Jumping Moustache

Q1 Wrap-up

2011-03-27T16:02:00.000-07:00

I know it's been ages since I've updated, so I'm just going to outline what I've written over the past couple months.

Why I Hate Red Dead Redemption. I was really proud of this piece as I'd chosen to take on one of the most highly regarded games of 2010. I'm really pleased at the commenters too. I expected to be torn to shreds over it, but it seems like a majority were in agreement with me (to an extent).

Bionic Commando Retrospective. I loved this game so hard. Truth be told, I didn't actually discover it until over a year after it came out when it was on sale for $10 at the local supermarket. Thanks to Brad Gallaway for convincing me to take the plunge.

Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 review. Never mind its short length, this was one of the hardest reviews I've ever had to write. Possibly because my editor, Ryan Kuo, has written for the Wall Street Journal, and I really didn't want to look stupid in front of him. He seemed to like it, so mission accomplished!

Two World 2 review. This was a really fun review. Also a fun game. It's totally rough around the edges, but after the generic first few hours I had a blast with it. To be honest, I actually liked it more than Oblivion (if only just. They suffer from a lot of the same issues, though, but TW2 had more personality, imo).

Spare Parts review. I was pretty "meh" on this game. It wasn't terrible and I actually kind of enjoyed its middle levels, but its so similar, yet inferior to the LEGO games and many of those can be found for about $10 these days.

Doc clock review. This is the worst game I've played this year. I came dangerously close to giving it a 1, but since that's the lowest score possible I figure a game has to offer absolutely nothing to get this. Doc Clock at least offered a good idea and crisp aesthetic, even if its execution was abysmal.

Knights Contract review. One of the most disappointing games I've ever played. As a cross between Bayonetta's crazy-go-nuts action and Enslaved or Ico's partner mechanic it looked like a winner. Unfortunately, its repetitive action, poor AI, and immensely frustrating QTE's made it a chore. For shame.

De Blob 2 (DS) review. This game wasn't great and I only barely gave it a 3, but what was there was perfectly pleasant and enjoyable. A bit costly for what it is, but it would have made a fine iphone game at a cheaper price point. Still a good kids game once it goes down in price.

Beyond Good & Evil HD review. This classic still hold up... mostly. I remembered it being pretty cheesy at times, but all the praise it's gotten since release made me think I'd remembered it wrong or was being too harsh. Nope, the script mostly sucks. Great design though, and I love Jade.

Yakuza 4 review. The Yakuza series is one that I want to love more than any other. I find them absolutely fascinating and ridiculous and wonderful, BUT, and it's a big but (hence the capitalization), I find them rather tedious to actually play. Sure you can do a lot of crazy mini-games, but most are confusing, boring, or both. This game reminds me a lot of Deadly Premonition where it's interesting to dissect, if a chore to play. I just happened to like DP's story and world more. Still, I'm definitely glad I played it as I've thought about it quite a bit since then.

Swarm review. I liked this game quite a bit and was very, very close to giving it a 4. The frustration factor and learning curve were just a bit too high for me, but I'm curiously compelled to go back to it if I ever find the time.

The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile review. I loved this game. At first I wasn't so sure as it just seemed too button mashy, but like all the best brawlers, it gets better on harder settings once you get into the minutia of its combat. I'm actually jonzing to play it some more. Gotta wrap up that Samurai Mode playthrough.

The rest are all my columns at Gamasutra

Scare Tactics - How Horror Games Have Evolved Their Controls - I examine several horror games over the past decade or so.

The Notebook - How Zelda's Notetaking Gives Handheld Inspiration - Why I love 2.5D Zelda on a touch screen.

Have it Your Way - Tailoring a Game's Difficulty to Players - The trials and tribulations of giving players options, but not overwhelming them. I don't envy designers on solving this pickles, but there are some neat workarounds that I discuss.

Sexism in Female AI Partners - For the record, I didn't find any of the games mentioned in this article offensive (except for maybe Knights Contract). I just find the overarching trend worrisome. There's a difference. That won't stop a lot of angry dudes from getting pissed in the comments section, though.

I've got a lot more coming soon including some reviews that have been submitted and will go up any day now.

Additional Thoughts on Ghost Trick and its Use of Text.

2011-01-19T16:20:00.000-08:00

My review of Ghost Trick is up at Paste. I wanted to address a couple things that I mentioned in the review, but didn't want to lose focus by ranting about. Notably its use of text.

Roger Ebert has a saying that "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short." I have a similar feeling about text in games. There's no "right" amount. What matters is what's in the text and if it's interesting. In most cases I'd say Ghost Trick's text is captivating with an intriguing plot and great characters. However, all too much of it is dedicated to redundant exposition of stuff you've already been told or pandering hand-holding.

This is especially irksome in the puzzle stages where you should be able to just have at the environments and go about your ghostly business, but are instead interrupted every two seconds by someone explaining what your actions mean or spouting out an obvious hint. This is extremely irritating as it not only impedes upon the puzzle solving, but ruins the pacing as well. There's also a lot of repeated text as you'll hear the same hints every time you perform specific actions. This can be sped up, but not altogether skipped. Very annoying.

Otherwise, I had no problem with Ghost Trick's talky nature. The plot was convoluted, but holds up well the more I think about it. I absolutely adored some of its twists and must give credit to Takumi and the translation team for dropping such subtle foreshadowing throughout. It really is a great story. It's just a shame I had to put up with such irritations to get to it.

I had a lot of the same problems with Phoenix Wright as well, but was hoping Ghost Trick's more traditional point-and-click puzzle mechanics would break free from the mold a bit more, so I could enjoy Takumi's great stories without the highly scripted hand-holding design. Sadly, that was not the case.

__________________________________________________________

Oh, and here's some other stuff I've written lately:

ilomilo review - The first 5 star review I've given at X-Play. I had a feeling it would be good, but no idea it would be THIS good.

Raskulls review- I didn't care for this one so much, but it had some good ideas.

I Don't Know What Came Over Me - Analyzing the relationship between playable characters and the players who inhabit them.

Epic mickey's Epic... Success - Why I loved EM despite its major flaws. Focuses on how it achieved its goal of getting me into oldschool Disney animation.

Best of the 2010: The Rest

2010-12-29T16:12:00.000-08:00

As the holidays are quickly coming to a close and my work load is about to increase, I've decided to be a lazy bum and condense the rest of my faves from 2010 into one post. Without further ado, I bring you The GAMES of 2010!!!

In no particular order...

Epic Mickey

I've written about this one a lot -- and not always favorably -- but if you can get past that your playstyle doesn't matter as advertised, it's still a wonderful linear platforming adventure. The world and characters has more charm than just about anything I played this year, the story was fantastic, I found the moment to moment gameplay compelling, and it was up there with Nier as having the best soundtrack of the year. Not quite the masterpiece I was expecting, but a noble effort that really stood out to me.

Nier

The second most original game I played this year (next to Deadly Premonition). It doesn't do any one thing new, but its constant shifting of genres and tones made it feel extremely fresh all throughout. Characters are extremely memorable and don't fall victim to the usual stereotypes we see in these sort of games, and there's at least half a dozen fascinating vignettes placed throughout. Few games this generation have managed to consistently surprise and delight as well as Nier.

Deadly Premonition

The most moving game I played this year. It's rough as all hell with terrible combat and driving mechanics -- making it one of the only games I'd recommended having an FAQ handy for -- but if you get past some poor mechanics it's got a good story and probably my favorite protagonist in any game, ever. Francis York Morgan has stuck with me all year and I expect will stick with me for years to come. Deadly Premonition's unusual brand of offbeat humor and disarming melodrama make it stand out among anything else I've played in years. It's not "so bad it's good," as some reviewers have claimed, but genuinely fantastic.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

I know a lot of people have written this off as a God of War clone, but I thought it was better than that series in almost every conceivable way. The combat system, the biggest component of the game, was head and shoulders better than that in Kratos' swan song. I loved the light and dark magic mechanic which really encouraged players to vary their attacks. Elsewhere, it had great pacing (after the first couple chapters anyway) with an increasing focus on puzzles, marvelous atmosphere and art direction, and an epic scale. The storytelling was perhaps the only weak link in this otherwise grandiose action/adventure.

Vanquish

I reviewed this one over at Gamecritics. I don't have much to add that isn't in the review, but I'll just say that I don't usually like cover shooters, yet Vanquish managed to subvert that into a very fast-paced, tactical, shooter unlike any I've ever played. We've seen cover, slow-mo, and sliding before, so why did it take so long for someone to combine them?

Tales of Monkey Island: Season 1

Okay, so this came out last year, but its definitive console port on PSN came out this year and that's how I played it. I've not played a point-and-click adventure since Grim Fandango that's lived up to how I remember them being in my youth... until now. Not perfect by any means, but it got all the charm and whimsy of the Monkey Island series spot-on and more importantly showed me that I still have the patience and passion for these games that I thought I'd outgrown.

Super Mario Galaxy 2

I never expect to like these first party Nintendo games so much. Every time one comes out I think I've outgrown such shallow silly games, but when it's done right there's nothing else quite like it. SMG2 is hands-down the most fun I had with a game in 2010. While it's easy to write off as not very innovative, I'd argue that practically every level has some new idea in it. There's no major surprises -- it doesn't all of a sudden become a text adventure (like a certain game on this list starting with an N) -- but the devil is in the details, and every little facet of Mario's second romp around the cosmos is filled with unexpected goodness.

And to be comprehensive, I already wrote about Donkey Kong Country Returns and Bayonetta. I guess that makes it a Top 9. Beyond that, there's a few other standouts including:

Super Meat Boy - Very fun platforming goodness. I loved it, until I could take its abuse no more.

Limbo - Best graphics of the year, imo. Very stylish, well designed platformer/puzzler. I wanted a little more narrative depth, but hey, that's just me.

Enslaved - I'm still a bit peeved at this one for some major plot holes at the end, but it's otherwise got some of the best characters and art direction I've seen in a game this year. Really great time all around.

Bioshock 2 & Minerva's Den - I feel like Bioshock's gameplay has grown rather stale, which is why these aren't higher, but they otherwise both feature some really outstanding stories and end on a high note (unlike the first Bioshock which started strong and ended with a whimper).

Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light - I don't think anyone expected this. I for one still like Tomb Raider, but making it co-op and top-down seemed to defeat the purpose of exploring a 3D environment. Then I played it co-op and it had some of the best 2-player puzzle design I've seen.

There you have it. There's plenty of games this year that I didn't get to play (Amnesia, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Minecraft, etc...) so it's by no means a definitive list, but this is what stood out to me. May 2011 be as full of surprises. Happy New Year and happy gaming!

Best of the 2010: Bayonetta

2010-12-24T13:59:00.000-08:00

While I've always liked third-person hack-and-slash games, the Devil May Cry series has always held a special place in my heart for its unique blend of melee and ranged combat. Going back to God of War or Ninja Gaiden, which focus almost exclusively on the former, just felt tame and flat in comparison. Bayonetta, from Devil May Cry creator Hideki Kamiya, is very much the successor to that series taking what worked (guns + swords) and sprucing it up with a better camera, bigger bosses, and zanier setpieces.

The result is Devil May Cry on crack. It doesn't stray far from the formula, but so what? It's a great formula. Combat is quick with incredibly deep customization so you can alter it to your particular playstyle. I'm perhaps not the most experimental with this sort of thing, but I still found myself using more weapons than I usually do in this sort of game.

Then there's Bayonetta herself, the somewhat controversial overtly sexualized ass-kicking nun. Some find her insulting or pandering, but I found her empowering (I also didn't find her sexy, for what it's worth). She's flirty as all hell, but not in a way that's pandering to the audience. Being flamboyant is just part of her personality and her winking at the camera to me says less "come hither" and more like a teasing "keep up with me if you can." She's a handful, that one.

It wasn't perfect though and there were a few painful flaws that I never see anyone point out, so I will. Checkpoints are too generous, often appearing multiple times during a single boss fight. Dying simply sets you back at the last checkpoint with full health, so you're practically encouraged to get a game over when the next phase of a boss battle begins. Unless of course you're going for a high score, but if that's the case, the game fails as well by making levels far too long with insta-kill quick-time events that are sure to ruin your streak. And finally, the game's central mechanic, witch time (slow-mo executed by a well-timed dodge), is disabled in harder difficulties. Other equipment netting counter-attacks for successful dodges make up for this somewhat, but it's still disappointing they couldn't have found a way to make the game very hard, yet still grant one of the game's best features.

Flaws aside, Bayonetta was the most fun I've had with an action game since Devil May Cry 4. I played through it three times in as many weeks and writing this makes me want to play it again right now.

Best of the 2010: Donkey Kong Country Returns

2010-12-22T12:19:00.000-08:00

In honor of the year winding down I've decided to recap on some of my favorite games of the 2010. I'm not going to do a top 10 list per se, as I find it futile to rank such diverse offerings, but would rather dedicate a short blog post to each game that really meant something to me this year. So today we'll start with...

Donkey Kong Country Returns.

I wasn't that excited for this one initially. My memory of Donkey Kong Country is foggy at best, having only rented it when it came out a decade and a half ago. I remember liking it at the time, but given my age it didn't take a lot to impress me. Prior to DKCR coming out, I'd assumed that the series was mostly known for its graphics, not gameplay. There was nothing I could gather from trailers or my time with it at trade shows that made me think DKCR was anything more than nostalgia for nostalgia's sake and that a recreation of our early childhood memories wouldn't hold up in the modern era.

Still, My girlfriend was a big fan of the series, though, so for that reason alone I decided to take the plunge and check it out.

And boy am I glad I did! Initially, it didn't do anything to change my preconceived notions. There was nothing particularly innovative about jumping, swinging, shooting out of barrels, etc... But what I hadn't expected was just how fun it would be. Controls are tight and responsive, levels are lush and gorgeous, and the cute animals are genuinely cute. Like really, really cute. The way Diddy runs over a rolling Donkey Kong still fills me with delight every time I see it.

It's also plain exciting. There's a real momentum to some of these sequences as the levels crumble behind you as you desperately try to acquire the hard to reach KONG letter. It's definitely challenging, but rarely frustrating with frequent checkpoints and a liberal dose of lives.

Co-op was fun too. It's not perfect and you'll hemorrhage lives this way, but they're not hard to replenish. Playing through the campaign with my girlfriend was seriously one of the highlights of the year for me in gaming.

Once we'd completed it I asked her what she thought. She said she liked it, but was a bigger fan of the older games. My memory is too rusty to accurately compare, but I'll say that it effectively captured the feeling I got when I was 12 and a 2D platformer needn't be innovative or deep for it to be just about the best thing ever.

_______________________________________________

And for record keeping purposes, here's some stuff I've written over the past few months:

Skulls of the Shogun preview

Enslaved Review

Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem review.

Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom review

Defying Design: Dead Lines Rising. On how time limits can enhance or hinder an experience. Looking specifically at Dead Rising: Case Zero and Majora's Mask.

Defying Design: Cloak & Dagger. A look at competitive stealth-based multiplayer.

Defying Design: New Moon. On what makes a good reboot. Looking specifically at Castlevania and Silent Hill.

Defying Design: Gaming up the Wrong Tree. Analyses of games that misdirect the player from their true goal.

Defying Design: You Bet Your Life. A look at the role of luck in action game.

Defying Design: The Buddy System. How co-op has evolved in 2D platformers over the past few years.

Defying Design: Epic Mickey's Epic... Failure? How choice works, and does't work in Epic Mickey.

Gaming Literacy

2010-09-28T17:48:00.000-07:00

The charms of this game were lost on me. I should probably revisit it.

I was listening to the most recent Experience Points Podcast with one of my favorite writers, Michael Abbott as their special guest talking about how he recently had Portal added to the list of required for a freshman course at Wabash College where he teaches.

During the discussion, the concept of gaming literacy came up and I wanted to throw my own two cents into the mix...

It may seem odd now being the seasoned gamer that I am, but I recall struggling a lot with Ocarina of Time when I first played it about seven years ago. Embarrassingly, the things I struggled with would seem like common knowledge to any gamer now, yet confounded my rusty 16-bit gaming mind.

When I'd played Ocarina I was 20, just bought a Gamecube, and hadn't owned a console since the SNES. Gaming was a mere curiosity to me at the time, as I wondered what had become of my favorite childhood pastime. Little did I know how hard it would be to get back into.

I recall first getting stuck in Ocarina when told to head to Hyrule Castle. I went up to the gate, a guard told me I wasn't permitted on the premises, so I left. Given my background in point-and-click adventures I naturally assumed I needed permission before entering. I scoured the land far and wide talking to everyone, hoping someone would give me the proper documentation to enter. Inevitably I gave up and consulted an FAQ. The answer; I was supposed to sneak past the guards -- something that would have never occurred to me as I'd not had to do that in a Zelda game before.

Granted part of this was due to a technical limitation. Guards have unrealistic eyesight in that they're incredibly near-sighted and standing a scant 20 ft in front of them is considered being out of range, even if it looks like you should be clearly spotted. I chalked this up to me being a dunce and pressed on.

My next point of contention was not understanding that my fairy, Navi, doubled as a hint system. After Hyrule Castle I kept wandering without a clue as to where to go. Navi kept interrupting, saying that she wondered what my possible girlfriend back home would think of me now. Looking back on it it was obvious; she was telling me to go back home where I'd discover a new event that would drive the plot along, but I somehow thought that this was just cutesy dialogue meant to add flavor to my fairy companion. "Yes, Navi, I get it. I'm the hero of time. My g/f will be impressed. Whatever. But where am I supposed to go?!" Much like the castle, it wouldn't have occurred to me to go back to the starting village as I thought I'd already done everything there. Whoops!

And don't get me started on hitting A to take out/put away your sword. Apparently that doesn't matter as hitting B will perform an attack regardless, but it took me most of the game to figure that out as I constantly cursed the screen every time I'd accidentally sheath my sword when trying to read a sign.

It's easy to forget about these barriers to entry having played so many games, but I still find it fascinating what parts of videogame knowledge we simply take for granted. Let's hope Wabash's incoming class is smarter than I was (or that Portal is more intuitive than Ocarina. Which I imagine it is).

______________________________________________________________

Here are some things I've written lately:

Duke Nukem Forever Hands-On for Eurogamer

Blade Kitten review for Joystiq

And I've continued my Defying Design columns here:

Smooth Talk; the evolution of dialogue trees using Monkey Islands' present and past as a base.

Alternate Perspectives; examining how Nier only told its story through multiple playthroughs and the potential benefits and pitfalls to such an approach.

I Have No Mouth and I Must Save the World; about the pros and cons of silent protagonists, and examples of those that work best.

Altered States; analyzes the effects of moral choices on character design and how it can influence playstyles.

On a side note the Eurogamer piece was a major win for me as that was the site that initially got me interested in pursuing videogame journalism professionally. I can still acutely recall Penny Arcade linking to Kristan's Prince of Persia: Warrior Within review, which I thought was exceptionally well written. I liked it so much that I started perusing the site further and it soon became my go-to for game reviews and previews. This isn't to say that other sites aren't equally great or anything, but EG was my original inspiration and continues to hold a special place in my heart.

DeathSpank is Fun for all the Wrong Reasons

2010-08-13T16:30:00.000-07:00

I'd heard DeathSpank was rather Diablo-ish going in, but my only experience with Blizzard's RPG was the scant demo I played of it half my lifetime ago. I barely recall it, but if memory serves correctly you merely pointed on enemies and your avatar fought them automatically, trading blows until one party fell. The skill came from deciding what equipment to use and stat buffs to utilize. One could still heal and use items mid-battle, but by and large, you had no active control in the combat. Of course, this is all speculation based on my memory of a 14 year old demo. But it's still what I think of when I think of Diablo.

DeathSpank looked a lot more enticing to me. I was mostly interested because of Monkey Island creator, Ron Gilbert's* involvement, but on a mechanical level the combat looked far more responsive. You could attack in real-time, block, and do all the things one would expect in a hack-and-slash action game. In short, aside from the loot-collecting, it didn't resemble my foggy memories of Diablo the way I expected.

So it was with a bit of disappointment when I played the game and soon realized it fell a little flat on the two things I was most looking forward to; the writing and combat.

The writing is certainly above average and traces of Monkey Island can be found all over the place, but I can't help but agree with Sparky Clarkson's assessment that while the game cleverly personifies its protagonist's world view, DeathSpank isn't a very interesting protagonist. Clarkson goes on to say that Gilbert did the "moron-hero" thing better in Monkey Island, but I'd argue that Guybrush Threepwood was never a moron. A wimp, certainly. And lacking certain social skills around women, sure. But not a moron. He was often clever, cunning, and aside from physical stature, really did embody the crafty skills his dream profession required. DeathSpank, however, is a moron. He's just a one trick pony. His one defining characteristic is that he's stupid, but thinks he's amazing. Guybrush too thought himself a mighty pirate, but the difference is that Guybrush had pathos. We felt bad for him as he tried to woo his love interest, an often sought after tomboyish governor. Everybody roots for an underdog and that's what Guybrush is. DeathSpank, however, is beefy and foolhardy enough to complete his quest, so there's no sense of overcoming the odds. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for a good romantic subplot. Either way, I don't care much for this guy.

That being said, the jokes hit more often than miss and there's a lot of charm to be found in the game. It's just not as consistent or endearing as his earlier work.

I want to get back to the combat though, as my reaction to it was the most surprising thing. Going into it expecting more of a skill-based hack-and-slash, I was disappointed. The enemies cluttered the screen too much, I could never tell when to block, and even when I could block successfully I'd find enemies chipping away at my health without being able to tell that their blows were connecting. It was messy, sloppy, and dare I say, broken as an action game. Here's the weird thing; I didn't mind.

Despite having direct control over your avatar, combat is much how I remember Diablo. It's so imprecise that you'll end up trading blows with the opposition no matter how honed your reflexes are. You can't take on high-end enemies at first, but must be at an adequate skill level before you have any chance at success. It's ultimately just an excuse for you to kill things, gain new levels and equipment so you can take on bigger enemies, kill them, and gain even more levels and equipment. It's everything that I claim to hate about lazy, padded design.

