. If you've considered picking this game up, I recommend giving it a pass. There's not enough there to warrant the more than 40 hours it will consume to reach completion.
However, as a friendly suggestion, you could play Layton instead. Puzzling!
Today, I'm rambling a bit about a game that was probably vastly overlooked and, I think, unfairly treated by those who actually picked it up. The title is Doctor Lautrec and the Forgotten Knights. I think that if you're familiar with the Layton games, you might see how this relates to the title of the post. Herein lies the problem this game makes for itself.
Before I delve into what this game is and what I think of it, I must say that it seemeddoomed to perceived mediocrity simply due to its title. It's obviously trying to mirror the Layton style in this regard, and I'm under the impression that no small number of those who picked it up were expecting a rather patent abuse of that game's style. I wonder, then, why they bothered to pick it up in the first place. I, for one, was goaded, though only slightly, by Alex to grab it as a way to tide us over until the next Layton release. What we got, however, was something entirely different.
The vast majority of reviews I've read for this game panned it for not being what we expected: a terrible Layton clone. This seems something odd to fault it for, considering that it would have been faulted for being just that. While the title is similar, the eponymous doctor hardly bares any resemblance to Layton himself. i almost wonder whether it was a coincidence that the games ended up with similar English translations.
At any rate, I was pleasantly surprised by what I got. The title is for the 3DS, though it makes scant use of that system's notable features. It does, however, open with an amusing and fairly well-rendered 3D cutscene. Doctor Lautrec is a misanthropic archaeologist driven to collect a set of living treasures occupied by spirit guardians while accompanied by an assistant who is around for the apparently sole purpose of telling him whether a treasure is guarded. He combs the sewers of Paris looking for these dangerous baubles in competition with a failing entrepreneur and self-proclaimed rival. His leads come from a mysterious and beautiful bar keep, and is aided by the bar's most devoted patron, a layabout millionaire.
Lautrec eventually finds himself allied with a mysterious waif who ends up being quasi-royalty and must defend her against a vague criminal syndicate. Also, there's a group of knights living underground in a vaguely futuristic tunnel system ostensible powered by the living treasures.
Really, the premise of the game is amazing, though the implementation is a bit lacking. While the stories are fairly well presented, they aren't told sequentially since you can select quests in fairly arbitrary orders. This isn't much of a problem, but occasionally you're presented with a story in which the characters act as if they don't have the information revealed in the previous quest.
The biggest problem here lies within the quests themselves. Each one follows a painfully formulaic pattern. You begin by receiving a quest from the bar keep, Milady, in the form of a cryptic clue. Lautrec and his assistant, Sophie set out to solve the puzzle. Unfortunately, the puzzles either require an inordinate amount of knowledge about French history, or moon logic. Alternatively, they're not puzzles at all. Most of these puzzles are solved by the duo tossing out possible locations which you, the player, must run to and examine. After you visit the right one, you either get more to run to, or you're told to find the entrance to the sewer.
Looking for the entrance is mildly amusing, especially with the 3D effect on. You get a pre-rendered area of the game's envisioning of Paris to visually scour for a symbol. Once you find it and zoom in on it, you get to enter the labyrinth, which proceeds to give you another round of formulaic dungeoneering. The mazes consist of some occasionally, though not usually, clever puzzles that mostly involve moving blocks and evading guards. Along the way, you can collect treasures to bolster your stash. This is important to do for reasons I'll explore in a moment. Aside from the physical conundrums, you're occasionally given more traditional style puzzles to solve.
For a game ostensibly about solving puzzles, this is where I feel it falls short the most. I was already enjoying the game fairly thoroughly until I found out that there are only four types of puzzles to solve. You get the inventive "spot the difference" puzzles, a game vaguely resembling Minesweeper, a crossword where you just have to place the words in the right spots, and an ordeal wherein blocks of various shapes must be arranged within a confined space. None of these are terribly original, nor are they challenging. The further you progress, the more complicated each type becomes, but it never really changes. As I've talked about before, you're rewarded for progression with changes in depth rather than changes in scope, which makes it hard to maintain interest.
