Chasing Shadows.

It's the beginning of the end, and I'm standing in front of the door that will change everything. The once clear sky is dark, having been torn with piercing shafts of light symbolic of my crime, and an unknown power is ravaging my body, having deteriorated my appearance to one more resembling a specter than a person.

I have physically and mentally endured radical changes to get here.

It's practically at the end of Shadow of the Colossus, and the temple I'm praying at to save is letting me know so. The path to the final colossi lies just at the end of a nearby gulf, and with an armageddon of my own machinations at hand, I can't stop thinking about the temple itself. There were many marking the land as far as I could recall, yet my map had only revealed five. Had my tunnel vison blinded me to the majority, dedicated as I was to my cause? Whatever the reason, the grip augmenting lizards and opportunities to save weren't a bad catch for finding one either, so with the end in sight and nothing to lose, off I went to find more.

With 15 down and one to go, I stared to explore.


In searching for more of these temples, I rediscovered just how rich the world was.

It amazed me once more that so much could be done with so little, and like the best details, that so much could be achieved in their subtlety.

Temples with a consistency of design suggesting one religion instead of several.



Ruins of castles far too large for any human, but too small for the gods that inhabit the land, bringing to question the physicality of the people and the role they played.



Underground networks and catacombs that reveal their enterances in mountainsides, a mixture of manmade and natural formations that perhaps suggest an evolution of sorts, giving the area centuries of prospective history.



But how much of this is true, or could be true? That's the brilliance.

The world itself is so without explanation, that as a player and active participant, your actions define the tale moving forward. But at the same time, there's a history to this land. A past that predates your existence. A lore that extends beyond what the developer refuses to tell you with finality, and instead has to exist in your imagination because of this stubborn fact.

In my opinion,this makes the land in Shadow one of the richest game worlds ever conceived. It's wholly minimalist,yet rich presentation contributes to this in a way that being as detailed as say, Grand Theft Auto 4 could never muster. Why? Unlike other games that tell you where there world begins and ends, here, it's only as vast as you can imagine. You can see how expansive the land is , but how much so is left to your sense of exploration. You get evidence of society having existed, but are given unspecific details towards this. This provides a template for conclusion that any player can come to no matter what their train of thought, and it means the unspecific details can flourish and be satisfying safely within the bubble of your own logic.

Reading the many conclusions players have come to regarding this more than speaks for itself.



We tend to define our game worlds by how well they carry off their sense of time and place, how when done just right it truly is like a living and breathing thing as much as the characters themselves. This usually translates in the number of NPCs you interact with, or how many towns and cities you can cram into one worldmap. A large number of sidequests, cutscenes and items to retrieve, each another breadcrumb towards a complete feeling world. These games are usually 30-40 hours long.

Shadow of the Colossus takes around 8.

I'd forgotten just how much this game had done with so little.
Continue Reading..

Call of Battlefield: Modern Bore

With the release of Battlefield 3 already upon us and having time to settle, I am not filled with feelings of excitement, nor hatred. I cant really identify with any kind of feeling in particular aside from exasperation. Not at the fact that I've gotten military shooter this year as a part of this 2011 FPS gauntlet we've been running but at the fact that man, does it look a lot like Call of Duty campaign wise.

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

In fact, it's such a strange shift in focus for a game that has stuck to its guns as long as Battlefield, the reactions are almost unanimous: in stark contrast to the multiplayer portion, it doesn't feel or play anything like a Battlefield game.

Eurogamer reports that "EA has constructed a package that echoes its rival in so many ways it's downright eerie."

IGN describes the gulf in quality between the single and multiplayer modes as the game suffering an "identity crisis"

Destructoid says "If you're a fan of single-player games, there's nothing for you here."

I hope it's starting to sink in. The race for every military shooter to capture that Call of Duty "magic" is a fruitless one that continues to ensure that all our military FPS stories will have the same interchangeable, hollow campaigns lacking in substance.



