As my close friends know, I'm a huge fan of the Super Smash Bros. series. Melee & Brawl are some of my favorite games of all time, for a number of reasons. However, to many people they seem to be a completely different breed of fighting game as compared to Street Fighter, King of Fighters, etc. I'm not too well-versed in other fighting games, but I'm curious how the games stand out to each other. There are only two "normal" fighting games I've spent a good amount of time playing. One is Soul Calibur II, a great game that mostly managed to lure me in because I could play as Link, and the other is Blazblue: Calamity Trigger, produced by Arc System Works, creators of the Guilty Gear series.
I've spent enough time playing Blazblue to know the basic ins and outs of the game mechanics; I'm probably not going to win any tournaments, but I have a grasp of the complexity of the game. But despite how this game is supposedly a completely different kind of game than Super Smash Bros., I see several significant similarities between the two. I figured I'd have some fun deconstructing the important details.
The most significant difference between Smash Bros and a standard fighting game is the environment. Most fighting games take place in closed arenas. The only thing in the players' way is each other. Sure, there are different stages with different backgrounds and music, but functionally, it's all the same. Smash Bros, on the other hand, places a huge emphasis on the arena. The layout is different, edges are different, and many stages have obstacles that the player must avoid. Stages can be large or small, flat or vertical, and overall, stage selection is an important part of the game. Though, if you pick Final Destination every single time, that kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Another important distinction between Smash Bros and other fighting games is environment control. There's a difference between this and the arena. Basically, characters can manipulate the environment to their advantage. This is more prevalent in Brawl than in Melee, but both games still utilize it. For example, more beginner-leveled players might view Peach's turnips as a simple projectile attack. However, they can be utilized in order to control where Peach's opponent will move on the field, creating an extra dimension to her character. Brawl takes this a step futher; characters like Snake and Rob are all about placing obstacles for the player to avoid. Even King Dedede's Waddle Dee minions are capable of harming the opponent long after they've been thrown.
However, it's clear that Blazblue also subscribes to this bit of game design. Arakune's main strategy involves "cursing" the opponent in order to trap him in a loop of projectiles. V-13 may be weak, but her projectiles can hit almost anywhere on the screen, so her opponent must carefully dodge and block in order to fight her. Even the slow, but strong Tager can magnetize his enemy in order to manipulate their movement. Environment control, and "zoning" if you will, is becoming a larger part of the genre.
Of course, all this talk about the environment and evasion links nicely to my next point about Smash Bros as opposed to most fighting games: Mobility. With all these traps and obstacles, Smash Bros places a large emphasis on being able to get around quickly. Characters can double-jump, and use a special move as a triple jump. Some characters can go even further with this, utilizing regular attacks as a means of movement and recovery. They can roll in front of and behind each other, sidestep, and even dodge in the air. By comparison, most fighting games are rather stiff and grounded in comparison. Since the environment is less of a concern, traditional fighting games prefer to focus on the precise details of the bout; punches high and low, blocking in specific ways rather than a generic "overshield" that blocks everything. Additionally, in Blazblue characters are given specific "weak, medium, strong" buttons, each having a specific use. In Smash Bros, those actions are instead called "standard, tilt, smash" by the fanbase. Even then, those actions aren't set in stone, and may not have the appropriate speed or strength for the input.
Of course, talking about attacking mechanics brings us to another important part of Smash Bros: throws. In most fighting games, throws are usually shied away from; used only to get past a block, and typically end any combo. Smash Bros sees things differently; when the opponent is grabbed, you can throw them in four ways, each way potentially setting up a different combo or attack. Some characters may have a specialty in grabbing an opponent, throwing him, only to grab him again (and there are more instances than just Dedede and Falco's chain grabs in Brawl). While most fighting games tend to view grabs as just a "free hit", Blazblue interests me in that it works throws into combos very well. Like SSB, throws in Blazblue often set up the opponent for another, stronger attack, and can occasionally be chained together. Though, the creators of the game wisely realized the potential for abuse of this system, so they put in a grab escape. Still, I feel like the system they put in offers a lot of potential.
Finally, my last point may be the deal breaker for Smash Bros as opposed to a more traditional fighting game. Lots of jokes have been made about what constitutes a "combo" in a fighting game, but I feel like combos are the most intimidating part of the game for some. In Soul Calibur 2, there was a huge list in the game's menu for potential combos. The problem? They required pressing a specific sequence of buttons in a specific order. You weren't so much learning the character as you were memorizing a list of command inputs. And really, why should the player bother to learn those in-game combos? Why not just stick with the basic, but reliable attacks they have figured out and work from there? Attempting to do the combos is probably how the "button mashing" trope got started.
That question might be why Smash Bros has gained such a fanbase. Rather than the developers giving you a preset sequence of buttons to press, they just gave you a lot of moves. Press this command, you get this move, press this one and you get another. Instead of the traditional fighting game methods, SSB gives the player various attacks and encourages to use them however they please. And that is where the fun of the game comes in; you aren't memorizing a sequence of buttons; you're trying to figure out how to properly apply the moves you know. It's very successful, and is also why I like Blazblue so much; Blazblue's game mechanics are similar to Smash Bros than a regular fighting game in this regard. There's still a huge list of moves to learn, but the player will learn new techniques as they play naturally. They become faced with a tough situation, and find a new use for a move they previously thought useless. It's a fantastic system, and one I wish was more common.
The point of this article is not to say "x is better designed than x", merely to talk about differences in game design and how they are applied within their respective franchises. I love both the Smash Bros. series and Blazblue despite their differences. The biggest problem I have with Brawl lies not within its core gameplay, but the developer's attitude towards the fanbase. Nintendo has shown no interest in expanding Brawl past its current iteration, which has plenty of problems, the largest being a bare-bones online system, and a general imbalance of its characters. Blazblue's developers, on the other hand, actively study what works and what doesn't, and plans to fix many complaints about the game in its next iteration, due out next year. It's a great way to build a community with the fanbase, and as a whole, communities are what fighting games are all about.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Alright, Devil Suvivor, we need to have a talk.
Players play games for many reasons.
Sometimes, they want to be engrossed in a good story. Sometimes they simply want to screw around and kill things. Sometimes they want to challenge their physical skills, and sometimes they want to challenge their problem-solving abilities.
But if somebody's playing a game that they're enjoying, they want to keep playing it. There's only so many times that they can attempt a mission over and over before going "I don't want to play this game any more" and shelving the game forever. Sometimes, a frustrating level isn't so bad, especially if it's towards the end. After all, the player has come this far, and what they've learned throughout the course of the game is ready to be challenged. At that point, the player is willing to go through that frustration if it means seeing the game's finale. Psychonauts had a painful final level, but the frustration made it worth it.
However, Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor has a mission like this, and I'm not even a quarter of the way through the game. So I want to know: what game designer played this level and thought "yeah, I doubt this will be that bad". Really? Let's take a look at the mission:
The mission has monsters to fight that are several levels higher than you.
-This aspect isn't actually that bad; after all, the game is meant to be challenging, so this is nothing out of the ordinary
The mission has civilians that you have to protect.
-This right here should be already be a red flag to some gamers; these kind of missions are already a pain. But they're bearable.
The civilians have poor survival skills
-I'm talking to you, Mr. "I'll put myself in a spot where I can get attacked by two demons on the first turn instead of just one."
If a single civilian dies, the mission is over.
-Now it's getting bad. In some games, the mission is only failed if all the civilians die, and typically there's some reward for saving them all (see: Fire Emblem). However, in this particular mission, you have to keep an eye on every civilian's health at the same time, and spread your party members out to keep them protected, also dividing your strength against a difficult foe
The player cannot let any demons reach the edge of the stage
-Okay, now the game is just getting obnoxious. We already have so much to worry about; why is this extra element also in play? Why are we given two goals like this at the same time, when up until the point the game has only been "kill everything on the screen"? If I gang up on a monster in order to finish it off before it heals itself, a monster on the other side of the screen gets a free pass to the finish line, and really, none of my teams are strong enough to kill a monster on their own.
A civilian can be killed at full health by a monster
-This only happened one time, but it still pissed me off.
I'm not entirely surprised a mission like this is in the game (in concept, not in practice). Developers want to throw varied objectives at the player in order to stop the game from getting repetitive and thus, to stop them from being bored. However, there comes a point when the developer needs to look and make sure this level is not detrimental to the entire experience. There are many examples of these kinds of levels throughout games: water levels, autoscrolling levels, stealth levels, escort missions, yeah, we hate them all. We've all had frustration navigating Sonic underwater while a timer counts down until our death, or in Goldeneye when the best strategy for the bunker level was to go and kill everybody, THEN save Natalya, rather than having her follow you everywhere and get herself killed. A good developer takes the time to make sure the player isn't frustrated by these out of place missions; after all, in Half-Life 2, Alyx is actually helpful to the player, rather than just somebody to babysit. Water levels can be fun, too.
But whatever you do, please don't make the player grind in order to beat your game. It's terribly boring.
Sometimes, they want to be engrossed in a good story. Sometimes they simply want to screw around and kill things. Sometimes they want to challenge their physical skills, and sometimes they want to challenge their problem-solving abilities.
But if somebody's playing a game that they're enjoying, they want to keep playing it. There's only so many times that they can attempt a mission over and over before going "I don't want to play this game any more" and shelving the game forever. Sometimes, a frustrating level isn't so bad, especially if it's towards the end. After all, the player has come this far, and what they've learned throughout the course of the game is ready to be challenged. At that point, the player is willing to go through that frustration if it means seeing the game's finale. Psychonauts had a painful final level, but the frustration made it worth it.
However, Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor has a mission like this, and I'm not even a quarter of the way through the game. So I want to know: what game designer played this level and thought "yeah, I doubt this will be that bad". Really? Let's take a look at the mission:
The mission has monsters to fight that are several levels higher than you.
-This aspect isn't actually that bad; after all, the game is meant to be challenging, so this is nothing out of the ordinary
The mission has civilians that you have to protect.
-This right here should be already be a red flag to some gamers; these kind of missions are already a pain. But they're bearable.
The civilians have poor survival skills
-I'm talking to you, Mr. "I'll put myself in a spot where I can get attacked by two demons on the first turn instead of just one."
If a single civilian dies, the mission is over.
-Now it's getting bad. In some games, the mission is only failed if all the civilians die, and typically there's some reward for saving them all (see: Fire Emblem). However, in this particular mission, you have to keep an eye on every civilian's health at the same time, and spread your party members out to keep them protected, also dividing your strength against a difficult foe
The player cannot let any demons reach the edge of the stage
-Okay, now the game is just getting obnoxious. We already have so much to worry about; why is this extra element also in play? Why are we given two goals like this at the same time, when up until the point the game has only been "kill everything on the screen"? If I gang up on a monster in order to finish it off before it heals itself, a monster on the other side of the screen gets a free pass to the finish line, and really, none of my teams are strong enough to kill a monster on their own.
A civilian can be killed at full health by a monster
-This only happened one time, but it still pissed me off.
I'm not entirely surprised a mission like this is in the game (in concept, not in practice). Developers want to throw varied objectives at the player in order to stop the game from getting repetitive and thus, to stop them from being bored. However, there comes a point when the developer needs to look and make sure this level is not detrimental to the entire experience. There are many examples of these kinds of levels throughout games: water levels, autoscrolling levels, stealth levels, escort missions, yeah, we hate them all. We've all had frustration navigating Sonic underwater while a timer counts down until our death, or in Goldeneye when the best strategy for the bunker level was to go and kill everybody, THEN save Natalya, rather than having her follow you everywhere and get herself killed. A good developer takes the time to make sure the player isn't frustrated by these out of place missions; after all, in Half-Life 2, Alyx is actually helpful to the player, rather than just somebody to babysit. Water levels can be fun, too.