The most exciting part of the game comes when you collect either the secondary or primary Treasure Animatus, the living treasures. The system seems daunting at first, but due to some unexplained mechanics that you quickly discover, it's actually quite simple. Since the treasures try to fight off would-be explorers, you must first subdue them. To do this, you must place treasures you posses, along with special gems that pass as weak treasures, on pedestals around the center one upon which your target sits. Every time you place a treasure, your treasure and the prize trade blows. There's something of a 5-way rock-paper-scissors going on, so you can plan your placement accordingly. Placing your treasures near other ones they're weak to or strong against affects the damage you deal to the center one. The pedestals can also have certain effects and limitations, though none are terribly exciting. The true challenge here is figuring out how to do enough damage to subdue the hostile treasure without killing it. Barring special circumstances, once a treasure takes enough damage, it dies and becomes an ordinary item without a guardian spirit. There are a couple different models for each element of treasure, and the attacks are mildly interesting to watch.
The problem with all of this is that it never changes. It's exciting and even - dare I say it? - fun for the first couple hours or so. The overarching plot and the discovery of the other characters' backstories kept me playing well past this point. However, my fatigue with essentially performing the same task ad nauseum led to the actual nausea that phrase implies. I got too bored with running around the same locations, tackling minorly different dungeons, and solving the same damned puzzles that I just gave up.
It's sad, too, because I feel a fair amount of polish went into this game. The visuals are pretty nice, almost every scene has pretty good voice acting, including your rival with the best French accent in a videogame I've heard for a long time, and the plot's not bad, if a little hackneyed. The eventual mundanity of what starts as a fantastical premise kills whatever interest I may have had in the game.
I maintain, however, that this game was never really trying to be a Layton ripoff. Nothing about this game plays remotely similar, and the only resemblance I can see is in the titles. However, Layton is much better executed, even if the premise of Lautrec is more immediately interesting. I suppose this is a case study in the power of a simple story told well over an amazing story told poorly. If you've considered picking this game up, I recommend giving it a pass. There's not enough there to warrant the more than 40 hours it will consume to reach completion.
However, as a friendly suggestion, you could play Layton instead. Puzzling!
Sunday, May 5, 2013
This is a Title
I've been really enjoying the games from the 26th Ludum Dare. For those of you who don't know, the Ludum Dare is an event that happens every so often organized by indie game developers. The concept is that you have 4 days, usually over a weekend, to develop and submit a short game with that event's theme. This event's theme is minimalism. The games have really simple concepts in keeping with this theme, but I've already seen some really fun stuff come of it.
Take Rock Bottom, a game about jumping off of stuff to kill yourself so you can jump higher. It starts out simple, but the last level is really fun to work out the order of platforms to die from. I just played a game about running called RUNNERIST. I've played a lot like it, and wasn't really expecting to enjoy it. However, it managed to suck at least 20 minutes from me. The simple obstacles, wonderfully contrasting colors, enjoyable music, and slight variations in the jumping noise, along with the hilarious failure animation, really hooked me. I almost had to physically tear myself away from the screen.
There's something compelling about the power of a simple Flash game. For those of you who don't know, Newgrounds is a great place for such things. If you want to see what people have been sending over there for this Ludum Dare, check out the collection.
Take Rock Bottom, a game about jumping off of stuff to kill yourself so you can jump higher. It starts out simple, but the last level is really fun to work out the order of platforms to die from. I just played a game about running called RUNNERIST. I've played a lot like it, and wasn't really expecting to enjoy it. However, it managed to suck at least 20 minutes from me. The simple obstacles, wonderfully contrasting colors, enjoyable music, and slight variations in the jumping noise, along with the hilarious failure animation, really hooked me. I almost had to physically tear myself away from the screen.
There's something compelling about the power of a simple Flash game. For those of you who don't know, Newgrounds is a great place for such things. If you want to see what people have been sending over there for this Ludum Dare, check out the collection.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Last Rant... Kinda: Final Thoughts about a Farming Chore Simulator
I've finally finished the game that made me start writing these. Rune Factory 2 was an awesome game, though it definitely has some flaws. So, in the spirit of making the quest for games to play easier for the masses, I'm going to talk a bit and give my recommendation about this game.
I feel that there are a number bugs in this game that are common across Natsume's productions. How about an enumeration? First, this game lags if you have more than four or more sprites on the screen. Seriously. I don't know how that made it out the door. This becomes something of a problem when you start filling your dungeon... I mean barn. Since you have four creatures on each floor, walking from the front of the room to the back, or milking your Buffamoos, or generally existing in the barn tends to be a bit of a drag on the system. It's not a huge problem, but it is mildly annoying.