Call of Duty hasn't been an action packed history lesson for years, but they wisely ditched the format when WW2 was thoroughly mined. Changing the scope of the series from that to one more loosely based in our current events was a wise move on a creative and gameplay front, and gave them legs for something new. That something new worked in the original Modern Warfare But their success has literally become a blueprint for the modern FPS. If they are the trailblazers, people will start following their cues for a taste of their success, and oh are they.


(If you can't tell which game this is at first glance, something's wrong)

Wait for NPC B to kick in door A, terrorists pop up like cardboard cutouts, shoot, repeat until set-piece activates. While I appreciate EA going for Infinity Ward's throat, they may have gone about it the wrong way by following what has become the lowest common denominator blueprint of FPS design. Since Modern Warfare 2, short, linear military rollercoaster rides with a heavy focus on multiplayer has been the consensus. The difference however between every other game adopting these bullet points and Call of Duty embracing them, is the fact that their multiplayer is so popular and nuanced that they can AFFORD to let the campaign deteriorate into this.

EVERYONE ELSE DOES NOT HAVE THAT CUSHION. While I don't mind CoD jumping a multiplayer shark, everyone is attempting similar leaps now, and unsuccessfully at that. This means we have a bevy of failed attempts at this same slanted, rigid campaign/multiplayer focus instead of memorable, lasting experiences from franchises old and new. It means new creative ideas are being ditched, or compromised, or outright rejected for what works, like their method. It means a loss of identity. It means becoming a statistic.



It also means being forgotten while the major players who did get it right burn the genre to shreds by trying to reproduce their apex until they no longer can. The ones getting it wrong drive the nails further into the coffin.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, I'd rather watch Call of Duty topple under its own weight, with it's own flaws, without dragging an entire genre down with it.

There's still an opportunity to craft a story in a military shooter that can resonate viscerally because unlike shooting candy colored aliens, the threat of what's presented here is more personally identifiable, if not always completely plausible. There's a chance to create an exciting, tactical gauntlet that can test more than a player's ability to aim down the sights. Elements like visuals, score, and an intensity of events that simply can't be matched anywhere but in first-person because without an avatar to view constantly, immersion increases exponentially. Imagine all of this paced with intent, having a clear start and finish. Having the ability to stir and evoke emotions in players, and knowing they have been challenged by development team clever enough to do so is a power they are forgetting they have. Regardless of the success of their individual approaches, at least that's exactly what they are, individual, and not yet another attempt to recreate another badass soldiering montage.



More Saving Private Ryan, less Pearl Harbor, moving forward please.

I'm speaking not just to DICE, but the rest of the developers on that one. If CoD has given up on campaign, that's the competition's space to make it better, and innovate. Not follow them mercilessly into the increasingly bleak and derivative popcorn hot-dog-on-a-string campaigns awash in brown hues, foreign countries and explosions. The time for distinction is now, while Battlefield 3 paints a by-the-numbers approach to this as a noticeable problem. I understand the nature of business first, but this is how you beat the competition.

Otherwise, soon you all won't have a genre to compete in.
Continue Reading..

Reverse Psychology

I think I hated this last year. Couldn't accept it for the world. Now, I'm seeing things.

I see a very twisted, mcabre visual style. I see some inspired enemy design. I see dynamically morphing environments and an impressive sense of scale. I see a battle system that looks, surprisingly like DMC1, but with an added level of flourish. It looks cool, it looks sharp...it does look like Devil May Cry.

Honestly, it looks a lot like Devil May Cry 2 visually, but without the suck.

I'm inclined...to turn an eye to this. Not a blind eye, but one wide open, and accepting of change. I still don't like the way he looks, but it isn't nearly as distracting as it was last year.

I do like this video. It's making me smile.

Once again proving that really, gamers have no conviction, and that if it looks cool enough, eventually, despite our dissent, we will crack in the name of the game.



Cool artwork, too.



Damnit.
Continue Reading..

Annoyances of the Mainstream - Trials and Tribulations

I generally don't pay attention to mainstream (IGN, Gamespot, et al) game reviews anymore, as I've noticed a disturbing trend in gaming; mainstream reviewers seem to be downscoring games based on increasingly frivolous things. I'm not even talking about a game having strange mechanics, something being off story wise, or something simultaneously loved and feared because of its insurmountable odds akin to a Ninja Gaiden, I'm just talking about complaints about things like challenge that seem to be getting worse as gaming moves into a more casual forum.