But whatever you do, please don't make the player grind in order to beat your game. It's terribly boring.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
JRPG vs. WRPG
"While JRPGs generally involve a bunch of angsty 20-year olds with stupid hairdos following a strictly linear storyline when they aren't standing in a row in front of dancing goblins arguing about who's on potion duty, Western RPGs tend to feature more variety and less skinny, underdressed girls claiming to be men."
-Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation
While I'd say the Role-Playing-Game is my favorite genre of video gaming, I tend to only refer to Japanese RPGs. Games like Pokemon, Persona, Fire Emblem, and Disgaea rank high on the "List of games I would recommend to nerds". RPGs are very difficult to sell to a more mainstream audience, due to how much they rely on stat building and character development. They're much slower paced than Halo, God of War, Rock Band, etc. and require a significantly longer time investment from start to finish. They're much less "pick up and play" and more "Spend an hour learning how the damn game works before you actually start to play it." Hell, even if you have learned the game and you "get" it, that's still no guarantee that you'll enjoy it, as this article discusses.
Yet those of us who do enjoy RPGs feel a sense of accomplishment in the mundane. Level grinding in Disgaea to beat the next big overpowered bonus boss, hatching Pokemon eggs in order to breed the one that best completes your team, and oftentimes we finish sidequests not necessarily for the rewards, but just for the sake of knowing you've completed another of the game's tasks.
However, the people in that group may still have very different tastes in games. Hence the differences between the J and the W. I hadn't even played a Western RPG until this year, and I knew going into them that the experience would be different than what I was used to. Fallout 3 involved me for a long time, Mass Effect really sucked me in (once I figured out how the friggin' menus worked), and Fable 2 randomly decided that it didn't want the 'A' button to work for me anymore, but I wasn't enjoying the game in the first place, so no loss there.
The main difference between the two genres is indeed the linearity. JRPGs tend to always point you towards the next objective up until the end of the game, where you're randomly forced to explore the world to find party members or gods or crystals, and THEN you fight the final boss. Conversely, Western RPGs tend to set the player loose to go do whatever after the opening parts of the game. Neither approach to game design is "bad", they're just different ways of going about business. Then there's Fable, that tries to tell you it's a big open world to explore, but really, all you're doing is going from objective to objective up until you're told you aren't famous enough to continue the storyline, so go do some sidequests to kill time.
The interesting part is comparing how well certain mechanics work between the two genres. Fallout 3's world map is gigantic, and if you just follow the storyline, you'll barely see any of it. The whole point of the game is to go on a sighting tour across the entire wasteland and see what you find. It's a lot of fun. But pick a random Final Fantasy game and chances are there's no good reason to do exploring on the world map at all. Most paths are dead ends, wasting your time and draining your supplies as you fight the endless random encounters. Not to mention, in Final Fantasy VII if you strayed too far off the beaten path, you might end up with all your Materia stolen and your party underleveled in a sidequest that wasn't meant to be found by the player until much later in the game. Thankfully Final Fantasy X kicked the whole concept and just kept the player on the right track the whole time. Fable 2's interpretation was to give the player the name of a town, but not actually tell them where it was on the map. Guess you'll just have to follow the glitchy magic trail!
Another comparison between the two genres is how they handle stat-building. Western RPGs make a big deal out of leveling up, and you get experience from doing just about anything. Talking to people, completing quests, ...looking at stuff. And once you actually get to the level up, it's big and dramatic. Who knows where you could spend those points? You could spend them to become a stronger fighter, a better speaker, become sneakier, all sorts of things come from leveling up. However, JRPGs tend to build your stats in separate ways; you level up from killing monsters, and typically those games find other ways to build stats as well. The Persona games have you building up relationships with NPCs in order to strengthen the monsters you use in battle. FFVII has materia that you can redistributed to party members at any time in order to gain magic spells or boost specific stats. Things like that.
However, I think the most noticeable difference between the two genres is how they tell their stories. Another common theme between the WRPGs I've played is that the player has a large part in how the story plays out. Different dialogue options will get you different reactions from people, and some decisions can drastically affect how the story plays out. There's also a strong good/evil system going on in all the WRPGs I've played, which barely plays out at all in most JRPGs. Also worth mentioning is the open-world aspect, where a lot of the story doesn't have much to do with the main story at all. Fallout lets you wander around and do quests for random people, while Mass Effect is constantly giving you extra sidequests to do at your own leisure.
Sadly, all this freedom comes with a few drawbacks when trying to tell a good story, which is dealt with better in JRPGs. For one, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect try to make the story sound urgent "You must go catch him!" "You must go find your dad right now!" In reality? No. Don't. In fact, take your time. Do whatever you please. Don't worry, the plot will wait for you to catch up. It really takes away from the urgency of it all. JRPGs keep you on a strict path, so the story moves at a brisk and interesting pace, and you don't really get the impression of "Wait, what was I doing again?" And as far as influencing the plot goes, it's just much easier to tell a story when you don't have to write 4 versions of it.
However, the main thing that kind of bored me about games like Fallout and Mass Effect, yet enjoyed about Persona and Disgaea is simply that the characters feel more...alive. WRPGs are much more photorealistic, and they try to tell a serious storyline with believable characters...that just come across as boring. I had several party members in Mass Effect, but I really couldn't care for any of them, simply because their influence in the storyline is downplayed and only expanded on if you go out of your way to talk to them. Even if you do, it pretty much amounts to "Okay, here is my backstory". They're always talking about solving the problem at hand, and...that's it. The game is as far as the story extends. And of course, characters really don't do much except stand there and give you orders in Fallout 3. They might attack you if you don't something wrong, but they just don't feel...alive. In comparison, let's look at the cast in Persona 4. Sure, there's a great evil at hand that they want to share, and sometimes they act stupid in order for the story to move along the way the developers intended, but for all that, they just...feel more real. Mainly because they show more relatable human emotions. The characters is Mass Effect are so dry and serious, but in Persona 4, they're just...happy. They laugh together. They tease each other and play tricks. They feel much more like a team because they're actually friends, as opposed to just party members. There are sections of the game that have nothing to do with the plot; they're just there to let the characters goof off a bit and show their true selves. It's what really drew me to the game; I just had fun watching everybody interact.
I may not be trying to change any developer's opinion here; after all, both kinds of RPGs have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither is "better" than the other by definition. It's just interesting to sit down and compare them like this, and as I delve further into WRPG territory it'll be interesting to see what I find.
-Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation
While I'd say the Role-Playing-Game is my favorite genre of video gaming, I tend to only refer to Japanese RPGs. Games like Pokemon, Persona, Fire Emblem, and Disgaea rank high on the "List of games I would recommend to nerds". RPGs are very difficult to sell to a more mainstream audience, due to how much they rely on stat building and character development. They're much slower paced than Halo, God of War, Rock Band, etc. and require a significantly longer time investment from start to finish. They're much less "pick up and play" and more "Spend an hour learning how the damn game works before you actually start to play it." Hell, even if you have learned the game and you "get" it, that's still no guarantee that you'll enjoy it, as this article discusses.
Yet those of us who do enjoy RPGs feel a sense of accomplishment in the mundane. Level grinding in Disgaea to beat the next big overpowered bonus boss, hatching Pokemon eggs in order to breed the one that best completes your team, and oftentimes we finish sidequests not necessarily for the rewards, but just for the sake of knowing you've completed another of the game's tasks.
However, the people in that group may still have very different tastes in games. Hence the differences between the J and the W. I hadn't even played a Western RPG until this year, and I knew going into them that the experience would be different than what I was used to. Fallout 3 involved me for a long time, Mass Effect really sucked me in (once I figured out how the friggin' menus worked), and Fable 2 randomly decided that it didn't want the 'A' button to work for me anymore, but I wasn't enjoying the game in the first place, so no loss there.
The main difference between the two genres is indeed the linearity. JRPGs tend to always point you towards the next objective up until the end of the game, where you're randomly forced to explore the world to find party members or gods or crystals, and THEN you fight the final boss. Conversely, Western RPGs tend to set the player loose to go do whatever after the opening parts of the game. Neither approach to game design is "bad", they're just different ways of going about business. Then there's Fable, that tries to tell you it's a big open world to explore, but really, all you're doing is going from objective to objective up until you're told you aren't famous enough to continue the storyline, so go do some sidequests to kill time.
The interesting part is comparing how well certain mechanics work between the two genres. Fallout 3's world map is gigantic, and if you just follow the storyline, you'll barely see any of it. The whole point of the game is to go on a sighting tour across the entire wasteland and see what you find. It's a lot of fun. But pick a random Final Fantasy game and chances are there's no good reason to do exploring on the world map at all. Most paths are dead ends, wasting your time and draining your supplies as you fight the endless random encounters. Not to mention, in Final Fantasy VII if you strayed too far off the beaten path, you might end up with all your Materia stolen and your party underleveled in a sidequest that wasn't meant to be found by the player until much later in the game. Thankfully Final Fantasy X kicked the whole concept and just kept the player on the right track the whole time. Fable 2's interpretation was to give the player the name of a town, but not actually tell them where it was on the map. Guess you'll just have to follow the glitchy magic trail!
Another comparison between the two genres is how they handle stat-building. Western RPGs make a big deal out of leveling up, and you get experience from doing just about anything. Talking to people, completing quests, ...looking at stuff. And once you actually get to the level up, it's big and dramatic. Who knows where you could spend those points? You could spend them to become a stronger fighter, a better speaker, become sneakier, all sorts of things come from leveling up. However, JRPGs tend to build your stats in separate ways; you level up from killing monsters, and typically those games find other ways to build stats as well. The Persona games have you building up relationships with NPCs in order to strengthen the monsters you use in battle. FFVII has materia that you can redistributed to party members at any time in order to gain magic spells or boost specific stats. Things like that.
However, I think the most noticeable difference between the two genres is how they tell their stories. Another common theme between the WRPGs I've played is that the player has a large part in how the story plays out. Different dialogue options will get you different reactions from people, and some decisions can drastically affect how the story plays out. There's also a strong good/evil system going on in all the WRPGs I've played, which barely plays out at all in most JRPGs. Also worth mentioning is the open-world aspect, where a lot of the story doesn't have much to do with the main story at all. Fallout lets you wander around and do quests for random people, while Mass Effect is constantly giving you extra sidequests to do at your own leisure.
Sadly, all this freedom comes with a few drawbacks when trying to tell a good story, which is dealt with better in JRPGs. For one, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect try to make the story sound urgent "You must go catch him!" "You must go find your dad right now!" In reality? No. Don't. In fact, take your time. Do whatever you please. Don't worry, the plot will wait for you to catch up. It really takes away from the urgency of it all. JRPGs keep you on a strict path, so the story moves at a brisk and interesting pace, and you don't really get the impression of "Wait, what was I doing again?" And as far as influencing the plot goes, it's just much easier to tell a story when you don't have to write 4 versions of it.
However, the main thing that kind of bored me about games like Fallout and Mass Effect, yet enjoyed about Persona and Disgaea is simply that the characters feel more...alive. WRPGs are much more photorealistic, and they try to tell a serious storyline with believable characters...that just come across as boring. I had several party members in Mass Effect, but I really couldn't care for any of them, simply because their influence in the storyline is downplayed and only expanded on if you go out of your way to talk to them. Even if you do, it pretty much amounts to "Okay, here is my backstory". They're always talking about solving the problem at hand, and...that's it. The game is as far as the story extends. And of course, characters really don't do much except stand there and give you orders in Fallout 3. They might attack you if you don't something wrong, but they just don't feel...alive. In comparison, let's look at the cast in Persona 4. Sure, there's a great evil at hand that they want to share, and sometimes they act stupid in order for the story to move along the way the developers intended, but for all that, they just...feel more real. Mainly because they show more relatable human emotions. The characters is Mass Effect are so dry and serious, but in Persona 4, they're just...happy. They laugh together. They tease each other and play tricks. They feel much more like a team because they're actually friends, as opposed to just party members. There are sections of the game that have nothing to do with the plot; they're just there to let the characters goof off a bit and show their true selves. It's what really drew me to the game; I just had fun watching everybody interact.
