Blogger Archive: slackur 
The midnight launch was great! Everything went very smooth, and everyone seemed to have fun.
After getting home late, I plugged our shiny new box into our prepared space on the ol' entertainment center, and it started right up. The update was speedy and I tinkered a bit before crashing for the night/day.
So, here's your local Slackur's initial PS4 impressions:
-It's purdy.
-Speedy too, compared to the PS3's notoriously slow network downloading. So far everything seems to be as fast as the 360's downloads, so much improvement there.
-I wasn't originally sold on the install-as-you-play feature, as it felt gimmicky. But in reality it works so well that games were playable more quickly than most PS3 games; I'm officially a believer.
-I really like the UI, better than any Sony product thus far and leagues better than the 360's Metro.
-The controller also feels more natural and comfortable for me than any other Sony product thus far. Not quite as made-for-my-hands natural as the 360, but far and away more natural than any DualShock, PSP or Vita.
-Compared to the jetliner engine sounds of the 360 and PS3, this thing makes me forget it's even on.
-One of the niftiest features happened when we plugged in some decent headphones into the controller and suddenly the main sound system went mute. A quick adjustment allowed all the sound output through the headphone jack, and it sounded great!
-Another thing I assumed was too gimmicky to be useful was the remote play. Sure, the framerate suffered a little and the control responsiveness was off just a touch, but I was able to successfully play Battlefield 4 with the TV off and the kids in the same room, so it will likely come in handy more than I thought. And it makes the PS3/PSP remote play look positively broken.
Speaking of broken, much to no-one's surprise the PSNetwork has gone up and down with maintenance issues. I was able to update the system and grab Resogun without problems, but I had to wait awhile before I could grab the other online updates and games. Thankfully, with the improved download speeds I was able to get everything the next day without issue.
So, overall I have a pleasant report on the machine proper, but of course more importantly, how are the games?
Battlefield 4
Much improved graphically over the previous generation versions, it's the Battlefield I know and enjoy. Unfortunately the mode I bought it for, 64 player conquest, is the only feature that doesn't work. A quick Google proved it to be a universal problem, so hopefully it will be resolved very soon. In the meantime everything else about it is as good as I hoped.
Contrast
This one is quite nifty. The controls are too loose and fidgety, but the concept, art design and music really make it something interesting and worthwhile thus far. My Beloved has only played it a little (she likes Resogun better) but I'm looking forward to playing through it. I'm
particularly happy to see some nifty, more experimental games like this one considering how shooter-heavy the launch line up is.
DC Universe Online
I spent some time with the PS3 release years ago, and its come a long way since then. Another game I'm glad to see at launch, if just for variety and you can't beat the price. Probably won't put much time into it again but its very nice to see it as a free launch game.
Backlight Retribution
This one just plain has not worked since launch until over two days later. It looks to me like an average arena FPS. Can't say for sure since the developers apparently hate left-handed people and gave two entire pages of control customization but no southpaw thumb swap. So it'll likely end up in the digital dumpster.
Warframe
This one was released as a PC freemium also, and made it to the PS4 launch. Southpaw support means I got to spend some time in it. So far it's decent fun; a third person, four-player shooter/stabby randomized dungeon loot/level grinder. Less punch and panache than BF4 so I'll likely spend my time there, but this is definitely a type of game I can have fun with. Worth checking out more later.
Need For Speed: Rivals
A direct combination of Burnout Paradise and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. Paradise proved that while I thoroughly enjoyed every Burnout game through Revenge, even the Burnout formula didn't stave off the boring pace of open-world racers for me. Hot Pursuit on the other hand, was great fun and only fell out of rotation due to the complete lack of local LAN support. So Rivals is appropriately somewhere in between. It looks great, controls very well, and the weather effects are superb. Unfortunately it only runs at 30fps, a developer-noted compromise to achieve the 'Alldrive' constant online 'jump in/jump out MP' scalability. I'd much rather have had the better frame rate, but it still looks and plays very well. It's growing on me, but time will tell if it has more staying power than Paradise for my tastes.
Resogun
Ah, here it is. By far my favorite offering in the launch lineup, and even my Beloved enjoys playing it. A true spiritual successor to the Defender throne, Resogun has tight controls, a lucid yet rapid pace, refined but sophisticated game play balance, a nifty art design and style, and best of all it's a blast to pick up and play. Fun for a quick fix or for a several hour score challenge, Resogun is much like Geometry Wars and Tempest 2000 in that it can't quite sell a system itself, but fans of the genre are missing out on something special if they don't get a chance to play.
Overall I'm very happy with everything we picked up thus far. With all of the free and PS Plus content (free month trial and $10 PSN included!) not to mention our BF4 and NfS: Rivals pickups, I'd be set for gaming a very long time even if I didn't have a stupidly huge backlog.
I think it's worth noting that between online and disc based offerings, there are two dozen games at launch for the PS4. For all the criticism leveled at the games available, I have to say its not bad at all. If someone started out with a PS4 and PlayStation Plus, games like DCUO, Resogun, Contrast, and Warframe offer plenty of game play right out of the gate.
Considering Resogun was good enough to have folks waiting for the controller to get passed down, I'd say so far I'm pretty satisfied. 
Next week, I'll be helping our store launch the PS4. It will be a long, long night. I'm looking forward to it! I enjoy midnight launches. Especially in reflection of all the negativity mentioned last week.
Dozens, often hundreds of people, all gathered around and excited for the same thing. I enjoy it for the same reason people like Comic-Cons or PAX: pretty much everyone is there because of a shared interest. (As well as the relatives/significant others easily spotted by their deer-in-headlights expression or apathetic gaze.) Sure, there are a few obnoxious jerks, same as any group of people, but for the most part folks at these events are fun to chat with and hang around. I've even met a few individuals that became lifelong friends at such events.
Even if I didn't work in the business (and by business, I mean, of course, the industry) I'd still go to midnight releases. In fact, I've been to many for personal pickups, and even my Beloved tags along when she can. We've braved everything from freezing rain to Wal-Mart line savagery in order to meet and hang out with other like-minded gamers. We've set up impromptu GBA Mario Kart LANs, Wireless Bomberman DS matches, and during the Halo 3 launch some dude in a huge pickup opened the tail-gate to two screens and a Halo 2 MP setup that kept the crowd entertained for hours. And you'd be surprised how even the stand-offish turn nice when we pick up a few cheap pizzas and share the love.
In the modern era of our industry (and by industry, of course, I mean the business) there's an added bonus to attending launch parties for those who play online. Often the circle of trusted friends to play with can be tough to expand. We sometimes get random friend invites from a really good game, but without any connection to said individual, real ties rarely form. By chatting with other gamers while waiting in line for a product launch, it's easy to get to know someone well enough to make an educated guess if this person would be fun to play games with online. And having an actual face attached to xXDeAthScReAmCuTiEXx and 7JakeLovesREM gives every sniper-shot and puzzle match a deeper relevance.
There is also a bit of history to be appreciated. Saying that I bought my first Playstation on a random Wednesday, two years after the systems came out, doesn't really stay in memory or have any significance. My Beloved and I waiting for several hours in line to get a launch Gamecube, while playing Super Mario Advance multiplayer with strangers (one of which still comes over to game) is a memory I'll forever cherish. Interestingly, it's one of my favorite Gamecube memories, and it happened before I opened the box!
Oh, and sometimes I actually stay awake after getting home from the launch so I can actually play whatever goofy thing we just bought. 
Like everyone else picking up a new system on launch day this month, I've been keeping up on the news feeds for the new gaming/media/adware consoles. And since Battlefield 4 is a day-one pickup for my shiny new toy, naturally I've followed up on stories concerning it. Which has lead to reading about the minor blowup between blogs and threads concerning how, for both Call of Duty: Sequel (er, Ghosts) and Battlefield Again (um, 4) the XB1 natively outputs at 720p (upscaled to 1080p) whereas the PS4 natively outputs to 1080p for . Both target to run at 60 FPS. Also, according to the PC Master Race, with the right graphics card you can run them both at the same time at 8K with light beamed directly into your optic nerves so its cute that console players think anything without a mouse and keyboard is worth playing because Steam.
Sorry. A bit of vitriol must have spilled over from the forums I was reading and spilled onto my keyboard like the slime from Ghostbusters 2. No offense to PC gamers. It's not as if some console gamers say less goofy things. And the XB1/PS4 number game is a perfect example; it's no exaggeration to say that folks have changed (or confirmed) their next generation console purchase decision based off this technical data about COD/BF4.