It's odd, as I notice reviews from back in the day heavily focused on an overall aura, a combination of graphics, sound, gameplay and overall value. Now, since graphics are at such a high as to be homogenous, it takes truly reprehensible (read: mostly last-gen) visuals to have some sort of visual discrepancy. Since every console practically defaults to multidirectional sound, a game has to have a really questionable score to be noticed outside of our increasingly orchestral norms. But gameplay is more heavily scrutinized than before, with what I feel is a misplaced focus.


Annoying Scrutiny #1 - "Trial-and-Error" in Games

One of the chief complaints of the mainstream reviewer is this, criticizing what is a fundamental aspect of design. Trial-and-error is an aspect of games that is much maligned, and in some cases, with good reason, but it's not something that needs to be eliminated.

Death in games comes often, and sometimes swiftly, but this was something we've always dealt with as gamers. The entire institution of even having "extra lives" was the notion that you would fail, and if you weren't completely up to snuff, there was always a secret code to help out in case of emergency.



These days, our games are littered with savefiles to record progress, checkpoints to cover what the savefiles don't get, and autosaves just in case you manually forgot to save. The challenging aspect has endured to a point, but now there's a ton of concessions to ensure you aren't taxed too hard. Why then does even a game like Limbo, which is literally littered with checkpoints and death spots, get criticized for its difficulty, being called a "trial and error" game with this as a negative aspect?

Trial-and-error in its purest form is a fudamental part of design. Gamers love to be punished (when we aren't, we complain MORE), and part of the discovery element of ANY game is figuring out the limits developers have assigned us. You can't find out if a bed of spikes is dangerous to your avatar without first propelling them onto it, and reacting accordingly, can you? When did this fall by the wayside? Short of putting massive signs everywhere that says "Don't try to do x, or you'll die", there will always be a bit of a trial-and-error aspect to games.

But what happens when a game (unintentionally) parodies a reviewer's desire to eliminate the frustrating aspects of trial-and-error?



You get the 2008 Prince of Persia, which was met with a massive negative backlash, due to its refusal to let a player stare at a "Game Over" screen.

I never saw the difference when people started to complain though. Elika physically pulling you from a ditch is no different to me than appearing a few feet in front of a trap that just killed you in Limbo, or mashing F5 before a particularly difficult part in Half-Life so your life is secure. It's no different than Gears of War constantly covering your ass with autosaves, and it's an amusing point of contention that when a game is lacking some sort of system similar to this, it gets pulled apart. So why complain at all? It sets in motion a needless effort by the developer to accomodate with easier modes that see no use, or a overly simplified design that, as criticisms would label it , "Suffer from a lack of challenge or sense of danger."



So which is it guys? Are the games supposed to be so straightforward that we coast through them without being challenged, or is it only acceptable if the game doesn't make it obvious that their hand is being held? I don't know if there is a right answer. I believe a game's accomodations should only reach as far as the developer allows, but to compromise their vision in some way by removing what has been a cornerstone of design is silly. A game in which you're unable to die is little more than an interactive movie (leading to complaints of unimagination and linearity), and without some sort of risk-reward system to propel a player forward, there's little reason to continue once you've started (or even revisit). My notion is, people looking for the former need to simply watch movies, people looking for the absence of the latter need to question why they're engaged in an interactive challenge in the first place if they aren't expecting to be challenged.



Some of my favorite experiences in gaming were earned after much repetition of seemingly insurmountable odds, and I can't see that changing as long as our minds continue to favor being told we can't accomplish something initially with a robust set of obstacles.

The wide world of the internet takes a reviewer's opinion as gospel at times like this, and while it's nice, I realize we have to be careful. It's easy to forget, but readers are always on top of what we say as soon as we say it. They also take what we say to heart, faux-quoting us like parrots in an effort to sound "professional". Developers pay close attention as well, and shape their next title's aspects in line with our criticisms. If reviewers like the ones I'm mentioning don't watch out, it'll be exactly the predestination paradox their complaints are trying to avoid, and a slew of linear, hand-holding games will be the future. I remember Call of Duty's campaigns being somewhat tactical and open before it became akin to a treadmill with an explosive-filled hot dog on the end.