I may not be trying to change any developer's opinion here; after all, both kinds of RPGs have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither is "better" than the other by definition. It's just interesting to sit down and compare them like this, and as I delve further into WRPG territory it'll be interesting to see what I find.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Mischief Makers and a look at the N64/PS era
It's strange to think of the N64 as "retro" now, though it makes sense considering the N64/PS era predated the mainstream gaming we know today. I may have owned a Genesis, but I consider the N64 the intro to the kind of gamer I am today. I mean, back on the Genesis I'd typically just rent some random game on the shelf or stick to licensed cartoons and movies. Not the best gaming habits. But on the switch to the N64 I picked up a subscription to Nintendo Power, the magazine to have at the time. It details all the latest, coolest titles, and while it did lead me in the wrong direction on occasion, I doubt I would have known about classics like Banjo-Kazooie, Ocarina of Time, and Pokemon.
Already I feel like the Angry Video Game Nerd as I write this, but let's continue anyway. NP reviewed Mischief Makers and made the game sound awesome, so I decided to rent it and tried it out. I loved it, though I never finished the game and never ended up buying it. Over 10 years later, I see this game in a retro gaming store, and decide it's time to finish it once and for all.
Now, I bet most "serious" gamers haven't even heard of Mischief Makers. That's...pretty reasonable, actually; the game sold poorly, and pretty much everything was against it in terms of sales. For one, it's a 2-D platformer at a time when games like Goldeneye and Mario 64 were pushing the abilities of video games. Also, you might recall that as the RPG era of Final Fantasy VII; games were expected to hold a player's attention for hours on end, and considering Mischief Makers is a pretty short game that only takes a couple of hours to beat, that's no surprise. Also, the game wasn't made by any of the big-name publishers; rather, Treasure made it. Treasure's an awesome company, don't get me wrong, but they don't have the same advertising power that a name like Nintendo, Sega, or Sony does. I'm sure the hideous box art didn't do the game any favors either.
So why bother talking about Mischief Makers? After all, it's just a tiny blip on the radar; a bird on a satellite dish. Everyone knows it's there, but they're going to ignore it for more important things. It's hardly an unappreciated gem trampled by mainstream gaming; since playing it I've found that a lot of the levels in the game simply aren't that fun. But for everything the game does wrong, it does something so unique, so creative, and so entertaining that it was worth trudging through the dull bits.
The game stars Marina Liteyears, an android who spends all her time saving the kidnapped Professor from the bad guys. The plot isn't what you would call complicated or deep, but hilarious cutscenes and quirky characters make you laugh again and again, though some bits are enough to make you shake your fist in the air and yell "Those crazy Japanese!" (such as when Marina manages to rescue the Professor, only for him to give her a celebratory grope). The graphics are highly stylized, and Marina herself would fit into any random anime series, though considering her and the Professor are the only two humans in the game, it's not as cliche as you would think.
As for the actual gameplay, it's a platformer, but with a different focus: grabbing things, shaking them, and throwing them (no, this isn't Mario 2). Marina can also hover a bit, and she often gets around by propelling herself off the things she grabs. Most enemies are disposed of by simply grabbing and throwing them. The main problem with the game is that a lot of it is just...dull. Most levels are just "run left to right" with no real challenge or goal, and some levels can literally be beaten in less than a minute on your first try. Not to mention the game is extremely generous with health, so even if you do find yourself cornered and taking damage, you're in no real danger.
But like I said, for every "run left to right" or "grab enemy and throw him repeatedly to win" level, there are other levels that kick insane amounts of ass. Fleeing a lava wave as it destroys the floor beneath you, climbing higher and higher in an unstable tower, a random level where you're riding an ostrich for no good reason, all sorts of crazy levels that are fun to play. And the boss fights, oh god. Some bosses are pathetic and leave you with a "was this level really necessary" feel. Other boss fights are undoubtedly a "10" on the epic meter. In particular, the fights with the trio of villains are possibly some of the best boss fights I've ever played, in tone, challenge, and the satisfaction of figuring out how to beat them. And how can you NOT love a villain whose catchphrase is "Through fire, justice is served!"
It may not have done well when it was first released, but I can't help but feel that Mischief Makers would be better received today. With the dawn of digital distribution, games like Symphony of the Night and Punch-Out are being rediscovered, while games like Braid and World of Goo are teaching gamers that a game doesn't need to be 3D or several hours long in order to be an engaging experience. The trend of more Japanese-styled games finding fanbases in the west also goes in Mischief Makers' favor, as well as the lack of platform games in this generation. If Treasure were to be released Mischief Makers on the Virtual Console, it could find the home it was once deprived of. And is it just me, or would the "shake everything" concept work really well with a Wii remote?
Whenever Marina shakes something, she goes "Shake shake!". Thanks to that, I've had "Shake shake, shake shake, shake it!" stuck in my head all week.
Already I feel like the Angry Video Game Nerd as I write this, but let's continue anyway. NP reviewed Mischief Makers and made the game sound awesome, so I decided to rent it and tried it out. I loved it, though I never finished the game and never ended up buying it. Over 10 years later, I see this game in a retro gaming store, and decide it's time to finish it once and for all.
Now, I bet most "serious" gamers haven't even heard of Mischief Makers. That's...pretty reasonable, actually; the game sold poorly, and pretty much everything was against it in terms of sales. For one, it's a 2-D platformer at a time when games like Goldeneye and Mario 64 were pushing the abilities of video games. Also, you might recall that as the RPG era of Final Fantasy VII; games were expected to hold a player's attention for hours on end, and considering Mischief Makers is a pretty short game that only takes a couple of hours to beat, that's no surprise. Also, the game wasn't made by any of the big-name publishers; rather, Treasure made it. Treasure's an awesome company, don't get me wrong, but they don't have the same advertising power that a name like Nintendo, Sega, or Sony does. I'm sure the hideous box art didn't do the game any favors either.
So why bother talking about Mischief Makers? After all, it's just a tiny blip on the radar; a bird on a satellite dish. Everyone knows it's there, but they're going to ignore it for more important things. It's hardly an unappreciated gem trampled by mainstream gaming; since playing it I've found that a lot of the levels in the game simply aren't that fun. But for everything the game does wrong, it does something so unique, so creative, and so entertaining that it was worth trudging through the dull bits.
The game stars Marina Liteyears, an android who spends all her time saving the kidnapped Professor from the bad guys. The plot isn't what you would call complicated or deep, but hilarious cutscenes and quirky characters make you laugh again and again, though some bits are enough to make you shake your fist in the air and yell "Those crazy Japanese!" (such as when Marina manages to rescue the Professor, only for him to give her a celebratory grope). The graphics are highly stylized, and Marina herself would fit into any random anime series, though considering her and the Professor are the only two humans in the game, it's not as cliche as you would think.
As for the actual gameplay, it's a platformer, but with a different focus: grabbing things, shaking them, and throwing them (no, this isn't Mario 2). Marina can also hover a bit, and she often gets around by propelling herself off the things she grabs. Most enemies are disposed of by simply grabbing and throwing them. The main problem with the game is that a lot of it is just...dull. Most levels are just "run left to right" with no real challenge or goal, and some levels can literally be beaten in less than a minute on your first try. Not to mention the game is extremely generous with health, so even if you do find yourself cornered and taking damage, you're in no real danger.
But like I said, for every "run left to right" or "grab enemy and throw him repeatedly to win" level, there are other levels that kick insane amounts of ass. Fleeing a lava wave as it destroys the floor beneath you, climbing higher and higher in an unstable tower, a random level where you're riding an ostrich for no good reason, all sorts of crazy levels that are fun to play. And the boss fights, oh god. Some bosses are pathetic and leave you with a "was this level really necessary" feel. Other boss fights are undoubtedly a "10" on the epic meter. In particular, the fights with the trio of villains are possibly some of the best boss fights I've ever played, in tone, challenge, and the satisfaction of figuring out how to beat them. And how can you NOT love a villain whose catchphrase is "Through fire, justice is served!"
It may not have done well when it was first released, but I can't help but feel that Mischief Makers would be better received today. With the dawn of digital distribution, games like Symphony of the Night and Punch-Out are being rediscovered, while games like Braid and World of Goo are teaching gamers that a game doesn't need to be 3D or several hours long in order to be an engaging experience. The trend of more Japanese-styled games finding fanbases in the west also goes in Mischief Makers' favor, as well as the lack of platform games in this generation. If Treasure were to be released Mischief Makers on the Virtual Console, it could find the home it was once deprived of. And is it just me, or would the "shake everything" concept work really well with a Wii remote?
Whenever Marina shakes something, she goes "Shake shake!". Thanks to that, I've had "Shake shake, shake shake, shake it!" stuck in my head all week.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Final Fantasy VI (Advance)
Originally posted: June 24th, 2009
Final Fantasy VI is the most frustrating game I've played in a long time.
No, I'm not talking Ikaruga "Oh god this game is so hard why does it hate me so" frustrating.
I'm talking about the frustration of a perfectly epic, well-written game with a great cast of characters and a wonderful soundtrack, hampered by technical limitations and sometimes just poor game design. I don't want to say everyone who likes this game is wearing the rose-tinted nostalgia goggles, but the entire game I kept thinking how great this game would be if it were more like, say, Final Fantasy X. FFVI was ahead of its time, and sadly, it shows in every portion of the game.
Honestly, there really isn't anything major that keeps me from enjoying the game, but there are dozens of tiny annoyances that continue to pester me throughout the adventure. I keep finding myself thinking "I could do that in Persona 4; why can't I do it here?" Things like spells and items being labeled in-game so I don't have to keep Notepad open so I know what spells do what. After playing Chrono Trigger, I had forgotten what it was like to only be able to move in four directions, breaking the flow of the game as I try to figure out what square I'm supposed to be standing on in order to cross a bridge. And grid-based movement's best friend random encounters are back. However, it's not like the current days of gaming, where in-between battles you're given a good amount of time to walk further and explore before going into your next fight. But after each encounter in FFVI, it's usually only a few seconds until your next one, and many times I got into another battle after a single step. When I'm in a cavern and I see four ways out of the room I'm in, I do NOT want to have to deal with enemies every few seconds while I try to figure out which one is the exit. Not to mention, for about 3/4 of the game, battles consist solely of "Attack Attack Attack Attack", with no strategy involved whatsoever. Random encounters finally become interesting towards the end, though the rate at which they appear is still a pain.
Another aspect of the game you don't see much of these days is the World Map. You rarely see World Maps in games anymore. Know why that is? It's because they suck. FFVI has a world map designed to be 3D, but it's completely pointless because the map is completely flat. Mountains could have provided some interesting terrain while flying around, but even the mountains are just part of the carpet that's the world. And when you can't Fly? UGH. The world map is filled with so many routes that leave absolutely nowhere. If you think "Hm, I wonder if there's anything over here while I go to the next town", you're going to waste half an hour of your life. The World Map is pointless and superfluous, and most of the time you aren't going to find its secrets unless you have a guide at your disposal anyway. If you're going to do a World Map, do it right (Thanks, Dragon Quest VIII!)