I suppose on the surface it can make sense. The XB1 is at a $100 premium over the PS4. To read that it appears to run two of the premier, AAA production games less impressively than the cheaper competition is understandably frown-worthy. Especially if you're picking up Microsoft's Halo DVR instead of the Play-It-Safe 4. (Settle down, kids, I love you both. )
However, the internet gives an unfortunate advantage most of us would never have otherwise; the ability to see both console versions, running side by side. In the real world, unless at a convention or PR event, we're not going to stare at each one and pick out how may grains of sand are on each picture, or if that power line appears a little more jagged on the left versus the right. Screen shots from our gaming magazines begat these comparisons decades ago, but we've moved from showing the technical prowess of an Intellivision vs. Atari 2600 to the point that we now read about counted pixels and imperceptible 2-3 frames per second.
While there can be a noticeable difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p, in reality if we were to see one and then later the other, many people would not be able to distinguish much difference. (Well, since RFGeneration tends to cater to the OCD gamers, probably more of us here would notice than the average gamer.) Sure, there are differences. Would it truly keep us from enjoying the game on an 'inferior' version? Phrased another way, if an XBox One Battlefield 4 gamer never heard/read about these numbers, they probably wouldn't care and it certainly wouldn't keep them from enjoying the game on their system.
The relative power of both new consoles are close enough that we are not in a Atari versus Intellivision type of disparity. I think Nintendo was brilliant to stay out of this horsepower horserace; games on the Wii U are their own thing (many of which are great, IMHO) and the weakest games on it tend to be ports from other consoles.
It's a strange trait for most of us, that ignorance really can be bliss. When I first got Cruisin' USA for the N64, I enjoyed it for weeks. Then one day I off-handedly read a critical review of it in a magazine. It was thoroughly trounced as the reviewer nit-picked and complained about a dozen issues, none of which I had even noticed while playing. As I went back to the game, I couldn't 'unsee' what I now saw. Every criticism I read pointed itself out to me, and I just didn't have fun with it anymore. Where before I just took the game at face value and enjoyed it, now my eyes were searching for flaws both real and imagined.
For this reason I've become enormously careful about video game reviews. I certainly have no problem with a critic giving opinions and it is valuable for the technical merits or flaws to be discussed and pointed out. But assigning an 'entertainment value' in the form of a number or grade strikes me as strangely foreign to a new media many consider a form of artistic impression. It's not that I don't want to know things a critic finds 'wrong' with a game, especially if it is technical; it's that more and more I see an emphasis on obtuse nitpicking and general negativity instead of a passionate enjoyment of the hobby.
I want to know if a game is buggy or has a flawed save system, sure. And for those who own more than one system it's nice to know if there is a performance disparity for multiplatform releases. I have no issue with sites like Digital Foundry discussing the numbers and breakdowns of a game's performance or comparisons between systems. My issue comes from what is normally done with this data: the increasingly aggressive flame war that prevents people from the whole point. Most people play games to have fun. Yet to hear it from forums, and indeed overheard in game stores, apparently we are having the wrong kind of fun. Folks are belittled for enjoying or desiring to enjoy a game with some lesser numbers attached. It is as if we must have a certain kind of fun on a certain optimum setting, or we are messing up some arbitrary thing or we are judged as ignorant for liking some subpar experience.
However, after great (and continuing) mental effort, I have found that detaching these data points from my attention makes for a far more entertaining experience in gaming. I still go back and enjoy Starfox on SNES. That game's frame-rate runs like a ViewMaster with a lethargic child on the lever, but I can still see it with the mind's eye of my 15 year-old self and have lots of fun. The Dreamcast version of Unreal Tournament runs laughably bad compared to the PC version and is very trimmed down content-wise, yet the summer vacations my friends and I spent on it come rolling back every time I load it up.
The ability to overlook flaws works differently for each gamer, of course. Going back to Goldeneye for me is an exercise frustration, and it is largely due to the technical issues. (How on earth did I ever find my way around when the cavern wall is a single color with no definition!?) I never liked Resident Evil's original 'tank' controls, and after the last few games in the series, going back to the older games wasn't as fun as I had hoped.
And back in the now, no one wants to spend more on an XBox One for 'second best.'
(-PC gamers: "Third best!")
(-XB1/PS4 gamers: "Shut up! Nobody asked you!")
However, to rile antagonism over launch era multiplatform games comes across as being needlessly negative, especially when the parity requires side-by-side comparisons to tease out differences. Over the last generation I preferred the XBox 360, not for any 'superior' multiplatform games, but because of the franchises exclusive to that system. Ditto for every Nintendo platform released. The beginning of this console generation has me excited for several Wii U games. And because more of my online friends will have one, a PS4 is our next system.
One day I have no doubt XBox One will be in the queue because of some franchise exclusives that interest me. Our family picks up what we'd like to play for fun as opposed to an arbitrary corporate allegiance. I recommend the same thing at the gaming store I work at, yet I'm always overhearing about how someone is making some kind of wrong entertainment choice. And all across the web, gamers are actively making fun of and trashing other people's opinions.
Most of us are taught at a young age that entertainment at the expense of others is a form of bullying and should be avoided. No one realistically expects internet forums to 'behave,' but it would be preferable if gamers focused more on the positive elements of our industry instead of generating and perpetuating pointless negativity. Let's always keep in mind, these electronic doodads are here to entertain us and make life a little nicer; if we let them generate more negativity, I think we're missing the point.
 |
Posted on Oct 26th 2013 at 03:56:18 PM by ( slackur) Posted under Comfort Games, scary, stress, Etrian Odyssey, Contra III, Castlevania IV, Axelay, TMNT IV, Game of Thunder, Legend of Zelda, we spend t |
It's the right season to talk about scary things, right?
So this week, my Beloved ended up in the hospital ER, and needless to say it was a difficult time. Second scariest time of my life thus far. Once we were home, safe, and returning to 'normal,' the brain and nerves didn't exactly get the message to calm down. One of the many wind-downs I've adopted over the years to cope with stress is, naturally, video games.
Certainly there are nostalgic games that many of us occasionally return to in order to relax and feel better. Despite growing up on mainly C64 and the NES, my teens were mostly spent with the SNES, and that's the 'comfort' game system to which I most often return.
Though its no longer annual (it once was), I still periodically go through Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Contra III, Castlevania IV, TMNT IV: Turtles in Time, Axelay, Starfox, Gradius III, Super Mario World, and F-Zero. These and about a dozen others are comfort blankets, warm milk, a soothing Calgon for my mood.
Calgon? What, you don't remember this?
Anyway.
I still return to those old favorites from time to time, though the pool has since expanded. In college it grew by way of Tempest 2000/X3, Unreal Tournament, and Soul Calibur. Once meeting and dating my beloved, de-stressing via gaming became an occasional co-op affair. Until then I was unaware it was possible to zone out and decompress so well with someone else; previously the purposeful isolationism was assumed to be a necessary part of the therapy, but somehow sharing the experience with an understanding partner helped in a fresh, new way.
My Beloved's 'comfort' game system is the Dreamcast, with a similar large library of perennials include the Dead or Alive series, Crazy Taxi, House of the Dead II, the You Don't Know Jack series, and the Fable series. (Note most of these can be two player.)
Incidentally, the first night I asked her out on a date (for the next night) and she said yes, for obvious reasons I could not sleep. I crashed on the couch and tried to speedrun through the NES Legend of Zelda. Funneling my nervous energy and tunneling my runaway thought train, my dexterity finally gave out around the seventh dungeon at around 4 a.m. I could finally sleep, and sleep I did, at least until a good friend of mine woke me up because he needed his bathtub, which I happened to be using in my unconscious state.
Fast forward several years later, and I'm sitting next to the same wonderful woman, this time in the hospital as she recovered from giving birth to our newborn. Three times over, each with complications. Three extended hospital stays, each with various stages of no sleep and nervous results. No Super Nintendo or Dreamcast here, a DS and the first two Etrian Odyssey games accompany me through long nights and restless days. Turn-based action means no problem for her IV tapped hand to hold one of mine. The slow, grindy pace fills the odd time lapses. The strategy, loadout customization and map creation give my ravenous mind some bones on which to gnaw. We leave several days later, exhausted, with another member of the family in tow and many, many hours logged on our portables.