With a slew of ill-informed criticism favoring easier, more straightforward games, they just may be undercutting the most fun aspect of our medium. Which leads to a better question for the next segment:

Why are they complaining about visuals too?


Continue Reading..

Annoyances of the Mainstream - Visual-Tactual Discrepancy

And thus, the maligning of the mainstream continues, with this passage focused on the sticking point of sticking point: Graphics. More and more, I'm seeing games come under fire for their visual prowess, but is it warranted? I don't think so. I've changed much from my youth, where visuals simply didn't matter as much as the game at hand (ah, to be young), but this was largely due in part to the fact that games didn't HAVE technical issues of this sort when I was younger. Take slowdown for example. Every game had a perfect framerate, and if it didn't, you were simply in awe of just how much a developer was willing to push the console in order to get the look achieved on screen. These days, a game slows down, and it's something to be ridiculed--how could a developer let such a thing come to pass? What was once regarded as the pinnacle of technical merit (pushing a console over the edge) now has the worst reputation imaginable.



So the times have changed, and what was once revered is now bottom of the barrel, as is the nature of technology. But why? The building blocks of what consititute good visuals hasn't changed. While we're leagues away from the 2D ideals I just described (in 3D, slowdown is bad, bad, bad), the difference between a game looking bad and simply good or adequate really hasn't changed. I think our way of looking at them has, and once more reviewers, I'm looking at you. Yes, I realize that everything's in HD and that saying "This game looks great!" may start to feel a bit redundant for the 'Graphics' portion of a review, but things are getting off track. So in trying not to get lost in a redundant sea of praise, I think a bit too much information is getting out there as an awkward placeholder and it's warping people's perception of what makes something look good.


(someone actually told me this looked bad)

I'm still of the belief that if a game can pull off its visual accent well, then it is a game of good graphical quality. But these reviewers have morphed somewhat into tech analysts, dissecting everything from techniques used to even resolution as a sticking point. They'll go on and on like a DigitalFoundry article, throwing around programming jargon until you have less of an assessment about a game's visuals and more of a spec sheet. This misdirection of information goes straight past their reader's brains, and into their subconscious. Then, they too prattle endlessly about effects like depth-of-field and ambient occlusion. They start throwing around engine names like Unreal Engine 3 or Frostbite without an understanding of what they're capable of. Some cases will start complaining about gaffes they don't understand like LoD (level of detail) glitches and v-sync tearing.


(a split second of this is not going to condemn this game to the depths of graphical hell)

Suddenly, it's become less about the combination of these techniques and how they contribute to making a great game, but more about how many there are. I explained to a friend absolutely hailing the new Kingdom Hearts that I felt FFVII: Crisis Core was a better looking game than Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep because it has a more detailed look, as opposed to a starkly cartoonish one.



Now, I am not saying Kingdom Hearts looks bad. I am also not implying that it looks worse than Crisis Core. But to see his ears initially flare up spoke volumes. I was immediately leveled volleys about screen effects, animation, AI, textures, and it would've been more had I not stopped him and clarified: Where CC went for a more detailed, industrial, psuedorealistic look (requiring a multitude of detailed textures indoor or out), Kingdom Hearts by design doesn't carry a ton of detail, sitting squarely between Disney-style cel animation and a radical anime aesthetic. "It isn't so much the look, but the intent. KH simply looks sharp, CC looks more detailed", I said.

Then his eyes glazed over.

Was he really up for a graphics debate (given all the bullet points he threw at me), or was he likely following the spirit of a glowing review? My bet goes to the latter.

Call me crazy, but I thought we solved the graphics problem a while ago. Somehow though, the debate rages on, and really, the player loses as a result. Especially if we're going to get caught up in these faux-technical debates, when really I've seen plenty of games with a wide stamp of graphical trickery still fail to impress compared to games working with much less, practically invalidating these claims.