Despite all this complaining, I did enjoy FFVI. The characters are interesting and well-developed, the soundtrack is probably among the best game soundtracks of all time, and the Magicite system of learning magic was truly addicting (though sad to say most of the spells you get are completely useless). Though...it's really a shame how un-user friendly this game is. Aside from the "you better know what that item does before you pick it" problem, it'd also be nice to know what enemies are weak to. In Persona 4, each time you attack an enemy with an element, the game records it, so every time you fight that enemy you can take a look at what worked and what doesn't. But all you get in FFVI is Libra, a spell that briefly tells you their weakness and expects you to memorize it forever. Not that it's that useful; unlike in Persona, all magic weaknesses do is more damage to the enemy, and you're better off just spamming Sabin's Blitz attacks, or have Edgar drill a hole in everything. More damage, doesn't use MP.
And finally, something that's pissed me off about all the Pre-FFVII Final Fantasy games: Amano art. I know he's a stylized artist, but his work just doesn't fit in with the games. Something's wrong when the character sprites have more charm than the artwork:
Final Fantasy VI is the most frustrating game I've played in a long time.
No, I'm not talking Ikaruga "Oh god this game is so hard why does it hate me so" frustrating.
I'm talking about the frustration of a perfectly epic, well-written game with a great cast of characters and a wonderful soundtrack, hampered by technical limitations and sometimes just poor game design. I don't want to say everyone who likes this game is wearing the rose-tinted nostalgia goggles, but the entire game I kept thinking how great this game would be if it were more like, say, Final Fantasy X. FFVI was ahead of its time, and sadly, it shows in every portion of the game.
Honestly, there really isn't anything major that keeps me from enjoying the game, but there are dozens of tiny annoyances that continue to pester me throughout the adventure. I keep finding myself thinking "I could do that in Persona 4; why can't I do it here?" Things like spells and items being labeled in-game so I don't have to keep Notepad open so I know what spells do what. After playing Chrono Trigger, I had forgotten what it was like to only be able to move in four directions, breaking the flow of the game as I try to figure out what square I'm supposed to be standing on in order to cross a bridge. And grid-based movement's best friend random encounters are back. However, it's not like the current days of gaming, where in-between battles you're given a good amount of time to walk further and explore before going into your next fight. But after each encounter in FFVI, it's usually only a few seconds until your next one, and many times I got into another battle after a single step. When I'm in a cavern and I see four ways out of the room I'm in, I do NOT want to have to deal with enemies every few seconds while I try to figure out which one is the exit. Not to mention, for about 3/4 of the game, battles consist solely of "Attack Attack Attack Attack", with no strategy involved whatsoever. Random encounters finally become interesting towards the end, though the rate at which they appear is still a pain.
Another aspect of the game you don't see much of these days is the World Map. You rarely see World Maps in games anymore. Know why that is? It's because they suck. FFVI has a world map designed to be 3D, but it's completely pointless because the map is completely flat. Mountains could have provided some interesting terrain while flying around, but even the mountains are just part of the carpet that's the world. And when you can't Fly? UGH. The world map is filled with so many routes that leave absolutely nowhere. If you think "Hm, I wonder if there's anything over here while I go to the next town", you're going to waste half an hour of your life. The World Map is pointless and superfluous, and most of the time you aren't going to find its secrets unless you have a guide at your disposal anyway. If you're going to do a World Map, do it right (Thanks, Dragon Quest VIII!)
Despite all this complaining, I did enjoy FFVI. The characters are interesting and well-developed, the soundtrack is probably among the best game soundtracks of all time, and the Magicite system of learning magic was truly addicting (though sad to say most of the spells you get are completely useless). Though...it's really a shame how un-user friendly this game is. Aside from the "you better know what that item does before you pick it" problem, it'd also be nice to know what enemies are weak to. In Persona 4, each time you attack an enemy with an element, the game records it, so every time you fight that enemy you can take a look at what worked and what doesn't. But all you get in FFVI is Libra, a spell that briefly tells you their weakness and expects you to memorize it forever. Not that it's that useful; unlike in Persona, all magic weaknesses do is more damage to the enemy, and you're better off just spamming Sabin's Blitz attacks, or have Edgar drill a hole in everything. More damage, doesn't use MP.
And finally, something that's pissed me off about all the Pre-FFVII Final Fantasy games: Amano art. I know he's a stylized artist, but his work just doesn't fit in with the games. Something's wrong when the character sprites have more charm than the artwork:
D'aw, that's cute.
Yech, what IS that thing?!
With Square's recent habit of remaking every game they've ever made, I'm sure a DS remake of FFVI is inevitable, though I'd prefer a full-3D Wii version. Updated graphics, gameplay, and full voice acting could turn a flawed classic into a true classic. Hey, it could happen. I guess for now I'm just going to have to try my luck with The World Ends With You, a TRUE modern RPG.
*plays it for half an hour*
How does the game expect me to dodge and fight enemies on both screens with two different control systems simultaneously? >_o
Persona 3 FES
Originally Posted: March 6th, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJhnyVZMUsY
Sorry, just had to get that one out of the way.
Wow. Sheesh. All my close friends know that for the past 1 1/2 months of my life, I've been playing and talking about Persona 3 nonstop. I got the game at Christmas, but held off on playing it because I heard how frickin' long it was, and wanted to kind of get things out of the way, first. And I'm glad I did, because I put over 100 hours into this thing. 100 damn hours. I thought Tales of the Abyss was too long, and that game was only 45 hours. Most of the shooters I've been playing on the Xbox 360 lasted only a couple hours. Chrono Trigger was a solid 20, but that game's old-school. But the length doesn't matter; Persona 3 is one of the most creative, engrossing games I've ever played, with an interesting storyline, well-developed characters, a wonderful soundtrack, a battle system that puts most RPGs to shame, and way, way more anime cutscenes than you would expect.
That's not to say that the game is perfect. Far from it, actually; I can name tons of problems with it. The graphics are outdated, even among PS2 games, though I'm not sure how to feel about that. On one hand, it makes the cutscenes kind of boring to watch, compared to Final Fantasy X or Shadow Hearts: Covenant. But because of the graphics style, they probably allowed the developers to focus so much more on the other aspects of the game, specifically the immersive high-school-dating-sim bit. In fact, that's probably why I found such an interest in the game; we never get those here in the States. Dating sims are Japanese games, why would western gamers want them? Well, just for the sake of something different, I guess.
Already I can see this turning into incoherent rambling, so let me try to get my thoughts back on track. Persona 3's features include:
A minigame where you walk around on the beach trying to pick up chicks
A minigame where you try to avoid being spotted in a hot spring by chicks
Dating creepy women from an alternate dimension
Hanging out with some girl in an MMORPG within the game
You're probably thinking "That sounds awesome, I should play this now!" But if you happen to be a girl, you're probably thinking "What does this game have besides breasts?" Well, to start out, the main character is some blue-haired guy with an emo haircut. Unlike most silent protagonists, though, the player can shape this character however he wants. There's no good/evil bit, since there's still a main storyline to follow, but you do have the option to be a jackass if you want. Or a suckup. Hell, you could spend every day in the arcade playing video games, though that's not a good way to make friends. The whole point behind talking to people and helping them is that with each new social link you establish, your Persona get stronger.
Wait, what's a Persona? Well...it's a Pokemon. Sort of. I did accidentally call one a pokemon before, so I guess they're similar enough. Pretty much collectible spirits that aid you in battle. Speaking of battles, Persona 3 has a battle system that kicks the ass of every other RPG out there. You know how in most RPGs, you can hammer the "attack" command over and over and eventually get the result you want? Yeah, that won't fly here. Instead, Persona 3 has a battle system that relies heavily on exploiting enemy's weaknesses to certain elements, and your random encounters are much more difficult than in most games. It's all about killing them before they get a chance to attack. Yeah, the game's turn-based, but you can switch between your Persona once per turn, so as long as you're paying attention, you should have the right monster for the job. One thing that's odd is that the only character you can control is the main character. Yeah, a turn-based RPG with partner AI. Thought that was reserved for the action RPGs, huh? Well, the AI in the game is...sadly, one of the game's weaker aspects. Most of the time, it isn't an issue; while they might be more wasteful with their spells than you would like, they're typically smart enough to not screw you over in most fights, and you can give them general tactics to follow as well. However, during a select few boss fights, I DESPISED the AI for not being able to catch on to enemy attack patterns and ended up fighting a boss for an hour when I could have beaten him in 20 minutes if not for my retarded teammembers. In Persona 4 they fixed this problem by allowing you to control your entire party if you wanted, which could have saved me a lot of frustration.
Speaking of which, there's quite a lot of bit to do concerning your collectible Persona. There are some that you can obtain after battles, in the form of little cards, but other Persona you can only get by fusing other Persona together.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Sorry, just had to get that one out of the way.
Wow. Sheesh. All my close friends know that for the past 1 1/2 months of my life, I've been playing and talking about Persona 3 nonstop. I got the game at Christmas, but held off on playing it because I heard how frickin' long it was, and wanted to kind of get things out of the way, first. And I'm glad I did, because I put over 100 hours into this thing. 100 damn hours. I thought Tales of the Abyss was too long, and that game was only 45 hours. Most of the shooters I've been playing on the Xbox 360 lasted only a couple hours. Chrono Trigger was a solid 20, but that game's old-school. But the length doesn't matter; Persona 3 is one of the most creative, engrossing games I've ever played, with an interesting storyline, well-developed characters, a wonderful soundtrack, a battle system that puts most RPGs to shame, and way, way more anime cutscenes than you would expect.
That's not to say that the game is perfect. Far from it, actually; I can name tons of problems with it. The graphics are outdated, even among PS2 games, though I'm not sure how to feel about that. On one hand, it makes the cutscenes kind of boring to watch, compared to Final Fantasy X or Shadow Hearts: Covenant. But because of the graphics style, they probably allowed the developers to focus so much more on the other aspects of the game, specifically the immersive high-school-dating-sim bit. In fact, that's probably why I found such an interest in the game; we never get those here in the States. Dating sims are Japanese games, why would western gamers want them? Well, just for the sake of something different, I guess.
Already I can see this turning into incoherent rambling, so let me try to get my thoughts back on track. Persona 3's features include:
A minigame where you walk around on the beach trying to pick up chicks
A minigame where you try to avoid being spotted in a hot spring by chicks
Dating creepy women from an alternate dimension
Hanging out with some girl in an MMORPG within the game
You're probably thinking "That sounds awesome, I should play this now!" But if you happen to be a girl, you're probably thinking "What does this game have besides breasts?" Well, to start out, the main character is some blue-haired guy with an emo haircut. Unlike most silent protagonists, though, the player can shape this character however he wants. There's no good/evil bit, since there's still a main storyline to follow, but you do have the option to be a jackass if you want. Or a suckup. Hell, you could spend every day in the arcade playing video games, though that's not a good way to make friends. The whole point behind talking to people and helping them is that with each new social link you establish, your Persona get stronger.
Wait, what's a Persona? Well...it's a Pokemon. Sort of. I did accidentally call one a pokemon before, so I guess they're similar enough. Pretty much collectible spirits that aid you in battle. Speaking of battles, Persona 3 has a battle system that kicks the ass of every other RPG out there. You know how in most RPGs, you can hammer the "attack" command over and over and eventually get the result you want? Yeah, that won't fly here. Instead, Persona 3 has a battle system that relies heavily on exploiting enemy's weaknesses to certain elements, and your random encounters are much more difficult than in most games. It's all about killing them before they get a chance to attack. Yeah, the game's turn-based, but you can switch between your Persona once per turn, so as long as you're paying attention, you should have the right monster for the job. One thing that's odd is that the only character you can control is the main character. Yeah, a turn-based RPG with partner AI. Thought that was reserved for the action RPGs, huh? Well, the AI in the game is...sadly, one of the game's weaker aspects. Most of the time, it isn't an issue; while they might be more wasteful with their spells than you would like, they're typically smart enough to not screw you over in most fights, and you can give them general tactics to follow as well. However, during a select few boss fights, I DESPISED the AI for not being able to catch on to enemy attack patterns and ended up fighting a boss for an hour when I could have beaten him in 20 minutes if not for my retarded teammembers. In Persona 4 they fixed this problem by allowing you to control your entire party if you wanted, which could have saved me a lot of frustration.