For modern consoles, often the steady flow and rhythm of a balanced FPS like Unreal Tournament or Halo fits the mood. Other times the intensity and draining concentration of a polished shmup such as Gate of Thunder or Mars Matrix fits the bill. Any genre that requires fast reflexes can be useful for burning up excess nervous energy. But for me, nothing gives an automatic reflex of comfort like picking up that SNES controller. My friends, family, and of course my Faith pull me through difficult, even scary times. But it is a great blessing to have video games to help.
After finishing Remember Me, I mentally placed it on the shelf in my mind labeled "glad I finished, also glad I'm done playing it." On that imaginary row also sits El Shaddai, Enslaved, and even Walking Dead Season One. (That last one mainly due to how poorly it ran/played on PS3, and I read the 360 version played even worse.) Games I wanted to experience, mainly due to the art design, story, or experience of the game's world.
Games I kept plodding through, often despite not really enjoying the gameplay much of the time.
That can seem counter-intuitive to people not as easily enraptured with the medium of video games as I can be. Much like a audiophile closing out everything but a sublime piece of music, a movie lover watching the same film dozens of times, or a sports team fan painting their bodies and making it to every game, I have a passion for my specific pastime, a deeply-rooted affection for the hobby I've enjoyed since my youth.
That doesn't really explain why I sometimes play through games I don't necessarily enjoy playing. It may lead assumptions to the opposite; having quite the knowledge base of available interactive entertainments (and a decently-sized pool from which to choose from at home) why would I stick with something not so fun, instead of booting up the next game in my backlog or replaying a favorite? In an admittedly somewhat laughable (and pretentious-sounding) response, I sometimes do it for art.
To those who do not perceive video games as art, I'm not writing to convince otherwise. There is a different manner to frame the concept though, one to which I've always gravitated to by default. Let's start with some components; A graphic artist, using different mediums, constructs the design assets to be used in-game. A musician, some using circuit boards, others using symphony orchestras, writes and conducts the pieces of music for the game. Sometimes, a writer develops a story the game is to tell. Each of these components, when removed (or even completely divorced from) the wholly constructed video game, could be judged and critiqued for artistic merit, and would in general be considered pieces of 'art' themselves.
For example, sometimes a game's art assets are published as a book, displaying mediums such as watercolor, pencil, and CG. Albums of instrumental music written for a video games are sometimes compared to other moving, emotional works of audio expression. And while video game stories are often (and honestly, probably deservedly so) lambasted as being of little relevance compared to great literary works, occasional gems of worth arise, as in any literary genre.
In other words, once taken apart, a video game's individual components could easily be judged as art. And yet once compiled, with the added layer of interaction, such a thing is seen by some to reduce the parts to less than a whole in terms of artistic merit. Yet the interactivity, the 'gameplay' as it were, is yet another delicate component of creativity, balance, and experience; an art. Make these components serve a game, and the interactivity becomes the trunk of a tree that, to some critics, makes all of the beautiful leaves uselessly fall off. Even the roots of history, technology, and innovation that fed the entire construct is somehow automatically irrelevant.
As a gamer, I've always felt that a video game's gameplay should be the core, and ideally all other components serve that end. But sometimes like a painting that just never comes together, or a song that just doesn't hit that sweet spot between the ears, gameplay is not as fun as a player wants it to be. Perhaps the genre just doesn't connect. (I'm not much of a modern sports game player.) Maybe there are technical problems. (Hello, terrible frame rate and input lag on Walking Dead.) Perhaps despite everything coming together, it just doesn't feel 'fun.' (I've really, really tried to enjoy the latest Gran Turismo, the Killzone series, and even the earliest Tony Hawk games, but they never 'clicked' with me.)
However, sometimes the rest of the game is so compelling, that the gameplay takes a backseat to the desire to see the entire experience through. Such was the case with Remember Me. While I appreciated the intended design of the customizable combo melee combat, and how the rhythm of button presses integrated into gameplay and even music, it just felt 'off' to me the whole time. Maybe I was so used to the superlative design of Batman: Arkham Asylum, maybe I just never got the 'flow' of the game engine, maybe I just really really wanted a 'counter' mechanic, either way I didn't enjoy the combat. Or the platforming. Or the level design.
Why on earth did I keep playing?
I adored the gameworld. The Neo-Paris, cyberpunk art design. The interesting, high concept ideas such as memories-as-currency. The music, animation, setting, and sound design sold the experience very well. I wanted to explore every nook and cranny I was given; here was something interesting, and while I couldn't explore where I wanted to go, the glimpses were worth it.
I bought the art book before I got the game; I think that may have automatically put me in some form of hipster territory.
Anyway, I treated Remember Me as I have many other games that showed me an enthralling place. I toured it like a museum, absorbing the art displayed all around, taking in this strange, interesting place. Sure, I got frustrated when I was shown something inaccessible that piqued my interest and it sometimes felt like I was tripping as much as walking, but it was fascinating, different, and most importantly, worthwhile. Like any good museum.
A friend of mine once visited and stood staring at our huge bookshelves full of video game strategy guides almost all night long. He'd take one down, thumb through it for awhile, and then replace it with another. After a few hours (!) I joked that he could just walk a few feet over and play most of those games instead of looking at pictures of them. He gave a slight frown and shook his head; he said that, anymore, just looking through guides and remembering them, looking at the art, seeing all the little nuances recorded in the guide, was as fun as going back and playing them.
I can't say that's entirely true for me, but I think I get what he's saying. Sometimes I don't have several hours to pour into a game, but I want to revisit it. This fellow showed me I have a gigantic stack of old tour guides right in the next room.
Next time I want to revisit Remember Me, I'll probably do so through the beautiful hardcover art book instead of firing up the game, but you never know. I have a lot of virtual Art museums I hope to peruse one day.
So we've been playing Beyond: Two Souls, and very much enjoying it. And while I do my best to be careful about reading reviews or even previews to games into whose story I want to invest, curiosity lead me to read occasional blurbs and conclusions.
And to no surprise, (especially concerning games by Quantic Dream) I found very polarized opinions and more than one conclusion claiming it was the most difficult game thus far to put a numbered score upon. I read statements alluding to or outright accusing director David Cage as a frustrated film-maker in the wrong medium, and the game and plot itself akin to a SyFy miniseries with a few button presses thrown in.
In the past I've seen the same criticism of everything from Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid series to the FMV craze started by Dragon's Lair and mostly killed by Sega CD. From one end of the quality spectrum to another, even critical darlings such as Telltale's Walking Dead has detractors claiming it as little more than a Choose-Your-Own Adventure graphic novel.
It seems an obvious statement, that we all have different preferences in gaming, and while there can definitely be agreement about technical flaws such as bad framerates and (unintentionally) sluggish controls, ideally gaming culture in both critical and commercial circles would give appreciation to all variations of interactive entertainments. Sadly, we all know, this is not the case.
Part of the problem with rating video games, indeed most media, is that while there are methods of determining technical merits or faults, concepts like 'fun,' 'enjoyment,' or even 'entertainment' is so subjective that each person experiences it differently. There are designs that appeal to greater demographics, such as Tetris, Wii Sports, and Super Mario Bros. However, that doesn't automatically make less commercially successful games less entertaining; I really enjoyed the critically panned Aliens: Colonial Marines, Dead Space 3, and Halo Wars.
However, instead of just shrugging it off as a matter of preference, sometimes games are completely dismissed because of assumptions and preferences. Many comments concerning Beyond: Two Souls claim that there is too much watching and not enough playing, that the gameplay is too simple, and that because these ratios do not meet a certain unnamed target the game itself is not worthwhile. (There is also criticism of the story quality, another subjective quantifier.) Again, there are technical faults that can negatively effect the overall quality of the game, but most of the negativity leveled at Beyond: Two Souls seems to come from a reviewer's desire for the game to be something altogether different than what it is trying to be.
To completely dismiss a game because the gameplay design doesn't parallel other games seems akin to complaining that Madden doesn't have enough racing or puzzle-solving. Beyond: Two Souls is not supposed to have combat like Street Fighter. Walking Dead was not designed as an RPG. Even Dragon's Lair could be considered to have more interactivity than most of the extremely popular endless running games. The very element that makes games unique, interactivity, has not been (and arguably cannot be) subject to universal, specific requirements, other than simply being present. A movie is, by nature of the medium, not interactive; giving any outside agency to a viewing audience, and it is no longer simply a movie, but a different form of interactive entertainment. Is it fun? Worth 'playing?' It's all up to the person experiencing.