(Silent Hill 3 STILL looks better than any game in the series released after it. A PS2 game. From 2004.)

Generally these days, every game looks technically great. So with every game this generation sporting at least a 720p resolution and textures to boot, it should all boil down not to technical prowess, but art direction. It isn't a resolution, or an eye-light-shadow effect, its how a dev can effectively combine these things to make something that looks virtually incredible. The Wii is already proving in spades that you don't need advanced technical prowess for great visuals, and I'll be damned if someone else walks up to me and tells me Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't look amazing:



or that Conker: Live and Reloaded looks aything less than fantastic 5 years after its release on the original Xbox,



Or even that because Grand Theft Auto 4 doesn't look like God of War 3 or Uncharted 2, that it doesn't have the capacity to be just as breathtaking.



Surely you catch my drift by now, and it's exactly my point. The one thing that should have anyone comparing the visuals of one game to another is how well the style is pulled off, because obviously, a technical gap isn't the only obstacle a game has to overcome on its way to our eyes. More and more I'm seeing other games unfairly come under fire for not matching up with the best of the best out there, and for such bad reasons? It's almost like we forget what Namco, Konami, and Square are able to pull off on the PSP, against all odds.



Moving forward, and especially as games begin to blend into each other due to varying degrees of realism, you may want to leave the analysis behind, and focus simply on how great a piece of software looks as opposed to whatever insane machine is powering it. A game with fantastic graphical tricks but no art direction to support it is about as useless as a game with simply bad visuals, and if the critics on top don't stop copening their craws with terminology beyond the average consumer, we'll end up with a whole slew of people refusing to enjoy the finer points of our medium for what they are--that is, absorbing and enjoying our expansive vistas instead of picking apart their texture seams.



..and really, when it comes down to it, no amount of advanced 3D can produce something this intricately detailed and hilarious:



...if you have proof of otherwise, I'd love to see it sometime.

Continue Reading..

Captain Obvious RETURNS.

ONE MO' GAIN!

(Mouseover for full effect!)

Again, I'm just saying..

Continue Reading..

Just to drive it home a bit..

Someone at Apple must be reading. That, and they must really like numbers.

Numbers make the shareholders happy, define a consumer's reliance in a product, sometimes serving as a tipping point in new purchases, but more importantly, numbers give Apple a reason to crow above their competitors.

At their most recent press conference, they had a ton to show yesterday. Namely, that there are over 120 million of their devices using iOS out there in the wild. For the uinitiated, that would be referring to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. With over 230,000 activations (or device purchases) daily.

To put things in perspective, The Nintendo DS has a worldwide tally somewhere around the range of 132 million. Someone's catching up.

Not only catching up, but outselling both Nintendo AND Sony with a rate that speedy.

A rate speedy enough to give them 50% of the portable market now.

Wow.



I've sung my praise of the iDevices as a gaming platform before, but even I couldn't anticipate numbers like this, and certainly not this fast. But am I surprised? No.

But I know who should be. If they know what's good for them.

It's a frightening prospect, a portable platform with the ability to evolve and grow as the market or technology demands, but Apple's got it. Previously, a portable could be released with the lifecycle of a console and enjoy a healthy 4-5 years before an upgrade was necessary. But with the ever evolving smartphone market, especially as a portable gaming platform with Apple at the forefront of such a revolution, we're seeing their hardware upgrade once a year. With better hardware, comes the prospect of more and more emergent software, and it's what's making their devices sell the way they do. The question of just what an iPod can do next is much more compelling than a handheld whose capabilities are clearly defined for the upcoming 4 or so years.

If you had told me two years ago that I would be seeing the Unreal Engine on my phone, I would've snickered heartily.

Now?

I just finished taking these shots from my phone. They're from Epic Games' tech demo Epic Citadel that shows the iPhone 4's ability to run their Unreal Engine 3 tech.




If only you could see the amazing water effects, dynamic lighting, textures, and overall stability (to put it very lightly and not tech heavy) in a still shot. I have chills, and I'm simply a consumer.