Speaking of which, there's quite a lot of bit to do concerning your collectible Persona. There are some that you can obtain after battles, in the form of little cards, but other Persona you can only get by fusing other Persona together.
When you fuse, not only can you gain unique Persona, but certain skills can only be transferred over in the process, so it's worth it to build up your original Persona so the new one can come with lots of unique spells. However, the amount of spells a Persona can hold is limited, and sometimes it feels like you're fusing your best Personas only to get a worthless one instead.
So I've talked about the social and battle aspects of the game, but I think the reason it stands above and beyond the rest of gaming is the fact that Persona 3 has one of the strongest casts of characters I've ever seen in a game. All the characters are likeable yet very humanly flawed, and experience well-developed growth throughout the game. There's a bit of emo in there, but unlike, say, Tales of the Abyss's Luke, who spends half the game whining about how everything wrong in the world is his fault, these characters behave much how normal people would in response to their problems. It makes for a believable cast of characters who still have their little quirks and jokes that remind you that not everything in life is about dealing with your inner demons. The character who stood out to me most was Junpei; at the beginning of the game, I thought he was annoying and was sad to find out he was a main character. However, I felt he had the most well-developed growth of all the characters, and by the end of the game he was the most endearing to me.
So, saying "Persona 3 is the best game ever" is probably an overstatement; it's not for everyone; the game may be well-paced, but the length is still probably a turn-off for those without much free time. The Japanese nature of the game, where everybody has names like Yukari and Mitsuru, and use formalities like -senpai and -kun may be offputting to some people. However, fans of RPGs owe it to themselves to check Persona 3 out, because there really isn't anything like it.
Oh, and the extra epilogue chapter isn't nearly as good as the main game, but it's worth playing through anyway. Just be prepared to do nothing but grind.
A look back at Fire Emblem
Originally written: December 21st, 2008
This year I have played through all four Fire Emblem games currently released in North America. In January I played through Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn on easy mode, due to everybody saying how difficult the game was. During the summer I picked up Fire Emblem and beat the game on Hector Hard Mode, a setting that managed to kick my ass ever since I first got the game. During the fall, I played through Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance on Hard Mode (though PoR lacks the Japanese version's Maniac mode, so it's not that big of an accomplishment), and then I played through Radiant Dawn again, this time on normal. Now I've gotten through playing through Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones on the hardest difficulty setting, even going so far as to complete all ten floors of the game's super-hard extra dungeon.
And I'm going to rant about this while I can: what the hell am I supposed to call the first NA-released Fire Emblem? It doesn't have a subtitle, so if I talk about it, one might think I'm talking about the series in general. I could call it "Rekka no Ken", or the translation "Blazing Sword", but newcomers to Fire Emblem wouldn't know which game I'm referring to. And I can't call it "Fire Emblem 1" because it's actually the 7th game in the series (damn you Japan). However, FE7 is the most common way to refer to it, so if you didn't know that, I'm going to call it that from now on.
Anyway, Fire Emblem 7 is among my favorite games of all time, possibly because...it's flawless. Really. All the problems I've seen people have with it are all intentionally part of its design and serve a specific purpose. Don't like that you can't bring characters back to life? Go play Final Fantasy and spam Phoenix Downs, you wimp. You shouldn't have let him die in the first place. Complaining that you got critical'd with a 1 percent chance? For one, most of the time you should prepare yourself just in case luck turns against you, and besides, it doesn't happen often enough to justify changing the game. And it's not just a lack of flaws that make Fire Emblem great; Pikmin 2 was flawless but it doesn't rank among my favorite games. The Fire Emblem games have great stories, likeable characters, incredible depth and intentionally challenging gameplay, as well as a great, stylish art design. Hell, there's even just enough bugs to let you bend the game's rules without breaking the difficulty curve. Probably wasn't intentional, but cool nonetheless.
And after saying that, I just have to give an example. In FE7, there's a glitch with the mine item that allows you to take control of the enemies for a single turn. Usually the best course of action is just to make them all discard their weapons to make them easier to kill. However, in one chapter of the game, the storyline dictates that the boss is supremely overpowered and should be avoided. However, instead of making the character herself get strong stats, they just silently added the bonuses to the weapon she was carrying. If you use the mine glitch in this chapter, you can actually make her trade the item with another enemy (one with a useless droppable item), and then kill that enemy and get this superpowered weapon for yourself. Sadly, it breaks rather easily, but that's still really friggin' cool.
As well as all that, I think one of the main reason I like Fire Emblem so much is consistently good game design. I rag on the game design a lot in my Sonic Unleashed and Tales of the Abyss reviews, but the Fire Emblem developers actually seem to know what the hell they're doing. The storyline is good, but at the very least they make every cutscene skippable so you don't have to watch them if you're playing the game over again, or even if you just need to play the level or chapter over. None of the games are filled with technobabble (stupid TotA) and let a new player easily understand it the first time through. Even then, returning players can fulfill certain criteria in order to see more of the story, including hidden backstory about the side characters. It just gives you a ton of incentive to replay it.
In fact, the replayability of FE7 is probably why I still enjoy the other games in the series, even though they barely change the core gameplay. The developers seem to realize that the formula they made is a winning one, so changing it too much might end up hurting it. Yet, they also realize that they need to at least try to switch up the game so that the experience still differs. Sacred Stones had that branching promotion system, Path of Radiance gave us a base at with to distribute EXP and buy weapons, and Radiant Dawn gave us a third tier of promotions. I mean, when it comes down to it, swords still beat axes, Pegasi are still weak to bows, and there's always an overpowered Paladin at the beginning of the game to help you along, but does it really matter? The core gameplay is fine; that's why the developers are so hesitant to change it.
However...there are still a few problems with the series that I do wish they would change; this mostly applies to Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Sacred Stones was flawed, too, but it just has an overall rushed feeling to it, so I'm not sure blaming the developers is the right idea. However, the console games have serious presentation problems. Talking heads is fine with the GBA, since that's all it's capable of, but why are you still relying on them when you have a much more powerful system at your disposal? (at the very least, give the characters a few more expressions instead of awkwardly trying to display their emotions through dialogue) The few cutscenes in the games look absolutely brilliant, but why are there so few of them? Even worse...why is the voice acting of these games so horrid? Radiant Dawn had an extremely badass cutscene ruined by awful voice acting. If a game like Disgaea can have good english voice acting, why not Fire Emblem, a freaking Nintendo game? It seems like these presentation issues are keeping Fire Emblem from getting the same kind of respect as Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. It's a shame, because I hold the series in much higher regard.
Ultimately, where's the series going to go? I plan on digging up ROMs of some of the older games in the series, and Marth's game is due on the DS in February next year, so that will be nice. However, I still have a few ideas of what the series could do. Going from turn-based strategy to real-time strategy could be a nice recreation of the series, though that could and probably would anger a lot of fans. Another idea is to take inspiration from Disgaea and make the game bright, cartoony, and nonsensical. Come on, this is a series with a flirty cleric, a swordswoman who does nothing but search for her ultimate rival, and a mage with a stomach the size of the grand canyon. Not to mention the sprite animations where they swing around weapons twice their height and do backflips in order to indicate they got a critical hit. I mean, with Advance Wars they took a cartoony series and made it dark; why not try it the other way around?
This year I have played through all four Fire Emblem games currently released in North America. In January I played through Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn on easy mode, due to everybody saying how difficult the game was. During the summer I picked up Fire Emblem and beat the game on Hector Hard Mode, a setting that managed to kick my ass ever since I first got the game. During the fall, I played through Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance on Hard Mode (though PoR lacks the Japanese version's Maniac mode, so it's not that big of an accomplishment), and then I played through Radiant Dawn again, this time on normal. Now I've gotten through playing through Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones on the hardest difficulty setting, even going so far as to complete all ten floors of the game's super-hard extra dungeon.
And I'm going to rant about this while I can: what the hell am I supposed to call the first NA-released Fire Emblem? It doesn't have a subtitle, so if I talk about it, one might think I'm talking about the series in general. I could call it "Rekka no Ken", or the translation "Blazing Sword", but newcomers to Fire Emblem wouldn't know which game I'm referring to. And I can't call it "Fire Emblem 1" because it's actually the 7th game in the series (damn you Japan). However, FE7 is the most common way to refer to it, so if you didn't know that, I'm going to call it that from now on.
Anyway, Fire Emblem 7 is among my favorite games of all time, possibly because...it's flawless. Really. All the problems I've seen people have with it are all intentionally part of its design and serve a specific purpose. Don't like that you can't bring characters back to life? Go play Final Fantasy and spam Phoenix Downs, you wimp. You shouldn't have let him die in the first place. Complaining that you got critical'd with a 1 percent chance? For one, most of the time you should prepare yourself just in case luck turns against you, and besides, it doesn't happen often enough to justify changing the game. And it's not just a lack of flaws that make Fire Emblem great; Pikmin 2 was flawless but it doesn't rank among my favorite games. The Fire Emblem games have great stories, likeable characters, incredible depth and intentionally challenging gameplay, as well as a great, stylish art design. Hell, there's even just enough bugs to let you bend the game's rules without breaking the difficulty curve. Probably wasn't intentional, but cool nonetheless.
And after saying that, I just have to give an example. In FE7, there's a glitch with the mine item that allows you to take control of the enemies for a single turn. Usually the best course of action is just to make them all discard their weapons to make them easier to kill. However, in one chapter of the game, the storyline dictates that the boss is supremely overpowered and should be avoided. However, instead of making the character herself get strong stats, they just silently added the bonuses to the weapon she was carrying. If you use the mine glitch in this chapter, you can actually make her trade the item with another enemy (one with a useless droppable item), and then kill that enemy and get this superpowered weapon for yourself. Sadly, it breaks rather easily, but that's still really friggin' cool.
As well as all that, I think one of the main reason I like Fire Emblem so much is consistently good game design. I rag on the game design a lot in my Sonic Unleashed and Tales of the Abyss reviews, but the Fire Emblem developers actually seem to know what the hell they're doing. The storyline is good, but at the very least they make every cutscene skippable so you don't have to watch them if you're playing the game over again, or even if you just need to play the level or chapter over. None of the games are filled with technobabble (stupid TotA) and let a new player easily understand it the first time through. Even then, returning players can fulfill certain criteria in order to see more of the story, including hidden backstory about the side characters. It just gives you a ton of incentive to replay it.
In fact, the replayability of FE7 is probably why I still enjoy the other games in the series, even though they barely change the core gameplay. The developers seem to realize that the formula they made is a winning one, so changing it too much might end up hurting it. Yet, they also realize that they need to at least try to switch up the game so that the experience still differs. Sacred Stones had that branching promotion system, Path of Radiance gave us a base at with to distribute EXP and buy weapons, and Radiant Dawn gave us a third tier of promotions. I mean, when it comes down to it, swords still beat axes, Pegasi are still weak to bows, and there's always an overpowered Paladin at the beginning of the game to help you along, but does it really matter? The core gameplay is fine; that's why the developers are so hesitant to change it.
However...there are still a few problems with the series that I do wish they would change; this mostly applies to Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Sacred Stones was flawed, too, but it just has an overall rushed feeling to it, so I'm not sure blaming the developers is the right idea. However, the console games have serious presentation problems. Talking heads is fine with the GBA, since that's all it's capable of, but why are you still relying on them when you have a much more powerful system at your disposal? (at the very least, give the characters a few more expressions instead of awkwardly trying to display their emotions through dialogue) The few cutscenes in the games look absolutely brilliant, but why are there so few of them? Even worse...why is the voice acting of these games so horrid? Radiant Dawn had an extremely badass cutscene ruined by awful voice acting. If a game like Disgaea can have good english voice acting, why not Fire Emblem, a freaking Nintendo game? It seems like these presentation issues are keeping Fire Emblem from getting the same kind of respect as Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. It's a shame, because I hold the series in much higher regard.
