Blogger Archive: slackur 
Value is a topic that comes up a lot in video gaming nowadays.
Recent Xbox Live and Playstation Network game pricing seems to be the argument du jour, with indie favorites Braid and the recent Limbo under fire for disproportionate playtime vs. price. The last few years have also given us both Modern Warfares, a few Halos, both Gears of War, and other AAA titles with campaigns lasting six hours or under (depending on difficulty setting and other factors, of course.) Indeed, the last two console generations have seen a serious rise in critique over game lengths, with the most recent high definition consoles' higher priced games leading the charge that we as gamers often just aren't getting our money's worth anymore.
But what gives something value? Is it the length of the game? The graphics, sound, and gameplay? The quality of the experience? The presence of tubby Italian plumbers that, despite their claimed occupation, are more often observed playing various sports and throwing parties rather than doing anything even vaguely plumbing related?
Value is usually balanced on the scales of public opinion, but here's the most interesting fact about it: it is completely subjective. I cannot force my sense of a value on anyone else, and their concept of value will be different than my own. I may persuade, I may cheapen, I can present cases for and against all day long. At the end of the day, I may convince some gamers that my Neo Geo AES and games are worth the money spent, but that guy with every Neo Geo game on his modded PSP or XBox will never see it as such. Value is an extension of opinion. And as we all know, opinions are like crazy, conspiracy-spewing, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing uncles: everyone has one, and they are all wrong.
One thing that has spoiled our gaming masses for far too long is the typical price-point of our systems and accessories. I believe we gamers often have a very unrealistic expectation when it comes to prices in our hobby, born of price stagnation outside of inflation. Dsheinem's detailed article on the Atari 2600 VCS mentions that some launch games were within the $20 to $30 price point range- and that adjusted for inflation, gamers were putting down between $70 to over $100 back in the late 70's.
In '92, I bought Axelay at my local KB Toys for 79.99. (I remember very clearly saving $50 and then having to borrow an extra $30 from my mom to make up the difference.) That's a twenty buck premium over our current standard pricing structure- until inflation kicks in, which puts my pricey purchase over $120 in our current futureland.
Speaking of Axelay, I can finish it at least three times over in the amount of time it took to finish Limbo. If I were using cost-per-minute as a value indicator, comparatively Limbo might as well be an MMO. Or a Shin Megami Tensei.
How many of us 'old-school' gamers paid well over fifty bucks for the original Phantasy Star, the old NES/SNES RPGs, or even older PC games like Wizardry or Ultima? Price adjusted, these games were worse than Halo 3: Cat Helmet addition.
But were they worth it?
Well, considering how fondly these games are often remembered, I rarely if ever hear complaints over their original price, unless it was about convincing our parents or saving up to buy them. Even those lore stories tend to be recalled as worthy sacrifices, the trials we endured to partake of gaming's greatest. Unless you bought 7th Saga for seventy bucks. Then you just got ripped off. ( )
I find it interesting that most gamers seem to be willing to defend their beloved hobby as art, yet cry out in near unison over not getting enough 'bang for the buck' with their game purchases. If we believe that there is true merit to the interactive experiences we enjoy, why are we not defending these products based on what we receive from our personal experience with it?
I paid more for a new TMNT IV: Turtles in Time (SNES) than the cost of a new Wii game. Moreover, I've traded it and bought it again a few times over. I even bought the XBLA remake. I can finish that game on the hardest difficulty in under twenty minutes. I still think I've gotten my money's worth.
By the way, in the year I bought that copy of Turtles, a number 3 two McCheeseburger combo meal at McDonalds cost $2.99. Now, the same meal is $4.97. That's an increase of over 65% in less than twenty years. How many decades did we expect to be able to pay around $40 to $50 for a new game and completely ignore the rates of inflation?
But expectations are different now. We're seventh generation, baby! We don't buy Space Invaders for a hundred bucks: a dollar is too much to pay for an updated version on my iPhone. We're in a recession. We demand an unnecessary multiplayer component that feels forced and will remain untouched after being scrounged for a few gamerpoints or trophies. We know that despite the millions spent making and marketing a new blockbuster title, we are being overcharged for our games. EA and Activision are evil, corporate monsters who don't deserve $60 for a cut and paste sequel to what we liked before, and what indie developer is so pretentious as to think that a few years and their life savings are worth ten more bucks than we want to spend?