And yet I like it. I like watching the numbers go up and my character getting stronger. I'm sucked in in the same way that's always alienated my from RPG players and I can think of two reasons why.

a.) DeathSpank is very well-paced. It seems as though I gain a new level or a better piece of armor or equipment every couple of minutes, so I'm never wasting a significant amount of time with negligible progress.

b.) DeathSpank is short. A vast majority of RPGs I've tried I've given up on after about a dozen hours. The few I've completed were rather slow-going by the end and I really had to force myself to push on. Admittedly I'm only 9 or so hours into DeathSpank and I'm sure that if it were a 30+ hour game I too would tire of it long before the end credits roll. Thankfully, it's not. I've discovered 23 of a possible 30 outhouses (respawn points), so I'm going to assume I'm about 3/4th through and thus have another 3-4 hours left. That sounds about perfect to me. As soon as I'll start to tire of the grind, I'll be at the end and ready to move on to something else. And it only cost $15, so I don't feel cheated about length which I know is a concern for RPG veterans who like longer games.

Ultimately, DeathSpank doesn't fire on all cylinders for me, but it fires on the ones I least expected. I still maintain the the premise was flawed and wish it was more Monkey Islandesque when it comes to puzzles. Though for a genre I always looked at from a distance and could never quite understand the appeal of, DeathSpank is a wonderfully accessible entry.

*Note: One of my most embarrassing experiences as a journalist comes from when I asked a friend at Hothead studios if she could introduce me to Ron Gilbert. She took a step forward, interrupted his conversation and said, "Hey Ron! This guy wants to meet you!" Horrified, I cowardly thanked him for Monkey Island, then snuck away with my tail between my legs.

New Column and Some Monkey Island Love

2010-07-21T16:27:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry it's been so long since my last blog post, but things have been hectic. I went to E3 which I meant to write a lot about, but instead found myself exhausted after the convention, Disneyland and Magic Mountain (not in that order). Long story short; E3 was fun, Disneyland was moreso. Epic Mickey looks to be a happy medium, but still no substitute for actual being there. Okay, now I'm getting weepy over Disneyland withdrawals so moving on...

The big news is that I've stopped writing Challenging Conventions at TGR (nooooo!!), but started writing its spiritual successor, Defying Design, at GameSetWatch (yaaayyy!!). Think of it as Challenging Conventions 2.0. The first edition is about what makes a game scary as well as suggestion on how to make current more action focused horror games scarier.

Other than that, I've been on a big Monkey Island kick. While I was buried deep in announcements at E3, Tales of Monkey Island was released on PSN unbeknown to me. I'd always wanted to play it, but I didn't have a PC up to snuff and heard lackluster things about the price-hiked Wii port. Stubbornly, I held out in hopes of an XBLA or PSN port and over half a year later my prayers were answered. The PSN version looks great and runs like a dream. Better yet, it's a great game in its own right and while it has its flaws, it improves upon the series in a few meaningful ways. I'd tell you what they were, but may save that for a column;) Just know that despite its lackluster first couple chapters it gets better and by the end I cared about the cast more than I ever have before. Ultimately, it's a worthy chapter in the saga and the first traditional adventure game I've played in over a decade that I'd consider a real return to form for the genre.

So enamored was I that I picked up the special editions of Monkey Islands 1 & 2 and am playing through them now. I had some issues with the presentation and interface of the first special edition and found myself regularly switching between old and new, but so far I'm really blown away at how well they've adapted Monkey Island 2. The new look is lush and vibrant, and the animations smooth. The voices and music are top notch as well and I love what they've done with the interface. I'm only a few hours in so far, but color me impressed!

I also played Limbo and reviewed it for TGR here. As you can tell from the review I liked it quite a bit, but found myself perplexed and befuddled by the end. It's either brilliant and I'll prove myself a philistine for not getting it, or it really does have no story. I look forward to discussing interpretations with others upon release (which is today. Go out and buy it!).

Anyway, here's some other stuff I've written lately:

Portal 2 preview

Vanquish Hands-on preview

3D Dot Game Heroes review

Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands review

Challenging Conventions # 16: Bite-Sized Gaming This was my final CC piece. It was about how most of the games I got excited about at E3 were digital downloads which tend to be cheaper, smaller, and exhibited a greater degree of creativity. On a side note, I think a lot of people were disappointed by E3 this year (where was The Last Guardian?!), and while there was no huge new game that got me excited (Zelda was particularly disappointing) I walked away feeling like I'd seen a lot of great stuff particularly from the downloadable market. Forget Kinect and move, this is the part of the industry that has me most excited.

Note: Forgive me if I don't update again soon. I'm moving house in a couple weeks, so I'll be pretty busy and without internet access for a few days.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Other Goings On...

2010-06-09T01:24:00.000-07:00

My background with 3D Mario has been spotty at best. Not having owned an N64 in its heyday, my first foray into Mario's 3D adventures was the underwhelming Super Mario Sunshine. I liked it alright, but found controlling Mario in a 3D environment to be cumbersome. With so many different types of jumps and a controllable camera to manage, it was difficult for someone coming off 2D gaming to gauge depth. I also found the repetition of environments and tropical aesthetic tiresome. As far as 3D platformers went, I much preferred Sly Cooper's exploits.

I eventually got around to trying Mario 64. By an odd stroke of luck I acquired it for the DS and N64 on the very same day. I gave the N64 version a shot, decided I'd rather play a newer game at home and save Mario 64 DS for being out and about. From the little I gleaned of the N64 version the analogue stick helped, but didn't make the game. Ultimately, I found Mario 64 DS to be a step up from Sunshine in terms of variety and creativity, but still awkward to control and not nearly as much fun as its 2D ancestors.

So it should come as no surprise that I wasn't all that excited for Super Mario Galaxy. The use of motion controls were still novel and I was curious to see them implemented by the big N itself, but otherwise I was expecting a pretty good albeit unrevolutionary 3D platformer. I couldn't have been more wrong.

What changed my mind, you ask? Well, it wasn't any one thing, but a variety. Capturing star bits with the Wiimote pointer while otherwise controlling Mario with the analogue stick was a neat addition, as I felt like I always had something to do even when backtracking. I admired its unique spin on gravity and how it downplayed traditional platforming in lieu of spinning and interacting with the environment. Mostly, I loved how much variety it had on display with multiple objectives in the same galaxy taking you to wildly different places. I could go on and on, but others have sung its praises endlessly in reviews all across Metacritic. The point is that it gave me the sense of wonder and excitement that most people had for Mario 64 that I probably would have shared had I been into games at the time.

That being said, I was skeptical of Super Mario Galaxy 2. It had only been 2.5 years, and the trailer looked like more of the same. And in many ways it is. My initial reaction was underwhelmed. There was nothing wrong about it per se, but they set the bar so high two years prior that I'd already expected excellence. It had to go beyond that.

Eventually it did. There were more novel ideas thrown out faster than Yoshi after eating a flaming hot pepper and I found myself hopelessly addicted to collecting stars in a way I hadn't been since the last Galaxy. But where this one positions itself superior is in its lasting value. Just when I'd achieved 120 stars another 120 hidden ones opened up. One gripe- I wish these had been there the whole time as replaying earlier missions isn't always that exciting. Still, the great thing about the hidden stars is that they encourage you to explore each level to its fullest, often achieving tricks you never thought possible. It's a wonderful reward and certainly more fun that simply unlocking Luigi (who's also in this one and unlocked much earlier on).

SMG2 may not have stirred my imagination quite the same way as its predecessor did a couple years back, but it doesn't matter. It tapped into my OCD in a way that most games attempt to, but fail miserably at. If I'm not consistently making progress, being challenged, and discovering new things, I move on to something else. SMG2 has it's flaws (the swimming and repetition of the Bowser boss battle is a particularly irritating flaw as it's been true of almost every 3D Mario game, yet never been fixed) but it understands pacing perfectly making it my favorite game of 2010 so far.

Oh, and here's what I've written over the past couple months...

Nier Review- I liked the game a lot and meant to write on it more. Perhaps I will...

Zeno Clash: Ultimate Edition Review- I didn't like this one as much, but it had its own charms.

Challenging Conventions# 12 Anticlimax is the New Climax- Games the buck the status quo of ramping up their difficulty for the endgame.

Challenging Conventions# 13 Graphics So Bad They're Good- An analysis of some games where the poor graphics actually enhance the experience.

Challenging Conventions# 14- A look at poor writing in otherwise great games and how at the end of the day fun is fun. But that won't stop me from asking for more.

Challenging Conventions# 15 What's the Hurry?- A look at fast-travel and how it can at times be detrimental to immersion.

Note: I previously believed Challenging Conventions# 14 to not exist as it wasn't showing up in the TGR search engine. Turns out the editor abbreviated it CC and it was nearly lost to the ether. Somehow I didn't remember writing it and thought I'd miscounted. I'm glad it's back and in its full glory.

Still Alive

2010-04-17T20:39:00.000-07:00

After a several month hiatus, I'm bringing the blog back. It's been fun living my life, enjoying time with my beautiful girlfriend and all, but after awhile I started to feel like I wasn't contributing enough to the game space, instead squandering my (admittedly long-winded) thoughts to cryptic messages on twitter. To which I say, nay to 140 character limit. This is my space to unwind my thoughts. If not, what am I paying $15 a year on this domain name for?

I can't promise I'll update this often, but I'll try. I think the problem I was running into before was that I was saving my best ideas for published articles and worried I'd squander them here where I'm not getting paid, they're not getting published, and fewer people would see them. Furthermore, I was stressing too much over my other articles so the thought of writing in my free time sounded extra stressful. But one of the greatest advantages of a blog is that you don't have to worry what other people think or if your current article is making the grade. So here I'm just going to throw out random thoughts I have that maybe don't fit into other articles, yet still cycle through my head whenever such topics are broached.

So, without further ado, here's some links to stuff I've written followed by (drumroll please) a new entry!

Aliens Vs Predator Review

Yakuza 3 Review

God of War 3 Review

Fragile Dreams Review

Challenging Conventions# 10 How Bioshock 2 deals with Fatherhood Better than Heavy Rain

Challenging Conventions# 11 Playing Hard to Get- My take on Pixel's decision to make so much of Cave Story's best content an obscure secret.

The game I'm loving more than anything on the planet right now is God Hand. Yes, it's over 3 years old, on the PS2, has terrible graphics (even for its day) and scored mediocre critical reception. But I don't care. I love it.

Why do I love it? That question is a bit more complicated. Firstly, the game is extraordinarily fun. With all my highfalutin musings on innovation and narrative, at the end of the day, I mostly just want to have fun. At least that's where I'm at right now. Maybe by summer I'll be bored of fun and want something heady again. But I digress. Right now I just want to kick some ass and zone out on something that dazzles my mind and reflexes. And when I say mind, I mean that I'm constantly thinking while playing. Combat is a puzzle, in a sense. It takes quick thinking coupled with reflexes, contrary to the cliche that action games are mindless. It's rather that the type of mental engagement they provide is fleeting. It's not going to change my outlook on life or anything, but when I'm punching dudes and spanking women, I'm certainly not thinking about anything else. And there's a lot of value in that. It's meditative.

But this is true of any action game. What makes God Hand special is just how unique it is. The controls are just plain weird. Instead of learning new combos, you build them by buying moves and setting up your own. In essence, you get to write your very own symphony of destruction. It's a wonder why this idea of creating one's move set never caught on with other action games beyond simple weapon switching.

Character movement is especially alien. The game utilizes RE4 style "tank" controls, where the main character can't strafe and the camera is always locked behind them. There's even a 180 degree spin move like RE4. This should come as no surprise as God Hand was directed by RE4 director, Shinji Mikami, who also created the very first Resident Evil back in the day. Say what you will about those games (personally, I hated RE0 so much that I never tried any of the other early titles, but loved RE4), but you can't deny their impact on the industry. I find it fascinating that after the critical and commercial success that RE4 was met with, Mikami followed it up with this, which in turn no one bought. While the controls are unusual to say the least, Mikami clearly had an original idea as to how a brawler should control, yet it was rejected because it didn't have a controllable camera, jump button, or lock-on- ya know, things that critics at some point decided all third-person action games should have. Admittedly, God Hand's controls do have their quirks, but I find it no harder to control than other action games of its ilk (and indeed easier than the God of War series with its long, unbreakable attack animations) and it just feels so refreshing after years of god of War and DMC clones.

The game isn't deep at all, the story makes no sense, the dialogue waffles between hilarious to cringe worthy, but the sheer madness of it all combined with such excellent combat have made it my go-to game for the past few days. Mikami has said that he made the game just for him and since it failed commercially, he's trying to make his next game, Vanquish, appeal more to Western audiences. I can't say how much it hurts me to hear him say that. Then again, RE4 was a more Western direction for that series and it worked splendidly, so there's no reason to give up hope yet. I just hope he doesn't sell his soul in the process, because God Hand, it's nothing but soul.

More Things I've Written

2010-03-12T10:41:00.000-08:00

Holy crap it's been a long time since I updated this thing. I was going to post a series of plot holes I noticed from Heavy Rain, but then read at least three other articles doing the same, covering largely the same ground. So instead I'm just going to archive some stuff I've written over the past two months. If you enjoyed my earlier Jumping Moustache editorials, check out the Challenging Conventions columns. Don't tell Sinan (TGR features editor), but they're basically my excuse to have a published blog on topics I would have written about anyway.

No More Heroes 2 Review

Endless Ocean 2 Review

Heavy Rain Review

Bioshock 2 Review

Challenging Conventions# 6: The Likable, Mass-Murdering Hero- On less lethal alternatives for action-adventure games that don't break character.

Challenging Conventions# 7: Taking Stock of Mass Effect 2- The pros and cons to Bioware's more streamlined approach and what it means for the industry.

Challenging Conventions# 8: The Transparency of Mass Effect 2- Seriously people, Mass Effect 2 is NOT the greatest game ever. Though it is very good. Here's some things I found not-so-good about it. Not nitpicking so much as giving constructive criticism. It worries me when a game like this gets praised to the heavens, as I fear that its legacy of flaws will live on in the game industry under the philosophy of "Mass Effect 2 did it, so it must be good."

Challenging Conventions# 9: Heavy Rain fails to Understand what Interactive Drama Means- I did not like Heavy Rain. I did not like it for a multitude of reasons (as seen in my review). This article, however, focuses entirely on the design aspects and how Cage drops the ball on making the interactions meaningful.

Otherwise I've been playing a lot of Demon's Souls. It took awhile to really "click" with me, but it now might be my favorite game from last year. No, really. More on that later...

Challenging Conventions Retrospective

2010-01-04T19:12:00.000-08:00

I've been doing a rather poor job of keeping up with this blog, but figured this would be a good time to link to my most recent Challenging Conventions columns as let's face it, wading through the TGR archives can be cumbersome at best. Thankfully, I am here to provide the necessary links. In this case, at the end of the great year that was 2009, I wrote about my three favorite games of that year in a row. Lucky me!

Here's a piece on Uncharted 2, and why its pacing makes it such an unusual and memorable game.

And this column is about Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and why it's lack of "gameyness" makes it all the stronger at conveying its meaning.

And finally, my take on The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks, and why I love it, but also why many will not.

Hope you like them, and happy New Year!

2009: A Year of Division

2009-12-28T16:16:00.000-08:00

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. I liked this game a lot. Did you?

Having just recorded the most recent Big Red Potion in which we discussed our favorite games of 2009, it became apparent that a lot of games on our lists were very divisive. We all made our top 5 lists prior to the show and with few exceptions, we all had different picks. We all had Uncharted 2 on our list, and three of us had Batman. Next to that the only repeat offenders were Street fighter IV (Eddie and Sinan), and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories which Joe and I both listed. What's telling is that so many of our picks were incredibly divisive, with many of our choices having cropped up on the previous week's show on most overrated game of 09.

Joe had Shadow Complex in his top 5, which was my pick for most overrated game of 09.

Eddie's favorite game of the year was Assassin's Creed 2, Sinan's pick for most overrated.

I had Brutal Legend in the tail end of my top 5, which apparently numerous people chimed in as having been the year's most overrated game.

Eddie had Borderlands on his list, a game I've heard all kinds of reactions to. Some love its addictive nature, and other found it very repetitious and bland. I have yet to play it, so I wouldn't know.

Even Silent Hill, one of four games to make more than one of our lists received a lowly 76 on metacritic.

Street Fighter IV was more universally acclaimed, but I'll be honest, I have no interest in fighters.

And did I mention how no one had Modern Warfare 2, one of the most highly regarded games of the year, on their list?

See a pattern here? I mean lets look at my top games list. I didn't do a top 10 per se as I don't like the idea of arbitrarily picking a number of games. Instead I categorized them by category. The best of the best, the almost best of the best, and the honorable mentions.

The best of the best (according to Jeffrey Matulef):

-The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

-Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

-Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.

The almost best of the best:

-Brutal Legend

-Batman: Arkham Asylum

-Demon's Souls

Honorable mentions:

-Punch-Out!!

-New Super Mario Bros Wii

-Assassin's Creed 2

-inFamous

-Trine

Zelda got good, but not great review scores due to many considering the series old hat. Silent Hill got even worse and Joe and I are the only major zealots of it I've come upon. Brutal Legend caught a lot of flak for its RTS elements. And Demon's Souls was such a harsh, niche title that quite frankly I'm amazed it's been as successful as it has. Mario and Punch-out!! were amazing and I was hoping someone else would have them in their top 5, but alas. After discussing 17 games at length, there wasn't even room for such great titles!

I guess what I wanted to say is that this has been a truly wonderful year for games. It's not that their quality has improved so much since the last year, but that there's so much more variety on display than what I'm used to. Remember when every GOTY award flocked to RE4, Modern Warfare, and GTAIV, and if you didn't like these games it was as if there was something fundamentally wrong with you? Sure, we had a GOTY, but it just squeaked by with 2/5 people happening to call it their personal fave. Otherwise we wouldn't have had one. I just think its great that the industry seems to be branching out more and more. No hive mind here. That's for damn sure.

Note: There's still quite a few supposedly great games from 09 that I have yet to check out. Notably: LostWinds 2, Little King Story, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor, Dragon Age, Borderlands, Trials HD (played the demo and would love to play some more), 'Splosion Man, and maybe someday I'll check out that Modern Warfare 2 game everyone seems to be raving about. So just because something didn't make my list doesn't mean it wasn't utterly fantastic.

More New Stuff

2009-11-23T17:10:00.001-08:00

If I'm going to go the glorified resume route with this blog, it would probably be a good idea if I at least kept it up to date, eh?

On that note, I reviewed Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues over at G4TV last week. The video review just went up today, presented by The Sess, which is always exciting.

Secondly, I flew up to Vancouver, BC last week to preview ModNation Racers for them. I have to say that I was quite impressed by what I saw and sadly didn't have the word count permitted to go into everything in my preview. But know this, dear reader: I did create a steampunk/robot/cowboy/sheriff with a Clockwork Orange left eye and a small red diamond tattoo resting underneath it for my racer. I was very proud of it and hope to see it in the final game.

And finally, my second edition of Challenging Conventons went up last week. This time I waffle about Brutal Legend's divisive mix of genre-blending madness.

X-Play Debut+ New Column/Girlfriend= Neglected Blog

2009-11-03T17:10:00.000-08:00

Hey all, I feel I must apologize that over the last couple months JumpingMoustache.com has turned into more of a portfolio than a blog, and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure when that's going to change. Part of the reason for that is that I've started up a new column at TheGameReviews.com called Challenging Conventions, wherein every other week I focus on a particular convention a game sidesteps and analyze what it means for the industry as a whole. My maiden article is about the "hug button" in A Boy and His Blob. I'll still update my blog with exclusive content now and again, but I often find myself wanting to save my best ideas for my column.

The other big piece of news is that I got taken on as a freelance reviewer for X-Play on G4. My debut article, a review of Lucidity, just went up, so check that out as well.

Also, to get more personal for a second, I started dating a new girl. This has been wonderful and could help explain my lack of internet presence. Games are great and all, but real life can't be ignored and I've been very busy living it to its fullest as of late. My new girlfriend is also a gamer (the first I've dated, oddly enough), so she's actually helped inspire some of my latest ideas. Who knows if I would have written about the "hug button" had she and I not discussed it for a few minutes, taking turns with the controller, getting our Blob on. So worry not, I'll still be regularly writing about games (even if she has gotten me hooked on the World Series. And I thought I hated sports).

Anyway, that's where I've been and what I've been doing. If my blog has suffered, it's been to offshoot everything else in my life that's going swell.

New Big Red Potion Appearance

2009-10-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

My new appearance on Big Red Potion is up in which we discuss Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. I'm sure this is a game I'll write more on later as it was one of my most pleasant surprises of the year, but for now enjoy the show.

One quick afterword though: I may have to eat crow on what I said about the puzzles being too handholdey. Justin Keverne's wrote a wonderful piece on the game, explaining how Drake is a man of action and shouldn't be held up for too long. In other words, the puzzles are easy to the player because they're supposed to be easy for Drake. In a sense, they're hardly even puzzles, but rather the illusion of puzzles to help drive the narrative along. While I appreciate my masochistic LucasArts and Braid-like mind-benders, they wouldn't have fit the flow of Uncharted's more guided experience. The game is always throwing something new at you, whether it be a shootout, an extended platforming sequence, or petting a yak's butt. Just because I like hard puzzles doesn't make them necessary for every game. It's good to be wrong sometimes.

One more thing- Drake kills a lot of people in this game. Granted they're all bad and trying to kill him, it still seems a bit sociopathic (which is brought up at one point). The game introduces stealth, but only insofar as stealth kills go. You cannot bypass a combat zone entirely by sneaking past enemies. I think that would be an interesting addition to Uncharted 3, so long as it's only optional and the game doesn't rate you on it ala MGS. Maybe then he can only kill 400 dudes, rather than 900. Just a thought.