Ultimately, where's the series going to go? I plan on digging up ROMs of some of the older games in the series, and Marth's game is due on the DS in February next year, so that will be nice. However, I still have a few ideas of what the series could do. Going from turn-based strategy to real-time strategy could be a nice recreation of the series, though that could and probably would anger a lot of fans. Another idea is to take inspiration from Disgaea and make the game bright, cartoony, and nonsensical. Come on, this is a series with a flirty cleric, a swordswoman who does nothing but search for her ultimate rival, and a mage with a stomach the size of the grand canyon. Not to mention the sprite animations where they swing around weapons twice their height and do backflips in order to indicate they got a critical hit. I mean, with Advance Wars they took a cartoony series and made it dark; why not try it the other way around?
Sonic Unleashed (Wii)
Originally written: December 18th, 2008
So a couple of weeks ago, I rented Sonic Unleashed. Partially because I was interested in the game, and partially because I bought Sonic and the Secret Rings and discovered that I flushed 50 dollars in the toilet. So at least I only wasted $10 instead this time. Let me give you an idea of what it was like to be a Sonic fan a couple of months ago, when Unleashed was first revealed. The trailer showed an absolutely gorgeous environment, and had music that was beautiful and contained zero lyrics (unlike every other Sonic game released in the past 5 years). Sonic was zipping through the level at high speed, and it looked fan-freaking-tastic. But then...the werewolf was revealed.
Why was Sonic a werewolf? No, we weren't wondering how Sonic got to be that way, we wondered who the hell thought it was a good idea to turn Sonic into a werewolf. However...we stayed interested. If the daylight levels played as excellent as they looked, perhaps the werewolf levels would be designed just as well. E3 passes, we get some impressions...hey look, the game sounds fun! Though the guy at Gamespot did irk me a bit when he said that Sonic being a werewolf was a really awesome idea. Ugh.
Then...reviews come in. Wii version was average, 360 version was crap. Well good thing I'm a Wii owner. I decide to rent the game. A few hours later, I realized that Sonic's latest adventure was a turd.
What's wrong with it? While I'd like to go "everything", that isn't true. In fact, that's what's most frustrating about the game: there are parts of this game that are really, really fun, well designed, and clever. But the rest of the game is a god-awful, horribly designed mess. We should have known better back when we learned Sonic was turned into a werewolf, but we were so amazed by beautiful stages and great music that we suspended our disbelief.
So what's wrong with it? I'll start with Sonic's annoying little sidekick in this game, Chip. When you meet Chip, he's lost his memory. But he doesn't seem to care. What? Sonic offers to help him get his memory back...what? Not only is this a really awkwardly worded scene, but I can't even understand why Sonic would go so far to help some little creature, especially when the world has been cracked, or, you know, YOU'RE A WEREWOLF. And the worst part is that, from what I played, Chip was completely irrelevant to the storyline. Tails and Amy were there trying to help and figure out what to do, talking to a professor (who has dialogue that's supposed to be funny but just comes across as juvenile), and generally advancing the plot. What does Chip do? He flies around in the back of cutscenes eating ice cream. He has no point to being there. On top of that, he has an annoying voice, poor dialogue, and is a poor helper.
A poor helper is putting it mildly. Not only is Sega forcing this worthless character down our throats, but they make his dialogue unskippable. After a lengthy intro in which Sonic fights Eggman, gets turned into a werewolf, and falls down to earth, he gets into another portion of lengthy dialogue trying to explain his situation to Chip, which is completely pointless, since WE ALREADY SAW WHAT HAPPENED. After that, there's like 5 tutorial levels that last about 10 seconds each in order to teach you the ropes of how to run and jump and such. Hey Sega, remember Sonic Adventure 2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-yILpGYro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCs42XSwI-c
HOLY SHIT SONIC JUST RIPPED A PIECE OF METAL OFF A HELICOPTER AND HE'S USING IT TO SKATEBOARD DOWN CITY STREETS
*ahem*
But still, look at that! There's no pointless exposition; you're given a brief indication to what's going on, and then the game lets loose with a high-speed chase, letting you figure out everything for yourself. City Escape is, in my opinion, the best opening level of any game ever made. Even including the cheesy lyrics, the stage is perfectly crafted to be nice to beginners while still giving you the sense of excitement a Sonic game needs. By comparison, Sonic Unleashed gives you annoying tutorial levels before actually releasing you into the first stage. By this point your attention span is killed and it takes you a moment before you realizing you're actually playing the game you paid money for.
And...it's actually really fun. The daylight stages of this game actually are well-designed, giving you lots of different paths to take while (generally) avoiding cheap deaths. The music is well-composed, the stages are fantastic-looking, and the whole experience is a lot of fun. Then you finish the level and then...
Oh god. The werewolf stages. These stages compose the worst about Sega today. Not only are you given ANOTHER series of tutorial levels before you can actually play, but even those are annoying. During one level, I saw a ledge with a bar over the gap, and another ledge on the end. Naturally, I know what to do. So I get a running start, and right before I jump...Chip freezes the game to tell me what the jump button is. I hate you. He unpauses and I fall off the ledge due to a lack of timing.
What the hell kind of game design is that, Sega? If you want to give me a tutorial, make it optional. In Sonic Adventure 2 we had Omochao, who had no part in the story and only activated if you touched him. And even if he did piss you off, you still had the option to pick him up and throw him off a cliff (seriously).
Anyway, even more problems with the werehog stages. For one, Sonic has these stupid stretchy limbs that don't make any sense. But whatever, I'll deal with it. But what's more annoying is that when you use them to grab ledges, it takes about half a second before the game realizes your button input, so the controls feel strange and unresponsive. The first time I got to one of those ledges, I kept messing up because I didn't know that it took so long for my limbs to respond, and I kept thinking I was doing it wrong. But nope, the game just sucks like that. And what's the point of the stretchy arms if I don't get freedom to use it? In one of the cutscenes, Sonic stretches his arm from building to building and leaps across that way, Monkey D. Luffy-style. But in the actual game, his arms can only grab specific ledges with a certain colored tag on it. Try to do it with other ledges? You just fall and die. That's horribly, horribly annoying.
And the combat. Oh god, the combat. It's like God of War with everything fun taken out of the game. To fight you have to wave the Wiimote and nunchuk around wildly, and there's no skill or strategy involved with the fighting at all. You just walk up to an enemy and wave your arms around until it's dead. Sure, on occasion you have to jump to reach an enemy or maybe you're given the option to pick up enemies and throw them around, but wild shaking is the quickest way to dispatch enemies, so why bother with any other options? It doesn't help that while running, Sonic the Werehog is slippery for some reason. No explanation is given; he's just slippery. This is especially annoying on narrow pathways; you're forced to walk because running will result in you losing your balance and falling off.
I could dedicate this next paragraph to the boss battles, but I'll just say that they were "meh" and move on. With special note to Eggman during one fight, where he constantly shouted "You little...you little!" which started annoying, got more annoying, and then somehow trespassed the annoyance level into sheer awesomeness. Bravo, Eggman.
Want to know how badly Sega screwed this game up? They couldn't even get the MENUS of the game right. In order to access a level, first you have to go to that level's world, which is just a point-and click map where you talk to various people. Except they aren't fun to talk to. And there's no point to it; you just click on every single spot until somebody gives you the key to that world's stage. And even then, you have to go to a "temple" and insert the key, which involves nothing more than walking in a straight line up to the doorway. Hey Sega:
So a couple of weeks ago, I rented Sonic Unleashed. Partially because I was interested in the game, and partially because I bought Sonic and the Secret Rings and discovered that I flushed 50 dollars in the toilet. So at least I only wasted $10 instead this time. Let me give you an idea of what it was like to be a Sonic fan a couple of months ago, when Unleashed was first revealed. The trailer showed an absolutely gorgeous environment, and had music that was beautiful and contained zero lyrics (unlike every other Sonic game released in the past 5 years). Sonic was zipping through the level at high speed, and it looked fan-freaking-tastic. But then...the werewolf was revealed.
Why was Sonic a werewolf? No, we weren't wondering how Sonic got to be that way, we wondered who the hell thought it was a good idea to turn Sonic into a werewolf. However...we stayed interested. If the daylight levels played as excellent as they looked, perhaps the werewolf levels would be designed just as well. E3 passes, we get some impressions...hey look, the game sounds fun! Though the guy at Gamespot did irk me a bit when he said that Sonic being a werewolf was a really awesome idea. Ugh.
Then...reviews come in. Wii version was average, 360 version was crap. Well good thing I'm a Wii owner. I decide to rent the game. A few hours later, I realized that Sonic's latest adventure was a turd.
What's wrong with it? While I'd like to go "everything", that isn't true. In fact, that's what's most frustrating about the game: there are parts of this game that are really, really fun, well designed, and clever. But the rest of the game is a god-awful, horribly designed mess. We should have known better back when we learned Sonic was turned into a werewolf, but we were so amazed by beautiful stages and great music that we suspended our disbelief.
So what's wrong with it? I'll start with Sonic's annoying little sidekick in this game, Chip. When you meet Chip, he's lost his memory. But he doesn't seem to care. What? Sonic offers to help him get his memory back...what? Not only is this a really awkwardly worded scene, but I can't even understand why Sonic would go so far to help some little creature, especially when the world has been cracked, or, you know, YOU'RE A WEREWOLF. And the worst part is that, from what I played, Chip was completely irrelevant to the storyline. Tails and Amy were there trying to help and figure out what to do, talking to a professor (who has dialogue that's supposed to be funny but just comes across as juvenile), and generally advancing the plot. What does Chip do? He flies around in the back of cutscenes eating ice cream. He has no point to being there. On top of that, he has an annoying voice, poor dialogue, and is a poor helper.
A poor helper is putting it mildly. Not only is Sega forcing this worthless character down our throats, but they make his dialogue unskippable. After a lengthy intro in which Sonic fights Eggman, gets turned into a werewolf, and falls down to earth, he gets into another portion of lengthy dialogue trying to explain his situation to Chip, which is completely pointless, since WE ALREADY SAW WHAT HAPPENED. After that, there's like 5 tutorial levels that last about 10 seconds each in order to teach you the ropes of how to run and jump and such. Hey Sega, remember Sonic Adventure 2?
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.youtube.com/wat
HOLY SHIT SONIC JUST RIPPED A PIECE OF METAL OFF A HELICOPTER AND HE'S USING IT TO SKATEBOARD DOWN CITY STREETS
*ahem*
But still, look at that! There's no pointless exposition; you're given a brief indication to what's going on, and then the game lets loose with a high-speed chase, letting you figure out everything for yourself. City Escape is, in my opinion, the best opening level of any game ever made. Even including the cheesy lyrics, the stage is perfectly crafted to be nice to beginners while still giving you the sense of excitement a Sonic game needs. By comparison, Sonic Unleashed gives you annoying tutorial levels before actually releasing you into the first stage. By this point your attention span is killed and it takes you a moment before you realizing you're actually playing the game you paid money for.
And...it's actually really fun. The daylight stages of this game actually are well-designed, giving you lots of different paths to take while (generally) avoiding cheap deaths. The music is well-composed, the stages are fantastic-looking, and the whole experience is a lot of fun. Then you finish the level and then...
Oh god. The werewolf stages. These stages compose the worst about Sega today. Not only are you given ANOTHER series of tutorial levels before you can actually play, but even those are annoying. During one level, I saw a ledge with a bar over the gap, and another ledge on the end. Naturally, I know what to do. So I get a running start, and right before I jump...Chip freezes the game to tell me what the jump button is. I hate you. He unpauses and I fall off the ledge due to a lack of timing.