There are a number of places where your name is stored for NPCs to relate it to you. This sounds fine, but it appears that someone forgot to change all of those occurrences to refer to your second generation name. There was even a point where the game couldn't find a name at all and no name is printed where there should be.
My biggest gripe isn't a bug at all, however. In order to get the best equipment, you have to forge it yourself. Cool! The actual forging process is a bit painful, however. Mostly, it involves collecting items and tossing them together on the right crafting bench and waiting a bit. The anticipation kills. As in, it kills your investment in the game. No time in game passes, just real time. One of these is slightly more valuable. This isn't terrible, but cooking, a specific field of crafting in this game, is the only form of crafting that consumes the ingredients if you fail. Considering the rarity of some ingredients and the fact that you must attempt formulas that you can fail at to get better, this seems rather rude.
Also, the final ending to the game fades to black. No credits. I think my game might have frozen, but I can't find any confirmation.
That said, I really enjoyed this game. The combat is simple, but engaging. All the spells feel rather different, and it's a lot of fun to alternate between keeping enemies at bay with a spear and chasing them off while surrounded by big glowing balls. The farming is a quick task, especially if you've put in the effort to upgrade your tools. I was a millionaire without trying due to the ease of farming, and it's pretty easy to go and get yourself the specific vegetables you need.
This game lends itself quite well to a mobile platform with an abundance of save points. It's a fun time waster, though you're not going to be enthralled by the plot. Overall, as I said before, it's worth a play, especially if you have any interest in Harvest Moon. Farming!
I feel that there are a number bugs in this game that are common across Natsume's productions. How about an enumeration? First, this game lags if you have more than four or more sprites on the screen. Seriously. I don't know how that made it out the door. This becomes something of a problem when you start filling your dungeon... I mean barn. Since you have four creatures on each floor, walking from the front of the room to the back, or milking your Buffamoos, or generally existing in the barn tends to be a bit of a drag on the system. It's not a huge problem, but it is mildly annoying.
There are a number of places where your name is stored for NPCs to relate it to you. This sounds fine, but it appears that someone forgot to change all of those occurrences to refer to your second generation name. There was even a point where the game couldn't find a name at all and no name is printed where there should be.
My biggest gripe isn't a bug at all, however. In order to get the best equipment, you have to forge it yourself. Cool! The actual forging process is a bit painful, however. Mostly, it involves collecting items and tossing them together on the right crafting bench and waiting a bit. The anticipation kills. As in, it kills your investment in the game. No time in game passes, just real time. One of these is slightly more valuable. This isn't terrible, but cooking, a specific field of crafting in this game, is the only form of crafting that consumes the ingredients if you fail. Considering the rarity of some ingredients and the fact that you must attempt formulas that you can fail at to get better, this seems rather rude.
Also, the final ending to the game fades to black. No credits. I think my game might have frozen, but I can't find any confirmation.
That said, I really enjoyed this game. The combat is simple, but engaging. All the spells feel rather different, and it's a lot of fun to alternate between keeping enemies at bay with a spear and chasing them off while surrounded by big glowing balls. The farming is a quick task, especially if you've put in the effort to upgrade your tools. I was a millionaire without trying due to the ease of farming, and it's pretty easy to go and get yourself the specific vegetables you need.
This game lends itself quite well to a mobile platform with an abundance of save points. It's a fun time waster, though you're not going to be enthralled by the plot. Overall, as I said before, it's worth a play, especially if you have any interest in Harvest Moon. Farming!
The Ratings: April
It’s that time again. Four new games under our belt, 2 Co-Op side scrollers, a tactical game, and one of the most highly regarded adventure games of all times. Lets see how they fare, and more importantly, can anything dethrone Castlevainia?
For those of you who don’t know, every month, I rank all the games we play on a scale from 1-10. This is a sliding scale, at least one game will always occupy 10/10, and one game will occupy 1/10, with other numbers filling in around them. If we play a game better than the current champ the coming month, it looses its throne. At the end of this podcast, it will be a silly list, trying to gauge how much fun I had with each game. So lets get started.
Castlevainia 10/10
No, no it can’t. This should probably be obvious to anyone that listens to the podcast, since nothing has blown us away this month, nor has any game allowed you to murder even one Dracula.