Brutal Legend Review

2009-10-13T17:46:00.000-07:00

The story is as old as time itself; a roadie gets blood on his cursed belt buckle, which is actually a demon, sending him back in time to an age when the gods of rock ruled the world. Okay, maybe it’s not The Iliad, but under its half parody of/half love letter to heavy metal coating, it’s a timeless retelling of a hero’s journey - a man finding his place in the world. There have been plenty of fantasies about lowly bumpkins with surnames like Skywalker and Potter who discover their destiny to save the world, but these blokes were always unremarkable and just got lucky in discovering their destinies. They didn’t have much in the way of character traits beyond whining and being unlucky as children. Eddie Riggs, Brutal Legend’s plump protagonist, is far richer a character, with genuine enthusiasm for what he does. i.e. being a roadie and living the rock ’n roll lifestyle from the sidelines. When he’s summoned into this world, all the skills that have made him an invaluable albeit invisible part of the industry manifest themselves in ways vital to saving the world. It sounds formulaic, but there are twists along the way, and the story is told with such enthusiasm that one can’t help but get wrapped up in Eddie’s struggles, "which some would call hellish. But I have to admit, is kind of badass."

Brutal Legend’s presentation is astounding - one of the best portrayals of a virtual world in a videogame. As Tim Schafer said, "if it looks like it would belong on a metal album cover, we can put it in the game." This is well presented in the environment, littered with runes of the ancient titans of rock. A giant wall of speakers, a skull for a moon, and a hive full of metal spiders that spin metal webs (of course) are just sample of the landscape available. Brutal Legend has the best art direction of any game since Okami. I wanted to take a screencap every 10 seconds and frame it on my wall. All this is aided by phenomenal voice-work by a star-studded cast, and one of the best uses of licensed music in a game with an epic soundtrack consisting of over 100 songs. All metal. All the time.

The game is also hilarious. The opening cutscene alone had me laughing more than any game since GLaDOS met her fate at the end of Portal. A good example ofBrutal Legend’s unique brand of humor is its mockery of the videogame convention where players must choose to accept a mission or deny it, knowing full well that the game will only progress with "accept". After being briefed on a mission, the game pauses at the most inopportune moment only to ask whether to attempt the mission now or later. I recommend choosing "later" just to hear the great dialogue as Eddie has a last minute change of heart and tries to weasel out of his world saving duties.

Read the rest of the review here, at TGR.

The Greatest Story Not Told

2009-10-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

Imagine, if you will you’ll, that you’re looking at someone standing in an empty cave the size of a stadium, fighting a creature a hundred times their size. You don’t need words to explain this. It’s your classic David vs Goliath struggle, a story told entirely in images. An image, after all, is worth a thousand words. Now add music to that image. Now movement. Now control. What I’ve just described is a scene out of dungeon-crawler Demon’s Souls. It just so happens that you get to participate in those images.

Less is more

There’s little in in the way of plot, characters, or dialogue to bog things down. As such, the game functions more as an interactive picture book than an interactive movie. It’s been argued that games cannot have the depth of other, more linear forms of storytelling such as books or movies, but I believe that games tell stories that are much more abstract. These stories are based on each player’s experience of playing the game, and a game’s artistry can subtly guide this narrative experience, without overbearing the player with exposition.

Continuing with Demon’s Souls, one area of the game is based within a labyrinthine mine. You start out on the surface, along a lush canyon against the red of a sunset. As you enter the mines, you come upon dimly lit tunnels and wooden walkways. Plunging the mine deeper, you find yourself in ever darker, narrower tunnels, only to suddenly stumble upon large pools of lava with giant slug-like creatures. There’s a staggering feeling of isolation and helplessness as you realize just how deep the rabbit hole is, and this is all done with only the slightest hint of plot. Thus far, the plot has been very simple one about a cursed kingdom and an anonymous hero fighting legions of demons to save it. The story isn’t complex, yet it provides enough context to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing. The real story, however, is yours as you fight the impossible fight against a gorgeously rendered backdrop.

Crackdown’s story is found in its world, not in its cut scenes.

Another game that understands this minimalistic approach to storytelling is Crackdown, even though it was frequently criticized for lacking a story. It did actually have one, but it was told entirely through its setting and gameplay mechanics. True, there is no real character development, and your only mission is to take out twenty-one targets, in whatever way you choose to. Crackdown’s story lies in its portrayal of a fascist society, something discovered by exploring its world and blowing shit up. The agents, of which your protagonist is one, are mindless drones that can be respawned from a number of supply points, a solid indication of how powerful and inhuman the Agency’s totalitarian rule is. The Agency Tower is the game’s tallest building, reinforcing the notion of a totalitarian, fascist society. The final twist reveals that the agency is (gasp) evil, and it’s hardly a surprise, given how the player has spent countless hours as a merciless killing machine. Subsequently, this heavy-handed explanation is the one point where the storytelling missteps, as it doesn’t trust players to figure out things for themselves.

Read the rest of the article here, at thegamereviews.com

Making Exploration and Storytelling Compatible

2009-10-01T13:40:00.000-07:00

Playing through Batman: Arkham Asylum, I realized that while I loved hunting down all the hidden collectibles and solving the wealth of Riddler challenges, it didn’t make sense for Batman to be taking time out of his busy schedule to do any of that. True, this has been the case with the majority of games, but I never really noticed it until Arkham Asylum. Maybe that’s because it’s so well-presented, or that it all conceivably occurs in real-time, given how it takes place over the course of one night and a playthrough lasts an appropriate nine to twelve hours.

Either way, it became apparent that most games suffer from this flaw. When there’s an urgent quest or mission at hand, the player is often urged to use their limitless supply of time to hunt down doodads. Even games that don’t have collectibles or side-quests still give way to exploration simply by virtue of housing a game world that can be explored. After playing through Arkham Asylum, I felt compelled to reflect on games that have sidestepped this convention, and to consider how to integrate storytelling with the player’s urge to explore, which is encouraged by any virtual world.

The Legend of Zelda’s world is expansive, exciting, and often very confusing.

The original The Legend of Zelda gets right to the heart of the matter. You didn’t explore it simply to find stuff, but rather because you were on a quest to save the princess, but had been given no instruction or direction on how to do this. Thus, there was no choice but to explore. There was almost no way of knowing if you’re going down the main path or not, outside of getting hold of the Nintendo Power map, so it never felt like you were taking time out from saving the world to collect goodies. Instead, every cave you explored was a possible further lead towards the main quest – and if it wasn’t, you probably found a nifty reward instead. Zelda was incredibly confusing at times, but at its core that lack of distinction between its main path and its side-quests was to its credit.

Appropriate exploration resurfaced in the second N64 Zelda title, Majora’s Mask, the platform provided in that game’s case by how it handled time. Unlike in most games, you couldn’t take your time in Majora’s Mask’s world, safe in the knowledge that you’d always arrive at the last minute to save the day. Instead, you had three in-game days to save the world, which constituted somewhere between fifty minutes and five hours in real-time depending on how much you slowed down time in-game. Fail, and you’d lose all progress made in that time. Rather than being a horribly frustrating, repetitious experience, you were able to revert back to the first day’s dawn at any time, keeping all the important objects you’d acquired in that time with you. This made it easy to make your way back to where you left off, and more significantly, provided the sense for Link to want to take his time to search for treasures to aid him on his quest. Simply put, Link literally had all the time in the world of Majora’s Mask.

Check out the rest of the article here at thegamereviews.com

Uncharted 2's Looks a Bit Charted to Me

2009-09-22T15:24:00.000-07:00

Video Games | Uncharted 2: Among Thieves | E3 09: Developer Walkthrough

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

I have to admit that I'm rather excited for Uncharted 2. That being said, I have some concerns based on what we've seen in trailers as well as my take on its predecessor.

I liked the first Uncharted, but seemingly not as much as the rest of the world. I found it absolutely brilliant in some ways, but lacking in others. In terms of characters, dialogue, graphics, music, animation, and overall presentation, Uncharted was a tour de force. On the other hand, I found its core mechanics not particularly interesting. It seemed like it was 80% shooting, with very light, easy elements of exploration and puzzle solving thrown in for good measure. It was serviceable, but got old quickly for me. Compared to a game like the recent Batman: Arkham Asylum, which switches gears far more often, Uncharted's pacing just felt off. There's a lot more to treasure hunting than shooting hundreds of pirates in the head, and I'm personally more interested in the exploratory nature of the treasure hunt (something I felt like the recent Tomb Raider games have gotten down, in spite of falling short in all the other ways in which Uncharted succeeds).

As such, my excitement for Uncharted 2 was always a bit lowkey. I knew I'd play it when it came out, but had a hard time mustering up that much excitement over it. Then came the E3 live demo at the Sony press conference. It portrayed a four minute scene of Nathan Drake eluding a helicopter along a series of rooftops. In terms of presentation it set a new highmark as the camera would consistently portray the best angle on the action as the environments changed in conjunction with the aforementioned helicopter destroying them. Watching the clip, I was very impressed. Now that the early reviews have poured with scores off the charts, I decided to rewatch these clips for the first time since E3 in order to muster up my excitement. Sadly, they don't play as well the second time around, bringing me to my single largest concern about Uncharted 2.

The scenes we've seen in trailers look absolutely marvelous, save one crucial concern; the events look to be largely scripted. The first time you see a helicopter shoot down a building you're on as the floor slopes down and everything on it slides with it, it's a sight to behold. But imagine getting a game over several times during one of these setpieces and having to redo it again and again. Each time you'd see the same events occur and after the first or second time, they'd lose their "wow" factor.

If everything goes smoothly, the game looks great. If you mess up and get a game over, repeating previous sections doesn't sound very dynamic. If it's anything like the first game, it'll quickly resort into a case of "shoot these two guys behind that pillar, then move on until this guy comes in from the right..." In essence, these games are very much on-rails. They're little more than movies with interactive shooting bits in between.

This doesn't make Uncharted and potentially its upcoming sequel bad games. They're still superb linear third-person shooters. But my fear is that that's all they are. They're largely based on trial-and-error with little room for experimentation. You basically have to do things the right way or you can't progress; something that gets old fast. Perhaps if the game had a more vague narrative I wouldn't feel this way. Games like Demon's Souls barely have a story, and as a result, I feel less like I'm just going through the motions of someone's interactive movie, but rather playing the game at my own pace. It's a similar problem I came across with the Phoenix Wright games where you have to do as the designer intended or you can't progress. This is an interactive medium. I wish Naughty Dog used their stellar presentation to produce something where you could interact in more ways than just shooting guys or following a preset path.

Interview With Scribblenaut's Creative Director, Jeremiah Slaczka

2009-09-21T14:18:00.000-07:00

Scribblenauts is the game that allows for you to summon just about anything you can think of in order to solve puzzles or satiate your own inner omnipotence. To get the lowdown on the game and the inspiration behind it, Jeffrey Matulef spoke to 5th Cell’s Creative Director Jeremiah Slaczka at this year’s Penny Arcade Expo in Seattle. He found out where the idea for the game came from, as well as the newly suggested official Scribblenauts tattoo.

TGR: What initially gave you the idea for Scribblenauts?

Slaczka: After Drawn to Life I still had a couple ideas. One was this building block idea called, "Once Upon a Time" where you’d write stories on the bottom screen like "the dog went through the forest", and then it would play out on the top screen. I thought, "That’s a really cool idea, but it’s not a game." So I shoved that idea for a while. And then I had a dream... I’ve never had a game dream before. I was in this Aztec Temple and there were these rooms, and in these rooms there were these weird puzzles to solve. There’d be like these three pictures and I’d have to line them up and then the exit would open up and I’d go to the next room. And in the other room there’d be like these dirty dishes and you’d go wash them. There wouldn’t be any clues - you’d just instinctively know what you were supposed to do with these objects. So I thought, "That’s a really cool idea for a game." But it didn’t really have a hook and there’d be no replayability, so I thought, "What if I just smash all these things together and we use keywords to solve puzzles? Then the replayablity becomes infinite."

TGR: Does the game have any kind of story at all?

Slaczka: No. No it doesn’t. And I didn’t want it to. I have another game coming out in October called Drawn to Life: The Next Chapter. It’s a direct sequel to the first. There’s a Wii version too, but we didn’t work on that. The Wii version is very different from the DS. And that game has a lot of story. I actually have a background in screenwriting and I’m really big into story, but for Scribblenauts I didn’t want it to have a story because I wanted it to be accessible to everybody. Just get in, get out, have some fun. Story can turn off a lot of people. Some people will want to skip through the cutscenes and just play, and some people will want to watch them. But we wanted this game to appeal to everybody. So it’s sort of a lowest common denominator- make it as simple as possible. That’s why I made the starites - they’re a macguffin - you just know you want to get them. Then think, "OK, what do I need to do to get that?"

Just one of the many ways to help a lumberjack in Scribblenauts

TGR: Did the thought ever cross your mind to do a very silly Katamari-esque story?

Slaczka: There was! That’s why it’s actually called Scribblenauts. Originally [Maxwell] was an astronaut and he would go around these different planets and help them by scribbling on this notepad. So we kept the name. So if you write ’Scribblenaut’ in the game, you’ll actually get the original Scribblenaut. He’s an astronaut dude who looks kinda like a robot, but we wanted a guy who looked more human, so we went with Maxwell.

Read the rest of the interview here at TGR.

Big Red Potion Episode# 21 Afterword

2009-09-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

My newest appearance on Big Red Potion opposite Justin McElroy (Joystiq) is up at bigredpotion.com. I was unusually quiet during this week's podcast as I was so fascinated by the discussion already happening around me and my rant about Assassin's Creed was cut probably because Sinan was worried what would happen if we said bad things about Ubisoft*. More accurately, I found myself too shy to interrupt such great conversations, instead opting to think of brilliant things to say and then not finding the opportune moment to say them. Until now, that is...

I've already written about the topic of game reviews here, but I wanted to talk about price and value bit. My feeling is that value is an incredibly subjective thing and based on three things: game quality, the budget of the consumer, and the free time available to them. The latter two are specific to the individual and cannot be judged by a critic.

We all want the best bang for our buck, but there's a stigma in our society that that somehow means longest game for least amount of money. Now that makes sense for some. I certainly remember when I was young and my parents would only buy me one or two games a year, so I'd have to make sure to get the longest games possible (provided they were also good, of course). If you have little money and lots of free time, you'll fall into this camp and be wise to spend your $60 on Fallout 3 rather than say, Mirror's Edge.

However, for many, price may not matter all that much. What matters more is quality. And we've reached a point where there are so many great games being produced that it's nigh on impossible to keep up with them all. As such, greater gaming enthusiasts (such as myself) will want shorter games, so we have time to check out more of them. Obviously my view is a bit skewed as I'm a far greater game enthusiast than most and often get free games to review, but it's not uncommon for gamers to have a backlog of games they'd like to play, but just not had the time for for one reason or another. As such, the prospect of a great 6-8 hour game priced the same as a 60-80 hour game doesn't seem as skewed as it would have to me when I was younger.

Of course, one could argue that you could just rent shorter games and then buy them later after a price drop. That's a totally acceptable way to go about it and entirely economical, but let's face it; people like to collect stuff. Think about movies. How many times do you think the average person watches the average movie that they buy? Conversely, think how cheap and easy it is to rent movies these days. It would probably be cheaper to just rent whatever they want to see when they want to see it (even if it means renting it multiple times). Though there's something very appealing about just having it there at a moment's notice. Going back to games, I think it's important to mention things like length and replayability for the those in the small budget/lots of free time camp, but criticizing a game for being too short isn't really a criticism at all as far as I can tell. It sounds more like praise and that the game was so good and that they didn't want it to end. So yeah, value is in the eye of the beholder and docking a review score for a game being too short is akin to a food critic rating a burrito poorly for not being lasagna. Damn review scores! (Which I hear were invented by Paul Rooney.)

I also wanted to go into the concept of rating a rerelease. I disagree with Justin about them not needing a review. I think it's great to reevaluate how well a game holds up. Saying something was great "for the time" just doesn't cut it with me. I want to know how well it hold up to the current competition.

The Secret of Monkey Island is an interesting case though. Based on what I've seen and heard, the remade elements aren't that great (notably the new character model for Guybrush. Seriously. What were they thinking?), but the original game (included as part of the package) still holds up amazingly well. So how the hell do you score that? It's taking a great game and making it worse, so it should get a terrible score. Yet it still has that great game on it. Personally, I'd say the original game itself is worth $10 easy, and a reviewer could go into lots of detail on why that is and why it's held up so well over the years.

Beyond that, I feel like a review is little more than an interpretation of a game- or rather the experience playing it. We're all going to approach a game from our own perspective, and I've always personally found reading other people's perspectives on a game fascinating. It helps shape my own and often leaves me appreciating a game more for reasons I wouldn't have thought of on my own (or criticizing a game for reasons I wouldn't have though of). Writing about what's in the game isn't enough. A reviewer should write about what stood out to them, what it was like to play, and what things frustrated or delighted them about the design. A game is an interactive medium. As such, a review needs to focus on that interaction. Readers will be able to figure out from there whether it sounds like their cup of tea or not.

Batman is Actually a Huge Procrastinator...

2009-08-26T17:36:00.000-07:00

I should probably be looking for the Joker right
about now, but I'm on a really big history kick.

In some ways, Batman: Arkham Asylum combines story and gameplay better than almost any game I've seen. Rather than come up with my own witty retort for why this is, I'll do the lazy thing and quote Dan Whitehead who'd already said it best:

"By placing the game in the realistically restricted confines of Arkham, and by having the unpredictable Joker as the antagonist, the story doesn't really have to stretch too much to accommodate the requirements of a videogame. Joker is playing with Batman, after all, and so it makes sense that he'll be opening up new areas only when you've performed specific tasks."

In some ways this is true. If you play the game straight through, you'll experience this seamless mix of story and gameplay. However, the game sort of dissuades you from playing this way with its host of collectibles and secrets.

I found myself scanning the room trying to solve the Riddler's challenges and find his hidden trophies, then thinking, "Wait a second. Shouldn't I be trying to rescue Commissioner Gordon?" If you're trying to take the story seriously, it doesn't make sense that Batman would be going off on all these archeological tangents.

At the same time, I'm not criticizing their existence either, because they're both fun in their own right, and help highlight the often brilliant level design as well as ensure that the player catch all the hidden details that go a long way towards fleshing out the game world.

But I find that these are two completely different ways of playing the game. Exploring is fun. The story is compelling. They're just at odds with one another, and I'm not sure what a designer could do to fix that. As a result, the way I'm trying to play is to ignore all the collectibles and respect the story and the sense of urgency that it conveys. Then once I've beaten the game, I'd like to go back and search for all the hidden goodies. That way I can put the plot on hold and think of it like an extra on a DVD where you get to appreciate all the details you didn't have time to catch the first time around.

Though my OCD does tend to make me want to scavenge every nook and cranny of each area when I enter it, but that's my problem. Not the game's. And I'm trying to fight it. Though I'm curious why I even care to find all these collectibles when I know I'll go back for them later anyway, as they break the illusion of being Batman hot on the Joker's trail. Is it due to year's worth of playing games where the plots are negligible, so I don't mind breaking them (Metroid certainly comes to mind here)? Is it because I dread the thought of having to retread old ground for something I've missed? I'm curious what other people's reactions have been to this and whether they notice or care that seeking out these extra challenges make no sense in the game's narrative. And how do you compromise these two divergent aspects of story and game? Perhaps only have the collectibles appear as a bonus mode post beating the game, so that they can't get in the way the first time through? Just a thought.

Okami Retrodotal

2009-08-19T17:33:00.000-07:00

Okami’s unusual visuals are still beautiful years after its release

"It’s like someone read my mind for what would make a perfect video game, and then made it." So said a younger, longer-haired Jeffrey Matulef in the autumn of 2006. That’s how I felt when I first played Okami. Though I don’t know if the word "played" does it justice; more like when I absorbed, consumed, and experienced Okami.

The Legend of Zelda has always been my favorite long-running game franchise, so the idea of a Zelda clone by Hideki Kamiya (Devil May Cry, Viewtiful Joe) that looked as good as Okami did was enough to launch it straight to the top of my most anticipated games ever list. I knew it would look great, and I knew it would play great, but I wasn’t exactly holding my breath on it having an interesting story or well-written script. Much to my surprise, and eternal delight it did. The story was still your basic tale of good versus evil, albeit with a Princess Mononoke-esque environmental message about replenishing nature. But the characters were complex and interesting, with developer Clover side-stepping the disconnect I usually get with silent protagonists by making Ameterasu a wolf goddess. It was a fantastic way of explaining why she’s smarter than most, yet cannot communicate with people. There’s even glimpses of how she looks from other people’s perspectives where her ethereal decorative wounds are invisible.

So enamored was I with Okami that while I wanted nothing more than to continue playing it non-stop, I also didn’t want it to end. At the same time, I had less than two weeks to beat the game prior to the start of the Fall term, knowing once that happened, I’d have practically no time to game. As a result, I’d made a concerted effort to time it right so I’d beat it just as summer vacation would come to a close.

Read the rest of the article here, at thegamereviews.com

Ghostbusters Wii Review

2009-08-19T01:22:00.000-07:00

My Review of Ghostbusters is up here, at Honestgamers. As you can tell, it was not my favorite game in the world. In case any of you are wondering how it stacks up to the 360/PS3 versions, I can say that I only played the first two hours of the 360 version, but liked it a lot better for reasons I'm somewhat ashamed to admit: the graphics. I liked the cartoonish character designs just fine in the Wii version, but beyond that, I liked the darker, more realistic look of the 360 version. The level design was also a bit more inventive, based on the little I played. At any rate, I think I covered most of the salient points of the Wii version in my review, so if you were curious about that particular version, go check it out (the review that is. Maybe not so much the game).

I Cast a Mean Pod:

2009-08-09T16:01:00.001-07:00

Eddie Inzauto, former features director at TGR (i.e. my old boss) has recently started up a podcast on his site, Gamernode. Last week he and Jason Finelli invited me on as their special guest to discuss the best game of 2009 so far (as well as what we're looking forward to the most later this year). Give it a listen.