I for one have a great appreciation for many games that some hardly if at all consider 'games.' Sewer Shark remains one of my favorites of the early cd-rom era, and I'm the first to admit the thin veil of gameplay over switchable video segments. Yet the player agency was 'enough' for me to have a great time with it, and I still load up the 3DO version every now and then. It's not the fact that I enjoy it that makes it a game; if it were a movie, I wouldn't have watched it more than a time or two. I have fun with it because I enjoy playing, interacting with it. Dragon's Lair, for as many people that have long since outgrown its initial awe factor, still gets constantly ported to anything that will run it, and for as much maligned as the FMV genre of gaming is, there are many fans who still play them.
As we play Beyond: Two Souls, I do sometimes get frustrated at not being able to do what I'd like at times. But its the same desire that lead me to drive for that volcano in Battlezone, or shoot the dog in Duck Hunt. Once gaming gained 'sandbox' and 'open-ended' game designs, I found that without these constraints I lost interest more quickly. I may have loved Legos as a kid (and still do) but I found that when it comes to video games, my personality would rather look for ways to run left in Super Mario Bros. than play Minecraft. To each their own, and that's the point; games like Beyond: Two Souls are not less of a game, just a game with a different design in mind.
And as video games expand, so do ambitions to explore more and different things with them. Perhaps more pointedly, if Walking Dead and Beyond: Two Souls did not play as they do, folks like my Beloved would have far less interest in them, and that's justification enough for me.
I tend to brag about my true gaming 'Holy Grail,' my beloved gamer wife. She may not get to play often, and would describe her skillset as more Words with Friends than Dark Souls, but any chick whose gaming history includes Albert Odyssey, Crazy Taxi, and the original Legend of Zelda has cred in my book.
However, my Beloved's latest gaming experiences haven't involved her playing; she's also my co-op partner without a controller. In the last year we've completed the Mass Effect Trilogy, Binary Domain, Bioshock Infinity, Catherine and many others, cuddled together in a two-person recliner. She may not be pressing buttons, but she's sharing the game with me, discussing story in slow moments, thumbing through a strategy guide, or pointing out things in the environment I miss. During slower moments such as RPG grinding, she may have a book in her lap or article on her phone, yet her attention is at a moment's notice. Like a co-driver in professional Rally racing, she isn't just another warm body in the adjacent seat, shouting preemptive directions and adding weight distribution; she's a partner, experiencing a version of what I'm experiencing, and helping when my attention is diverted. Primarily, she's there to share my adventures and have fun.
This method of co-op gaming doesn't limit itself to this dynamic; I love finding excuses to sit down with any friend and go through a game together, even single player. When the first Silent Hill movie released in theaters, me and a fellow Silent Hill enthusiast buddy named Mike sat down with the first two Silent Hill games, drenching ourselves in the dim atmosphere and reliving the mood before going to the movie. It didn't matter that only one of us played at a time; the other person was helping to solve puzzles or navigating the occasional labyrinthine environment.
Often a game needs no excuse for this form of co-op other than being a great game; the above experience happened again with a different friend for Resident Evil 4, a game we wanted to play immediately upon release. We stayed up several nights, occasionally swapping the controller between each other. The same thing happened later with Condemned: Criminal Origins. (If it weren't for Pat playing navigator with the guide's map, I'd have never found my way through that game!) We later played through Resident Evil 5 together, and while we hugely enjoyed the built-in co-op, I can't say it was a better or worse experience; just a different way to play together.
Pat has been gracious enough to show me through the entirety of every Metal Gear Solid game (except the first, I did go through that one myself) including every easter egg and hidden scene (he's a bit of a Metal Gear completionist) and if it were not for him, I'd likely never have experienced, much less enjoyed, that series nearly as much as I do now. Pat and I have completed everything from Rescue Rangers and Contra to Gears of War 1-3 together, yet some of my favorite gaming co-op memories with him are ones in which one of us didn't have a controller.
I've shared it here before, but it fits well in this article. Before some of my close friends passed away, I had some wonderful memories of us gaming all night together, passing a controller around for Battle for Olympus, Castlevania III, and Eternal Darkness, among others. Those games now have even more precious memories attached than a fun gameplay experience. Some even have save files or passwords of the last moments of time we spent hanging out. Call me sappy, but it keeps good thoughts readily accessible once in a blue moon when missing those friends over times past.
For the first time, my Beloved recently shared from the playing side: I watched (and jumped along-side) her as she played the Walking Dead Season 1. Next up, we've already penned in Beyond: Two Souls once it comes out next week. When we play games featuring less... walking dead things, our kids are always chomping at the bit to grab a controller, though they're just as ready to cheer on mom and dad on those tough bosses or time trials. We've also begun searching for more games such as Super Mario Galaxy, certain Final Fantasy titles, and the Tales of... series that have asymmetrical co-op designs, where a secondary player can help at a more relaxed, even sedentary helper role that can be ideal for children, friends who want to hang out, or a significant other who wants to be involved.
It can take a bit of effort to develop such a socially inclusive atmosphere. Western society doesn't exactly lend itself anymore to family and friends all gathering around the single living room TV for a few rounds of Combat or Super Mario Bros/Duck Hunt. It is now industry standard to have our entertainment designed to be spread across as many personal devices as possible. And to be sure, some nights we all just want to do our own thing. But the purposeful, intentional inclusion of a social aspect to our gaming has paid in dividends, and (if you couldn't tell) I highly recommend it.
Before I seem like one of those jaded 'leave me alone and let me game' types the last entry may have implied, let me bring up another rare opportunity this new console generation is going to give;
Something shiny that gives an excuse for us all to gather 'round the TV and hang out.
One of the many changes in gaming culture that happened from growing out of a niche hobby into a mainstream staple, is that inevitably the 'newness' of video games is long gone. No longer a novelty box with extra chords plugging into that wooden framed 25"-er, chances are grandma plays a few social games on facebook and your parents kill a few hours with Angry Birds or Candy Crush on an iPad/iPhone/calculator watch. (Do they still have those?)
Nowadays, it is likely more people you know play some form of video game than don't, and that sure wasn't true for most of us in our youth. Video games are now so entrenched in our society that pretty much anything electronic is expected to feature some interactive 'for fun' element. I'm waiting for my kids to ask what else our digital thermostat 'plays.'
Whereas in the past, millions of marketing dollars were spend just to get people to be aware of, and understand what is, a new console, now billions of marketing dollars are spend to regenerate excitement beyond a 'meh, slightly better graphics and now I wave my arms at a camera that may or may not be spying on me.'
Back in the day, if you were the first on the block to own a 2600, NES, or Genesis, suddenly you had friends you didn't know the name of, asking for a turn. In my C64 days, more kids came through our living room than the local arcade. And two player games could get riotous, in a good way, with everyone fidgeting excitedly as they stared at the action onscreen and awaited their turn.
It may sound like I'm only waxing nostalgic, pining for bygone days where the freshness of video games brought more excitement and attention. Living rooms in our modern world aren't exactly 'Leave it to Beaver' style family gathering spaces anymore. In fact, Nintendo is largely criticized as being out of touch with modern gamers by designing the Wii U as a device made for such an environment. Local multiplayer focus instead of online focus? A private screen to play on so someone else could watch the 'big TV' while you play games in the same room? Hey Nintendo, did you focus test this thing in the 80s?
Unless Nintendo, true to their word, really isn't interested in more FPS and GTA experiences. Instead of catering to that environment, they are giving the tools to generate the experiences such as the one outlined in my youth. When Christmas day comes and the kids open up that Wii U, we're going to have a blast with four-player Super Mario Wii U. We're going to spend some family time puzzle-solving through Scribblenauts Unlimited. And when the kids finally go to bed, Wind Waker HD and I have some catching up to do. Probably while my beloved watches Scrooged on our 'big TV.'
But let's not even count the Wii U. By carefully cultivating an environment that encourages a group to hang out in the same area, weekend gaming is always socially rewarding. Our collection is not just out on display; it is all set up and ready to go. TVs are lined up, old and new systems next to each other, just waiting to be played. Our family is very much into social gaming, and most of the time we're not on all on the same game. As much fun as it is to have an intense Halo LAN match, hilarious 8 player Bomberman game, and full Rock Band setup going, our friends are comfortable turning on a single player game and just spending time together while we all play what we're in the mood for.
Its kind of the 'older adult' version of that youth experience; everyone knows they can come in and just enjoy themselves, play what they want (respecting kids bedtimes and M rated games, etc.) and still be social, even engaging. Or just sit, relax and enjoy the environment and friends without expectation.