The entire portable gaming market has changed. With their ability to update their tech anually, it makes them a force to be reckoned with on a level that even Nintendo can't match. I doubt it's in an effort to keep up with Apple, but you can see Nintendo and Sony attempt to jump on the update bandwagon with incremental upgrades with questionable success (the multiple revisions of the DS and PSP cluttering store shelves and confusing consumers is proof of this), but the difference is, they aren't true revolutions of the hardware before it. As such, it's difficult to justify the frivolous upgrades on display when they're hardly integral to the core experience (built in cameras, microphones, better screens) in the same way Apple makes their revisions. I can't stop saying it. It's scary.

This is without me mentioning the digital distribution model that fuels the device, something the entire industry wants anyway as an ability to combat the sale of used games and pirated software, and the fact that the low cost and high profit of iOS development is very attractive to many a developer.

It's going to be a very interesting road ahead. Nintendo has the 3DS coming, and while no one on this planet has seen a true stereoscopic 3D handheld with the alleged power of a GameCube..no one knows what Apple has in store for us next year, or even the year after that with the newer runs of iPads, iPhones, and iPod touches.

Redundantly, it's scary to think about.

I apologize if it seems like I'm drinking the Apple kool-aid along with the rest of the masses, but the fact of the matter is, the numbers don't lie, their strategy is sound (and WORKING), and as a core gamer? Because I always have my phone on me, and the quality of the software on the device is comparable to my portable systems with half the hassle of operation? I rarely use my other handhelds now. Remember when we all laughed when Steve Jobs said he was going after the DS some years back? Who's laughing now?

Does Nintendo finally have a solid competitor in the portable market? Yes.

Sony? Well..we've gone over that already.

Time to get to work, boys.

Source: Engadget
Apple Claims 50% of Portable Gaming Market
Apple ships 120 million iOS devices since iPhone's launch


Continue Reading..

Scott Pilgrim vs. the Arbitrary Objective!

So it's no secret by now, but I loved Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game. The game's retro sensibilities, combined with it's purposely pixelated sprite art look and 8-bit soundtrack won me over in a way that many games that attempt to be "retro" fail to. I mean it without a shred of hyperbole that I've literally been addicted to the game since its release, and while I can point out any aspect of its design in bullet points as the reason for this (great fighting engine, wealth of secrets, addictive leveling system), it wasn't just the graphics, or the gameplay that really brought out that old-school feel in me.

It was the return of the completely out-of-left-field institution that dominated most of my early gaming life:

The arbitrary objective.


We've all been there. You love a game to death, you play it to death. Somewhere inbetween purchase, mastering, and fondly archiving it for good, players go through this phase. A game gets completed, mastered, and because we don't want to let go of it just yet, we start making up new rules in our head. Racing games can be beaten without nitro. A fighting game can be beaten without special moves. These pointless, unnecessary, dare I say..arbitrary tweaks to a game's established formula can extend its relative value long past is shelf life, and it's exactly what happened to me here.

The funny thing was, I didn't even need to finish the game in question. It happened while I was playing through the game by myself as Scott, I realized that essentially, aside from some very unique attacks, everyone played the same, and because they had openly customizable stats, simply powering them all up to maximum would just make them homogeneous. The gears in my head began turning almost immediately. I knew I was going to play through the game with each character, but how could I indulge my hardcore sensibilities and still keep the game fresh 4, maybe even 5 playthroughs later? I thought of one of the game's many inspirations: Streets of Rage.



I remembered how each character, despite having the exact same moveset, had different attacks, and not only that, but they also had stats giving them all a distinct feel in addition to this. Axel was a power character with great moves, Blaze was the balanced type, Max was slow but powerful, and Skate was small and fast, if lacking in stamina. I wanted something like this for this game. After all, what better way to highlight each character's individuality (and give players something to call dibs on during multiplayer) than to give them completely differing strengths and weaknesses?

It took a bit of time, but I got it. Thinking of each character's personality/ability in the comic, I went about balancing them all out, albeit in RPG-grinding fashion:




Scott became an all-rounder, given his reputation as a fighter (and his uncanny ability to adapt), Ramona, being the "American Ninja", became the fastest character, yet relatively low on strength and high on defense. Kim, resident drummer (and situational damsel-in-distress) became above average on technique, strength, and speed(drummer qualities!), but has absolutely no defense, and Stephen, aka "the talent", became a tank, sporting relative strength, but maxed technique (talent, natch) and defense (he did date Julie, after all) at the cost of speed.