Top Ten Non-Playable Characters

2009-07-10T15:46:00.000-07:00

My Top Ten Non-Playable Characters list is up at TGR, so you should likely go check that out, ya know, if you want. A quick note about Top X lists:

I'm tempted to say that I hate Top X lists; that they're the worst kind of feeble-minded pandering that is ruining the industry. And to an extent, I do. Rate the top 10 babes in gaming, get a ton of hits! It's not rocket science. Though I think there's more to them than selling out.

A good summation on a Top X list can bring new appreciation to that particular entry. I knew people liked Sephiroth, but had no idea why until forced to write that list and really force myself to understand his appeal. My only hope is that people learn as much from my lists reading them as I did writing them.

The other great thing about these lists is that they can highlight games and achievements you may not have thought about. When's the last time anyone's thought about Murray the Demonic Skull? He's a great character though, and if this helps bring Curse of Monkey Island to people's attention or remind them that they should play it, then the list has done its job. It's meant to refresh people's memories as well as turn them on to new stuff. Provided you can take Top X lists with a grain of salt and not get too wrapped up on how similar they are to your own personal choices, I think there's a lot of value to them. They may not be particularly deep, but they can work as a summary in what you might have missed or failed to fully appreciate your first time through.

In Defense of the Pre-rendered Cut Scene

2009-07-08T12:40:00.000-07:00

Final Fantasy VII’s impressive cut scenes took it to new levels of popularity.

I’ve been playing Demon’s Souls, From Software’s dungeon-crawling action-RPG that’s coming to American shores soon thanks (once again) to Atlus. During a recent playthrough it struck me that while the game’s dark fantasy aesthetic does look good, it doesn’t look as good as its cut scenes do. The cut scenes look stylistically similar to the rest of the game, but there’s more detailed texturing, smoother animation – in fact, it looks better in every conceivable way. Demon’s Souls uses pre-rendered CGI footage for its cut scenes, sparingly placed between long chapters of dungeon crawling. It reminded me of the PlayStation games of the late 90s, when pre-rendered footage was the standard for video game cut scenes. A decade later and CGI cut scenes are almost completely out of fashion. What happened?

It used to be that games traditionally told their stories via text and in-game animations. That all changed with the advent of 3D gaming around the PlayStation era. The industry shifted towards pre-rendered cut scenes using computer-generated imagery to help push narrative forward, with Final Fantasy VII being the epitome of this shift. Prior to VII, the series had always been rather niche outside of Japan, but Square’s debut on PlayStation employed CGI cut scenes for the first time in the series. Sony’s merciless promotional campaign featuring these lavishly produced cut scenes – and none of the game engine – helped to ensure Final Fantasy VII’s immense popularity, and to make the brand a household name. Everyone wanted the game that looked like a movie, and its dependence on pre-rendered cut scenes quickly became the dominant form for video game storytelling for several years.

Yet by the time the PlayStation 2 had launched, the impetus within the industry was to use game engines to handle cut scenes. Games like Metal Gear Solid proved that developers didn’t need to rely on flashy CGI movies to tell a rich, complex story, while the PS2 allowed them to achieve fully realized 3D character models that weren’t overly pixilated. By the time this generation of consoles launched, the concept of pre-rendered footage became all but taboo. But I think there was something to the old way of doing things that’s been lost in the industry’s dogged persistence to prove it can do everything within its game engine.

Check out the rest of the article here, at TGR.

E3 09: Borderlands Preview

2009-07-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

In an age where shooters are all trying to outdo each other’s realism, it’s refreshing to hear Gearbox’s creative director Mikey Neumann tell us that, "realism can eat shit and die." This bolshy mantra is first made apparent in Borderland’s new art style. It’s gone cel-shaded since we last saw it, making for a flashier, comic-book style vibe. This succeeds at streamlining the focus of the game from a gritty, desolate atmosphere to pure, raw fun.

Borderlands is a "Role-Playing Shooter" from Gearbox Interactive, the creators of Half-Life: Opposing Force and the Brothers in Arms series. It aims to combine the open-ended structure and leveling commonly found in role-playing games with first-person shooter combat and a healthy dose of co-op. Borderlands is primarily set in a desert wasteland of the hostile planet Pandora, where your rag-tag crew of treasure hunters is looking for a legendary alien vault containing unspeakable technology. Unfortunately, a lot of others are looking for this vault as well, forcing you to duke it out with them while also surviving the local wildlife. Thus begins your quest of exploration, looting, mission-hunting, and killing things, all of which will take you across miles of open terrain.

Arguably, Borderland’s biggest selling point is that it will contain over a million different weapons. This may sound like an exaggeration, but it’s not. Each gun is comprised of multiple components that are randomly generated and cobbled together. As such, no two weapons will ever be exactly alike. You’ll also have the option to make your own custom weapons out of parts that you find lying around the environment. Creatures disappear and leave ammo and weapon parts behind, which is another wonderfully daft example of Gearbox’s reluctance to conform to the standards of reality. This custom nature also extends to different ammo types, of which there are plenty. The most noteworthy of these are the self-explanatory "healing bullets," which sound like great fun in co-op.

Check out the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

Am I evil? Yes, I am.

2009-06-30T15:52:00.000-07:00

My new appearance on Big Red Potion (episode # 16) is up. Check it out here. This week I was joined with Jared Newman as we discussed being evil in games: how games handle it, the pros and cons of such approaches, and why we do it. I think we all had some interesting discussion on the matter, and as always, I've thought about things I should have said but didn't get around to. So here goes:

I wanted to delve into how moral choices in games need to be less defined as "good" or "evil." It's my belief that most people are either good, or want to be good. If given a choice that's predetermined as being "good" or "evil" no one will pick the evil option unless it's done for comedic effect.

Perhaps that's just me, but I can never take being a dick in Fallout or Fable at all seriously. I laughed aloud in Mass Effect during my second playthrough when Commander Shepard refused to use the non-lethal gas grenades on the infected colonists. Even in GTAIV, where you're supposed to be an antihero, I still found it out of character for Niko to reckless run over civilians for shits and giggles as I was doing. Conversely, this bothers me a lot less in a game like Saints Row 2 where it's never attempting to be serious. Whenever I get into this mindset, I cease to take the game seriously from a narrative point of view, and merely view it as a sandbox. Think Noby Noby Boy, but more violent.

When I try to take a game seriously, however, I always naturally do what I would do in that situation i.e. play good. Though life is never that easy. In my view, most people try to do what they think is good, but end up doing evil deeds without realizing it. We brought up Braid and Shadow of the Colossus as examples of games where you only realize the consequences of your good intentions when it's too late. Both those games, however, didn't give you a choice. I would love to see a game where it would give me a choice and I'd pick the evil option unknowingly. There was a part in inFamous where you have to decide who to save. Sadly, it's very clear which choice is the "good" one and which choice is "evil" (or more accurately the lesser of two goods). Having the same dilemma without knowing how you'll be judged would have added even more weight to the situation.

I think that's really what this comes down to; games need more unpredictable results. If you know you'll gain a certain number of Paragon or Renegade points and be able to purchase certain powers, that'll strongly influence how you'll chose to deal with that particular dilemma. Having situations where you don't know what kinds of rewards or penalties you'll endure is far more interesting.

For example, Joe brought up how he'd accidentally let lose an army of homicidal ghouls into a city in Fallout 3. He thought he was doing right though. I mean, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Too bad Fallout 3 has such shoddy story-telling. Imagine that on a smaller scale more along the lines of inFamous with a fully voice-acted third-person protagonist and it could really create some compelling drama.

Joe also brought up how Silent Hill 2's ending is finely tuned to how you play. That's a truly brilliant idea and I wish more game would do that. How come in inFamous I can play as a good guy, yet still injure (and probably kill) countless civilians in the crossfire with no repercussions whatsoever? I want to make mistakes and accidentally kill people and have random NPCs hate me. Then in return I could hate them back and abuse my powers. That's how people turn evil; gradually and unknowingly.

I feel like because games require so much more active participation than any other medium, they'd make a great way to explore this side of the human condition. How frustrating is it to watch a movie where a character learns a lesson of some kind, but the whole time you're watching you can't help but think that you would have acted differently, making the lesson seem irrelevant to you? If movies and books tend to portray a character learning a lesson, what better way to teach said lesson than have the player be that character and learn it for themselves based on their own choices? That's something games can offer us that other mediums cannot, and we've only begun to scratch the surface in that regard. Amirite?

E3 09: Alien Vs Predator Preview

2009-06-29T15:57:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make: I never played any of the previous Alien vs. Predator games. I am as wary of licensed games as many others are, especially when said game combines two properties that really have nothing to do with one another. Despite all of this, Alien Vs Predator ended up being the most interesting first-person shooter that I saw at E3. Imagine my surprise.

AVP is split between three campaigns: that of a human soldier, a Predator, and an Alien. All three will encompass one complete story, but you can experience it from varying points of view through a set of species-specific missions. The first demo that we were shown was from the human side, which was a curious choice considering that it fails to capitalize on the greatest strengths of the brand name and looked like a fairly typical sci-fi/horror FPS at first glance. The level took place in a dark industrial setting, with the player throwing flares to brighten up areas beyond his flashlight. The flare landed underneath a staircase, showing off some really impressive lighting that brings to mind the entirely orange and black aesthetic of Alien3. Since the flares are your only source of light besides the flashlight, you are forced to make their placement a tactical decision. At this point, I was still fairly unimpressed, as everything that I had seen looked a bit generic. "You roam around metal corridors fighting monsters," I thought. "How original."

All that changed once a pitch black Alien silently emerged from the shadows, leaping at the screen. The audience twitched as the PR guy--who had been demoing the game all day--died from this attack. "Where they come from is randomized" he noted, before trying again. This time the alien came from the same basic direction, but a little higher up. The creatures are very hard to see, so even the slightest change in trajectory can throw off your game and force you to squint to make out their shape against the shadows. The marine popped off a few rounds, but the Alien was too close to him when the bullets struck. This caused the creature’s acid blood to explode onto the screen, which would probably hurt like hell and cause you to go blind in real life. Since that wouldn’t be too much fun in a game, the on-screen acid sizzling ends up being one of the best vision-obscuring effects ever rendered.

Check out the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

Prototype Review

2009-06-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Prototype may be the first game since Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga 2 where the core mechanic revolves around consuming people. This, in and of itself, makes the game awesome. The question as to how awesome is a bit trickier, as Prototype is one of the most unique and schizophrenic games I've played in recent memory.

The game introduces Alex Mercer, a moody bloke with amnesia and super powers (i.e. the ability to take on others' forms and memories). He's out to get revenge on those who gave him said powers. I'm not sure why, exactly, as having said powers seems kind of awesome. Supposedly he wants his old life back, but if that old photograph of him in the Cosby sweater is anything to go on, his old life was rather dull. There is a virus converting much of the city into mutants, however, and Alex feels like there's got to be some connection between what's happened to him and what's going on in the city. So off he goes to investigate.

On paper, Prototype bears more than a passing resemblance to the recently released inFamous: Both games feature a 20-something male who wakes up with inexplicable super powers. Both games contain viral outbreak and both take place in a city that's been quarantined. They're also both are free-roaming platformer/action games. In practice, however, the two games couldn't be more different. Whereas inFamous focused heavily on its narrative, platforming, and atmosphere, Prototype focuses on combat above all else.

Oddly enough, the elements that Prototype has in common with inFamous are its least successful. In my view, the best thing about games like inFamous and Crackdown was the way that they delicately balanced shooting enemies with collecting power-ups. Prototype has both those elements also, but the draw distance is so terrible that collecting said power-ups feels broken. Furthermore, inFamous had an engrossing story and Prototype does not. None of that means the Prototype is a failure, just that it offers a completely different kind of experience than Sucker Punch's superhero adventure.

Read the rest of the review here, as Honestgamers.

E3 09: Mass Effect 2 Hands-on Preview

2009-06-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

Mass Effect was truly an epic game, one full of planet-hopping, galaxy saving, and alien shagging. Since the original seemingly had it all, constructing a worthy follow-up would be quite a daunting task. Thankfully, Bioware seems to be up to the challenge, keeping everything that was great about the first game and improving upon all its little problems immensely.

The first change worth mentioning is that Mass Effect’s much maligned combat has been greatly improved. My demo had me raiding a tower on a blue metropolitan planet that looked a bit like Coruscant from Star Wars. Classes have been tweaked from what they were in the first game, opening up new abilities to fit every player type. In this case, I was playing as a Soldier build and the assault rifle was my go-to weapon. The combat is similar to the original, with the time-stopping weapon and ability wheels popping up with the press of a button. Everything is a bit faster paced this time around, with two hot-keys available for different rechargeable abilities. I could also tell individual teammates to lock-on to different enemies at any point. Where an enemy gets shot now seems to make a much bigger difference in how they react, making combat that much more visceral. All of this comes together very smoothly, as I could imbue my bullets temporarily with a special power that would send enemies floating through the air and then tell my squadmate to take them out while they were incapacitated.

The first Mass Effect did a lot to push dialogue trees forward in games, but the conversations were not without their problems. While the voice acting was great and the facial animations were expressive, dialogue sequences still felt stilted and janky as the camera unceremoniously cut between two staid characters. Now, the camera and characters both move around a lot more, proving that the inhabitants of the Mass Effect universe can *gasp* both walk and talk at the same time. Bioware has also made these interactions time-sensitive, so you can’t just stand there awkwardly deciding how to respond. The game forces you to be quick, or the conversation may not go the way you want it to. Furthermore, you’ll have the option to interrupt a chat with the left shoulder button. In one choice example, we were shown Commander Shepard ending a discussion by throwing a guy out of a window, hearkening back to the days when Han Solo could shoot Greedo first and yet still be the hero

Check out the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

E3 09: Red Steel 2 Hands-on Preview

2009-06-26T21:41:00.000-07:00

Prior to the launch of the Wii, Ubisoft’s Red Steel remained an intriguing proposition due to its unique blend of guns and gesture controlled sword combat. Unfortunately, it was a launch title, and Ubisoft had yet to learn how to develop for the Wii at that point. As such, the controls felt clunky and sometimes broken. However, if the E3 demo is an indication, it looks like Ubisoft has listened to nearly all the criticisms of the first game for this upcoming sequel

The first point worth mentioning is that Red Steel 2 has little in common with its predecessor. The game features an all new story, setting, and art style, going for a Samurai Western theme instead of the original’s Asian setting. The sequel features minimalist cel-shaded graphics and a desolate wasteland location that acts like a crossover between the anime Lone Wolf and Cub and the classic western El Topo. You play as a gunslinger/samurai who literally gets roped in to ridding his hometown of a malevolent gang, with the opening cutscene having him bound at the wrists with rope and dragged behind a motorcycle.

Check out the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

E3 09: Trine Hands-On Preview

2009-06-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

2D platforming continued its comeback at E3 in a big way, with New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Shadow Complex leading the charge. So it’s easy then to overlook a fairly anonymous downloadable 2D platformer like Trine. That would be a mistake, because Frozenbyte’s upcoming title was easily one of the best games I saw at this year’s E3.

At its core, Trine is a 2D physics-based puzzling platformer. In its single player, you can toggle between its three characters at will, namely the Knight, the Thief, and the Wizard. The Knight can slash enemies with his sword, and use the right analogue stick to block with his shield from any direction. The Thief shoots arrows in any direction, and can grapple Bionic Commando-style under wooden objects like walkways and boxes. The Wizard summons boxes (one at a time) into existence by drawing them, and can move objects like bridges and boxes telekinetically.

What makes this interesting is Trine’s co-op, played by two or three players, in which you cannot assume the same role as another character. This makes the puzzles harder, as you’ll all have to work together to find a solution for getting each player across the game’s chasms. Here’s an example: a path ahead is covered in spikes while there’s a series of platforms high in the air. The Thief can grapple across the platforms from underneath, but the Knight and the Wizard have to jump across them, and reaching them can prove tricky. First off, the Wizard creates a box to stand on, then the Knight throws said box, with Wizard perched on it, up towards the platforms. Then the Wizard summons a box for the Knight to stand on, and then the Wizard telekinetically drags the Knight on the box using his wizardry. If it sounds complicated, don’t worry, because it’s actually easier said than done or thought out. The game is all physics-based, so where the Wizard grabs the box with the pointer will actually effect how it will move, as does where the Knight is standing. Working in tandem to keep one player perched on a box is just one example of how teamwork in Trine will really pay off.

Check out the rest of the article here, at TGR.

E3 09: Shadow Complex Hands-On Preview

2009-06-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

While I hate to blithely sum up a game as game X meets game Y, there’s really no better way to sum up Shadow Complex than as Metroid meets Uncharted. Chair Entertainment (the studio responsible for XBLA title Undertow) and Epic Games’s Shadow Complex is a 3D-rendered, 2D side-scrolling action-adventure game with a heavy focus on shooting and exploration, not unlike Samus’s early adventures. The aesthetic and modern-day jungle setting, however, has far more in common with Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, not to mention the hero who looks and sounds an awful lot like Nathan Drake – always a possibility when he’s voiced by the same guy, Nolan North.

The game starts off with protagonist Jason Fleming’s girlfriend Clare being kidnapped, bringing Jason to the heart of the jungle where he must infiltrate a mysterious military base – a shadowy complex, even – and rescue her. The demo I played began with my landing in said jungle, where I was to find my climbing gear that would allow me to grab hard to reach ledges. The climbing gear is the first of 18 upgrades you’ll unlock over the course of the game, including a full suit of armor and in pure Metroid form an ice-beam-esque “foam gun” that can create temporary staircases and makeshift cover. This was all set against lush, detailed 3D jungle environments, shown off by Jason’s ability to explore his surroundings with a flashlight aimed in any direction with the right analogue stick.

Check out the rest of the article here, at TGR.

E3 09: Brutal Legend Hands-On Preview

2009-06-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

If Brutal Legend knows one thing, then it’s how to rock. It’s got babes, hot rods, demons, gore, face-melting guitars, head-banging entourages, and of course a heavy emphasis on Norse mythology. This is not rock as we now know it, but its genesis. Rock and Roll was always about rebelling against the status quo and trying to make the world a better, more awesome place. What better way to do that than rid the world of demon through the power of heavy metal?

For the uninitiated, Brutal Legend is a third-person action-adventure game where you play as Eddie Riggs, a roadie voiced by the enigmatic Jack Black. Eddie gets sent back in time via a cursed belt buckle, which just so happens to be a demon, but instead of getting sent back to the past as we know it, he finds himself in a time when the gods of rock ruled the land with the awesome power of their, er, rocking. Unfortunately, said rock and roll fantasy land is being overrun by demons, and it’s your job to save everyone. Righteous!

The demo I was lucky enough to play began with Eddie being transported into this unholy yet awesome land atop a mountain of skeletons, where he gained his first two initial weapons; an axe and an enchanted guitar called Clementine. The ax came with standard heavy and light attacks, complete with suitably gory slow-motion finishing moves. With Clementine equipped Eddie was able to, as Patton Oswalt would say, “change the physical properties of things with the power of his rocking”, i.e. electrocute enemies. After dispatching a handful of red-hooded foes, I moved on to the first mini-boss, a tall nun-like demon who you’ve probably seen in the game’s trailers. After defeating her, I stole her vehicle that resembled a crab made out of metal and bones. Because it’s an unholy magical demon vehicle, Eddie had to pray to the demons above to grant it the strength to move, which laid the path for arguably the most hilarious monologue I’ve heard in a game since GLaDOS’s cries of despair towards the end of Portal.

Check out the rest of the article here, at TGR.

E3 09: Demon's Souls Hands-on Preview

2009-06-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

Demon’s Soul’s--From Software’s upcoming action-RPG that is being published by Atlus--is a game about death. You will die in this game. A lot. Because of that, only the most masochistic need apply.

The phrase, "You cannot kill me, for I am already dead" does not apply here. When you die in Demon’s Souls, you must start the level all over again as a ghost, this time with half of your original health. If you make it back to the bloodstain that marks where you died, you will regain all of the souls (i.e. experience) that you lost at your time of death. Die as a ghost however, and your bloodstain will be overwritten and all of the souls that you had on your previous playthrough will be gone for good. You are tasked with continually making your way back to your bloodstain, eventually hoping to regain your body by defeating that level’s boss. It’s brutally punishing, and there’s no telling if this will start to grate over the game’s 60 hour runtime or somehow manage to keep things tense throughout.

Demon’s Souls is primarily a dungeon crawler, two words that would usually send me running for the hills. But in Demon’s Souls’ case, it is a dungeon crawler for people who typically don’t like dungeon crawlers. The world is separated into five sections, each comprised of four interconnected stages. After the first level, you’ll be able to tackle the rest in any order, so no two playthroughs will be alike. Each level will be full of enemies of varying difficulties as well as a number of secrets. Early level will have some sections cut off by high level demons, so you’ll be urged to go back to those areas once you are more powerful. You can choose between ten classes at the offset, each with their own unique strengths and weakness. What you choose at the beginning only effects the earlier stages of the game, as you’ll be able to customize your character or class at any time later on.

Read the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

What's the Purpose of a Game Review?

2009-06-20T11:00:00.000-07:00

I recently had a discussion with a colleague of mine about the purpose of a videogame review. While this is something I've though a lot about, I'd never really taken the time to articulate exactly what that was... until now.

My colleague, as I understand it, believes that the purpose of a videogame review is to inform. To list the cold, hard facts about a game, make judgments about them, then let the readers themselves decide if the game sounds like something they'd enjoy or not.

The problem I have with this philosophy is that sometimes we don't know what we like until someone gives us a compelling argument to like it. For example, one of the best reviews I can think of lately was Keza MacDonald's wonderful review of Demon's Souls over at Eurogamer. Here's a game that I ordinarily would not have paid any attention to. I would have seen that it's a dungeon-crawling action-RPG, figured it wasn't my cup of tea (in spite of however high the review score manages to be), then moved on. Instead, Keza's enthusiasm for the game was so infectious that it convinced me to fork out $71 in order to import the game from Hong Kong. How did she do this, exactly?

She convinced me the goal of the game designers was different than I would have originally expected. One of my biggest pet peeves in game design is when games have poor checkpointing and you have to retrace a large portion of your steps to get to where you were at when you last died. Demon's Souls is absolutely guilty of that. Furthermore, it's one of the most fiendishly difficult games ever created. Hearing both those things in and of themselves is nearly enough to make me run for the hills. But Keza convinced me that this sadistic game design actually enhances what the game is about, which is, "facing up to the impossible, and winning."