Which brings us back around to the advent of the PS4. For the first time since the 360/PS3 launch, we have something new and interesting to plug in and try out. Interest and even excitement can be contagious in a group of friends, and those who could care less often still find themselves with controller in hand, trying out the new hardware. For the first time in a long time, a group stares at a single player experience as player one takes the machine through its paces. Folks debate the differences in graphics and control, and for brief moments something new and engaging is shared amongst like-minded people. At least for a little while, every new game that comes out is something to at least try, and see if anything new is brought to the table.
In the modern age of gaming, sometimes we forget how near-magical it really is to have such wonderful toys. Maybe some of us are too-far gone to care, and some never have. But with the right mindset, we don't have to try and recapture lightning in a bottle. We just have to remember what its like to be excited the next time a thunder cloud comes, bottles ready.
So, I picked up our family's special Zelda edition Wii U today. I've been happily updating the system and testing a few used games (bought on sale in anticipation of the system), and as I write I'll be downloading Wind Waker, despite reserving the physical copy that comes with a Gannondorf statue.
All of this is being done out of site of the kids, and once I'm done, it'll all be packed up and hidden... for over three months.
The Wii U is our family's Christmas gift to our family, and our boys are eagerly saving up chore money until then to buy their own games. I'll admit, it will take a bit of mental hand-slapping to pack it up all up again and be patient, but such is the duty of a responsible parent. And in the meantime, we do own a *few* other games I could play.
After several updates to the system and each game, as well as the network setup, it definitely reminded me of an unfortunate advantage our older consoles had; plug and play.
Gamers my age likely remember a Christmas or birthday that painted this scenario:
First, a younger us excitedly tearing the wrapping off a new Atari/Coleco/Intellivision/NES/Genesis/SNES/Sega CD/Turbo Grafx/Game Boy/Neo Ge-HA! WE WISHED!!- etc. and after mom/dad/uncle/older sibling figured out how to connect it to the TV, we slapped that first cartridge in and a new, unexplored (besides store demos), vibrant, virtual world awaited us. Part of the appeal was the immediacy; once that system was hooked up, all that was required was finding a controller and game and you were good to go.
Now, every new system requires some form of setup. Sometimes we get by just inputting a region and name, but nowadays we have profiles, internet setup, firmware updates, game updates, day one patches, and on and on. One of the things that made me slow to incorporate the PS3 into my common gaming was how often I would purchase a new game, unwrap it, pop it in... and mandatory installs or updates required me to spend anywhere between five minutes to a few hours (looking at you, Gran Tourismo 5) before I could actually play. For a guy who's game time is often measured in less than an hour, even a fifteen minute chunk of un-interactive screen staring means I'm thinking of a different game to play.
All this time setting up the Wii U (not to mention downloading Wind Waker!) made me feel bad for any younger kids who gets a new Xbox One, PS4, or Wii U on Christmas... and then have to wait while online accounts are set up, profiles created, updates delayed due to server overloads, installs required...
Yeah, boo-hoo, first world problem, not a biggie. Make those rug-rats go play football in the snow or play a real board game with Grandma while they wait, just like we had to do when we didn't even have a game system to wait on!
Which got me thinking about how picky we really are about games. My preference over the years for consoles instead of PC gaming developed in part because of the setup required for computer gaming. Nowadays though its pretty much the same; install, check for patches/updates, customize the controls, create a save-game... am I playing on a PC or a 360/PS3? With social media integration, messaging services, and apps such as Netflix, there is often little difference. Some gamers delight in this; a 'share' button on their controller, DV-R for their gameplay, instant tweets over gamerscore.
I know I can be a cranky old-timer when it comes to gaming, but most of the time, if I could skip signing in to my game machine altogether, I would. My 'gaming career' of scores, time spent on games, and K/D ratios can be fun to keep track of and compare/compete with friends, but there is a reason I have my profiles set to "always show offline." I game in very different, often dichotomic moods; sometimes to survive a Horde of Locusts with fellow Gears in co-op bliss, sometimes to blow things up alone to work out frustrations. Sometimes to get a quick, frantic fix of some Robotron 2084; sometimes to play a slow marathon of Tetris while my brain processes the backlog queue. Point is, the game machine is there to 'serve' my use, and somehow in the name of features and connectivity, we've enslaved ourselves to maintaining them. Just keeping the 360 LAN updated so my friends and I can sit and play anything we want any given weekend can be a tremendous chore of keeping each system and hard-drive updated and correctly connected for any game we'll possibly play.
And in a thought that could easily generate enough content for another article, this perpetually required attention extends from consoles to the games themselves. I lose interest in games like GTAIV because of the required in-game social maintenance for virtual characters. I have a difficult enough time keeping up with all my real-world social responsibilities; making sure Niko calls his girlfriend or relative may sell a more realistic experience, but when gameplay breaks down to what feels like tedious exercises to me, I quickly lose interest. I recognize this as a 'different strokes for different folks' paradigm, of course; I've completed many a JRPG or StratRPG that bored my beloved to tears. (Gave her plenty of time to read, though.)
Perhaps therein lies one of the many reasons classic cartridge systems are always connected across our home; we're always a few seconds away from another round of Super Mario 3 or Galaga.
And now I can't wait to hear my kids ask about that collection of giant, black, 'vinyl Blu-Rays' under the entertainment stand...
|
Posted on Sep 13th 2013 at 05:35:47 PM by ( slackur) Posted under Early Adopters, NES,SNES,PS,PS2,PS3,PS4,XB360,BBQ,OMG,RLY |
Every time new video game consoles come out, we hear the same antagonism.
Why on earth would we functionally pay a premium for a brand-new piece of hardware that
a.) is at its most expensive upon the launch window,
b.) naturally begins with fewer games than any time in its lifecycle,
c.) has not been tested for longevity or long-term reliability,
d.) is unproven for consistent support in games and accessories,
e.) has full priced, first generation games that likely cannot compete with the slew of hardware pushing, cheaper games made during the last few years of the previous console,
f.) requires an entirely new batch of full-priced controllers, accessories, dongles, do-dads, batteries, pieces, parts, gumballs, etc.,
g.) almost always have a dreaded equivalent to the Great N64 Game Drought, and
h.) will have a better, cheaper, newer version out by the time it proves itself?
To that, I say: ...yup.
Really, if someone is not the type to buy a console at launch, they are probably not wired to be convinced by exciting sales pitches or exuberant fanboyism. I've worked in video-gaming retail for over a decade, including the two biggest retailers, as well as mom-and-pop stores (R.I.P., Endless Entertainment), and while I've convinced some folks who were on the fence about buying a launch console, I learned not to trying changing the mind of a level-headed nay-sayer.
And I understand their logic! If you're not 'into' a launch system, it would likely be a colossal waist of money. However, that does not mean early adopters are automatically being ridiculous either. This far into our industry's history, there are now visible trends that help make launch window purchases more palatable, even preferable.
(Keep in mind this is being written by a guy who bought an Atari Jaguar and all the trimmings at launch. If your name is not Redd, you probably just winced. )
First off, the most important thing for a game console: games.
Everyone knows that it takes at least a year or two for a console to come out with some games that would make it worth owning. (Or longer, in the case of Game.com. We're still waiting.) Except, that's not universally true. Sure, it takes years for a console's library to pick up steam, but there are too many examples of launch window games that carried their respective systems enough to warrant the initial purchase, at least for many people.
Some of the best examples include:
Combat (A26)
Donkey Kong (Coleco)
Super Mario Bros. (NES)
Tetris (GB)
Blue Lightning (Lynx)
Super Mario 64 (N64)
Ridge Racer (PSX)
Halo (Xbox)
For many gamers, the cost of the system was justified simply to play these launch games, with the expectation that other great games would eventually follow. Of course, no discussion on the topic is complete without mentioning the greatest selling video game of all time (as of April 2013), Wii Sports. Sure, it makes many of us groan just to mention it, but it cannot be denied than much like Tetris on Gameboy, gamers and 'non-gamers' alike bought the system just to play that game without really having an expectation to play anything else on it. There is such a mass appeal to play that one thing that the cost of the system is worth it, as if it were a machine built with just that game to play. I have to admit all these years later, I still enjoy a round of Wii Sports Bowling. My guess is that many of the 'haters' who initially liked Wii Sports before the Wii became known as the Great Waggle Shovelware Box would still have fun with a few rounds of multiplayer Wii Sports.