Mega Man 9/10
Nor can anything bump the Blue Bomber (remember when people called him that?) from his spot right below Dracula. There’s just something about a very basic, moderately difficult platformer where you have an attack that really speaks to me.
The Legend of Zelda 8/10
That said, we’ve certainly played some games of merit, including the first installment in the Zelda franchise, one of the few game franchises that can still get me to buy and play a game on launch day. Our conversation about this game off the mics compared to the episode on it is… weird to me. We all stated at least some level of frustration with it, I was the most favorable towards it, Zach seemed not to like it much at all, and Tyler was sort of in the middle, leaning towards dislike. By the end though, he agreed it was better than Metroid. My feelings for this game are hard to express. Part of my joy in it is out of loyalty to the franchise. My brother asked me if he should play it and I said “it’s not a good game by modern standards”. At the same time, if you’ve any interest in The Legend Of Zelda or the history of video games, I highly recommend you give it a play through.
Gradius 7/10
I’m a little sad about Gradius, the fun arcade action it provides made me think I’d go back to it every once in a while to give it a try or two to see if I could get any further. Sadly I havn’t touched it since we recorded our episode. It’s a pity, hopefully I will soon.
Metroid 7/10
Metroid’s unique non-linear style and fun combat keeps it here, but I can’t help but feel the fact that we’re not playing games that place higher either means we’re terrible at picking them, or there aren’t as many good old games as nostalgia would like me to think
Super Mario Bros. 6/10
I still like the idea of this game being my mid-point. It’s just what my conception of videogames was based on for so long. It’s more than outdated now, but as I’ve said in podcasts, The Legend of Zelda didn’t seem like a game to me because it controlled your jumps. The thought of games were you can’t jump at all was beyond my comprehension. It’s still a good game though, better than a lot of others, so here it stands.
Final Fantasy 6/10
Unlike Gradius, I actually have gone back and played a little Final Fantasy, in order to compare it to another game we’re playing as the assignment in the near future. It’s still fun, but it’s still to slow to focus on. I didn’t have as much fun as playing Mario, but that’s the only reason it’s ranked below it, and I anticipate its rank might rise in the future, especially if we don’t play some really good games soon.
Gunstar Heroes 5/10
For some reason, I feel like I should mark games that rely on co-op to be fun lower than other games. This can be seen with the Double Dragon titles taking the bottom slots, and I’m not sure why. Co-op to some extent is only as fun as the partner you play it with, but at the same time, if a game is truly bad I feel I’d go find something else to do. Playing Gunstar with Alex and Tyler, switching controllers like it was 1995 again was a lot of fun. But I don’t think the game is all that good. If it sounded like it was worth checking out in the episode, and you have a friend to check it out with, do so. Otherwise, skip it.
Harvest Moon 5/10
After thinking on it some more, I’ve decided Harvest Moon actually should be ahead of Kirby’s Adventure. The game is fun. The problem is, it’s not engaging for the length of the game. For a completionist like me… who feels some sort of neurotic need to finish games, especially games with low skill caps, it’s irritating, but it is fun for a while. That said, there are a huge number of sequels and spin offs, and you’re better off looking there.
Kirby’s Adventure 5/10
And here Kirby is in his new spot. Honestly, I was expecting Kirby’s adventure to quickly fall off this list. It’s not a bad game, it’s just not engaging. With its pretty colors, it feels way more Sega than Nintendo. Move along.
Sonic the Hedgehog 4/10
Speaking of games that just aren’t fun… well I feel kind of like a broken record. The Blue Blur’s first game isn’t nearly as good as the Blue Bomber’s. Hopefully we’ll find Sonic 2 more to our taste when we get that far.
Act Raiser 3/10
Act Raiser is not a very fun game, the combat is broken, the platforming awkward, and the sim portions boring. That said, I finished it… and there are a lot of good new ideas in it. That gets it a lot of points in my book. It’s still very low on the totem pole, but thinking on it some more, it’s been raised up quite a bit.
The Legend of the Mystical Ninja 3/10
As I stated, I feel that I should dock a game if they’re more fun when playing co-op. That said… adding a co-op feature should be a boon if it makes a game better. Mystical Ninja co-op was a lot of fun. However, single player was nothing but constant frustration, with many things tacked on to increase the length, but not fun of the game. Come on Konami, it’s how you use it.