In most games, being too difficult is a flaw. A game like Devil May Cry 3 was heavily criticized for this. There's a reason for that, I believe. The purpose of Devil May Cry 3 was to have fun. It's a fast-paced, fluid action game. So when you're prevented from having fun due to a high barrier of entry- that's a problem. Demon's Souls, however, is about you playing as one of the last surviving humans in a world filled with demons. It's supposed to feel soul-crushingly impossible. It only adds to the flavor that the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Ordinarily, I would have gone into a game like Demon's Souls expecting it to be fun right out of the box, played it for a couple hours, then cried, "it's too hard!" and put it away never to be played again. This brilliant review, however, convinced me that that's an intentional artistic choice that suits the feeling of oppressiveness that the game is trying to convey. I feel like I "get it" now and am tempted to want to try my darnedest to get the most out of it.

Of course a good positive review can make you appreciate a game in a whole new light, but what about a negative review? I negative review, I believe, should focus on where the game fails at its goals, and offer constructive criticism on what it could do better, so that developers can learn from its follies. For example, take Dan Whitehead's review of Dead Space (also at Eurogamer). He compliments the many design choices that work well, but doesn't gloss over the fact that the protagonist doesn't feel like a real person, and the game is horribly repetitive, something sure to turn many gamers off.

Of course, you could argue that that's just one guy's opinion, and it is. A lot of people liked Dead Space, just as I'm sure a lot of people won't like Demon's Souls (Keza even mention in the comments thread that if you're on the fence, maybe you should rent before you buy). If a reader's tastes are clearly divergent to the reviewers, they'll be able to detect that "Dan didn't like Dead Space because it was too repetitive and had a boring main character, but I those things tend not to bother me," and could go on and enjoy the game anyway. As long as a reviewer is honest with their audience about whatever personal biases they bring to the table, there's nothing wrong with straying from the fact sheet in order to convey a more holistic view of what the experience playing the game was like. No game is for everyone, and while it's true that people who aren't interested in a particular genre of gaming simply won't read a review of a game in that genre, I believe that a review should accurately convey what the writer saw in that particular title that made it so special, or disappointing, or boring, or pretty good but not anything to write home about. Readers, nay, gamers, like to be turned on to new things. That's not going to happen unless we, as reviewers, let our personalities shine through, so that the reader will want to see what we see as well. That, or agree to disagree with us if we pan something they like. Either way invites a healthier exchange of discourse in the greater gaming community. And that, to me, is a very important thing.

E3 09: The Saboteur Preview

2009-06-17T12:38:00.000-07:00

It’s strange, but no one ever seems to create a game set within WWII-era Europe unless it’s some kind of battlefield shooter. Pandemic Studios--creators of the Mercenaries and Star Wars: Battlefront series--aims to fix that with their upcoming release, The Saboteur.

Set in the early 1940s, The Saboteur sees its protagonist Shawn ridding the world of Nazis throughout the greater part of Eastern Europe. The interesting thing about this character is that he’s not in it for the greater good of mankind, per se. Shawn is on a personal quest for revenge, though Pandemic has remained tight-lipped about what the impetus for this is. This makes the story rather compelling, as Shawn is inadvertently making the world a better place and doing good for the wrong reasons. He likes fast guns, fast women, and has a history as a macho race car driver prior to getting caught up in the world of war. Furthermore, Shawn is not an action hero, instead preferring to complete his objectives the stealthy way.

The most instantly noticeable thing about The Saboteur is its unique sense of style. In a bold move, a majority of the game is portrayed in glorious black and white. This indicates that an area is currently under Nazi occupation. There are still bits of color around--which can be seen in the red Nazi flags and armbands that make enemies much easier to see, as well as the faint yellow lights in windows that illuminate the glorious, climbable architecture--but most of what you see is monochromatic. If you complete a Nazi-clearing mission in said area, things will go back to being in full color.

The first mission that we were shown had Shawn trying to take down an anti-air cannon in Paris. Anything that looks climbable is, so Shawn took to the clustered rooftops of the city to slowly stalk his way to the target. If you go in real slow, your character can get all the way to the cannon by just hiding in the shadows and snapping necks. Sadly, the PR rep who demoed it for us was spotted fairly early on, so he had to resort to the game’s polished third-person shooting mechanics. There wasn’t anything particularly innovative about this aspect of the game, but the controls looked tight and intuitive (with the now standard duck-and-cover system firmly in tow). Since most stealth games turn into broken shooters once you have been spotted, The Saboteur’s competence in this area is a good thing. Of course, there’s no telling how balanced the game will be between stealth and combat, so it’s yet to be proven whether or not it falls victim to Hitman syndrome--where it’s way easier to run-and-gun your way through levels that it is to go in stealthily.

Check out the rest of the preview here, at TGR.

E3 09: My Moment of Glory With Bayonetta

2009-06-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

Beauty comes in many forms. Ico is beautiful in its subtlety, like a fairy tale. Bayonetta, however, is beautiful in its excessiveness. Like Las Vegas or Monte Carlo, the game is garish, over-the-top, and borderline sleazy, yet it dazzles and delights like no other.

Bayonetta is also a game about killing things. Instead of being a tried-and-true demon slayer, Bayonetta is an ass-kicking, witch-slaughtering renegade angel. Not much is known about the plot at this point, but we do know that Bayonetta has been asleep for over 200 years and has now been awakened with no memory. While further details of the storyline remain a mystery, the real draw of the game lies in its unique blend of upbeat slaughterhouse fantasy fun.

The core mechanics of Bayonetta are a bit like Hideki Kamiya’s previous outing, Devil May Cry, on crack. Dante had his sword and guns, while Bayonetta has guns and--in a wonderfully sadomasochistic bent--her high heels, which are comprised of revolvers. Dead sexy. The triangle and circle buttons are used for her punches and kicks respectively, while the square button swings her weapon. Enemies leave weapons behind as you fight them, such as a musket, a spear, and a giant mace. You can only hold one at a time, and they all come with their own unique strengths and weaknesses, such as speed, damage, and range. As you destroy things, you collect gold rings which--as far as I can tell--are on loan from the Sonic division of Sega. Rings are the game’s currency, and can be used to buy new moves and items for more ass-kicking greatness. Adding to the insanity of it all, Bayonetta can also run up walls in certain areas, making for some wonderfully dizzifying combat scenarios.

Check out the rest here, at TGR.

inFamous Review

2009-06-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

You’ve got guts to name your game inFamous. If it’s a flop, you’ve served critics the headline on a silver platter; "At least they got the title right." Thankfully, the game is anything but - and one of the finest titles of the year.

At first glance inFamous doesn’t look like much. We’ve seen plenty of games starring a disassociated loner with memory loss in a post-apocalyptic setting who must kill lots of bad guys in order to save everyone. As a huge fan of Sucker Punch’s Sly Cooper trilogy, inFamous initially drew suspicions that the platforming gurus had sold out. It looked as if they were thinking, "Well, open world games sell well, so let’s do that," or "dark and gritty ’mature’ games sell, so let’s do that." Those misgivings are quickly rendered moot as the game has one of the most emotionally engaging opening sections I’ve seen. Sucker Punch knows what they’re doing; this game is born from a deep love of comic books.

The game centers around a young messenger named Cole who wakes up in the center of an explosion blessed (or cursed) with electrical super powers. There’s a plague going around, so the government has quarantined the now-lawless city. Crime runs rampant and citizens fend for themselves. "Society," Cole notes early on, "has committed suicide." You are now the most powerful man in the world, and can decide to restore order to this crumbling berg or let it rot and use your powers to protect only yourself and your loved ones. Sounds like an easy decision, but soon hints surface indicating that Cole had something to do with this catastrophe, making him public enemy #1. His girlfriend won’t even talk to him (blaming him for her sister’s death in the catastrophe) and his best friend remains skeptical. Feeling betrayed by the city that he once loved, it’s not hard to buy either Cole going rogue or helping Empire City rise from the ashes.

The game play mixes Crackdown and Sly Cooper. The Crackdown comparison is simple enough - it has the same balance of free-roaming platforming allowing you collect things, shoot enemies, level up, complete side missions, and advance the plot. The controls and feel like Sly, where Cole can instinctively grab on to anything that should be grabbable (or is that grippable?) as he scales his way across the city. Phone lines and rails make for common transport because, as the game explains, a car would explode if he were to enter due to his electric powers. The missions follow a Sly-like structure, setting you to increasingly preposterous objectives as you try to save the day. Highlights include: an assault on prison where you and a squad of guards must band together to stop an army of robots, scaling a tower of junk that puts Crackdown’s Agency Tower to shame, and pursuing a series of hot-air balloons that, in pure super-villain form, spray toxic, mind-controlling gas all over the city. It’s silly at times, but fitting given the game’s comic book roots.

Check out the rest of the review here at TGR.

Best of E3

2009-06-08T01:22:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry I haven't updated this blog much lately, as I've been planning for E3, got side-tracked with even more work once there, then was away visiting friends in LA (but that's a whole 'nother story). At any rate, I would still like to write about inFamous a great deal (my review is coming soon to TGR), and perhaps write about the experience of going to E3, but there are only so many hours in the day. In the meantime, here's a list of the best games I saw at E3 2009 (in no particular order):

-Brutal Legend:
Tim Schaefer's wonderful humor is in top form here in this story of a roadie going back in time to an age when the Gods of Rock ruled all. The combat system, the one element I was skeptical about, turns out to be fast, fluid, and a whole lot of fun. It's basically Zelda, but with a guitar instead of an ocarina and rocks all the more because of it. Easily the funniest game I've had the pleasure of playing since Schaefer's previous outing, Psychonauts.

-Scribblenauts:
My biggest surprise of the show. Solve puzzles by willing object into existence merely by typing them. Reportedly has tens of thousands of words in it. Objects I was able to summon include (but are not limited to): a jetpack, a hot-air balloon, shark repellent, a shotgun, a chainsaw, a sawed-off shotgun, a wall, a T-rex, land mines, and almost every other noun I know. The only time I managed to come up with something that wasn't in the game was when zombies were attacking me, in order to make myself less desirable to them I tried to see if I could conjure AIDS. Didn't work.

-Trine:
The Lost Vikings meets LittleBigPlanet meets Bionic Commando. Trine is a 2D side-scrolling action/puzzler with a twist; you can play as three characters and toggle between them. The wizard can summon boxes, the thief can grapple, and the knight can fight. The thing that makes Trine really unique is that you can play up to three players co-op, but you cannot inhabit a character if another player is already playing as them. As a result, playing with three players can be even more puzzling as playing with just the one as you'll all have to work together to find a way to get the bulky knight across some gaps and over platforms. If you play as one character, however, you'll have all the abilities available to you, but can only use one at a time. As a result, the physics based puzzles take on a life of their own with multiple solutions based on how many players are involved, making it feel like a whole new game.

Bayonetta:
In some ways, Bayonetta may not represent the most innovative game at the show, as it falls firmly into the conventional mechanics of what a hack-and-slash game entails: Learn combos, fight demons (or renegade angels, rather), earn points for power-ups, collect stuff, fight bosses, etc, etc... But sometimes originality is overrated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm tempted to use the analogy Bayonetta is to the hack-and-slash game what Mario Galaxy is to the 3D platformer i.e. it doesn't innovate in its mechanics, but takes everything that was great about the genre and polishes it to a science, then fills it with a healthy dose style. If it lives up to the demo, it could well be the most fun, stylish, addicting third-person hack-and-slash game ever made. This honestly wouldn't surprise me as I feel like the first DMC hold up tremendously well today and Kamiya-san has had 8 years to hone his craft and do for the genre what DMC did for it nearly a decade ago.

-Shadow Complex:
2D Uncharted meets Metroid. The mechanics are quite similar to Samus Aran's glory years where you explore a staggering maze in a 2D side-scrolling plane, though the aesthetic shares are more in common with Uncharted (right down to the same voice-actor for the lead). You play as a guy trying to rescue his kidnapped girlfriend from a hidden military complex in the jungle. The vent-crawling and platforming is like Metroid to a T, but it also has glorious hand to hand combat with finishing moves shown in full 3D that look straight out of Uncharted. It's a bit of an unlikely mix of inspiration, but the result is truly wonderful.

-Mass Effect 2:
Looks a lot like its predecessor in many ways, but when its predecessor is one of the finest action-RPGs ever made, that's not such a bad thing. The thing that has me really intrigued is that you can reportedly go to the final mission rather early in the game, but you won't stand a chance. Instead, you'll have to travel the galaxies searching for soldiers to go on this supposed suicide mission with you. Depending on who you get to join you and how you treat them, this final mission can play out in a multitude of different ways. This has me very, very intrigued.

-The Saboteur:
Sly Cooper meets Okami meets Hitman in WWII. Playing as a hedonistic, womanizing, race-car driving rebel, you're on a quest for revenge that happens to have you killing lots and lots of Nazis. The game looks to be an even mix of stealth and action as you climb buildings, get the drop on enemies, place explosives, and make fast getaways. It's also one of the most stylish games at the show where occupied territory is portrayed in glorious black and white with some of the best rain effects I've ever seen. Once you clear the missions in an area, it goes back to being in color, not unlike rejuvenating the plants in Okami. It's about time we have a game about killing Nazis that really takes advantage of the beauty of that era.

-Sin & Punishment 2:
I never played the first one, but this was one of the most fun demos I had the pleasure to play at this year's E3. It's basically an on-rails third-person shooter, ala Star Fox, but better. At first the art style turned me off, but after playing it, I learned to really not care. Much like Bayonetta, this isn't innovative, but it takes what was great about oldschool arcade gaming and makes it even better.

-Silent Hill: Shattered Memories:
See here why Silent Hill never managed to really gel with me before. Shattered Memories seems to fix a lot of those issues with fluid controls, markers to show what items you can interact with, and nixes the dodgy combat in favor of some truly intense chases. Crashing through doors in this game reminds me of my very favorite bit of Mirror's Edge. I'm also intrigued by the psychological profile you take at the beginning and how it alters the experience. The only concrete piece of info I got was that it changes enemy appearance, so I'm hoping my arachnophobia makes the enemies spider-like. At any rate, it proved that a game can still be conventionally fun and still be scary as all hell.

-Alien Vs Predator:
A remake of a game I never played, but heard good things about. The behind closed doors demo I saw had you playing as a human, which should have been bland and like every other FPS horror in space shooter, but thanks to the aliens being a fantastic foe coupled with terrific lighting, poking around dark corridors using only your flare and flashlight to spot them sent chills down my spine. The bits I saw as Predator were even more interesting as you'd go from fighting the humans, picking them of stealthily one by one, to fast and furious combat with the aliens. The premise is silly and turned me off initially, but the concept of playing from hunter to hunted, to a neat little mixture of both looks to be a heckuva lot of fun.

Oh, and Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 looked fantastic, but I didn't bother to play them as they look like more of the first with better graphics. I liked their predecessors, so I'm sure I'll like them, just didn't feel compelled to try them, as I feel I know how they'll play already. But who knows? Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and they'll be even better than I'd thought.

Also, and I didn't include The Last Guardian only because it wasn't playable nor was any gameplay demo shown. When the trailer started running at the Sony Press Conference I got so giddy with excitement that I side-hugged my colleague next to me (poor Eddie). If more was known about this mysterious project, you could expect it near the top of my list. Same goes for Kojima's new Metal Gear and Castlevania projects.

There is Love in Your Violence

2009-05-23T03:03:00.000-07:00

Jack's got heart.

I keep coming back to Madworld.

Not even playing Madworld so much as thinking about it. The game has its share of design and mechanics issues, but I can't help but continue pondering this game.

The game's view on violence is an inherently fascinating one. Unlike most action movies and games that fetishize violence, only to then throw in some hackneyed politically-correct speech condemning it, Madworld realizes that violence, or at the very least witnessing violence, is a necessary, cathartic piece of the human condition. Violence as a spectator blood sport has been around since ancient times, and that's hardly changed today. We've simply honed it into an art form to create maximum violence at minimum risk i.e. professional wrestling, action movies, and in the case of MadWorld, a videogame. We, as a society (and perhaps as a species) crave to get out our aggression by either beating things to a bloody pulp, or watching others beat things to a bloody pulp. Madworld lets us get out our aggression without causing any harm to the real world. It's designed to embrace out inner violent tendencies, rather than judge them.

Jack is the perfect encapsulation of this. He is in essence, everything we want to be and don't want to be at the same time. He's gruff, violent, and borderline sociopathic (sure, he doesn't kill civilians, he does have a code after all, but mostly due to the fact that he likes a challenge). He's also cool, confident, and ready for anything. He's pure id; unsentimental to the core. He works for the "good guys" and takes out the "bad guys," but not due to any altruistic reasons, but rather as an excuse to hone his own violent tendencies. This, makes him an eerily unsympathetic character who we can't help but I identify with because all he wants to do is fight, and all we want to do it kill people in the most horrific ways possible (in game, mind you) i.e. play the game. He's also rather funny and charming, such as when he spanks a demon girl out a church's stained glass window. His self-assuredness makes him an oddly compelling role-model (note: do not try any of his actions at home). In short, he is the James Bond of snuff.

I keep coming back to a line of his near the end where his contact, a beautiful woman who you assume may be his romantic interest at some point, tells him to be careful. His response, "I've got a chainsaw on my arm. I'll be fine," something that never ceases to make me laugh. And in a way, we all have a chainsaw on our arm. Something great about ourselves that we tend to take for granted (in this case because the chainsaw is your default weapon that you can never lose). Personally, I found it a very inspiring bit of dialogue.

The game also has some interesting things to say about the nature of the government, pharmaceutical companies, and spectator sports in general. The idea of a government secretly holding bloodsports to finance itself, then using that money for the greater good is an inherently fascinating prospect. I'm reminded a bit of the ending of Watchmen (book or film. They're both thematically the same, if different in details). I'm not saying we should actually hold these bloodsports, but I think this conceit does a good job of reminding us that we are all to blame, on some level, for the state of affairs in which we live. We wouldn't have the luxuries we do if someone, somewhere wasn't being screwed by the companies and governments that keep us afloat. The game doesn't dwell on this too much, as that would make things into a rather somber affair. It's more along the lines of Starship Troopers where it's bright and cheery on the outside (complete with upbeat hip-hop music on the soundtrack and hilarious sports announcer commentary), but dig deeper and it's really some bleak satire, indeed.

Madworld may not be for everyone. The simple, repetitive nature of the mechanics may be enough to turn off a large portion of the fanbase that may otherwise be interested in such a narrative (an experience I've often shared with otherwise brilliant JRPGs). If you can get past those flaws, however, Madworld provides a unique artistic vision. It will make you feel terrible about yourself and the world, and then make you feel awesome. And for that, there is no greater compliment.

Trico Trailer Impressions

2009-05-19T21:17:00.000-07:00

I have to admit my biases; Shadow of the Colossus is possibly my favorite game ever, and Ico is high up that list, so I've been waiting with bated breath for whatever masterpiece Fumito Ueda has been cooking up to be unveiled. Last year, E3 went by, and nothing. Then, Tokyo Game Show (where SotC premiered four years prior), and still nothing. Then, Ueda went on to speak at this year's GDC where everyone thought for sure his new game would be unveiled, and STILL nothing. All we had to go on was a job ad for his studio portraying a chain going down a hole. And now that they've finally released some actual footage of something, I have to say, I'm a little underwhelmed.

For starters, it looks a little too much like a mix of the previous two games with little originality emerging. The boy appears to be a dead ringer for Ico, and the creature bears a resemblance to a certain colossi. The fact that they're friends is new, but again, it looks a bit like Ico, where they swap Yorda for a colossus. Neither of these are bad things, exactly, just a little less than I was expecting.

Furthermore, the aesthetics looked quite a bit worse than what we saw in Ueda's previous games. I loved the simple, elegant cel-shading of Ico and Yorda, and the new fully 3D modeled character just doesn't resonate as well. He looks a bit blocky and goofy to me. The creature too looks a bit too clean and majestic; a bit at odds with the crumbling, ruinous tones of the world.

Speaking of the world, it looks very similar to what we saw in Ueda's previous two games, but perhaps a little too glamorous. For example, there are ruins, but they stretch out as far as the eye can see, which makes them appear a bit cluttered. As such, it lacks that lonely, minimalist, somber feeling that was so prevalent in Ico and SotC. The music, too, was a bit cheesier and more generic than what I'm used to from Ueda's games. It's like they took everything that was great about Ico and SotC and Disneyfied it (flashbacks to The Neverending Story certainly spring to mind. And apparently I wasn't the only one who though that, according to my mates on Twitter). Then again, there's no telling if that's the final music (or character models, or anything, really), so that could all likely change, or at the very least, make more sense in the context of the final product.

Obviously, I'm a bit biased, as I had unreasonably high expectations, and was disappointed. That being said, I'm sure the final product will be amazing nonetheless. Even if it does look too much like a retread of his previous two games, that's still a world that I love and wouldn't mind going back to. And as far as it being a cliched story of a boy befriending a giant goes, I must say that one of my favorite films of all-time is The Iron Giant (and I recall recoiling in horror at the trailer for that movie as well), so this could well be absolutely amazing. I was particularly intrigued by the shot of the creature swimming through a tunnel with arrows jutting out of its back, implying a level of violence only hinted at here, but will be made apparent later.

Make no mistake, I'm still woefully excited about this game. Even if I found that this particular teaser trailer fell a bit short of my expectations.

Edit: After watching the trailer a few more times, I've come to the conclusion that the creature looks great, but the kid still looks pretty bad. Notably his cartoon face in full HD, which just looks a bit silly. Here's hoping they fix that before the final build.

Uncharted 2: Who is This Chloe Girl and What Have You Done With Elena?