There are other reasons early-adopters are not necessarily unthinking fanboys. As much criticism (often earned) as Gamestop and its ilk get from their pre-order schemes, often folks use pre-orders as a lay-away plan to get a system they could not afford otherwise. $400+ is a lot to come off of at once, but $20 every two weeks for a few months? Much more do-able. Obviously, it would make more sense to just save that much out of each check and exert self-control, but I'm no money coach. Plus, often there are pre-order incentives for reserving, or perhaps the system is a gift for a specific date (Christmas, birthday) and the cut-off for system availability is much earlier. There are indeed a few scenarios in which buying a launch system makes practical financial sense, as much as buying video games ever makes practical financial sense. 
For 'core' gamers, there may be another incentive for early adoption. Historically, as consoles reach later redesigns of hardware, the thought that a console gets better with each iteration is a bit of a misnomer.
Sure, there are stacks of broken 1st gen 360s and PS2s to argue otherwise (many of them are stacked in my garage.) but consoles almost universally begin to lose features for every revision. The examples are everywhere;
As much desired as a top-loader NES is, it outputs exclusively in RF, and has visible line noise.
Buying a Sega Genesis with the best components requires a weekend college course and study guide (http://www.sega-16.com/fo...-Genesis-2s-from-bad-ones) but its pretty universal to say that the last versions, Model 3, are stripped down and incompatible with certain games and hardware.
My Super Nintendo Model 2 has no power LED and no native RF, S-Video, or RGB, all supported in the first model.
The original Playstation revisions lost ports used for cheat devices and (more importantly to me) system linking.
The PS2 lost its own system linking iLink port. The slim model, designed without the necessary expansion bay for the hard drive, was released the same year as Final Fantasy XI, a game that required the HD. (Boy, do I remember that. I finally convinced myself to invest in FFXI a week before the Slim was revealed.) As problematic as the PS2 system became for disc read errors, the lack of effective internal cooling meant that the Slims had their own hardware problems.
The PS3, in a rush to follow its lineage, has lost everything from USB ports, operating system options (linux), and video playback with anything besides HDMI, to backwards compatibility options (as has the Nintendo Wii.)
The Xbox360 lost its own propriety memory card ports (while gaining USB drive options, which did not help my stack of memory cards used for LAN profile swapping.)
I miss being able to play GBA games on the later DS models, and newer, brighter screens also included more ghosting.
Even the new, slimmer Vita is catching criticism for replacing the OLED screen for a newer LCD tech.
Admittedly, sometimes the difference is just personal preference; I like the feel of the original, wider Atari Lynx, and the second, smaller model (despite better battery life) was still way too big to be truly portable. Another example for me is the PS3; despite how monolithic the first generation was, all of the revisions felt cheaper and cheaper.) I prefer the heft and locking mechanism of the PSP 1000, and though it does have ghosting I like that better than the artifacts on the 2/3000.
Granted, most of what was lost in these revisions do not effect the majority of people playing games on them, and were dropped to save cost accordingly. Many features can be restored or even improved through hardware modification. And the last generation continued to add to a console's abilities (and ads) for everything from better video output to Netflix support. But a case can be made that early versions of gaming hardware include features that make them preferable to later models, and are therefore worthwhile investments. (I'm not joking when I say that part of my desire to buy an early model PS4 is directly related to Sony's history of re-designs.)
In the end, its about what a gamer wants to play. The same rules apply to a launch console as it does to every other console: don't buy a system if nothing is out or on the horizon that you want to play. I'm excited for Battlefield 4 and Destiny, and I don't game on PC, so a launch PS4 fit my parameters, especially since I have one reserved and pay a little at a time. With the Playstation Plus service promising free games starting at launch, it made the most sense to me.
Even if a difficult economy wasn't a concern, any large entertainment purchase should be a matter of thoughtful consideration, and not a snap-decision. Perhaps the same could be said about being critical of early-adopters.
Video game collecting can be a strange thing, no?
Here's my reflection that produced the above thought (not that its the first time I came to said conclusion.) I just finished the DLC chapter of Dead Space 3, called Awakened. I completed the game once solo and a second time co-op, which is how I played the latter.
The DLC chapter was well written for what it was, quite short (2 to 2.5 hours or so), and mostly served as a story lead-in to a theoretical sequel, since DS3's original conclusion brought a sense of definitive closure to the series. I'm glad I played it, and given my head-shaking, nope-nope attitude toward gaming's digital future (and present) I'm glad I waited until the DLC was on sale before picking it up.
As a consumer, I have sent the message to Microsoft and EA that I absolutely refuse to purchase digital-only gaming content... unless I really want it and I can get it for cheap. Looking back, that's the story of my purchase history. Fair enough. I may be hypocritical, but at least I'm consistently so.
What I find even more strange is my willingness to purchase retro games for much more than digital content, even games I know I will likely put little to no time into playing.
A rough but telling example; both me and my DS3 co-op buddy refused to pay more than $5 for the Awakened DLC. It is something we desired to play, but we likely would have never budged on our plan if the content did not go on sale.
And yet if I ever saw Cheetahmen II or, heaven forbid, Stadium Events, for $10, Of course I'd buy them. Or $15, or $50, or... yeah. Keep in mind, if I bought them, I would not 'flip' them, selling at profit, so I would not be operating under the obvious financial motivation. It would be part of the media collection we use to connect with people.
Now, I'm well aware of how awful Cheetahmen II plays, and that I already own Stadium Events in all but name and cart-label with World Class Track Meet. Therefore, aside from morbid curiosity, I have no desire to play either. I would not be interested in selling them. I don't consider myself a hoarder. (Why are you laughing?) I also do not like the idea of flaunting physical possessions in the face of someone who desires but does not own such things.
So why on earth would I pay much, much more for something I would not play, and inversely I am reluctant to purchase something I am ready and willing to enjoy?
Its easy to use the ''because I don't want to support digital instead of physical copies" excuse, but that doesn't apply to the games that are already out on disc, and I am awaiting a sale or price-drop. Of course money is the next, or even first excuse, but why then do I still spend money on old games I won't play? I'm sure I'm not alone on this site when it comes to occasionally scouring the 'net to find some retro games for cheap, even games I have no desire to actually play through.
For some, it can be a fun meta-game, looking at huge collection numbers, comparing or even competing on collection size or subgenre completion. Much like achievements or trophies, these arbitrary numbers are part or even most of how these gamers enjoy gaming. Why?
For the same reason an RPG fan is at a loss to explain how grinding and random-looking number screens are fun when discussing such with a non-fan.
Or when an MMORPG player is discussing guilds and patches and expansions to someone who thinks Azeroth is a term they forgot in Geometry class.
Or when telling a Battlefield fan how their preferred game is a sub-par Call-of-Duty clone, and witnessing how virtual violence can in fact translate to IRL violence.
Or the annual Madden/Fifa fan discusses at length to me how great/disappointing their game/franchise/team/player/mascot is this year.
Or the same reason I still go to movie theaters, despite having a home entertainment system that outclasses many of them:
We are all wired to not only enjoy different things, but also with preferences on how we enjoy them. And not just for acquiring or collecting; some of us have a favorite chair/couch/plastic crate/floor/nimbus cloud that we game from, and cannot fully enjoy otherwise. Some refuse to play on anything but original hardware, including arcade cabs; some will not pay more than $10 for any video game period, and for some of us, the hunt for cheap retro games we'll probably never play is a game itself, and is as fun as actually playing a game.
My current 'Holy Grail' gaming search is for a CIB Beyond Shadowgate, the last game of my youth that was stolen and never replaced. And yet, even if I could, I wouldn't trade for it a single memory of the gaming hunts my beloved and I have enjoyed. And we've shared countless ones.
Some things are just far more valuable to me.
Video game collecting can be a strange thing.
(With the kiddies back in school, I've finally gotten a chance to sit down and return to my fun job; writing for RFGen!)
I can easily follow the internet collective's double-take on the 2DS. As has been commented (predicted? ) here, the 2DS comes across more like Nintendo's engineering department accidentally following up on discarded notes from R&D's drunken April Fools party. When offical pictures of your product look photoshopped right out of the gate, with a concept pulled from the punchline of an old joke, it's easy to question whether any publicity (bad) is still good publicity.
And yet, as I shook my head over how wacky Nintendo can be, I quickly realized who they intended to buy this thing;
Me.
After the touch screen to our original Mario Kart DS system lost sensitivity, I gave it to my six-year-old (whose favorite game, Mario Kart DS, didn't need the touch controls anyway). He carried it around everywhere, and despite my consistent warnings, he'd carry it by pinching the corner of the top half. Sure enough, after one drop the hinge broke off, and then later the top screen gave up the ghost and went all-white. Now its in a corner of my project room, waiting a resurrection as a modified GBA.