Here is the problem as I see it; we, as a gaming public, have grown up with games. What was once luxury is now viewed as necessity. We feel we not only have the right, but the requirement to be elitist, even snobbish, over gaming. Long ago, one or two games at most were produced a month, and we salivated over them, shared them, experienced them. Now we buy two and get one free, without care, to grind out achievements and trophies and brag that we 'beat' them so we can move on.
Nothing is inherently wrong with more games, achievements, trophies, or 'beating' games. But are we still having fun? I spent a long time and lots of money in Final Fantasy XI before I realized I did not enjoy the experience. Some love the game, and that's great for them. But it took me a while to see that I was playing simply to be playing: gaming as a requirement, not for fun. The treadmill is only entertaining while you are actually being entertained; after that, its just more work.
If you like burning through games as fast as possible and still enjoy each one, that's great. But I think that the larger our industry gets, the more we have to come to respect everyone else under the gaming umbrella. I hear plenty of complaints about short games. What I rarely hear is the opposite complaint: this game is not a good value for me because it is just too long.
I have a wife, three kids, an imaginary Rabbid and a ton of housework. They all need my time. (Except the Rabbid, I just give him imaginary time.) If every game I want to play is twenty or more hours long, I either neglect my responsibilities or I don't finish many games. A game with a campaign that is more than eight to ten hours long is not a good value for me if I want to play other games. I just don't have the time, and I will want to play other things. If I am going to spend $50 to $60 on a game I intend to finish, I want it to fit my constraints, otherwise it is not a good value to me.
Portal comes to mind. Though there are detractors over the game's length, many critics and gamers have stated that its four or five hour run time was about perfect. It told a story, invented interesting gameplay mechanics, and stayed just long enough to not wear out its welcome. Unless the pacing and mechanics were radically altered, a longer experience with Portal would have likely began feeling more drawn out and even dull. There are timing challenges, speed runs, and mods for those wanting to stretch it out further, and even a sequel that promises to expand the formula into something that supports a longer, expanded game. But arguably, Portal 2's greatest challenge will be to match the superb pacing of the original.
I don't want every game to be done in a few hours. I just want developers to know and gamers to respect that we are all different, and remember that just because a game takes a long time to complete doesn't mean it is a better game. If the game I want to finish is a quality experience, and the pacing, momentum, and flow are well realized, I want to be able to get to the end! Stretching it out does not make it better or more valuable, it just means I am less likely to complete it before moving on. According to developer Remedy, only 30% of players finish a game they start. If I buy a Big Gulp because the pricing means I get more Mello Yello per penny, and take two sips before tossing it aside, was it a better deal than the small cup that had less drink, but the correct amount I wanted?
The Playstation 3's launch is another perfect example. Touted as the next gaming need, it provided Blu-Ray, HD graphics, a hard drive, HDMI output, USB ports for your USB supported hair dryer, and the weight of a Mini Cooper. The early adopters bragged that it was well worth the cost for the Blu-Ray player alone, and that for everything it offered, it was an exceptional value.
But that mentality assumes way too many things, including:
1. Do I have an HD TV?
2. Do I intend on starting a Blu-Ray collection right now? (versus waiting a few years?)
3. Are there any PS3 games out now or in the next month that I consider must-have, day one purchases?
If the answer to these are no, is $600 a good value? What price would be? The answer is left up to the individual, as any question of value is.
Collectors are in yet another level of comparative worth. Stadium Events for tens of thousands of dollars? Your 99 cent copy of World Class Track Meet is identical, save for a title screen and label. Should WCTM cost more? Stadium Events less? All in the eye of the beholder. If it is worth more or less to you, congratulations: you have an opinion. Is a BMW worth tens of thousands? To some, yes. My Subaru does just fine by me. Am I wrong, or is the BMW owner? Neither and both. To many people, my Panzer Dragoon Saga is not worth even the cost of a current new game, much less what it goes for now. But it was worth every penny to me, and to argue against that is to simply admit it is not worth that price for you.
I would like to end with the admonition that yes, gaming can be expensive. Most gamers have very limited budgets for gaming. Of course we want our money's worth. That's why we research to find out what is worthwhile to us individually. Millions of fans bought maps for Modern Warefare 2 that are worthless to me, yet cost the same as the entire game of Limbo. But the few hours I put into Limbo was worth more to me than all the hours I put into Final Fantasy XI or the recent Resonance of Fate. It won't be worth as much to many others. But to say a game is not worth a certain price, period, end of story, is insulting everyone who disagrees. Over an idea of worth that is completely subjective in the first place. For example:
If you took a million dollars of our paper currency back three hundred years, it becomes worthless; three hundred years from now it will likely become worthless again. That same million dollars today would set me up for life; for Bill Gates or Bill Clinton, it wouldn't even change their taxes. More valuable to some, less to others.