If the stats seem kind of high, it's because I balanced them all to be used on either medium, or hard difficulty..and for the most part, it worked out wonderfully. Scott is as powerful all around as he should be, Ramona's speed goes well with the range offered by her weapons, Kim's strengths go well towards a solid offense that masks what she lacks in defense, and Stephen is the strangest feeling one, having the lowest speed but a wealth of special techniques at his disposal.

The funny thing is, none of the hours I spent doing this felt wasted at all. I just finished the game with Scott yesterday, and now I can't wait to go through it again with Ramona. She's much faster, with much lower attack so her juggles are a lot more fun to indulge. I singlehandedly introduced character balance and an extra layer of strategy to this game, and while I didn't have to, the experience for me (and the people I've played with) was that much richer because of it.



Labor of love as it was, It brought me back quite a bit. I remember my tenure in Sonic 3& Knuckles, having separate files for having completed with or without all emeralds. I'm still proud of completing Super Mario Bros without touching a single fireflower (never touching a mushroom was beyond me). This sentiment extended past "old" games as well. In high school, action games like Ninja Gaiden weren't spared, as a friend and I finished the entire game on "very hard" without upgrading ANYTHING, and my girlfriend, notorious for her Need for Speed exploits, did everything short of finishing Most Wanted by driving backwards before she was satisfied. The arbitrary objective knows no genre, and no limits, being clearly defined by a gamer's ability, and imagination.

Hell, I've even become fond of what I named "stock mixing" in DJ Hero, playing a song through for 5 stars with no (extra) multipliers or modifiers.



If any of this sounds crazy, it's because well...it is, but it's something we gamers are well acquainted with. Microsoft may have capitalized on this old art by giving it a mainstream name in the form of "achievements", but at the end of the day, they have no real value, and it's the pride that we put into them that defines their value. Putting a score on it doesn't really change the fact that we've been assigning arbitrary objectives to ourselves since the beginning, and it'll continue as long as we have the drive to push the limits developers have assigned us.

Now if you'lll excuse me, I'm off to practice M.Bison in SSF4 by beating arcade mode on hard using only his normals.

Continue Reading..

Gorilla-Proof

Akin to the legend of the Gulf War Game Boy, things like this just constantly reaffirm my stance that products from Nintendo are designed to withstand nuclear fallout. I mean, there are several written accounts of the little handheld that could surviving everything from avalanches, to rollercoasters, to well...WARS, and if this is any indication, we will NEVER be done recounting crazy tales of Nintendo's voodoo craftsmanship.

...Or ability to appeal to EVERYONE.

The story's almost too good to be true. Some knucklehead boy at the San Francisco Zoo accidentally drops his DSI XL into a Gorilla habitat. Noticing almost instantly, a massive honking gorilla approaches it, and instead of flattening it out of sheer animal madness, actually picks it up and inspects it. He then proceeds to open the thing and flip it around, presumably looking for the power button, but after several attempts, ends up looking just plain confused.

But it gets better! A smaller one approaches, and tries to show the big one how it's done...and fails as well after attempts culminating with trying to "see" through it. Presumably frustrated that he cannot get his DK on, big dude snatches it back, tries to flatten it, then finally EAT it before being lured over by a trainer, who traded him the DSi for something more edible.

I don't know what's more amazing. That the gorilla actually tried to play it, or that aside from some drool and scuffs, the DS was fully operational when it was returned.

How sneaky of you, Nintendo. Your announcement that this thing was for "old people" and "people with bad eyesight" was just a smoke screen. It's clear to me now who the intended audience was. Giant screen, giant stylus, it all makes sense now! Target audience get!

GORILLAS.

Who would've thought?


Source: You Got Donkey Kong On This Thing?

Continue Reading..

Dream Match 2012?