Which means my son fits squarely in the announced demographic for this new wedge-shaped oddity. Will we get this new square peg for our little square hole? (That felt weird to write. I gotta get an editor.)
Truthfully, probably not. At least, not soon; our Wii U Zelda Edition was just pre-ordered (family Christmas present to each-other) and with the 2DS announced at $30 past that magic number 99, I'll loan him the DS Lite for awhile. But for the holidays, this newfangled contraption actually fits a niche more than we may know. Its no more designed for the folks making fun if it than a Leapster or Jitterbug Phone. Its sturdier and purposefully more disposable than our sexy 3DSXLs or Vitas. Its Nintendo doing what Nintendo does; finding a market that could be better targeted and going after it. We here at RFG may be mostly 'core' gamers, but when Angry Birds and Just Dance are two of the best-selling franchises of all time, businesses are more interested in where the money is coming from now and where is the next potential source of revenue.
Its the same reason the XBox One was not primarily designed with the 'core' gamers market at the, well, core. 'Core' gamers no longer pay the bills; the millions of Netflix and Cable/Satellite subscribers are now the bigger, and bigger paying, market. There is simply not enough money to be made in a console exclusive to games in today's 'connected' world. When a developer sees the crazy money made from service providers, mobile games, and FTP models, it becomes impossible to justify to their investors a model that, at best, won't pull in the same revenue numbers as the competition. I hate to say it, but the Wii U's biggest hurdle is not the ridiculous name, the confusion of whether it is a new system or an upgrade, or market awareness; the problem is that all it really does is play games. No Blu-ray movies, no fancy TV watching, limited social media integration, no real life outside of gaming. (Netflix may be present, but its so ubiquitous now it almost doesn't count.) The success of mobile gaming has taught game developers what marketeers have always known; the largest, most lucrative demographic will sacrifice quality for convenience and accessibility every time. (Hello McDonalds, Subway, etc.) The reason Microsoft has spent decades trying to get a 'One' service provider box into the home is obvious; most folks will eventually forget (and not put money into) an extra box they do less with.
I'm excited for the PS4 and Wii U (now that the game library is picking up steam [not Steam, but boy, talk about a killer 'app']) precisely because I prefer a gaming system for gaming, but I'm well aware of how, and why, the gaming industry has changed. The backlash on the XBox One shows that the 'future' of gaming is not quite here, but it is inevitably coming. We're no longer just seeing the signs, we're already turned on the off-ramp and picking up speed to merge onto the highway.
Hey, if we're already on this road, someone in our car will much more likely be playing a 2DS than a phone game...
OK, maybe some Words with Friends.
In light of the rather pessimistic slant of part one, full of DRM, games that will be in inaccessible over the long term, and the overall damage being done to gaming's potential cultural impact, it is equally important to ponder the brighter horizons of gaming's future.
The PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii have been hanging around longer than a typical console cycle. The big 'what's next?' question has been on "core" gamer minds for some time and Kinect, Move, and Motion Plus offered little distraction or relevance. Not to mention the concern that the folks in game development/publishing were not listening to what most gamers wanted. Given the reaction to Xbox One, that concern seems quite founded. Factor in the current market focus on games developed for phones, tablets, and browsers, and... wait, weren't we trying to go somewhere positive with this?
But these trends in gaming do in fact have benefits for us "core" gamers, for many reasons that may not be immediately apparent. Let's start with the Xbox One. It's the true, unfettered, undisguised vision Microsoft has been coalescing since their first console; a single living room box through which Microsoft becomes the middleman service provider for entertainment. They've slowly unclouded that goal over the years, though its never been a secret, and us gamers who are grumpy about a dashboard full of stuff besides games (even on a paid service, no less!) are at least partially guilty of looking at a cat and expecting a dog. This has been Microsoft's purpose all along, and while we don't have to like it, it does us little good to expect a company that has spent billions to realize this longterm strategy to alter its course for "core" gamers that largely got the Xbox platform where it is. We're not the ultimate market they've been after, and we never were; just like the Wii, we are not the ultimate target demographic, because "core" gamers cannot financially support the gaming industry behemoth, not to mention the lucrative service provider vision Microsoft is after. I'm not as ready to write off MS for gaming as many; they will undoubtedly provide some excellent games in the future. But that's a train I'll be hitching onto at my convenience and price-point, both which will reflect the fact that MS and I are expecting to travel to different places, with paths that will occasionally intersect. I'll play my new Halo and Gears games later rather than sooner.
The Xbox One strategy is actually a benefit for gamers, as either a success or failure. If the system takes off, more money will be provided for the outrageous AAA game development costs that, more and more, cannot be sustained by the current business model. Basically, all those folks using the machine for TV and Sports will be funding my new Halos and Gears. On opposite end, if the model is a spectacular failure, (and it would be wise for all of us predicting such to remember the unprecedented success of the Wii, which no one expected) it will serve as a precautionary tale for other companies to not follow such a route, at least not to the exclusion of "core" gamers.
Next up is Sony; while I'm historically skeptical of the giant, recent years and a slight corporate humility have placed the company in the best position to care for "core" gamers since the beginning of the PS2 era. If Sony does indeed have an ear to the ground over the Xbox One backlash, as recent Twitterverse chat suggests, it is the perfect time to capitalize on gamers almost ready to sit on the fence for the next few years of new gaming. Whatever Sony does, this moment highlights the fact that, more than any other time in gaming, gamers have a loud voice and new channels by which to be heard. It can be easy to assume that no-one is listening, but that cynicism belies the responses received. From tweets by corporate heads that show they are aware of internet responses, to free downloadable expanded game endings (which, whether or not we like, we have to remember it came from the company's own dime and time, and had to meet approval of the same business heads we envision with dollar signs in their eyes.) We gamers now live in an age where our dollars and internet umbrage vote stronger than ever. From Kickstarter to online petitions, blog articles to indie developers, gamers have more power in their own industry than ever before.
And no company seems more in tune with this lately than Sony. It's been a long trip from expecting gamers to "pay for steak instead of hamburger" to the playful DRM trolling of "Death Ray Manta." More vocal support of the indie platform, a greater focus on games themselves, free online play, and the game rental service of Playstation Plus shows that, at least over the last few years, Sony seems to be picking up the pieces Microsoft has been breaking off. If the PS4 launches at a competitive price-point and forsakes restrictive DRM, Sony may yet retake the throne it once firmly held in the PS2 years.
Which leaves us wondering what to think about Nintendo. While the Wii U has been largely dismissed by many "core" gamers as an underpowered gimmick, so was the DS, which went on to become the second-best selling console of all time (as of March 2013.) Once Wii U price point drops, and as Nintendo continues its history of creating excellent gaming experiences built around the hardware, there is little doubt the console will have some great games in its lifespan. The second screen may indeed prove key to its success, since games built for it can give completely unique experiences compared to the PC-inspired hardware race of the competition. Much like the Wii before it, if a gamer focuses on the games built for the console and not the ports, many excellent experiences await.
And lets not forget about the 3DS and Vita. Lately, I've enjoyed my 3DS library at least as much as my console library. Adventure Time, Bit.Trip Saga, Code of Princess, SMT Soul Hackers, Super Mario 3D Land, and many more have kept my 3DS XL from ever powering down. While I can't say the same for my Vita, there is a slow but steady stream of great games building for it, and the promised PS4 connectivity has a lot of potential. Portable gaming is no longer a second-class experience; as long as watered down console ports and shovelware are avoided, there are many gems to be discovered on our eighth generation Game-And-Watches.
I've said it before, and I still believe it; there has never been a better time to be a gamer. The future of our industry may not be as connected to our personal preferences as we would like, but our industry has also never been more in our own hands. The aforementioned precipice of cultural relevance that video games are approaching means we are in an exciting time, where our newly relevant voices can make a difference. Gaming is valuable for many reasons, not the least of which are fun, artistic display, and community. If any of these are continuously promoted, gaming's relevance will be on display.
RFGeneration is not just a niche community for hobby enthusiasts. We are a vanguard of passion for the experience and worthwhile nature of video games. Sites like ours exist because we enjoy playing, sharing, and being involved with the gaming community. Some exclusively use the collection tools, some may pass through and just leave a few posts, and some stay to become an integrated part of our ever-changing community. But no matter how the future of video games turns out, we here at RFG will be hanging around and enjoying ourselves, the great Meta-game of video gaming, the MMO of life. I hope you are as excited about the multiplayer here as I am.