Let's not pretend any of us are universally correct over gaming value. Let's just vote with our dollars to get the things of worth for us.
And, of course, check CAG for sales.
It has been compared favorably and otherwise to everything from Braid to Ico. In truth, Limbo is a sum of several familiar gameplay components, wrapped in a dark, morbid, and mysteriously surreal narrative. What it is not, is for the faint of heart. Or wallet.
Gameplay consists of platforming, with only a jump and a contextual interaction button adding to the standard left and right movement. The sensitivity of the left analog stick determines walking, running, or creeping along, and that's it. No ducking, looking around, or direct combat. This streamline approach, rather than confining the experience, focuses the player on the two biggest features of Limbo: the environmental puzzles and the atmosphere. Oh, the atmosphere.
Limbo's palette is black, white, and grays, and nothing else. Instead of using this refined spectrum to construct high resolution and detail, the designers use the opposite extreme to grand effect. The visual filters and muted shades paint a dreamlike visual experience that is unique and immersing. Background and foregrounds are at a constant haze. Environments feature sparse lines and sharp angles that just barely convey a sense of open woods, labyrinthian underground tunnels, and complex industrial areas. Indeed, the world of Limbo only roughly sketches its home, then hands the pencil to the player's mind to draw the rest of the details. Where this could be easily viewed as pretentious or even lazy on the developer's part, the design is definitely purposeful, as the rest of the tools are clearly in the iron grasp of talent.
The animation is top notch, with subtle particle effects and little details emphasizing every action. Many clues are given for gameplay as well as narrative in the smallest of touches. The audio wisely follows the consistency of the visual design; sparse, light overtones occasionally punctuated by dramatic flair, and effects that will make the player much more squeamish than the persistent visual violence. I began playing with two friends watching, but before the hour mark I was alone. This brings me to an important point:
Limbo's content is not for everyone.
There is implied murder, torture, gore, drowning, dismemberment, and very dark themes. Without giving away spoilers, some actions will likely stun you in their graphic nature. This is not Mario. It is not Braid. It is a game designed around a certain theme, and that theme is played out fully. In the same manner that South Park may appear to target a young audience but is designed for adults, the same could be said for Limbo.
Though I personally feel games should always be based on their own merit, and there are flavorful and unique elements to the experience that is Limbo, everyone will compare titles. As mentioned before, Limbo imbues a desolate and lonely aura likened to the PS2 classics Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, comparative indie vibes to Braid (also an 'artsy' title criticized as derivative and overpriced), along with gameplay similarities to PC/PSX's Heart of Darkness.
And if the biggest sell for Limbo is the original atmosphere (and it most certainly is), the other is gameplay. Physics based puzzles and platforming challenges make up the bulk of the experience, with exploration and attentive observation yielding literal eggs for completion and achievements. A chapter select allows for easy access, and the game respawns the character only moments before each mistake, again putting the emphasis on puzzle solving and atmosphere. Some of the timing elements of the game are, true to the genre, mostly trial and error, and the designers were wise to avoid any life count or continuing limitations, allowing the player to simply keep at it until done.
Which brings out Limbo's only real 'fault' making the rounds of the critic circles at large. At fifteen bucks, is a game that can be completed in only a few hours worth such a premium? Limbo would certainly not survive the current expectations of boxed retail, and as a Live arcade download only title it is expected to compete with cheaper games containing more longevity. The almighty Castle Crashers, Braid, and even Ikaruga have fielded the same complaints, and review scores are bashed in light of perceived value.
I intend to write an article on the perception of entertainment value later. As for now, it comes down to this:
Limbo is original. Limbo is exceptionally well made. Limbo is, for a certain audience, wonderful. Limbo is fairly short, even abrupt by today's gaming standards. If you are interested, play the demo. It will tell you all you want to know: do I want more of this? Will the experience be worth the money to me, individually? Will I feel at a loss for paying this much for a few hours?
I know I, personally, have no regrets about purchasing Limbo. Indeed, I consider it a gaming experience to rival my top ten. But if you play the demo and are still not sure, Limbo probably is not for you, fifteen bucks or otherwise.