Double Dragon II The Revenge 2/10 Unfortunately for The Revenge, co-op is kind of all it has. That along with confusing controls and a so bad its good story puts it very near the bottom of the list. Sadly, it doesn’t quite hit rock bottom.
Ogre Battle 2/10 I want to like Ogre Battle, I want to rank it higher. I like tactical games, I like fantasy, I love the thought of leading an army of liches dragons and knights into battle against an enemy force. The game just isn’t fun, it’s the game that’s felt like the most work of any that we’ve played, it’s just garbage. Avoid it.
Double Dragon 1/10 Double Dragon has terrible music, recycled bosses, boring game play, and no co-op. It retains its spot at the bottom of the heap. Will it stay there? We’ll see.
For those of you who don’t know, every month, I rank all the games we play on a scale from 1-10. This is a sliding scale, at least one game will always occupy 10/10, and one game will occupy 1/10, with other numbers filling in around them. If we play a game better than the current champ the coming month, it looses its throne. At the end of this podcast, it will be a silly list, trying to gauge how much fun I had with each game. So lets get started.
Castlevainia 10/10
No, no it can’t. This should probably be obvious to anyone that listens to the podcast, since nothing has blown us away this month, nor has any game allowed you to murder even one Dracula.
Mega Man 9/10
Nor can anything bump the Blue Bomber (remember when people called him that?) from his spot right below Dracula. There’s just something about a very basic, moderately difficult platformer where you have an attack that really speaks to me.
The Legend of Zelda 8/10
That said, we’ve certainly played some games of merit, including the first installment in the Zelda franchise, one of the few game franchises that can still get me to buy and play a game on launch day. Our conversation about this game off the mics compared to the episode on it is… weird to me. We all stated at least some level of frustration with it, I was the most favorable towards it, Zach seemed not to like it much at all, and Tyler was sort of in the middle, leaning towards dislike. By the end though, he agreed it was better than Metroid. My feelings for this game are hard to express. Part of my joy in it is out of loyalty to the franchise. My brother asked me if he should play it and I said “it’s not a good game by modern standards”. At the same time, if you’ve any interest in The Legend Of Zelda or the history of video games, I highly recommend you give it a play through.
Gradius 7/10
I’m a little sad about Gradius, the fun arcade action it provides made me think I’d go back to it every once in a while to give it a try or two to see if I could get any further. Sadly I havn’t touched it since we recorded our episode. It’s a pity, hopefully I will soon.
Metroid 7/10
Metroid’s unique non-linear style and fun combat keeps it here, but I can’t help but feel the fact that we’re not playing games that place higher either means we’re terrible at picking them, or there aren’t as many good old games as nostalgia would like me to think
Super Mario Bros. 6/10
I still like the idea of this game being my mid-point. It’s just what my conception of videogames was based on for so long. It’s more than outdated now, but as I’ve said in podcasts, The Legend of Zelda didn’t seem like a game to me because it controlled your jumps. The thought of games were you can’t jump at all was beyond my comprehension. It’s still a good game though, better than a lot of others, so here it stands.
Final Fantasy 6/10
Unlike Gradius, I actually have gone back and played a little Final Fantasy, in order to compare it to another game we’re playing as the assignment in the near future. It’s still fun, but it’s still to slow to focus on. I didn’t have as much fun as playing Mario, but that’s the only reason it’s ranked below it, and I anticipate its rank might rise in the future, especially if we don’t play some really good games soon.
Gunstar Heroes 5/10
For some reason, I feel like I should mark games that rely on co-op to be fun lower than other games. This can be seen with the Double Dragon titles taking the bottom slots, and I’m not sure why. Co-op to some extent is only as fun as the partner you play it with, but at the same time, if a game is truly bad I feel I’d go find something else to do. Playing Gunstar with Alex and Tyler, switching controllers like it was 1995 again was a lot of fun. But I don’t think the game is all that good. If it sounded like it was worth checking out in the episode, and you have a friend to check it out with, do so. Otherwise, skip it.
Harvest Moon 5/10
After thinking on it some more, I’ve decided Harvest Moon actually should be ahead of Kirby’s Adventure. The game is fun. The problem is, it’s not engaging for the length of the game. For a completionist like me… who feels some sort of neurotic need to finish games, especially games with low skill caps, it’s irritating, but it is fun for a while. That said, there are a huge number of sequels and spin offs, and you’re better off looking there.