With the announcement of Street Fighter x Tekken, the fighting game community is in a frenzy. Endess speculation and discussion about gameplay, endless fan rants about balance and why it should or should not happen, but arguably the most fun part of any crossover are the dream matches. For the first time ever, a lot of rivalries have the potential to be put to rest, and since both recent games in each franchse retained their classic characters in each roster, the possibilities are not only there, but potentially endless. I've of course, had a ton of conversations among friends about who should fight who and why, but these are the ones in particular that I found the most interesting. Matchups after the jump!


Fei Long vs. Marshall Law



While this is the most obvious pairing, it's also the one I want to see much. Even though they're both obvious homages to Bruce Lee, their similarities lie in technique and look alone. In reality, they're both a pair of kung fools, the former being a cheesy action star who seems to speak in bad dubbing, and the latter being a scheming...doofus. No really. After watching this ending, I dare you to tell me that the clash of martial arts technique and slapstick that would ensue from their battle wouldn't be a sight to behold.



Christie vs. Elena



While this one seems a bit far fetched in theory because Elena isn't actually IN SSF4, one can only hope one of the new characters added to the arcade version of SSF4 is Elena. Not only is she the only SF character who practices Capoiera, (making her unique enough for consideration) but it'd be an excellent segue into a SFXT matchup catalyst. It's as much a display of showmanship as it is a fighting style, and while Christie is an incredibly realistic rendition of the discipline seen in movies and popularized by breakdancing, Elena's is simply more elegant, more over the top im my opinion. I think it's an unnderstatement when I say that a fight between them would be likely a mindblowing (not to mention stunning) show. Woo!



Bob vs. Rufus



Both incredibly agile despite having meatball like frames, both are obsessed with being the best at what they do. Both are implausibly, confusingly, hilariously skilled with their respective unconventional fighting styles. Fighting devs have a knack for making fun of the competition with some of their fighters, but in this case, I can't tell which one is making fun of which. With Rufus being an unknown newb, and Bob being a formerly respected fighter in (percievably) terrible shape, I think a spat between the master and the mook has to have come up during brainstorming. I mean, LOOK at them fight.

This is inevitable. It has to be.



Nina vs. Cammy



This may have been neglected in the reveal trailer, where Nina's counterpart in battle seemed to be Chun-Li, but I think that was due more to their iconic status than anything else.

This is a real rivalry.

When the game finally does release, why wouldn't a duel between two gorgeous deadly government agents be anything but a limb--no--potentially NECK-breaking CQC fest? There's something to be said when you're an individual whose learned so many fighting styles through training, you walk away with a mish mash style people can only describe as deadly. Cammy's recent special moves highlight just how effective an assassin she is, and when put up against Nina's highly trained exploits, it isn't too hard to imagine an epic fight of (Daniel Craig) Bond proportions.

Besides. Cammy had the better game.That's got to be something else to be bitter about.

Paul Phoenix vs. Guile



I'm going to admit, I chose this one solely on the merits of inexplicable hair suspension techniques more than anything else. Scientists still can't figure out how these two keep their respective coifs intact during a fight, and as silly as Paul can be (He is after all, Law's partner-in-crime), I can see him clashing with Guile's one track minded sentiment (which often gets him into mistaken identity fights) nicely. Imagine a scenario where Guile runs into Paul, believes he may know something about Charlie, and due to his boneheaded nature (and Paul likely overreacting in defense), ends up inadvertantly starting a fight?

Seems plausible, no? I'd anticipate a very interesting match, seeing as both practice effective grappling and striking fighting styles with a mixture of strange self-improvised moves..



T.Hawk vs. Julia



...Actually, on second thought, these two actually need each other, being an endangered species and all.

Perhaps they should team up.

...

There were a bunch of other ones that didn't make the cut, (E.Honda vs. Ganryu, King vs. Zangief, you seem BORING), but these were the ones that appealed to me the most. I'm pretty certain as the months pass, the reveals will likely be shocking, some even disappointing, but I know a few of these have to make the cut. We have after all, grown up playing these games, and if this project isn't a labor of love with the fans in mind, how could any of these not see the light of day? They're simply just too priceless not to.

Continue Reading..