2009-05-17T18:05:00.000-07:00

I've seen the footage of Uncharted 2 and while in many ways the game looks to be shaping up nicely, one thing has me concerned; what the fuck happened to Elena? She was one of the best female supporting characters I've seen in a game, so it seemed troubling to nix her in favor of this year's new model. The more I thought about it, the more this seems to be a troubling trend of the action/adventure genre in general, where we're given a lead male character and a new romantic interest in each adventure. James Bond and Indiana Jones certainly come to mind. While it's been suggested that Uncharted swaps romantic interests as its primary influence is, of course, Indiana Jones, I'm not convinced that argument carries much weight, as I think just about everyone would agree that Marion Ravenwood from Indy's first outing was, and always has been, the best quasi-romantic partner for the tomb raiding archeologist. Elena, from the first Uncharted, was a fantastic character as well. Unafraid to jump right into the thick of action, and quick-witted enough to fend off Nathan's Han Solo-esque advances, she was just the kind of spunky, deadly, improvisational badass you would want from a girl to fight pirates with. Replacing her sounds not only misogynistic, but flat out at odds with arguably the thing that made Uncharted most charming; its characters.

While swapping female romantic interests has been a disheartening trend in the industry (and films and books before that), I'd point to something like Sly Cooper as an example of how to do it right. In those games, Sly always had the hots for a certain foxy detective (pun fully intended. Sorry), who was always on his trail. Of course, they could never be together as she'd have to bring him to justice, but their endlessly flirtatious rivalry sizzled, lasting an entire three games. The conclusion of the third game, which I won't dare give away here, found a brilliant way to get around their stalemate, and still leaves room for the inevitable Sly 4.

The influences here are a little different, as Uncharted basis itself on old adventure serials, and Sly on Saturday Morning Cartoons, which required that they keep the same cast for long periods of time (though strangely, they had to replace the voice-actor for Carmelita Fox with each of the three games, which was unfortunate. I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind this, but I'm going to assume that they would have liked to have kept the same actress all along, as it is the same character, after all). Though I believe Sly did things right, and Uncharted could learn from it. Maybe I'll get lucky and be proven wrong and they're keeping Elena a surprise for when the games comes out, which would be kind of awesome. But until then, I'm a little perturbed by the second-hand treatment women are given in these games, and hope to see a change soon.

Bioshock 2 Developer Demo Impressions

2009-05-16T23:32:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that I was extremely skeptical of Bioshock 2, as I felt the first one was a fully self-contained game. Furthermore, I felt that it was a game that had worn out its welcome in the final quarter. So when Bioshock 2 was announced, it sounded a bit like a heartless cash-in. This was confounded by the first look we saw of the concept art for the Big Sister model, which I thought missed the point spectacularly. The Big Daddies were iconic. Bulky, lumbering men in turn of the century diving suits. An icon we’ve all seen before. The Big Sister model just didn’t make much sense. It’s a bulky lumbering diving suit that’s also trying to be curvy and voluptuous? Looked more like a cyborg ninja to me, and at odds with the more understated, realistic tones of the first game. Thankfully, after seeing the above nine minute developer demo, I have been completely turned around on this sequel and am very excited indeed.

The first thing I noticed was that since you play as a Big Daddy this time around, enemies don’t pose as much of a threat. In terms of conventional game design, this should be a bad thing. We’ve been trained to think of combat in games as something difficult that one must overcome, but that is not the case here. In Bioshock 2, you play as the ultimate badass and the game knows it. Rather than just launch a horde of cannon fodder at you as you tear them to shreds, the enemies react realistically to your presence and will gang up on you in groups before fleeing when the going gets tough. My favorite moment in the trailer was after the player murdered a group of splicers, then queued up his drill at the sole survivor ran away in horror. I’ve seen enemies fall back behind cover before, but to see one who wants to retreat from the fight entirely--and in response to your drill revving--was a sight to behold and gives the player a sense of empowerment that I’m not sure I’ve seen in a game before. This may diminish the sense of challenge from the game’s combat, but I don’t believe that challenge was ever the focal point of the first Bioshock or the direction that the series should take.

Since Bioshock was such an immersive cinematic experience that already had no loss condition due to its vita-chambers, it makes me wonder what you could do with a game that features easy combat that only exists to add drama to the proceedings. As an action game, this wouldn’t work, but for a game that focuses on exploration, choices, puzzles, and narrative, I’m surprised that this hasn’t been done before. I’m not saying Bioshock 2 will be that game--as there will still be challenges in the form of the Big Sister--but this looks like a nice first step towards an interesting new direction for combat in gaming.

Read the rest of my impressions at TGR.

Big Red Potion Episode # 12; Afterword

2009-05-11T21:50:00.000-07:00

My appearance on the new episode of Big Red Potion is up in which we discuss Death in Gaming. Despite some technical difficulties, I think we all had a great time recording and covered a lot of interesting ground. Give it a listen!

Here are some of my thoughts after suffering through listening to my own voice:

I think Sinan really hit the nail on the head, when he said so-called "gamey" games need some kind of loss condition, whereas if a game is meant to be more of an experience, death is seen as an impediment. I cited Zack and Wiki on the show, but upon further reflection, a greater example of this would be the Phoenix Wright series. Those games are essentially digital graphic novels and the fact that there even is a loss condition at all impedes their pacing tremendously. If you lose a case, you'll be sent back to the beginning of the chapter, which can take several hours of skipping through text to get back to where you were. Of course, no one ever actually loses those games as you can save at any time (unless you're unfortunate enough to save right before losing your last point), so it's baffling why they even bothered to allow you to lose in the first place. It would work infinitely better if the judge simply continued shaming you when presenting the wrong piece of evidence, so you could stay in the game at all times, worry free, as it would just be a shortcut to having to save and reload all the time. I don't wish to make broad generalizations about an entire nation, but Japan does have a reputation for being a little less progressive in game design on the whole. I find that having game-overs in Phoenix Wright (and Zack and Wiki) to be remnants of this oldschool design philosophy unceremoniously placed unto a a genre that never needed it (just look at the old LucasArts adventures, as Joe wisely noted).

To elaborate on my point about JRPGs- I don't believe the genre shouldn't feature death. The genre has its inheritance in pen-and-paper games, which are very "gamey" by nature, so they require a loss condition. What I meant was that I wished RPGs let you keep all your loot and exp, so it wouldn't make you feel like the last half-hour plus was all for naught upon dying. Or perhaps just have an option as to whether to keep all your exp, as I dislike the idea of the game making itself easier in case the player may not want that. Again; different variables based on how hardcore an experience the player wants. I disliked the gamey aspects of Persona 4, but otherwise liked the experience and just wanted to press forward. Others may want a stricter challenge. I think there may have been a little confusion as to what I was talking about there.

Going with the idea of varying levels of entry, Steve had a fantastic suggestion that we discussed the night before, then absent-mindedly forgot to bring up on the show. Since he doesn't have a blog of his own, I will surmise it here: He suggested that certain games maybe not have a game over, but rather a ranking system to show how many times you "died." Something like Ikaruga comes to mind where you can unlock infinite lives after a certain amount of play, but if you really want to achieve high score status, you'll have to get especially skilled at the game. I've found that Geometry Wars 2 does an amazing job at making a single-player experience social via its friends only leaderboard. Imagine if a game like Uncharted had no death penalty, which would quasi make sense as it's such a narrative-based game and a lot of players may just want to play it for the story (though they'd have to come up with some ridiculous reason for why Nathan could constantly be resurrected), yet it could offer great incentives for replay value if you could replay individual chapters for high scores based on number of times "killed," headshots, time completed, etc, etc...

At any rate, I hope you all enjoyed the podcast and I'd be curious to hear other opinion on ways that death can either help or hinder a certain type of game.

Rise From the Ashes

2009-05-05T10:36:00.000-07:00

I don't often write about a game before it's released as I feel like there's way too much of that already (and then a game gets a measly one-off review and is never heard about again, in most cases), but I felt compelled to write about InFamous.

With all due respect to the fine folks at Sucker Punch, there is no way your game is going to live up to the game I've envisioned it being in my head. Let's start with the concept:

You're a regular guy inexplicably given superpowers during a cataclysm that decimates the better part of a metropolitan city, leaving the remnants a quarantined, lawless dive. Think hurricane Katrina with less water and more electricity. We've seen more than our fair share of post-apocalyptic cities in videogames over the years, so at face value, the thought of another one does little to stir the imagination. But this isn't a Big Brother/1984 rip-off like Final Fantasy VII, Crackdown, Madworld, or the Fallout series. From what I gather, there is no organization in charge. This is pure anarchy. Generally speaking, having super-powers makes one either a crime fighter or an outlaw. Here, however, there is no established order. You don't revolve around civilization. Civilization revolves around you. That makes you the shape of things to come. A heavy burden indeed.

It's not a "god game," though. Unlike a strategy game like Civilization or Black & White, here, you play a particular role. You're a person. As such, you have needs. You'll have loved ones who you'll want to protect, which may be at odds with performing your duties at establishing order amidst the chaos. I've heard of scenarios where you'll have to decide whether to horde rations of food for yourself and your girlfriend, or distribute it equally amongst the citizens. This sort of situation really appeals to me in this current wintry economic climate. If this were happening to me in real life, I don't know that I'd have the will to resist skimming a little off the surface for myself and my loved ones. InFamous, at its core, could prove to be amongst the greatest tests of mankind's true nature.

I know that's a ballsy statement to make, and I'm aware that there have been lots of games to give you these binary good/evil choices, but I often find myself less drawn into their scenarios and don't play the way I would if I were encountering such situations in real life. In Fallout 3, for example, it was fun to occasionally kill a random wayfarer and take his loot. I'd argue that murdering civilians was the highlight of an GTA game. Fable 2 started strong, but after its opening hour they sort of dropped the ball on storytelling and it became rather silly with its silent protagonist, lack of memorable NPCs, and I think most people would agree that the game was at its most fun when you'd mischievously break the rules and say, murder your family. None of those games were representative of me as those games didn't make me care about the people in it. The best example I can think of so far where a game gave me moral choices and I cared about those choices beyond whatever stat boosts they'd garner me, was Mass Effect. I liked that universe and I liked my crew. I wanted to do good by them. But again, Mass Effect had an established order. You could only effect the status quo so much by either saving the galaxy, or saving the galaxy and putting humans in charge. Oh kay then...

InFamous also makes being evil tempting for all the right reasons. In a lot of games, I'll be a dick, simply because I can. Because it's funny and the world lacks character, so it feels like playing army men. But in InFamous, the concept of being evil is tempting because you could quite possibly rule this place as a dictator. Well, maybe. I'm not sure if the game will go that far or not, but I sure hope it does. Sure, murdering civilians in GTA is fun for awhile, but ineffective in the long run. The idea of having a whole city move to your whim is certainly a compelling notion. Or maybe not even a dictator, per se, but even just a high class criminal who people will not want to mess with would prove to be an enviable enough role. Either way, being evil seems like it would net rewards and I really hope the game doesn't cop out the way Bioshock did and give you at least as many rewards for supposedly altruistic choices.

Early previews have suggested that Cole is somehow responsible for the cataclysm that destroys the city, yet gives him super-powers. This has me extremely intrigued as I like the idea of a superhero who has the deaths of thousands on his conscience. I can't help but revel in the irony that his accidentally massacre is also what leads to him having powers and could shape him into a hero. For anyone who's watched Battlestar Galactica and found themselves oddly compelled to root for Gaius Baltar, InFamous may be just the game we've been waiting for. I just hope against hope that they don't cop out here and have some stupid revelation that it wasn't you after all. Or worse, was some already "evil" dude they could use as a scapegoat.

While the premise has me really intrigued, I'm also quite confident the game will be a heck of a lot of fun to play as it looks to control quite a bit like Sly Cooper (my favorite 3D platformer series), and the art style seems to really "get" the whole superhero thing. It's a bit goofy, but it's serious kind of goofy, like X-men. The powers are silly, but the situations feel grounded. I'm particularly intrigued by Cole's electric powers. A lot of people felt like having only one kind of power might limit the game, as something like Bioshock gave you such things as fire and ice to play with as well, but from what I gather, there will be a lot of variety to his electric powers. Plus, superheroes always have just one power (plus the standard heightened dexterity and jumping), so it's in keeping with the concept. And the fact that Cole's electric powers prevent him from using guns in a masterstroke. I think I speak for a lot of gamers when I say that I'm starting to get a little weary of guns these days.

While I have ridiculously high hopes for this game, there are still some things I'm a bit skeptical of. Notably, the script. Given that Sly Cooper's writing and characters were some of the best I've ever seen, I remain hopeful. Though, based on what I've seen so far of Cole, he looks and sounds a bit bland. And his sidekick buddy Zeek looks a little too goofy. Murray the hippo worked in Sly Cooper, but I'm worried a character like that might feel a bit too silly and forced in this setting. We've seen surprisingly little of the characters so far, but it remains one area where I only have good faith to go on. So here's hoping.

Even if InFamous can't possibly live up to its full potential (or perhaps will, and blow all of our minds) it will at the very least be one of the most compelling premises I've seen for a game in a long, long time. And that, my friends, has me very excited, indeed.

Silent Hill 2: Why I Don't Love You...

2009-04-29T23:09:00.000-07:00

(This article contains a major Silent Hill 2 spoiler. Read at your own risk if you haven't already completed the game.)

I'm sorry, internet. I know Silent Hill 2 is something of a sacred cow in "games as art" circles with its rich, complex themes of guilt, anger, and sexual repression, but I'm sorry, Silent Hill 2. I don't love you. You're just not very much fun to play.

I should probably preface this article by saying that I have beaten this game a few years ago (achieved the "water" ending), didn't really care for it, then read a lot of fascinating articles on why I was probably looking at it the wrong way, and decided to give it another shot.

I've written before that games needn't always be "fun" to be entertaining, something very much true of SH2. But, for me, SH2 is more than just "not fun," it's downright tedious. While the game may tell a deep, complex narrative with lots of brilliant symbolism that you can read about here, I feel like those elements are very separate from the actual experience of playing the game.

The game design, at its core, boils down to lots of arbitrary puzzles and combat that are both very poorly designed, in my opinion. The first "level" tasks you with exploring a series of apartment complexes. In order to progress, you need to solve some incredibly obscure puzzles whose placement makes absolutely no sense. You'll eventually reach a cabinet with a riddle inscribed in it tasking you to place a series of coins in the correct slots. The problem is that the game doesn't tell you how many coins you'll need, so it's more than likely that you'll be missing a hard to see piece, which can take ages of backtracking to scour for. Or worse, you'll have all the pieces already, but think that you're missing a piece, so you'll run around backtracking looking for something that isn't even there.

This problem is compounded by one of the games absolutely biggest flaws: items are way too hard to see. Damn near invisible, if you ask me. Your character will move his head towards points of interest, but it's still unclear just where he's looking exactly. This problem is made much worse by the fact that you can examine a ton of stuff, but only interact with a small portion of it, and you need to be lined up exactly right to examine what you want. Here's a good example: early in the game you find a shopping cart with a handgun in it. My character was looking at the cart, so I went up to examine it. He commented on the cart, but said nothing of the gun sitting right there inside of it. I must have walked around the cart and hit the "examine" button no less than eight times before he finally picked up the goddamned gun. In a game already as dark as Silent Hill 2, this is a very, very bad thing. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of clicking on everything and hoping you'll uncover a camouflaged point of interest. While it may have broken the immersion a bit to make the items glow like they do in Resident Evil or Bioshock, it also would have made the game about ten times more playable. Since the levels are so vast and sprawling and mandatory items so hard to see, it can often feel like a game about searching for your car keys. Not my idea of a good time.

I also think not letting you examine everything would make things more immersive, because it would allow us to form our own interpretation. Do we really need to hear James think that "this bed is filthy. It probably hasn't been washed in weeks." Some intuition you got there, James. That's just poor writing if you ask me. These games really need to learn to show, not tell.

Aside from the fact that the puzzles are just plain poorly designed with too few queues if you're on the right track, the fact that they exist at all seems at odds with the narrative. Not only do they not make logical sense (which is understandable, being that the whole game takes place in a surreal world made to manifest its protagonist's fractured psyche), I'm not entirely convinced that they tie into the narrative in any meaningful way. I fail to see what hunting down a bunch of keys has to do with a story of a man feeling guilty about murdering his wife.

There are other reasons the game isn't fun, as well. The combat, for example, is rubbish. That's kind of the point, I suppose, as it's something to be avoided. However, when they place you in a tiny room, compounded with a finicky camera and little room to maneuver, you'll be hard-pressed not to kill everything in sight as you continue your pixel-hunt. This problem is made worse with the games boss fights, which feel like they belong in an action game where you should be able to adequately dodge and fight back, but you can't. The controls are so stodgy that you'll wind up merely trading blows for the most part. Which begs the question; if combat is something to be avoided, why do they even have mandatory boss fights in the first place? Le sigh.

Oh, and while I'm in full-on rant mode, I might as well mention how dreadful the voice-acting is. Given how the game's narrative is its saving grace, its shoddy voice-work threatens to undermine the whole experience. I can let it go to a point, as none of this is really happening, so it can be chalked up to its surreal dream-like world, but had the dialogue flowed a little more naturally it would have gone a long way towards making the drama more engaging, rather than just interesting to ponder about from afar.

The bits of story that are there are compelling, but I feel like I'm just slogging through a rudimentary series of poorly designed fetch quests in order to ascertain more juicy tidbits of narrative. In short, it's a game I enjoy reading and thinking about more than I do actually playing. It was worth going through once, for the experience. Though, I find it has not aged well in the least and is a prime example of mechanics and poor design getting in the way of narrative. I look forward to hearing why I, as per usual, am wrong.

No More Heroes Revisited

2009-04-22T14:07:00.000-07:00

Gamernode- As I've been playing through Suda 51's sometimes brilliant, sometimes baffling epic, No More Heroes, I keep coming back to something Eskil Steenberg, one-man creator of the upcoming MMO, Love, said on a recent episode of ListenUp regarding why we play games, (and I'm paraphrasing here). "We play games because our lives are so complicated and games give us small problems we can actual solve. They give us some sense of control." It was something of an epiphany for me as I often wondered why I would spend so much of my life focusing on the medium, and while it's possible that that quote would be relevant of whatever game I played next, today I'm talking about No More Heroes, which I feel is especially applicable as its main protagonist is in fact a gamer.

The world Travis Touchdown inhabits is an interesting one as it reflects both our own world and the world of videogame conventions (as opposed to something like GTAIV, which tries to mirror our world, but in my opinion, ungracefully shoe-horns it into videogame conventions). The nods to other games and pop-culture in general are anything but subtle with it's jaggy, pixelated aesthetic, 8-bit leaderboards, and goofy nonsensical villains. The game is unapologetically "gamey" giving you the illusion of an open-world with nothing to do between missions only serves to reinforce the notion that games like GTAIV's open-worlds are just an illusion; a window dressing laid upon otherwise conventional game design. By embracing its gaming roots, it allows Suda 51 to go hog-wild with his goofy ideas as it's not likely to break the immersion.

More telling is the way that it reflects our own world. Travis Touchdown, if you don't take his lethal actions at face value, is bizarrely relatable. He has two goals: be number one, and get laid. It's unclear if he wants the former to get to the latter, but it seems likely he want them both and uses latter as a carrot to give him an excuse for the former. The way I see it, the ranked tournaments in the game are not meant to be taken at face value, but as a metaphor for playing videogames (just as we are playing one). Despite being shot multiple times in cutscenes, Travis always comes out unscathed and ready for battle. He's not a real assassin, in this sense; he's a videogame assassin. It's merely something fun to do for him. And the retro aesthetic, where enemies explode in cartoonish bursts of blood and coins, does all it can to reinforce the notion that this is all good, silly fun. So that's where being number one comes in. He's a competitive high-score seeker that way. He suggests to Sylvia that he she "do it with him" if he reaches number one (something that she never explicitly agrees to), which functions as a.) an excuse for Travis to go around doing what he does best (i.e. kill people), and b.) it is his dream to find a woman who will sleep with him due to his videogaming prowess. I'm reminded of a Futurama episode where Fry wishes real life were more like videogames and ends up warding off an alien invasion due to his expertise in Space Invaders. Here's where Steenberg's quote comes in- Travis wishes to solve his real problems by succeeding at his fake ones.

Travis's life, when you get right down to it, is pretty fucked up. He cannot get laid, is always racking up late fees on his porn rentals, lives in a motel, the sandbox world of Santa Destroy is a dull bore and filled with shoddy jobs like collecting scorpions and defusing land mines at the beach, etc, etc... so you can hardly blame the guy when he just wants to chill out and slash some throats. The fact that No More Heroes' ending makes absolutely no sense angered me at first as it gave me the impression that it was all goofy just for the sake of being goofy, but it might actually be a big cosmic joke on how complicated life is. A game that portrays fun with hilarious, over-the-top hack-and-slash violence must portray difficulties with a hilarious over-the-top pile-driver of increasingly ludicrous cliches. Travis has whiled away exploding foes in his own delusional fantasy world, but he hasn't really solved anything by the end when his life is just as fucked up as ever (even more so in fact), and he still hasn't gotten laid. Poor Travis.

No More Heroes is basically Fry's dream come to fruition; what life would be like if it were a videogame. Our problems would be easy to solve, at face value, but we'd still be unable to make heads or tails out of any of it, because nothing is ever that simple.

One a side note, while I love most things about No More Heroes, one aspect where I've always felt a bit out of sync with the rest of the world is in regard to its dialogue. It sounds very odd and stilted to me, and not in a good way. I felt like I genuinely had a hard time following what it was the characters were talking about. Contrary to much I've read about the other assassins expressing a deep sense of pathos, to me they just seemed goofy and cartoony with next to no character development. Dr. Peace was a bit of an exception, with his monologue about missing his daughter, but the rest didn't feel like they had especially fleshed out stories. Most of which felt like an odd mishmash of cliches without enough of a role to really develop any concise character. Take Holly Summers for instance. Her name and setting bring to mind that she's a beach bunny, her chic French haircut and high heels equate her with being classy, and then she's got the prosthetic leg/green camo with grenade thing going on giving her a more masculine, butch theme. None of these three disparate elements cobbled together well in my mind, and I didn't feel as if I had any understanding as to who she was by the end. Can someone please explain to me why this is genius? Or isn't? It tends to leave me scratching my feeble-minded head, even after four playthroughs.