Kirby’s Adventure 5/10
And here Kirby is in his new spot. Honestly, I was expecting Kirby’s adventure to quickly fall off this list. It’s not a bad game, it’s just not engaging. With its pretty colors, it feels way more Sega than Nintendo. Move along.
Sonic the Hedgehog 4/10
Speaking of games that just aren’t fun… well I feel kind of like a broken record. The Blue Blur’s first game isn’t nearly as good as the Blue Bomber’s. Hopefully we’ll find Sonic 2 more to our taste when we get that far.
Act Raiser 3/10
Act Raiser is not a very fun game, the combat is broken, the platforming awkward, and the sim portions boring. That said, I finished it… and there are a lot of good new ideas in it. That gets it a lot of points in my book. It’s still very low on the totem pole, but thinking on it some more, it’s been raised up quite a bit.
The Legend of the Mystical Ninja 3/10
As I stated, I feel that I should dock a game if they’re more fun when playing co-op. That said… adding a co-op feature should be a boon if it makes a game better. Mystical Ninja co-op was a lot of fun. However, single player was nothing but constant frustration, with many things tacked on to increase the length, but not fun of the game. Come on Konami, it’s how you use it.
Double Dragon II The Revenge 2/10 Unfortunately for The Revenge, co-op is kind of all it has. That along with confusing controls and a so bad its good story puts it very near the bottom of the list. Sadly, it doesn’t quite hit rock bottom.
Ogre Battle 2/10 I want to like Ogre Battle, I want to rank it higher. I like tactical games, I like fantasy, I love the thought of leading an army of liches dragons and knights into battle against an enemy force. The game just isn’t fun, it’s the game that’s felt like the most work of any that we’ve played, it’s just garbage. Avoid it.
Double Dragon 1/10 Double Dragon has terrible music, recycled bosses, boring game play, and no co-op. It retains its spot at the bottom of the heap. Will it stay there? We’ll see.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Episode 12: Really, It's Not a Secret To Anyone Anymore [The Legend of Zelda]
In this episode, we take a look at the first in a series very near and dear to at least two of the hosts. Zach returns, probably to stay, and forms a coalition with Tyler against Geremy about the overall opinion of this game. Bombs, laser swords, and Octoroks, oh, my!
This Download's not a secret
(01:30) What we've been playing. It's mostly different stuff!
(6:40) We finally get to Zelda, starting to our entries to the series.
(10:00) The actual game and how it starts.
(12:30) Darknuts! A terrible name for a crazy enemy.
(15:30) Exploration as a focal point in this game and whether the game enables it.
(19:00) Combat in Zelda. It's... tricky.
(22:15) Death trackers: they sound like they should be awesome. They're mostly extant instead.
(26:25) How to make Zelda better. Remembering the existence of the whistle helps.
(32:40) Zelda as the inspiration for sandbox games?
Next week, it's Phantasy Star! There will be sword slashing and stuff!
Wander aimlessly around the country side fighting extremely aggressive bats with us at
This Download's not a secret
(01:30) What we've been playing. It's mostly different stuff!
(6:40) We finally get to Zelda, starting to our entries to the series.
(10:00) The actual game and how it starts.
(12:30) Darknuts! A terrible name for a crazy enemy.
(15:30) Exploration as a focal point in this game and whether the game enables it.
(19:00) Combat in Zelda. It's... tricky.
(22:15) Death trackers: they sound like they should be awesome. They're mostly extant instead.
(26:25) How to make Zelda better. Remembering the existence of the whistle helps.
(32:40) Zelda as the inspiration for sandbox games?
Next week, it's Phantasy Star! There will be sword slashing and stuff!
Wander aimlessly around the country side fighting extremely aggressive bats with us at
Geremy@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Tyler@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
Zach@lasttimeonvideogames.com,
or LTOVG@lasttimeonvideogames.com.
You can also go to the show page at plus.google.com/+LastTimeOnVideogames or comment on the site at www.lasttimeonvideogames.com.
Also, you can follow our tweets @LTOVG.
Categories:
Adventure,
Episodes,
Geremy,
Legend of Zelda,
Nintendo,
Nintendo Entertainment System,
Tyler,
Zach
No comments:
No comments:
Subscribe to:
Posts (RSS)