As an end note, I feel that the narrative played out in Limbo is terrifically realized, despite forum debates passed to and fro over the subjective nature of the story and its details. I thought it was rather clear in its intentions, and if it is not painfully obvious by now, I also feel it was a masterfully well done experience. If you are curious about my thoughts on the particulars of the story, feel free to PM me: I don't want to ruin or cheapen the experience for the curious by posting said thoughts in a forum.
BioShock 2. Halo 3 ODST. Super Mario Galaxy 2. New Super Mario Bros. Any Street Fighter after II. Every Madden after 2000 or so.
These games, other than representing new entries in their respective franchises, don't have much in common. But one thing I have heard about all of these games, either by critics or fellow gamers, is something along these lines: "this game is unnecessary."
The general mentality behind said comments usually indicate that the game does not offer enough updates, change, or innovation as to justify its existence, especially in light of previous games in its respective series. Some, such as the numerous updates to the Street Fighter series or Madden, are largely seen as simple tweeks or balancing, with occasional new characters or roster updates. Others, such as Super Mario Galaxy 2 and BioShock 2, are critically praised as superior gameplay experiences to their predecessors, yet are deemed as not really "needed" because of how well the first game performed or was received, and that the sequels were only market-driven extensions.
For this humble industry observer, the very idea that any entertainment product is 'unnecessary' because of previous similar product is not only humorous, but self-centered and destructive.
Imagine this same take on other entertainment:
Star Wars/Babylon 5/Stargate/Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek/Any other Sci/Fi with aliens represented as humans of other color or forehead wrinkles
Neon Genesis Evangelion vs. ANY OTHER SCI/FI Anime
Baseball/Football/Soccer/Basketball/Any other sport involving teams and vaguely spherical ball-like objects
Nascar/Rally/Cart Racing/Off Road/F1/Derby/Any other sport involving a vehicle and driver
This Band/That Band/That other Band/That Boy Band/All Rap,R&B,Techno,Classical,etc
Not only are all of these modes of entertainment highly derivative of other forms of entertainment, but to a non-fan they are often indistinguishable from each other within the same genre. Try talking about the differences of TOS, TNG, Voyager, DS9, and the movies to a non-trekkie and they'll just shrug; not only can they not distinguish between them but often they wouldn't care enough to try. I know plenty of people who can't distinguish Star Wars from Star Trek. Sacrilege to me, apathy to them.
Mention a 'strike' to a baseball fan and then a bowling fan. Watch what happens when you pretend to confuse the two. Somehow YOU'RE the dumb one for mixing up a term between two silly sports involving letting go of a ball. Aren't they pretty much all the same? (*ducks various thrown sporting gear*)
I'm not even getting into music, and how so many bands sound the same and yet sometimes something new and different can be so off as to be mistaken for noise.
The healthy purpose of entertainment is to at least give relaxation, and at most to edify. Why would I get upset over another Madden this year? Even if there are no serious innovations or updates beyond the new team rosters, if the sports fan buys it and has just as much or more fun with it as other entries, who am I to say that's not enough? Is someone else having fun? Am I a 'must be something new' Nazi to the point that I can't enjoy the bulk of current or even past games? Games that, while market-driven and mostly made with profits in mind, are still designed for the point of enjoyment?
This is not an attack on innovative progression. It is an acknowledgment that 'new' is not always better, and 'same' often has the right to exist alongside it. Striving for something completely groundbreaking and different, even improved, is admirable, and NECESSARY for the healthy development of our hobby. Trying to choke the gaming public with too much of the same will only lead to stagnation. The ol' industry crash of the early 80's will always be a reminder of that. (And epic mismanagement, of course.)
But video games are a much larger entertainment beast now. There is not only room for 'new' and 'same' to exist simultaneously, but often 'same' is needed to help fund 'new'. Those years of Madden sequels, much as they are criticized, paid for Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, and other original EA IPs. I have no interest in rehashed Pokemon, but that juggernaut helped keep Nintendo's name in the industry until my beloved DS released. Not to mention that shiny and awesome looking 3DS was built off the backs (money) of Mario Karts, Mario Golfs, Kirbies, and yes, Mario Parties.
Not only are sequels comfortable for us, they remind us of what we like and why we like it. I could probably enjoy Halo sequels for years, despite a core formula that is traditionally not altered much, not to mention it being another "generic" space marine FPS. You know, I LIKE that. I know what I'm getting, I know I like it, I want more of it. If they change things up a lot, I might like it more, but I might like it a lot less. Is is worth taking a chance? Sure. But why whine when a sequel is more of the same? If we liked the first, why are we griping that we were given more of what we liked?