A Look at the Wii's Strengths and Weaknesses

2009-04-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

A little analyzation I whipped up on the Wii: Where It's Succeeding and Where It Could Do Better, is up as part of TGR's weekend 3-parter. Check it out here.

Note: I did not title this article.

Flow Like a River or Stagnate Like a Tree?

2009-04-15T16:17:00.000-07:00

As I’ve been playing Chronicles of Riddick lately, something has been bothering me about the whole experience. It took me a second to figure out just what it was, but eventually I came to the conclusion that I just hate talking to people in that game. Much of this is due to the fact that the script is rather bland (even if the voice-acting is of surprisingly high-caliber), but there was something else. And that’s when it hit me; the talky bits bore me titless and I feel it’s because the camera work and animations are clunky, causing me to tune out. This, I’ve noticed is not just a problem with Riddick, mind you, but practically every game that’s ever had a dialogue tree.

My issue with most conversations with NPCs that have dialogue trees is that they’re not cinematic enough. Lip-syncing and body language is almost always off, allowing for an experience that while engaging player choice, fails to be as entertaining to watch as the same conversation would be in a movie or TV show. Furthermore, dialogue trees hardly ever have a natural rhythm to them as you’ll find yourself going back to an earlier branch, selecting a different option, or listening to the same bits of dialogue over and over ’til you realize the NPC has nothing more to say. This was okay in the age of the text adventure or even the early PC graphic adventures as we didn’t expect anything more from our games. They weren’t trying to look real, be cinematic, or engross us in the same way they generally aim for today, but rather were content to simply be simple, often humorous sets of responses. One could argue that this is a more powerful means of expression. I’d say that they’re just different. In-game conversations back then were more akin to reading a book whereas today they’re more akin to watching a movie. As such, I find their simple presentation not holding up so well to their older sister.

These days, as games look more and more real each day, it’s as if they want to create this so-called "cinematic" experience, but fall short of it when it comes to interactive dialogue. Even in Mass Effect, arguably the best iteration of prerendered cutscene and interactive choice made yet, we’re still constantly taken out of the scene unraveling as we’re too focused on making our dialogue choices. Pause too long, and the scene comes to a halt. We want engagement and we want choice, yet this stop-and-go rhythm is still a bit jarring. It’s like watching a movie on your computer and forgetting to turn the screen saver off, so you have to constantly remind yourself to move the mouse every so often.

Check out the rest of the article at TheGameReviews.com, here.

New Blog Name, Same Blog Taste!

2009-04-15T16:02:00.001-07:00

As you've no doubt all noticed, I've changed the blog name from Mr. Durand Pierre to Jumping Moustache as an obvious reference to both myself and Mario as well as whatever other brilliant symbolic meaning it has to you. I only used Mr. Durand Pierre before as it was my handle and I didn't feel like spending several weeks coming up with a clever title when I could be focusing on writing, so I put it off for far too long. But now I have a clever name, so there ya go. Hope you all like it!

Big Red Potion Episode # 9: Afterword

2009-04-13T22:54:00.000-07:00

My recent guest spot on Big Red Potion in which Sinan Kubba, Joe Delia, myself, and Xantiriad, of Ninja Fat Pigeons fame, discuss each and every aspects of handheld gaming. It was by far the longest BRP yet (clocking in at just shy of two hours), but we had a wealth of content to explore, and I think we covered a lot of interesting ground. Give it a listen.

Though I must say that even at 2 hours, there were still things I wanted to say, but never got around to. Like whether playing a handheld game at home entirely defeats the purpose. I know lots of people who prefer Zelda: Phantom Hourglass to Twilight Princess or the Wind Waker, even if they're just playing it at home anyway. I hinted at this briefly, but there's something about that the intimate, tactile feel of the touch screen that makes these sorts of games so much more accessible. Particularly in Phantom Hourglass with its note taking function. Thus, handheld games can offer an experience (beyond mere convenience) that you cannot get on a home console.

Yet, at the same time, a console experience can give you something you cannot get on a handheld (besides graphics). I touched upon that briefly citing survival horror and Silent Hill as an example, but I wanted to expand upon my belief that a portable PS2 might not work as well as we'd think as so many of my favorite PS2 games require them to be played in long doses. I don't think I could play something like Metal Gear Solid 3 or Okami in 15 minute increments on a commute. I mean technically I could, but I'd feel as if I were stopping just as soon as I'd get into the swing of things. Those two games in particular give you plenty of save points (not to mention the sleep function that is standard on handhelds these days), but I feel like they just take a lot out of me mentally to get in and out of that space.

Another thing I thought about after recording was my response to why big sites never pick a handheld game as Game of the Year- I believe there's a stigma attached to handheld games that they're just something to do as backup when you're not around a console. It seems to be a common belief that no one in their right mind would want to play these games when they could be playing a console game. That people only play portable games because they're portable. If they were so good, why aren't they on a console? I don't agree with this line of thinking, but that seems to be the mainstream media's take on the issue, and let's face it; we think about what we hear about. I loved Bangai-O Spirits, played it a ton for a week, then beat all the levels and never thought back on it. Why? Because no one else was talking about it. And that's something we need to change.

Furthermore, I hypothesized that the handheld market will be the future of the indie game market. I sure hope so. More people own DSs than any console out there, so you'd think releasing something like Braid or World of Goo on a DS or iphone would make more money, but perhaps not, as people wouldn't have written about it so much. Then again, no one expected so much to be written about Portal or Braid prior to their release, so maybe one of these days a handheld will have their sleeper-hit bringing them into the "hardcore" public eye. The World Ends With You and Patapon were a nice step in that direction certainly.

One a side note: Anyone else feel like Pixeljunk Eden would be perfect for a handheld? I may have seemed down on Sony on the podcast, but they have some brilliant software like that that would make for a great port for the PSP. There's my piece of constructive criticism for them, anyhow.

Videogames' Greatest Obstacle (Hint: It's Not a 50ft Robot)...

2009-04-09T02:14:00.000-07:00

As much as I love videogames, I think it's important that we, as gamers, analyze the weaknesses of the medium as well as its strengths. On that note, I believe that great as videogames are, they present the most impenetrable medium to get into.

If you want to watch a movie, all you need to do is not be blind nor deaf, and own a DVD player, VCR, or go to the theatre. If you want to read a book, you need only be literate. A videogame, however, requires a much greater level of entry. Aside from the logistic of the situation (i.e. not everyone owns a console. Let alone the fact that there are so many different systems out there, whereas only a couple forms of movie distribution), there's the fact that every game you play requires you to learn how to play it. What the buttons do, where to save, what the power-ups do, etc, etc... It can at times feel like the first hour of any game is like taking a class on how to play that particular game.

Furthermore, games may have mechanics that just don't appeal to everyone. For example, as much as I love Braid and think it is as close to a perfect game as I've ever played, I also think that it's a very challenging game with its puzzles. Now personally, I love difficult, well-designed puzzles. As such, I felt like Braid was a game made just for me. Yet, at the same time, I realize not everyone likes puzzles, and many who would otherwise enjoy its art, narrative, symbolism, music, etc... may well never finish the game due to it being too hard. A book would never require you to solve a puzzle before turning to the next chapter. I realize books can have "puzzles" in their rich, layered writing, but I would argue Braid also has that, as well as environmental puzzles. Though, you cannot fully experience the former unless you have a rather passionate love for the latter (or consult a walkthrough, which may arguably ruin the experience).

Another example that I can cite from more personal experience, is my disinterest in turn-based RPGs due to their mechanics, even though I may love just about everything else about the genre. I thought the Persona games in particular had an incredibly deep narrative with fascinating themes such as love, death, sex, selfishness, how well one person can really know another, etc, etc. I loved the art design, the story, the characters, the music, the atmosphere... just about everything about Persona 3 and 4 was bursting at the seems with brilliant ideas... except for one thing; I did not enjoy the act of playing them. I hated the slow grind, the menus, the abundance of items... it quite simply was not fun for me between the cutscenes and dialogue. I've always hoped to change my tune on the genre. I've bought every Shin Megami game on the PS2 in hopes that one day the genre would click with me and I'd "get it," and it would be a magical experience as I could then go forth appreciating the true art of the genre minus the ennui that would inevitably set in. Unfortunately, I'm starting to wonder if this will ever happen. I always play these games for about a dozen hours, get bored, think one day I'll get back into them, then never do.

Instead, find myself wishing that Persona 4 was not an RPG. What if it was an adventure/platformer game? I see little reason that it couldn't be. I realize Persona's combat is important insofar that your decisions in the sim aspect effect your attributes in battle. Though I still say they could have done this in a more open-world, real-time setting, ala Psychonauts. The comparison is apt as they both deal with incredibly similar ideas of having levels taking place inside a character's head. At the same time, why couldn't Psychonauts be a turn-based RPG? Personally, I love one genre and nearly hate the other, but that's rather subjective. From what I understand, most JRPG fans feel like Persona 4 has among the most refined combat systems of any RPG every made. Conversely, Psychonaut's platforming is competent, but hardly the best in its genre. As such I will not say one approach is inherently "better" than another, but it raises some interesting questions. Like, "how do you engross a player who doesn't like that particular genre in your narrative ?"

I'm not sure that there's an easy answer to this, but I would like to see more games that don't prescribe themselves to one or two particular genres. A game like Gravity Bone is interesting by virtue of hardly falling into any genre. It's only a 15 minute game, but it's mostly comprised of fetch-quests and one very brief platforming sequence. On paper, this should be incredibly boring, but the rich setting, art style, and music make it a compelling experience with seldom little barrier of entry. I'd also cite Bioshock as a game that gets around this particular problem by being a shooter with no penalty for a game-over, allowing those who don't ordinarily like shooters to still experience the entirety of the game with little frustration.

Don't get me wrong, complex play mechanics can work well for a niche audience. There's nothing wrong with designing an in-depth JRPG like Final Fantasy XII or an hardcore action game like Devil May Cry 3 as there's certainly value in that for those who crave that experience. But let's not fool ourselves; these games are niche and were never designed to be for everyone.

That being said, a game needn't be "for everyone" (if such thing exists), though I feel like if one's goal is to create more narrative-focused work of art, you must be conscious of how the mechanics tie in to the other elements and whether they enhance the central themes of the title, or stand apart from them.

Of course, I may be full of shit as well. There's always that possibility. I'd be happy for any and all feedback on the matter, and if anyone can convince me that Persona 4's menu-based combat and grinding is integral to the rest of the game, I'd like to hear it.

Crawl, Walk, Run...

2009-04-05T02:47:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking, as I so often do, about Ico.

More particularly, I've been thinking about the choice of whether to walk or run with Yorda, and what that means both for me, as well as game design in general.

For those who haven't played the game, you play the role of a young boy, Ico, as he guides a frail, young woman through a castle. She may or may not be blind, and you'll spend much of the game guiding her by the hand. Here's where it gets interesting; you can walk gently with her, which is slow, caring, and beautiful, or you can run, which makes it looks like you're hurting her.

Given how I once called Ico the most romantic game ever conceived, you'd think that I'd opt for the former option. You'd be wrong. I ran. I knew it was hurting her, but I ran anyway. Did I feel bad about it? Only momentarily. My reasoning, something I absolutely abhor having to admit, was that it was "just a game."

You see, had I been in that actual predicament, and Yorda an actual person, I would have been slower and gentler with her. I'd want to gain her trust and be tendering and nurturing towards her. But it wasn't real life. There was no benefit to taking things slow with her, other than seeing the animation of seeing them walk together. As a result, I found myself tuning out whilst walking with her, as my mind lay on simply getting from point A to point B. As such, I realized that if I were not to going to be engaged to these parts if I walk, I might as well run, in order to and make with the puzzle solving and more dramatic moments that make the game so worthwhile.

I realize that much of this is my own, personal issue. That perhaps my attention span is too short to stay focused on such a simple, menial activity. Though I wondered why this was. I loved Yorda, and Ico, and the castle, and the scenery. Why was I able to disconnect from these moments so involuntarily? Why did I find the walking such a terrible bore? In an earlier article, I wrote about how a game needn't be "fun" at all times, and cited the sailing in Wind Waker and the horseback riding in Shadow of the Colossus as examples. Why was I able to enjoy those slow, passive activities, yet found myself impatient with Ico? I've thought of a couple reasons:

a.) In both the Wind Waker and SotC, you had little control over my speed. Sure, you could change the directions of the winds in Wind Waker, but that would involve playing a song and watching an unskippable cutscene, which would often be more trouble than it was worth for a minor speed boost. And In SotC, you could bring Aggro up to a full gallop, but I'd imagine most players keep him at full speed as much as possible, which is still a very slow, passive activity. As such, I felt like I was going as fast as I could in these games, which was satisfying. Though, had you given me a faster option, I likely would have taken it. Ico gives you that faster option, and it's hard to resist. Other games do this too. A game like Fallout 3 gives you fast-travel, something that almost certainly breaks the immersion, though how many players have the patience to resist using it? I'd reckon seldom few, though my hats off to any such players out there.

b.) Both Wind Waker and SotC gave me a gorgeous, ever-changing landscape to admire. The charms of Wind Waker's day/night cycle and full range of weather and wave effects are mind numbingly gorgeous. The thrill off seeing an island a couple miles off as it gradually comes into full view is an absolutely stunning achievement (especially for a game over half a decade old on a Gamecube. Less pop-in than Fallout 3). You can also control the camera, adding a further level of input to the proceedings. SotC, had a similar feeling, with a unique, over-saturated aesthetic, giving you a landscape that would unrealistically evolve from a lush grassy plain to a barren desert in just a few seconds. That game was sheer eye candy, and I thoroughly enjoyed taking the time to admire the scenery (something I may not have done had it not been enforced). Ico, however, employs a mostly steady cam. It jumps from different viewpoints, ala an old Resident Evil game, and while you can change the angle of the camera a wee bit, you can hardly pivot it around. The art direction in Ico is stunning, but you'll be subjected to it for long periods of time even if you run through it.

This is something we discussed on Big Red Potion, regarding mechanics getting in the way of narrative. Jonathon Blow even cited Ico as an example, where the player was just as liable to tire of Yorda than care for her, as they'd start to think of her less as a person and more of a necessity to make their way through the game. At times, I would agree with this, hence my running with her. Yet, at the same time, I feel like there are times when the game mechanics enhance our relationship with Yorda. Notably when you've left her alone for awhile (often out of necessity) and she starts getting attacked by shadow creatures. That feeling of anger you get trying to protect her, crossed with guilt for leaving her alone, is among the finest examples I've yet witnessed of a game using its mechanics to establish an emotional bond.

This is furthered by the fact that unless you fall off a high ledge, you cannot get a game over simply by being attacked. You get a game over by letting her be taken away. I, for one, feel there should be more games where self-preservation is not the ultimate goal.

The question of how much game designers should leave pacing up to the player is a tough nut to crack. I'm not quite sure that there is any one "right" way of doing it, but I find the tug-of-war between keeping a player engaged, yet fully immersed (even during the slower moments) an inherently fascinating topic. Any and all comments on the matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Peggle: Dual Shot Review

2009-04-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

In case you wanted to know what I thought of Peggle DS, here ya go.

Final Thoughts on RE5 Single-Player

2009-03-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

As a fan of single-player gaming, I have to admit that I was more than a bit skeptical when I heard that RE5 would include co-op. I like co-op, but have a hard time finding someone who'd be willing to play through the entirety a game's campaign with me. I tend to keep odd hours, so finding someone I know to play with at 3 a.m. can be a bit tricky. When the game finally came out, it seemed as if my worst fear had come to fruition, with all of the internets a roar about how RE5 was an epic failure as a single-player game and hardly worth playing. I can now say, with great pleasure, that RE5's single-player is hardly the epic failure it was made out to be and is still a heckuva lot of fun.

Sure, the partner AI isn't great, but it gets the job done. While Sheva is not going to pull off any complicated maneuvers, say toggling between different weapons in her arsenal the way a real player might, she's still perfectly serviceable. If you keep her move set limited, she gets in the way surprisingly little and can add a lot to the combat. Personally, I always limited her arsenal to a handgun and a machine gun with a couple clips of ammo for each. She'd default to the handgun, and when out of ammo for it, she'd switch to the machine gun. Complex? No. But hardly game breaking. Just give her a tad bit of ammo and she'll stay out of your way, as well as carry stuff for you. While she has the tendency to waste ammo and health, she's also a damn good shot, so it's kind of a wash (though far from a travesty). I still would have preferred they kept it a strictly single-player affair, but the partner AI is hardly as big a deal as some are making it out to be.

In fact, in a lot of ways, she really added to the game for me. Though it's easy to put RE4 on a pedestal, lest we forget that roughly a third of that game consisted of escorting the defenseless Ashley around? At least Sheva can fight back. And while it's true that she uses up ammo that would otherwise be yours, I found this sort of liberating as I was less conservative about hoarding ammo as I knew she'd use it all anyway. Not to mention the smaller inventory you're allotted in this game. Maybe I'm just indecisive, but I recall spending a long time deciding what to do with my inventory in RE4. Here, I felt like since I had less control over it, it wasn't something worth stressing over. While I'm sure that says more about me than the game, it's sort of a happy accident and I wouldn't be surprised if others have a similar reaction.

In a lot of ways, I'd say this is more a true "survival" experience than RE4 (though maybe not so much horror). While there is a much greater emphasis on action, you also have a much smaller inventory, so ammo is a constant issue. You only have 9 inventory slots, so I'd tend to keep five weapons, plus the melee and bullet proof vests, so that would only alot me an extra 2 spaces worth of inventory. I'd frequently only have room to carry whatever ammo I has in my guns at the moment, and only and extra clip or two stocked up. I'd give a bit more to Sheva, but she also had 3 guns and 2 vests, and was in charge of healing supplies. As a result, I felt like I was constantly just getting by.

The inventory system does have some of what I would consider universally agreed upon flaws. Notably the fact that if you're out of ammo for a gun, find ammo, but your inventory is full, you cannot pick it up just to reload. You can't even set an item down, pick up the ammo, reload, then pick the item back up, as it will have disappeared into the ether. They should have allowed you to automatically pick up however much ammo you can fit in your clip, without it interfering with your precious inventory space. Also, there's no option to make Sheva drop an item. If you want her to get rid of say, a flash grenade in exchange for an herb, but she's out of space, rather than being able to tell her to drop an item, you'll have to swap items with her, drop it yourself, then take your item back. Not cool.

Still, despite some niggling inventory control issues and simple (yet effective) AI, RE5 has a very distinct flavor of action unlike RE4, or any other game I've played before. I'd be tempted to call it a mix between RE4 and Gears of War in its mechanics, but it also brings to mind the earlier Resident Evil titles. The controls are not up to task, but that adds a certain level of tension. Ideally, I would have preferred smoother controls where they could have created tension in other ways. Bioshock is a perfect example of a game that has smooth controls, no penalty for dying, and yet is STILL scary. Thus, making things scarier is hardly an excuse for control quibbles, but for those who liked the cumbersome nature of the earlier Resident Evils may find some redeeming value in the way Capcom chose to handle things.

The game is still far from perfect. I could have done without the zombies with guns sequences late in the game (also true of RE4, mind you). The bosses are certainly a step down from RE4 as well, where half of them suffer from the same design mantra of, "cover it with a thick layer of black worms and it will be scary." And yes, the AI is flawed (but not broken).

Nitpicks aside, the core experience of being in a large area, non-zombies surrounding you from all angles as you desperately try to avoid them, whilst scurrying about in search of ammo, is every bit as intense and fun as it ever was. Go on, enjoy it!

N'Gai Was Right...

2009-03-17T23:27:00.000-07:00

I'm really a bit sick of the whole debate over whether Resident Evil 5 is "racist" or not. There seems to be a popular opinion that it either a.) isn't and if you think it is, you're a crybaby liberal douchebag. Or b.) it is racist, and if you don't see it, you're a sheltered, naive, ignorant, and racist. It's an interesting topic, but the problem I've had with much debate I've seen of it online is that everyone is convinced they're "right" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is "wrong."

N'Gai Croal, from Newsweek wrote after the initial trailer that the game employed "imagery with a history." That while it may not be outright racist (it never, for example straight up says that black people are evil or anything less than human), it still relied upon old cliches of intimidating dark skinned people who have nothing better to do than stare down foreigners and throw hatchets and spears at them. Sure they're all the victims of a zombie outbreak, but that may not be apparent at first glance. The problem was not that the game had black zombies, but that it was preying upon negative stereotypes of Africans to accentuate the horror. It's a fair take on it. N'Gai, an African American himself, is certainly free to get that from it. Contrary to what some people have said (I won't name names) I do not believe that N'Gai or others went into RE5 looking for a problem. I do believe that that was a genuine sentiment based on his, and others' upbringing that these images brought to mind.

I'd argue, however, that by not seeing these things does not make wrong or racist. Personally, all I saw from the trailer was zombies. Sure they were black, but it was set in Africa. What do you expect? Once I stopped and read N'gai's take on it, I could see where he was coming from, but for a lot of RE's fanbase, they'll see one thing and one thing only: zombies (and yes, I realize that they're not technically zombies, but they are infected by a parasite and no longer the people they used to be). Furthermore, the whole plot revolves around an American corporation infecting Africans with a virus, so it's not like the exploitation of Africa is left untouched. It's not great writing or anything, and while I'm sick of the whole "it's just a game" argument, I do gravitate towards the "it's just Resident Evil" argument. I mean these games have never been known for their quality writing. It could hardly be called a hugely influential work of art that people will form their world views based on. To many it is nothing more than a zombie themed action game (and in my mind, a rather fun one at that).

In conclusion, I'll say that while I don't find the game to be particularly objectionable, I can hardly say you're "wrong" for reading into it that way and am sick of the supposedly liberal first amendment quoting douchebags who think that it's okay to make a game like RE5, but no okay to talk about it unless they happen to share your own point of view. But I also wouldn't say you're "wrong" for not seeing the game as racist at all. We all come into these things with a different background are are going to see something different when looking at it. While I didn't see (in the trailer) what N'gai saw, he was right about one thing, "It's very difficult in this country, in many countries, to have a conversation about race."