What the hell kind of game design is that, Sega? If you want to give me a tutorial, make it optional. In Sonic Adventure 2 we had Omochao, who had no part in the story and only activated if you touched him. And even if he did piss you off, you still had the option to pick him up and throw him off a cliff (seriously).
Anyway, even more problems with the werehog stages. For one, Sonic has these stupid stretchy limbs that don't make any sense. But whatever, I'll deal with it. But what's more annoying is that when you use them to grab ledges, it takes about half a second before the game realizes your button input, so the controls feel strange and unresponsive. The first time I got to one of those ledges, I kept messing up because I didn't know that it took so long for my limbs to respond, and I kept thinking I was doing it wrong. But nope, the game just sucks like that. And what's the point of the stretchy arms if I don't get freedom to use it? In one of the cutscenes, Sonic stretches his arm from building to building and leaps across that way, Monkey D. Luffy-style. But in the actual game, his arms can only grab specific ledges with a certain colored tag on it. Try to do it with other ledges? You just fall and die. That's horribly, horribly annoying.
And the combat. Oh god, the combat. It's like God of War with everything fun taken out of the game. To fight you have to wave the Wiimote and nunchuk around wildly, and there's no skill or strategy involved with the fighting at all. You just walk up to an enemy and wave your arms around until it's dead. Sure, on occasion you have to jump to reach an enemy or maybe you're given the option to pick up enemies and throw them around, but wild shaking is the quickest way to dispatch enemies, so why bother with any other options? It doesn't help that while running, Sonic the Werehog is slippery for some reason. No explanation is given; he's just slippery. This is especially annoying on narrow pathways; you're forced to walk because running will result in you losing your balance and falling off.
I could dedicate this next paragraph to the boss battles, but I'll just say that they were "meh" and move on. With special note to Eggman during one fight, where he constantly shouted "You little...you little!" which started annoying, got more annoying, and then somehow trespassed the annoyance level into sheer awesomeness. Bravo, Eggman.
Want to know how badly Sega screwed this game up? They couldn't even get the MENUS of the game right. In order to access a level, first you have to go to that level's world, which is just a point-and click map where you talk to various people. Except they aren't fun to talk to. And there's no point to it; you just click on every single spot until somebody gives you the key to that world's stage. And even then, you have to go to a "temple" and insert the key, which involves nothing more than walking in a straight line up to the doorway. Hey Sega:
Is this really such a hard concept to follow?
Fortunately, I'm done ragging on the game itself. Sadly, I can't even say just to avoid it, because those daylight levels are really, really fun. Not only that, but even some of the cutscenes are legitimately funny and amusing; Eggman's new sidekick robot is much more entertaining than Chip is. I also find it curious that Amy Rose is actually not annoying in this game.
So what else is left to say? Well, I can always direct you to a blog entry that a guy at Sega did:
http://blogs.ign.com/SEGA_
"Normally, in Sonic games, we have added new characters to introduce new moves. Tails for flying and gliding, and climbing walls for Knuckles and so on. It's good that we have more members in the Sonic family as a result. But in time some people started saying… "Hey, Tails is a lot of fun. He can fly!" Or "You know, Knuckles is more useful because he can climb on walls and stuff." And if you go back to Sonic again, he hasn't changed much. Since he already has his trademark "speed", it's hard to add new abilities to him. Of course, losing his speed as a result of adding new features was the last thing we wanted.
But I started to think that "Maybe it's time he jumped in on something new." And that was when Hashimoto and Kawamura told me about their idea of the "Werehog". I wasn't expecting this and I was taken by surprise when I first heard this. Although I always wanted Sonic to do something new, a long experience must have been blindfolding me with the idea of "old-school, proper Sonic". "
Does Sega even pay attention to what the game critics say? All I hear about is "I want a game with the old-school, proper Sonic". With classic Sonic gameplay, refined for 3D. Tails and Knuckles there to expand on the basic idea, and maybe Amy Rose too, if they can make her a character with legitimately funny dialogue.
But it doesn't seem like Sega is interested in what its fans want. No, they have to milk the Sonic franchise for all its worth. It's like they still think they're competing with Nintendo; they see how many spin-offs the Mario franchise has, and try to keep up with that number. They see how popular Mario Kart is, and then make Sonic Riders, a lame racing game. They see how popular the Mario sports games are, so they give Sonic and other Sega mascots tennis rackets and see how they do. Hell, just look at the fact that they finally put Sonic in an RPG, not too unlike Paper Mario or Mario & Luigi. They don't have time to slow down and polish his games because they're too busying pumping out as many as they can. And sadly...it's working. People keep buying these games, and Sega keeps making them. I don't necessarily think Sonic is done for, but he definitely needs a break. Give the blue guy a few years off, Sega. What do you say?
Tales of the Abyss
Originally written: October 14th, 2008
This analysis of Tales of the Abyss essentially started a series of rants/analysis for me. It wasn't intended to be read in a blog format, but it did launch my current views on game design, so I've decided to include it for archive's sake.
First off: the dialogue. So much of it is pointless repetition (especially during the skits), with terrible prose and believability. The cutscenes are dull and boring to watch. At least with Final Fantasy X or Shadow Hearts: Covenant the camera is an active participant in the cutscenes, zooming in on people when they're talking or changing to show action, but in Abyss the camera is completely static in the cutscene and it amounts to nothing more than talking heads.
Not to mention many of the the characters are just plain dull. Luke is the personification of everything that is wrong with RPG leads; he's a dick, emo, whiny, and stupid. The characters often don't know how to react to certain events, and their actions don't even make sense. Woah, Guy saw Sync's face and acts really surprised...wait, why the hell are you keeping what you saw a secret from us? So we can all be surprised later on? That makes no sense from a believability standpoint. It's not like it's personal or anything. Even so, none of the characters press him for it, which irritates me even more. Also, I never quite understood why Asch was eternally pissed off. Yeah, Luke "stole" his life from him and his anger's fine for a little while, but after a point it's like "Dude, just shut up and stop yelling all the time."
Not to mention that many scenes in the game just serve to make the game longer for no reason. I recall the characters walking out of some building and see somebody running off. Rather than chasing after the guy and confronting him right away, they're content to just stand there and discuss the fact that he ran off, speculated on who he could have been, and who should go after him. If they had just ran after the guy instead of spending all this time talking about it they would have already captured him! This kind of blatant disregard for prose irritated me for most of the game.
Now, I'll admit that not all of the story was bad. There are lines in the game that are genuinely funny, and the parts of the five God-Generals (Asch not included) were well written. Also, for the first 15 hours or so, I didn't have much of a problem with the story. It was typical RPG fare, sure, but the story moved briskly and tried to keep things fresh. However, once Luke sheds his long hair and it seems like the game is approaching its finale, everything just stops. Suddenly the game pulls all these punches to make you drag through as much pointless dialogue as possible just so they can put "40+ Hours of gameplay!" on the back of the box. The part following the fake ending was especially grating, as it was three solid hours doing nothing but going from city to city watching cutscenes. No fighting, no puzzle solving, just mountains of exposition. It was hell.
That said, the actual battle system of the game was decent enough to not detract from the game. A bit of a button masher, but it was still fun, and boss battles required a decent amount of maintenance for your party members, and while none of the fights in the game seemed overly difficult, I'd say it was a success. As for the puzzle solving and exploration outside of the fights, I give a "meh". Nothing spectacularly fun, but on the other hand, it wasn't painfully dull. Standard RPG fare, I see nothing wrong with it.
So the gameplay is the important part of a game, right? So if I thought the gameplay was good and the story was bad, why do I hold it in such low regard? The main problem was the the gameplay is -not- the crux of the game. One of my favorite game series ever, Fire Emblem, suffers from the "talking heads" style of cutscenes that I really wish they would grow out of. However, I don't despise the game for a few reasons. For one, the story moves at a brisk pace, so even if the cutscenes are dull they don't last long, and even better, I don't have to read them; I can skip them if I wish. And more importantly, the battle system is far deeper than TotA's. While I liked playing TotA's battle system, it really wasn't very rewarding. I never bothered to learn how to chain those element circles or whatever, and some of the stuff I did in the menus didn't seem to have much effect, but I still managed to beat the game just fine, so what was the point of it all?
Ultimately, what killed TotA for me was pacing. The game gets off to a great start, but ultimately slows to a crawl, to the point where I was begging the game to shut up with all its exposition just so I could go kill stuff again. I recently replayed Golden Sun, and I admit, it was rather bland compared to how I remembered it the first time I played it. The story wasn't all that interesting, and the battle system was meh, but I still enjoyed it. Why? Well for one thing, the story didn't dominate the game. Some talking about what's going on, a couple of tips on where the party needs to be going, and that's that; you get to go onto the next dungeon to fight and solve puzzles. Ultimately, there wasn't anything really wrong with TotA's gameplay. However, the insufferable story that refuses to give control back to the player and drags on and on just to say it's a long game for the sake of a long game is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm all for getting the most of your money, but as Shadow Hearts taught us, a 20-hour long RPG with a quick pace and good direction is a much better use of your money than a 40-hour long borefest. Hell, Shadow Hearts has some of the traits I mentioned; static camera, poor voice acting, etc. But the characters were believable (as quirky as they were) and interesting, and more importantly, likeable. TotA's storytelling is its greatest flaw, and had they cut out a third of the dialogue in the game it could have been vastly improved.
This analysis of Tales of the Abyss essentially started a series of rants/analysis for me. It wasn't intended to be read in a blog format, but it did launch my current views on game design, so I've decided to include it for archive's sake.
First off: the dialogue. So much of it is pointless repetition (especially during the skits), with terrible prose and believability. The cutscenes are dull and boring to watch. At least with Final Fantasy X or Shadow Hearts: Covenant the camera is an active participant in the cutscenes, zooming in on people when they're talking or changing to show action, but in Abyss the camera is completely static in the cutscene and it amounts to nothing more than talking heads.
Not to mention many of the the characters are just plain dull. Luke is the personification of everything that is wrong with RPG leads; he's a dick, emo, whiny, and stupid. The characters often don't know how to react to certain events, and their actions don't even make sense. Woah, Guy saw Sync's face and acts really surprised...wait, why the hell are you keeping what you saw a secret from us? So we can all be surprised later on? That makes no sense from a believability standpoint. It's not like it's personal or anything. Even so, none of the characters press him for it, which irritates me even more. Also, I never quite understood why Asch was eternally pissed off. Yeah, Luke "stole" his life from him and his anger's fine for a little while, but after a point it's like "Dude, just shut up and stop yelling all the time."
Not to mention that many scenes in the game just serve to make the game longer for no reason. I recall the characters walking out of some building and see somebody running off. Rather than chasing after the guy and confronting him right away, they're content to just stand there and discuss the fact that he ran off, speculated on who he could have been, and who should go after him. If they had just ran after the guy instead of spending all this time talking about it they would have already captured him! This kind of blatant disregard for prose irritated me for most of the game.
Now, I'll admit that not all of the story was bad. There are lines in the game that are genuinely funny, and the parts of the five God-Generals (Asch not included) were well written. Also, for the first 15 hours or so, I didn't have much of a problem with the story. It was typical RPG fare, sure, but the story moved briskly and tried to keep things fresh. However, once Luke sheds his long hair and it seems like the game is approaching its finale, everything just stops. Suddenly the game pulls all these punches to make you drag through as much pointless dialogue as possible just so they can put "40+ Hours of gameplay!" on the back of the box. The part following the fake ending was especially grating, as it was three solid hours doing nothing but going from city to city watching cutscenes. No fighting, no puzzle solving, just mountains of exposition. It was hell.