We also need new. We need different. We need Katamari Damacy, Panic!, Vib Ribbon, mr. Bones, Seaman, Twisted, Odama, Kinect, Waggle, Move, NiGHTs, Yar's Revenge, Super Scopes, Bongos, Loco Roco, Patapon, Myst, and especially Shadow of the Colossus. We need something at least a little different, even if it fails. Even if it turns out to be not that fun. Even when new becomes the new derivative. Our industry adapts and shifts, or stalls and withers.
Different people enjoy different things, and the fact is that many of us will buy sequels and enjoy them, even if they aren't much different. Sometimes, it is because they are not much different. As much as I enjoy the Halo games, I think the Call of Duty series tend to be just above average games, but largely derivative of each other and offer little innovation between the respective entries. (Of course I recognize the same arguments leveled at Halo.) But they are both undeniable successes, and the sequels will undoubtedly follow in the same footsteps. Is that bad?
Apparently millions in the gaming mainstream don't think so. Why argue games should be so different if so many are enjoying these games? Are these millions of gamers wrong? I think that's the wrong question.
I think the more important question is, are these people having fun?
Or wasn't that the point?
I have a true gamer's "Holy Grail" in my beloved wife, and I'll tell you why.
This year's CCAG (Classic Console and Arcade Gaming) show was the best since I began attending a few years ago. I got to chat with dozens of fellow vendors and collectors, play ancient computer games running on systems I still don't own, support a few home-brewers, actually check for data rot before purchasing (I had to put back over fifty games, including half a dozen different copies of TG16 Addams Family), actually play the pinball table 'Sorcerer' and see if my Pinball Hall of Fame mastery carried over to the real world, (Protip-nudge/tilt button moved to a weird Wii-like waggle maneuver) and best of all, I bought a bunch of games.
Maybe too many games. Way too many games. Like this many games:
Continue reading CCAG and the Best. Fathers. Day. Gift. Ever.
Normally my blogs contain humorous little diatribes or reflective thoughts on gaming and collecting in general. However, I feel the very pressing need to make a PSA to the gaming and collecting community at large:
Sellers, PLEASE start checking your games for 'disc rot'.
YES, it exists. I've bought half a dozen games this year alone, online, that had this problem upon arrival, including Panzer Dragoon Saga and several Turbo CD games.
What is disc rot?
Well, first let's explain what it is not: an indication of someone handling the game poorly. Unless there is a scratch on the top layer of the disc that ends up appearing similar to disc rot (a tiny nick on the label can look similar), the problems are separate and unrelated. For some of the games I purchased, the seller felt cheated because of the claim that there were no scratches or problems with the disc and that it was well taken care of. Disc rot damage is typically unrelated to how well one takes care of the disc.
Continue reading An important note to Video Game Sellers and Buyers
I finally got a working copy of Snatcher on Sega CD this week (I've owned the import Playstation version for a long time but can't read Japanese) and went through it mostly in one sitting.
Wow.
It is quite remarkable, coming from someone who went through the entirety of American Metal Gear games first, to go back and see what is essentially the prototype CD-ROM narrative of Hideo's work. Every major facet Hideo is known for is present in Snatcher, and since both the man's ideas and the technology were both so relatively new at the time, to go back and review it seems to almost distill what makes a Kojima project into its very essence.
The heavy clash of anime and western influences. The repeated fourth-wall breaks and humor. The obsession with humanizing technology while showing the isolating effects. The noir style. The jazz overtones in the drama scenes. The overcooked dialogue and emoting. The crazy plotting and pacing. The stretched out to ridiculousness monologues. The romantic entanglements and hero worship. Humanity needs a savior from outside of humanity mantras. Tons of hidden or easy-to-miss easter eggs and secrets. Walking robots.
***MGS3 and Snatcher spoilers ahead alerts !!!***
Heck, huge chunks of Metal Gear Solid 3, my personal favorite of that series, seems lifted right out of Snatcher, including Cold War east-west tensions, genetic manipulation, father/son legacy issues with elements of patricide, secret government WMDs that fell into private hands, impossible resurrections, double agents, I could go on and on. I was amazed over and over at the copied elements.
The technical elements were very similar in many ways as well. Both Snatcher and every MGS title were known to push technological limits of the hardware at the time; while Snatcher doesn't expand the Sega CD into new territory like the MGS games did with Sony's hardware, the use of the then new CD storage was put to justified use.
Snatcher has lots of voice-overs, CD-quality music, a rather lengthy story, and it's own in-game accessible historical database of game fiction to dig into. It was one of the first Sega CD games that simply could not have been as engrossing on a cart.