Resident Evil 5 First Impressions

2009-03-15T01:11:00.000-07:00

The problem with Resident Evil 5 is that to really get the most out of the experience requires two things:

a.) Someone to play with (ideally someone willing to make the commitment of playing it through to the end). And...

b.) Someone who's played RE4.

That second part is crucial, and something I never would have gathered from reading reviews, as most critics play games with their colleagues who are very familiar with these sorts of games. I, however, had a friend who had never played RE4 come over to check out RE5, as we'd both heard great things about its co-op. With this in mind, we both went into the game expecting to have a lot of fun. Sadly, this was not to be...

The first problem we encountered was that the game does not tell you how to set up a split-screen co-op game. The second player has to press start (which was easy enough), but it will then tell them that they cannot save unless they select a storage device. If they choose to do so, it kicks you back to the title screen under their profile. Whaa? In theory, this makes sense as the game only records your save progress for one profile at a time, but this is not made clear. As a result, we spent an extraordinarily frustrating 10 minutes worth of menu exploring, cutscene watching, loading, and going back to the dashboard before finally figuring out something that should have been very, very simple, and selectable from the main menu.

Once we finally got the game running on split screen, we encountered another problem; the game is very slow at the offset. We spent the first 10 minutes doing little more than picking up ammo, figuring out where to go, and watching cutscenes. Since it was my game, I wanted to collect all the items and ammo I could find, but I didn't want to bore my friend, so I didn't explore every nook and cranny as I would had it been a single-player game. If the game continues to be anything like RE4, there'll be a lot of slow moments between the action, where you have to scavenge around for resources.

This may be fine for the RE4 initiated, but to those who haven't played Capcom's prior survival/action/maybe-a-tad-bit-of-horror classic, this will be an arduous and grueling process. Not the least of which because inventory management is rather cumbersome. Those who are not familiar with the franchise won't even know how combining herbs works. Child's play for us veterans, but a lot to take in for the outsider friend who just wants to pick up the controller and have fun. Compare this to something like Gears of War, wherein after the first five minutes of holding the controller, you'll understand everything you need to know to sustain the entire game.

Therein lies the core flaw of RE5. As a single-player game, the combat is buggy with an unintelligent AI partner who insists on wasting your ammo, who you cannot strategize with. And as a co-op experience, the action may be a lot of fun, but the parts in-between are far too slow and inaccessible to the uninitiated. And don't get me started on the real-time inventory management system. Even as an RE4 vet, I had trouble giving the items I wanted to my partner during the thick of action. For the novice player, that will be next to impossible as they're just trying to come to grips with the controls and what all the items do.

I'm not saying that RE5 is a bad game. Not at all. I still find the core shooting mechanics to be as satisfying today as they were four years back in RE4. I don't even mind the sometimes awkward controls all that much. I do, however, feel like the game is an unceremonious mix between RE4's slow, methodical single-player experience and Gears of War's balls-out action approach to co-op. In the end, it falls short of pleasing either camp as well as it could or should have.

Hand Down, The Best Free Game About Not Shitting Your Pants I've Played All Year!

2009-03-07T10:37:00.000-08:00

Don't Shit Your Pants!

Thoughts on Flower

2009-02-25T13:39:00.000-08:00

With all the talk of Flower going on lately, I figured it was my turn to chime in...

Flower has been getting a lot of buzz as being sort of the "next big thing." It's simple, nearly goalless structure has been described as perhaps starting a whole new genre of gaming. As Matt Chandronat said on his preview on the late 1up Show, "it emphasizes positive reinforcement rather than negative." (Not an exact quote). I, however, would argue that Flower is far from the breakthrough work of art as others have described it.

Yes, the game is pretty. Very pretty in fact. Especially the later levels. And the soundtrack/sound effects work well in tandem with the visual input to create a pleasing, relaxing atmosphere. Though, at its core, Flower is still very much a game, and not a particularly good one, I'd argue.

I've heard it argued that flower is as much an experience as it is a game, but I just don't see it. Maybe I'm just acclimated to playing very goal-oriented games, and while it's possible to play Flower straight through, blooming only the minimum amount of flowers required to move on, the game is still very much a collect-athon. There really isn't much to do other than bloom flowers, and there are no scores to speak of (such as for time, or flowers bloomed). So either you go through the levels briskly (which may be fun, but you'll breeze through the game in a scant couple hours at that rate) or, if you want any sort of replay value at all, you'll go for the little bonuses you get for collecting the three hidden green flowers that only show up if you bloom all the flowers in a specific area. Maybe it's just my OCD talking, but I didn't find that to be very engaging. I can't just breeze through a game collecting the minimum, and blooming all the flowers in any given region can be an arduous task.

Not only is Flower a collect-athon, but one with questionable controls, in my opinion. Maybe I'm just used to playing with analogue sticks, but having to control the game with the six-axis just felt odd to me. I'm not used to having to pay attention to how I'm holding the controller, and would frequently inadvertently start pointing up, because that's just the position I usually hold a controller in. I can appreciate what they were going for by trying to scale it down to the simplest control scheme possible, but I feel like including the option for analogue sticks couldn't hurt anything.

Furthermore, the few more "gamey" parts of Flower they've included, i.e. the "switches" that trigger the next event, are all executed in unskippable cutscenes where camera control is ripped away from the player. Every time you bloom an area, you have to sit back and watch it get restored to its former glory. It can't just happen whilst playing. For a game that's supposed to be about freedom, there sure is a lot of hand holding.

There is still a lot to like about Flower. The audiovisual component is fantastic and I can appreciate its simplicity, but I didn't feel like it told as great a story as it seems to try to. Many have compared Flower to Rez, and it's an apt comparison. I only mildly enjoyed that game as well, where I felt like it had a phenomenal audio/visual presentation, but was locked into otherwise rote shooter mechanics. Amazing to see all the sights on sounds of that first time through, but lacking in the gameplay to make the replay all that much fun. Still, both these games are a steal at $10 just for their aesthetics alone and I can appreciate that they're trying something new. But just because it's new doesn't make it any better.

Afro Samurai Review

2009-02-20T07:40:00.000-08:00

My Review of Afro Samurai is up at Honestgamers. Enjoy!

You Know I've Got a Great Face for Radio...

2009-02-16T14:22:00.000-08:00

My special guest appearance on Big Red Potion Episode# 2 is up. The topic: Love in Videogames.

"[Big Red Potion] May be the nerdiest thing I have ever listened to." -A hot girl I know.

Top Ten Bosses (Original)

2009-02-03T17:48:00.000-08:00

While we already posted our Top Ten Bosses list at TGR, I figured I'd use this venus to show what my own, personal list was. It was rejected due to lack of diversity (which is fair enough, hence the new, group effort we put up on TGR that I am rather pleased with), but I figured I'd share it here, with you all.

10. Cerberus: Devil May Cry 3
Often games let you live out your best movie fantasies, like destroying the Death Star, for example. DMC3 does you one better and lets you do what Harry Potter never got the chance to; fighting the dreaded three-headed hell-hound, Cerberus. And dreaded he is. Facing him as early as the third level, Cerberus represents a huge difficulty spike, with a huge variety of attacks. Do you want to play things safe (er, safer), staying away and chipping at his ice armor with your guns, or get in there with your sword for MASSIVE DAMAGE!? Either way will present a huge challenge, but beating him is entirely satisfying. Plus he just looks damn cool taking up half the room, covered in ice, shackled to the rear end of the room.

9. Phalanx (i.e. Colossus #13): Shadow of the Colossus

Hardly even a "boss fight" per se, as this "boss" never even attacks you (I don't believe it's even possible to die in this sequence), Phalanx is amalgam of all that is cool about videogames. You get to ride around on a horse through a gigantic desert region, shoot your bow & arrow (while riding said horse), and jump from your galloping stead onto the wounded, fleeing creature. Even the games' usually wonky camera manages to behave here, adding for amongst the most cinematic boss battles ever conceived. The creature design is amazing as well, creating a creature that is both majestic and powerful without succumbing to the usual ploys of say, googley eyes, for example.

8. Vaati: The Legend of Zelda: Minish Cap

People like to take a shit over Minish Cap for some reason, probably because it's too easy. And for the most part that's true, but the final boss is a tricky bugger. You'll have to use just about every tool you've acquired through the game to beat him and it'll take a bit of brain work to figure out what you need to do for each of his several forms. He also represent the only times I've died in that game.

7. Krauser: Resident Evil 4
In an already fantastic game, fighting this mutant sonuvabitch in a ruined pueblo had to be the highlight. The way he'd disappear, then reappear right next to you for some close quarters combat made for many a tense moment as you'd run about collecting stone tablets. There's a slight intermission between his phases where you go about destroying defense sentinels, only to face him again, in a stronger, mutant form with a ticking time bomb in the background. The way it mixed traditional gunplay with quick-time button presses was first introduced in RE4 and Krauser, with his quick agility, left you no place to hide. Word of advice: there is a cheap tactic to killing him that the designers left in as something of an easter egg, but I'd recommend not using it if you want a challenge.

6. GLaDOS: Portal

The fact that Valve managed to come up with any kind of boss fight in a simple puzzle solving game with no weapons is already impressive, but the fact that they made one so multi-tiered and a worthy puzzle unto itself is an even greater achievement. This sequence also contains some of the funniest dialogue in the game as GLaDOS attempts to convince you that you are a bad person and that no one likes you. Even after defeating her you'll likely want to reload just to hear all the bits of dialogue you may have missed regarding her talking loose bits. There's even a full fledged recipe for cake in there. What other bosses can you say that about?

5. Quadraxis: Metroid Prime 2

Here's a boss that really takes advantage of everything you've learned in the game. With three different phases of battle, you'll have to use: ball form, boosting, bombs, x-ray vision, spiderball tracks, and your choice of ammo, in this epic, multi-tiered battle. Perhaps a tad on the easy side, Quadraxis still manages to take great advantage of everything the Metroid Prime series does well. Why these games don't include a boss rush mode is beyond me.

4. The Boss: Metal Gear Solid 3

The Boss is a truly epic final boss encounter utilizing one of the greatest setpieces seen in gaming. Taking place is a field of white flowers blowing in the wind at sunset, The Boss finally has a chance to utilize her space age sneaking suit. There are different ways to fight her including secret hidden CQC techniques and stealth. There's also the added threat of a time limit, something I usually hate, but only adds to the tension here. The way the theme song slowly starts playing midway through the battle is a real treat as well, making it among the greatest final boss battles I've ever seen. And the interactive cutscene following the fight where you have to pull the trigger yourself- genius!

3. Echidna: Devil May Cry 4

The She-Viper is not only an amazingly cool boss design, but she plays extraordinarily well too. With a wide variety of attacks at her disposal, it'll take a long time to figure out how to successfully avoid her on the harder difficulties. Better yet, playing as Dante nets an all new challenge as your old tricks won't work anymore and you'll have to go about discovering a whole new strategy. Playing her on Dante Muste Die initially took me close to two hours to conquer with each protagonist, and it was never, ever, dull.

2. The Fury: Metal Gear Solid 3

Rarely have I ever played a boss that allows for so much variation on how to go about killing them. The Fury, an insane otherworldy cosmonaut who went into space and came back something else, flies around an underground concrete maintenance tunnel with a jetpack and flamethrower. Things get especially intense when half the room is ablaze and you're desperately trying to shake him. Fighting him in a series of dark corridors allows for an unspeakable amount of variation as you go about sneaking up on him, hoping he doesn't get the drop on you. I must've spent over two hours fighting him initially, experimenting with a tranquilizer gun, a sniper rifle, an AK47, claymores, exploding barrels, thermal goggles, night vision goggles, and a host of camping spots as I'd try to work out a strategy for hunting him down.

1. Crying Wolf: Metal Gear Solid 4

In essence, Crying Wolf is a brilliant reimagining of two of the Metal Gear series' best boss battle: The End and Sniper Wolf. It combines the free roaming environment employed in MGS3 with The End with the setting (quite literally the EXACT same courtyard) and character used for Sniper Wolf in the first Metal Gear Solid. Both those battles were really good, but too simple. With THE END you could easily cheat the game by tracking his footprints with thermal goggles. The same is true of Crying Wolf, but now you have the added element of guards to deal with. I'd recommend not spoiling it for yourself and killing the guards (or opting for the hiding under the truck cheat that I'm sure was included on purpose for those who just wanted to see the story and don't like fun), and if you're truly hardcore, go for no alerts as well. And if an intense sniper duel with an squad of elite acrobatic soldiers set in a blizzard wasn't enough, Crying Wolf's also able to stampede about and pounce on you if she catches wind of your scent. When this happens, the camera switches to her point of view and you're given a split second to react and stop her in her tracks. It's wonderfully tense, epic stuff. In a series known for wonderful boss battles Crying Wolf really takes the cake.

Top Ten Bosses

2009-01-29T19:28:00.000-08:00

TGR's List of Top Ten Bosses just got published. I wrote numbers: 10, 9, 6,4, 2, and half of 1. Enjoy!

Exciting Menu Action!

2009-01-26T20:52:00.000-08:00

I have a confession to make; I've never liked Japanese role-playing games. Or any turn-based RPGs for that matter. While I can appreciate the aesthetics, story, characters, and narrative of something like, say Final Fantasy 6, I just couldn't ever get into the game mechanics. They always felt like a strategy board game ungracefully combined with a movie or TV series. You want to see what happens on the next episode of Lost? Grind through a few dozen encounters in a dungeon first. Not exactly a match made in heaven.

Making matters worse, these games tend to be very long and drawn out. I could put up with a bit of turn-based combat in order to drive forward a story, but only if it's done in moderation. A 20-30 hour RPG would be about as much as I could take before things start to feel woefully padded.

Still, I've always appreciated the narratives and aesthetics the genre is known for, and have always wanted to like the genre more. I even bought all the PS2 era Megaten games in the hopes that one day I would get into them, and was worried that by the time that day came, they'd be even rarer and harder to find (though amazingly, unexpectedly, and selfishly disappointing to me, Atlus has reprinted Digital Devil Saga and Nocturne making my collection decrease in value. But hey, I'm just glad this'll give them the availability to start making more, higher budget games). I played all these game for somewhere between 9-18 hours, enjoyed them a bit, then got bored and daunted by how much further I had to go, and lost interest. Persona 3 was the game I got furthest in after 18 hours. I just beat the second month's boss, so I still have a good entry point for if and when I choose to return to it.

In a previous blog entry, I wrote about how games don't necessarily have to be fun all the time. How I didn't enjoy the sailing in Wind Waker until I went back to it year's later and viewed it as it was, a sailing sim, rather than what I wanted it to be; a traditional controllable videogame vehicle. So I decided to was high time I return to my most uninterested in genres and give it another go. This time, with critic's darling, Persona 4.

90 min in...

These impressions are severely limited as I haven't even arrived at my first battle and the game has yet to begin proper. I was disappointed by Persona 3, due to it being such a slow burner (and then later a drawn-out slog), so I went into P4 with much different expectations. I was expecting lots of text, load screens, low-res character models, some mediocre voice-acting, and perhaps my most hated of all RPG staples; the silent protagonist. What I didn't expect would be for it all to be this good.

I still prefer games where I have a little more control of the situation. Where I'm not bogged down by menus and text at nearly all times. But for what it is (i.e. not my usual thing), I can appreciate that almost every single element contained within is done well. (Except for maybe the voice-acting, which is just the right amount of mediocre hit-and-miss that I can never decide if I should turn it off or not. It can be painful at times, but somehow the game just feels lacking without it. Oh, how I long for the return of the original Japanese voice-acting with English subtitles).

The atmosphere and art style are superb, but that was to be expected after Persona 3. What I didn't expect was for the writing to be so strong. From what I played of Persona 3, it felt like a rather generic Buffy/Harry Potter clone. The characters were moderately likable, but too shallow to muster up any sort of real attachment to. The strange thing about Persona 4 is that the characters are all basically recreations of the cast from Persona 3. You still have the silent male protagonist, the spunky female best friend/Hermione type, the insecure wannabe stud who has a crush on said female best friend, and the more traditionally attractive, but less cute and lovable, taller, older, more mature girl. So yeah, it's basically the same cast to a tee, But from the little I've been able to glean so far, they're all far more unique and dynamic than their P3 counterparts. Chie is more immature, tomboyish and aggressive than Yukari from P3, Yosuke is less confident and even more insecure than Junpei, and Yukiko is shyer and less cold than Mitsuru.

The art direction has seen a subtle, yet elegant improvement as well. I like the lonely, rural country setting and the Psychonauts-esque inside-of-character's-heads based dungeon themes looks promising. The first encounter the gang has with this parallel dimension was equal parts creepy and funny, a huge step up from the Giles from Buffy-esque professor from P3 merely explaining to you how it's your destiny to fight shadows. Yawn. I was also quite fond of the dream sequence your characters has on a foggy brick road. Wonderfully surreal stuff!

The plot too, is far more interesting than it has any right to be. The way the gang is slowly pulled into this old fashioned whodunnit involving scandal and murder is expertly told, and I've heard that you have to actually solve the case yourself to get the "good" ending; a gaming conceit that has me very, very, excited.

One thing I'm still not too thrilled about is the silent protagonist. I understand that they want the player to identify with him by leaving him a blank slate, but I feel like it has the opposite effect as I wouldn't be that quiet given the situation. it's not that bad, as he is given some choice to speak up, even if it's never recorded. Still, I find myself caring far more for the other characters. I guess that's okay too, but having a little more attachment to the person I'm supposed to be embodying would only enhance the experience, I find.

The worst thing I can say abut Persona 4 at this juncture is that I've probably spent nearly as long writing this article as I have playing it, which leads me to believe that it's more fun to think about than it is to play. But so be it. I'm getting some form of enjoyment from it, and that's more than I expected. Now, to play it some more and see where it leads...

Gravity Bone

2009-01-22T15:25:00.000-08:00

Everyone need to check out this game now! It's only about 20 minutes long, but contains the music from Brazil, and is amazing.

It runs off the Quake 2 engine, but it's not a first-person shooter. It's more of an adventure/platformer, though there's hardly room for any of that. It's mostly running fetch-quests through a series of hilarious setpieces. That may not sound very appealing, and admittedly, the core game design is rather pedestrian, but it's so short that you're not likely to get bored of it for the scant few minutes that it lasts.

It's basically a spy/noir/sci-fi kinda thing, but the jazzy style and colorful aesthetic give is a life of its own. The way it makes fun of the spy genre and action movies is a joy to behold and the ending, in particular, is single-handedly the funniest game ending I've seen since Portal. Enjoy!

Moon Review is Up!

2009-01-22T15:19:00.000-08:00

Go check it out at honestgamers.com.

I Don't Care if You're the Harbinger of Destruction, I Still Love Ya.

2009-01-17T03:30:00.001-08:00

Battlestar Galactica came back today, launching the first of the final 10 episodes after a six months hiatus. All I can say is that right now, all I want to do is hibernate until the next episode airs.

Top 10 New IPs for 2009

2009-01-15T20:20:00.000-08:00

My new article on the Top 10 New IPs for 2009 got published at TGR. Seems to be quite a big hit at n4G. Go check it out here.

Jumping Moustache

Q1 Wrap-up

Additional Thoughts on Ghost Trick and its Use of Text.

Best of the 2010: The Rest

Best of the 2010: Bayonetta

Best of the 2010: Donkey Kong Country Returns

Gaming Literacy

DeathSpank is Fun for all the Wrong Reasons

New Column and Some Monkey Island Love

Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Other Goings On...

Still Alive

More Things I've Written

Challenging Conventions Retrospective

2009: A Year of Division

More New Stuff

X-Play Debut+ New Column/Girlfriend= Neglected Blog

New Big Red Potion Appearance

Brutal Legend Review

The Greatest Story Not Told

Making Exploration and Storytelling Compatible

Uncharted 2's Looks a Bit Charted to Me

Interview With Scribblenaut's Creative Director, Jeremiah Slaczka

Big Red Potion Episode# 21 Afterword

Batman is Actually a Huge Procrastinator...

Okami Retrodotal

Ghostbusters Wii Review

I Cast a Mean Pod:

Top Ten Non-Playable Characters

In Defense of the Pre-rendered Cut Scene

E3 09: Borderlands Preview

Am I evil? Yes, I am.

E3 09: Alien Vs Predator Preview

Prototype Review

E3 09: Mass Effect 2 Hands-on Preview

E3 09: Red Steel 2 Hands-on Preview

E3 09: Trine Hands-On Preview

E3 09: Shadow Complex Hands-On Preview

E3 09: Brutal Legend Hands-On Preview

E3 09: Demon's Souls Hands-on Preview

What's the Purpose of a Game Review?

E3 09: The Saboteur Preview

E3 09: My Moment of Glory With Bayonetta

inFamous Review

Best of E3

There is Love in Your Violence

Trico Trailer Impressions

Uncharted 2: Who is This Chloe Girl and What Have You Done With Elena?

Bioshock 2 Developer Demo Impressions

Big Red Potion Episode # 12; Afterword

Rise From the Ashes

Silent Hill 2: Why I Don't Love You...

No More Heroes Revisited

A Look at the Wii's Strengths and Weaknesses

Flow Like a River or Stagnate Like a Tree?

New Blog Name, Same Blog Taste!

Big Red Potion Episode # 9: Afterword

Videogames' Greatest Obstacle (Hint: It's Not a 50ft Robot)...

Crawl, Walk, Run...

Peggle: Dual Shot Review

Final Thoughts on RE5 Single-Player

N'Gai Was Right...

Resident Evil 5 First Impressions

Hand Down, The Best Free Game About Not Shitting Your Pants I've Played All Year!

Thoughts on Flower

Afro Samurai Review

You Know I've Got a Great Face for Radio...

Top Five Most Romantic Moments in Videogames

Top Ten Bosses (Original)

Top Ten Bosses

Exciting Menu Action!

Gravity Bone

Moon Review is Up!

I Don't Care if You're the Harbinger of Destruction, I Still Love Ya.

Top 10 New IPs for 2009