New Blog Name, Same Blog Taste!

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

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)...

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...

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

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

Final Thoughts on RE5 Single-Player

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...

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."