It also has almost no gameplay. And I love it for that.
What?
When I wrote earlier that I went though all the American Metal Gear games, that's true, from a certain point of view. I myself completed MGS and over half of MGS2. But the gameplay mechanics began to really frustrate me in 2, feeling overly complicated and unintuitive. All the immersive factors in the world are lost to me when after four hours of play I still fumble with the controls. I don't know exactly why. But I played MSG 3 and 4 and felt the same way.
Thankfully, my buddy Arkyst is a real MGS nut and doesn't have the same hang ups, so he took me through all of MGS 2,3, and 4 and even showed me all of the little tricks and secrets. I love those games, I just can't play them well.
But Snatcher is a different animal all-together. The closest it comes to a traditional video game is the arcade-like shooting scenes, where you use the d-pad and select a quadrant (the screen is divided into a 3 X 3 grid) and press a button to shoot. They get fast-paced, but out of an eight hour experience there are perhaps around half a dozen times you do this (and few other times the game requires you to shoot once or twice.)
The rest of the gameplay is simply selecting from menus, using the look and investigate commands on the same selections of each area repeatedly. It may sound boring, but it turns the experience into more of an interactive graphic novel, or better yet an electronic choose-your-own-adventure book. The story is good enough (and the voice acting and writing tolerable enough) that you want to solve the mystery, and the game's universe consistent and well thought out enough that everything makes sense in the context of the well developed background. Most things in Snatcher reach around to get full circle in a way that even good novels often miss the mark, not to mention the hack job that often passes for a video game narrative.
Unlike MGS 2 and up, I could play Snatcher, and it almost never got in the way. That is, until the very end, in which the shooting sequence took a Mount Everest sized spike in difficulty that saw me getting out the Genesis Justifier light gun to get past, as the d-pad went from passable to yeah-right. This end bit was admittedly a klaxon in a symphony. There has to be a better way to ratchet up the tension at the end.
For a game that requires little more than for you to stay awake and occasionally solve an obtuse puzzle for 98% of the time, you are suddenly expected to have cat-like reflexes for the rest of the 2% of gameplay. Imagine getting through a Zelda game, reaching Ganon, and suddenly you have to play through a Battletoads 3rd stage hyperbike scene with no recourse in order to see the ending. That's comparatively what Snatcher pulled, and while I finished it, it was jarring.
Nonetheless, overall it was a refreshing experience, and now I desperately want to go through the spiritual-successor follow up, Policenauts. Unfortunately that never made it over here in the States, and I'm not sure I'm brave enough to try a patch method. Ah, who am I kidding. One day I'll try.
Snatcher was a great experience that made me briefly re-evaluate what a game is, and somewhat surprised me (even more so than the MGS games) into remembering that for all the critics of cut-scenes over gameplay, everyone's understanding of interactivity is a little different. I enjoyed 'playing' Snatcher more than the MGS games not because it controlled better, but because the 'gameplay' fit like a glove for the format (until the very end) and I could sit back and enjoy it instead of being hampered by gameplay choices that I might not overcome. I doubt I'd have ever experienced the rest of the MGS saga if it weren't for Arkyst (I put many, many hours into MGS 4, I really tried) and it would be a shame if that happened to Snatcher as well.
So, even though it is still pricey, I HIGHLY recommend Snatcher if:
a) you are a Hideo Kojima fan and want to see how much his early stuff fits in with the rest
b) you like Blade Runner (of which the story is 85% derivative of)
c) you are a fan of Cyber Punk and Sci-Fi
d) you enjoy the type of gameplay found in the likes of Hotel Dusk, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, and the Carmen Sandiego series
e) you want to see a game that really needed an M rating for violence, blood and gore (if only for a few scenes)
f) you are collecting Sega CD games and want something to flush the taste of 'Lawnmower Man' down
g) you want to see an inventive and eclectic puzzle design (seriously, the Oleen puzzle was nifty after you recheck your inventory and know what it wants, but the extra letter at the end of the real answer made it a bit too unnecessarily abstract for me.)
h) you want to see a club in a video game that contains people dressed up like the Contra guys, Goeman, Dracula, Simon Belmont, and Sparkster (that scene was so cool!)
i) Dude, you should number lists if they're gonna hit 'I'
j) Seriously, you made it to 'J'?
But enough talk. Have at you!
(Yes, I know the difference between Hideo and IGA. But both the title and end references are from Konami and the title fit. Hush.)
|
|