That said, the actual battle system of the game was decent enough to not detract from the game. A bit of a button masher, but it was still fun, and boss battles required a decent amount of maintenance for your party members, and while none of the fights in the game seemed overly difficult, I'd say it was a success. As for the puzzle solving and exploration outside of the fights, I give a "meh". Nothing spectacularly fun, but on the other hand, it wasn't painfully dull. Standard RPG fare, I see nothing wrong with it.
So the gameplay is the important part of a game, right? So if I thought the gameplay was good and the story was bad, why do I hold it in such low regard? The main problem was the the gameplay is -not- the crux of the game. One of my favorite game series ever, Fire Emblem, suffers from the "talking heads" style of cutscenes that I really wish they would grow out of. However, I don't despise the game for a few reasons. For one, the story moves at a brisk pace, so even if the cutscenes are dull they don't last long, and even better, I don't have to read them; I can skip them if I wish. And more importantly, the battle system is far deeper than TotA's. While I liked playing TotA's battle system, it really wasn't very rewarding. I never bothered to learn how to chain those element circles or whatever, and some of the stuff I did in the menus didn't seem to have much effect, but I still managed to beat the game just fine, so what was the point of it all?
Ultimately, what killed TotA for me was pacing. The game gets off to a great start, but ultimately slows to a crawl, to the point where I was begging the game to shut up with all its exposition just so I could go kill stuff again. I recently replayed Golden Sun, and I admit, it was rather bland compared to how I remembered it the first time I played it. The story wasn't all that interesting, and the battle system was meh, but I still enjoyed it. Why? Well for one thing, the story didn't dominate the game. Some talking about what's going on, a couple of tips on where the party needs to be going, and that's that; you get to go onto the next dungeon to fight and solve puzzles. Ultimately, there wasn't anything really wrong with TotA's gameplay. However, the insufferable story that refuses to give control back to the player and drags on and on just to say it's a long game for the sake of a long game is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm all for getting the most of your money, but as Shadow Hearts taught us, a 20-hour long RPG with a quick pace and good direction is a much better use of your money than a 40-hour long borefest. Hell, Shadow Hearts has some of the traits I mentioned; static camera, poor voice acting, etc. But the characters were believable (as quirky as they were) and interesting, and more importantly, likeable. TotA's storytelling is its greatest flaw, and had they cut out a third of the dialogue in the game it could have been vastly improved.
Prototype - A great game, as long as you don't bother playing it
I have this weird philosophy about sandbox games. When I play games like Grand Theft Auto or Assassin's Creed, etc, I tend to avoid the "sandbox" bit and am content with just going through the story. I realize that isn't the point of those kind of games, and that I'm probably missing some of the fun by doing so, but it's never really bothered me; a linear experience is typically what I prefer to experience in games. Doesn't mean I think those games are bad or anything; I just play them differently than someone else would.
So imagine my surprise when I played Prototype for the first time. After the opening sequence in which you're introduced to all your abilities, the cutscene explaining the character, etc...for once, I didn't care. From the very beginning of the game, the entire city is free for you to explore. I ignored the mission markers and just ran around the city, throwing cars, running up the side of the buildings WITH the cars, finding the tallest building around, climbing to the top then jumping off, trying to land on a car somewhere on the street below. It was fantastic fun. The controls took a long time to get used to and were a little clunky, but I didn't mind, because they allowed for so much freedom of movement and exploration. I looked in my upgrades menu and saw all the little toys I could get if I only had some more experience, so I decided to start playing the actual game.
Imagine my surprise when the actual game turned out to be shit.
Obviously, when you play any game, the game is going to have its strong points and its low points. Nobody expects a masterful story from a Mario game, while Phoenix Wright is more an interactive book than a video game. However, there is a problem when the game's story has a completely different tone than the actual game. There's to be had jumping around buildings, consuming people and taking their appearance, shooting blood out of your hands to fly at high speed, and all that suggests a game that's comical and funny. However, the cutscenes in the game suggest a dark, brooding storyline with an anti-hero out on a serious quest for vengeance. He does what he has to to survive. But when you start playing the actual game your thoughts are less on the serious side and more "I need health. Time to eat everyone around me." It doesn't help that the storyline makes no sense, is difficult to follow, and when I finally beat the game I thought "Wait, that's it?" There's no buildup to the final battle. There was another important battle earlier on that had a lot of buildup, and they could have used that as the final boss just fine, only for the game to just go on. Point is, the story's a piece of crap, and Alex Mercer just isn't an interesting character at all.
But hey, who cares about the story, right? After all, the freedom of movement and the options available must mean that the actual game is great too, right? Well...sadly, no. The missions in the game are repetitive, tedious, and frustrating. They're littered with a ton of poor design choices, the most prominent of which being that no matter where you are, there's always some asshole with a rocket launcher with 100% accuracy to shoot you and mess up whatever it was that you were trying to do. At first you think the game is going to be easy; after all, you're a superpowered mutant that can do just about anything. For a bit, that's true. Then you have to start putting up with other mutants and supersoldiers and whatnot who can move as fast as you do, who can't be grabbed and can hit you for tons of damage while you're waiting for an attack to finish up so you can jump out of the way. Not to mention when hijacking a tank, there's a few seconds of mashing Y before you can enter, and during that time you're vulnerable to all enemy fire, and if you get hit with a rocket, surprise, you get knocked off and have to try it again. Not to mention the hijacking process is painfully slow, with the camera zooming in for dramatic effect, forgetting that the player might want to immediately shoot at the nearest threat, rather than be forced to swivel the camera back around every single time.
Some design choices in the game were painful, too. A certain boss had a gigantic health bar and sat stationary in the center of an intersection. You try tackling it head-on, you get a bunch of rocks shot at you that are too numerous to dodge. Get too close, it does this area-of-effect attack that drains your health bar. The only reliable method of hurting this thing was to run up the side of a nearby building, lock onto it, use the right analog stick to make sure I'm -actually- locked onto it rather than a harmless military grunt, jump off the building (because standing still is a deathwish in this game), and use my extendo-tentacle to chip off a small portion of damage. And I had to do this over and over for like half an hour. My hands cramped up with all the buttons I had to hold down at once to get this to work right. Also the mission where you're supposed to pursue a specific tank, taking out all it's support along the way, only for the mission to end with you opening the tank and consuming the guy inside it anyway. Was there a point for all that delay? Why couldn't I just get it open from the start and save all that time?
For all my rambling, the game does have its strengths. Playing through the story mode is ultimately worth it, because there are so many upgrades you get that make exploring the city and just being a douchebag so much fun. It's crazy how much stuff they fit into the game, even if the controls do suffer because of it. Yeah, the controls are difficult to learn and a bit clunky at times, but it's the only way for the game to work the way it does, so I'm not going to really call that a flaw.
I really don't think Prototype is worth putting down money for (thank god I rented it instead of going for that 40 dollar deal at Amazon), but it does some things right, so at the very least it's worth a look if you're interested. However, throughout the game there was something that really bothered me: the advertising. I know advertising doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the game, but it is unsettling. Seeing Gamestop and Game Crazy ads everywhere just bothers me (and isn't that kind of wrong having two competitors both advertising in the game?) I mean...the game is made by Activision, who I seriously doubt needs the advertising revenue in order to keep going. Also, they really took efforts to push the game's sales and promotion, and the game ended up selling pretty well anyway. So were advertisers even needed?
So imagine my surprise when I played Prototype for the first time. After the opening sequence in which you're introduced to all your abilities, the cutscene explaining the character, etc...for once, I didn't care. From the very beginning of the game, the entire city is free for you to explore. I ignored the mission markers and just ran around the city, throwing cars, running up the side of the buildings WITH the cars, finding the tallest building around, climbing to the top then jumping off, trying to land on a car somewhere on the street below. It was fantastic fun. The controls took a long time to get used to and were a little clunky, but I didn't mind, because they allowed for so much freedom of movement and exploration. I looked in my upgrades menu and saw all the little toys I could get if I only had some more experience, so I decided to start playing the actual game.
Imagine my surprise when the actual game turned out to be shit.
Obviously, when you play any game, the game is going to have its strong points and its low points. Nobody expects a masterful story from a Mario game, while Phoenix Wright is more an interactive book than a video game. However, there is a problem when the game's story has a completely different tone than the actual game. There's to be had jumping around buildings, consuming people and taking their appearance, shooting blood out of your hands to fly at high speed, and all that suggests a game that's comical and funny. However, the cutscenes in the game suggest a dark, brooding storyline with an anti-hero out on a serious quest for vengeance. He does what he has to to survive. But when you start playing the actual game your thoughts are less on the serious side and more "I need health. Time to eat everyone around me." It doesn't help that the storyline makes no sense, is difficult to follow, and when I finally beat the game I thought "Wait, that's it?" There's no buildup to the final battle. There was another important battle earlier on that had a lot of buildup, and they could have used that as the final boss just fine, only for the game to just go on. Point is, the story's a piece of crap, and Alex Mercer just isn't an interesting character at all.
But hey, who cares about the story, right? After all, the freedom of movement and the options available must mean that the actual game is great too, right? Well...sadly, no. The missions in the game are repetitive, tedious, and frustrating. They're littered with a ton of poor design choices, the most prominent of which being that no matter where you are, there's always some asshole with a rocket launcher with 100% accuracy to shoot you and mess up whatever it was that you were trying to do. At first you think the game is going to be easy; after all, you're a superpowered mutant that can do just about anything. For a bit, that's true. Then you have to start putting up with other mutants and supersoldiers and whatnot who can move as fast as you do, who can't be grabbed and can hit you for tons of damage while you're waiting for an attack to finish up so you can jump out of the way. Not to mention when hijacking a tank, there's a few seconds of mashing Y before you can enter, and during that time you're vulnerable to all enemy fire, and if you get hit with a rocket, surprise, you get knocked off and have to try it again. Not to mention the hijacking process is painfully slow, with the camera zooming in for dramatic effect, forgetting that the player might want to immediately shoot at the nearest threat, rather than be forced to swivel the camera back around every single time.
Some design choices in the game were painful, too. A certain boss had a gigantic health bar and sat stationary in the center of an intersection. You try tackling it head-on, you get a bunch of rocks shot at you that are too numerous to dodge. Get too close, it does this area-of-effect attack that drains your health bar. The only reliable method of hurting this thing was to run up the side of a nearby building, lock onto it, use the right analog stick to make sure I'm -actually- locked onto it rather than a harmless military grunt, jump off the building (because standing still is a deathwish in this game), and use my extendo-tentacle to chip off a small portion of damage. And I had to do this over and over for like half an hour. My hands cramped up with all the buttons I had to hold down at once to get this to work right. Also the mission where you're supposed to pursue a specific tank, taking out all it's support along the way, only for the mission to end with you opening the tank and consuming the guy inside it anyway. Was there a point for all that delay? Why couldn't I just get it open from the start and save all that time?
For all my rambling, the game does have its strengths. Playing through the story mode is ultimately worth it, because there are so many upgrades you get that make exploring the city and just being a douchebag so much fun. It's crazy how much stuff they fit into the game, even if the controls do suffer because of it. Yeah, the controls are difficult to learn and a bit clunky at times, but it's the only way for the game to work the way it does, so I'm not going to really call that a flaw.
I really don't think Prototype is worth putting down money for (thank god I rented it instead of going for that 40 dollar deal at Amazon), but it does some things right, so at the very least it's worth a look if you're interested. However, throughout the game there was something that really bothered me: the advertising. I know advertising doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the game, but it is unsettling. Seeing Gamestop and Game Crazy ads everywhere just bothers me (and isn't that kind of wrong having two competitors both advertising in the game?) I mean...the game is made by Activision, who I seriously doubt needs the advertising revenue in order to keep going. Also, they really took efforts to push the game's sales and promotion, and the game ended up selling pretty well anyway. So were advertisers even needed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)