The gaming industry is in transition, one as important as dedicated machines to removable cartridges or black and white to color. I believe that once a decade has passed, gaming insiders and outsiders will point to this transition of gaming hardware and use it as the reference point for how the industry changed going forward, the 'Napster' moment of gaming if you will. Where even though the signs already pointed where the momentum was heading, here we have the objects designed to capitalize on the inertia.
It was, future analysts may say, this time period that solidified the cultural insignificance of video games.
After making such a fatalistic, even crass statement, let me first say that I look forward to the game experiences of the future. Only the first few months of 2013 brought me Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Etrian Odyssey IV and Gears of War: Judgment's addictive Overrun mode, and the rest of the year includes many excellent looking games I am very much looking forward to. I'm certainly not against playing modern games. And no matter my critiques of the new hardware, I'm a gamer; one day I'll buy the newer shiny box to play on.
But now that the 'Big Three' have launched their initial salvo into the upcoming console war, the landscape of the battlefield has become visible, as well as the target areas that will be hit hardest. And, much like real war, by the time the dust settles, the victors will be forced to wonder about the prices paid.
My opinions on these giant corporations contain no real loyalty; I've been called a fanboy, but if anything I'm overly critical on each. I have no illusions that these companies exist to satisfy my entertainment desires. Even the artists, writers, and content creators behind the indie scene have to eat, and are forced into Byzantine restrictions on their creations. Not to say the inspiration doesn't come through, but without PR figureheads, interviews with game developers often highlight challenges during the creative process that had little to do with the actual artistic creation and more with the difficulties of creating a game in the modern market.
Still, what artist has not had to deal with money and politics? And so many of us involved with gaming want it to be recognized as a medium of artistic worth, of cultural significance, on par with other media considered to posses real value. For as many books, movies, and recorded music produced that seem to have little significance, no one questions the value of these forms of media. As the relatively new kid, video games have had an uphill battle to show importance beyond, at best, 'kids toy,' or worse, 'murder simulator.' With more focus on narrative and abstract storytelling, and easier-to-use tools that have taken game creation outside of the laboratory or office and into the living room, the medium of video games has never been in a better position to take its place alongside other forms of culturally significant forms of media.
Which is why this new generation of gaming consoles can be so very dangerous to achieving that end.
Not because of sequel-itis, out-of-control budgets, or immature content. These issues are rampant in other media and they have not been diminished to cultural insignificance. The problem facing modern video gaming is one of philosophy. Games are, more and more, developed as a consumable and not as a product.
We are no longer buying a video game, we are leasing an entertainment experience.
Movies, music, and literature are also following this trend, of course. But they are established, the culture universally accepts them, and while their distribution methods are following a parallel path to video games, their individual product permanence is much more assured. Vinyl warps, cassettes wear out, CDs deteriorate, even digital media can be wiped out, but we find enough worth in the original creations to continue copying the material as newer storage methods develop.
In the last decade, a growing realization has emerged in gaming culture, an awareness that we are losing history every day. This has lead to a groundswell among collectors to preserve our heritage, and even big publishers have capitalized on the trend by releasing retro compilations. Emulation, much as it can be reviled in game collector mentality, has been crucial in preserving gaming experiences that would otherwise be lost. Now, anyone who witnessed a 70's Pink Floyd concert will tell you that listening to a CD is a far cry from the original experience, and it is much the same in classic gaming. From the original Star Wars sit-down arcade cab, to spinning a real steering wheel while slamming the pedals in Crazy Taxi, to wielding an assault rifle in Space Gun, some games will admittedly never reproduce the original experience on a different platform. But if the gaming industry wants to be held upon the same ground as other culturally significant media, some level of tangible reference has to be available for both shared and personal experience. The video game providers' transition from producing an item to developing a service effectively puts a sharper timetable on the total lifespan of each video game produced.
It is impossible and perhaps undesirable to capture every gaming experience for anyone to see, for all time. But that's not really the point; as video games continue the trend of requiring online activation for single player games, content only stored 'on the cloud,' and gaming data pieced out and paid for individually, we are paying for a service, not an object. And, one day that service will discontinue. Servers will be permanently shut off, even for single player activation. Some will have workarounds, often developed by a passionate community, but not all. Some won't be worth the effort, and some just won't be possible.
So what? Why does it matter that there are arcade games that cannot be MAME'd because of coded batteries that run out, or that in a few years the complete Mass Effect Trilogy will be impossible to experience because some of the DLC stories were on servers and not discs. There will be new games! Games on phones, tablets, contact lenses and refrigerators. Our gaming content will not be tied to slow, clunky physical media. Good riddance!
Games won't go away. But their significance will dwindle, and so too their ability to have artful, cultural significance.
Say what you want about the original Star Wars trilogy. Love it or... love it less than others, the cultural significance of it is undeniable. Same with iconic music from, say the Doors, or Mozart. Now, imagine that these were developed on ethereal media that shut down forever after a few years. There will be memories of them for awhile, perhaps spiritual successors later, but if they were preserved at all, it is only by a small, niche, dedicated community. Would these champions of their media be as loved and appreciated by millions of people if they were allowed to just fade away, replaced by the new, 'better' thing? It is not that all we want is more Star Wars; we want Star Wars to hang around long enough to impact and inspire other content creators; not to be simply consumed as the next thing is coming. We want these things to co-exist in the same space; Game of Thrones only exists because Lord of the Rings existed long enough to inspire it.
We are cutting off gaming's ability to stay culturally significant because we are moving away from the ability to produce a stored thing to be appreciated for generations, and instead moving toward a temporary fix to be consumed and then replaced.
But isn't this also true for movies, books, and music? Who even buys a CD anymore? The move to digital hasn't killed the ability to keep a song forever or rendered music as culturally insignificant. But the difference is twofold. First, books (literature), music, and movies are much more entrenched as universally accepted media of value, while much of the population could still care less about the cultural aspect of video games. Second, barring a few examples, the content in music, literature, and movies are perpetually copied and passed down. Modern video games are moving away from that, onto services that will eventually lock everyone out of experiencing games that were once digital-only or required server-based DRM certification. These techniques are so obtrusive and slowly becoming so quickly and widely accepted that in a decade, while we'll likely still have access to the majority of literature, music, and movies created in that time, many video games made in the same era will be completely inaccessible. Not just MMOs or the multiplayer of Call of Duty, but the new Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, Bioshock, or Super Mario. Once that DRM server or Download is gone, so is the game, likely forever. Those assuming that there will always be services like the Virtual Console and Steam to relive those memories only have to remember how many excellent old games we're still waiting on, likely to never arrive.
Some say its no real loss; we need to forget the past and play new games. Hey, most of those games weren't nearly as good as our modern ones; worse graphics, control, awkward mechanics, etc. But to those of us that truly desire to see video games treated as relevant as other media, our past and present (and the ability to experience it) is as importance as our future.
Video games won't go away; even during the Great Crash of '83, there was never a real danger that video games would just completely disappear. The greater threat, and possibility, is that video games are here to stay, but no-one really cares.
Everybody thought the first announcement was a joke.
Then we read about the price and confirmed it.
The Neo Geo X, a new 'retro' portable, straddles the fence between so many sides it would walk bow-legged. It is a sleek, modern, savvy looking machine, designed to only play games from ten to twenty years ago. It is technically an official SNK (Playmore) product, yet its guts run an emulator and roms. The 20 pre-loaded games included are widely available in compilations and downloads, yet preorders include Ninja Master's on an SD card, a title known for rarity. It is a handheld that, once placed in a slick looking docking station, becomes a console with HDMI and full sized arcade sticks.
With as many people this sets out to please (and for as many reasons, drives people away or worse, be apathetic to its existence) you'd think the thing was running for public office.
It is a system that some of us here at RFG are undoubtedly curious over, and while I'm not the guy to ask about for the technical stuff, I can at least share my thoughts after tinkering with it over the first day.
The Good:
Its pretty.
Despite having a more square form factor than most modern portables, I enjoy the 'feel' of the NGX more than the Vita, PSP, or DS line. Completely subjective, of course, but between the face button placement and responsiveness, general heft and of course, trademark clicky digital 'stick,' I'd play just about anything on this. The screen quality is not as sharp and vibrant as the Vita, but these classic Neo Geo games look great on it.
The games included:
...in a pleasant surprise, aren't all fighting games. No complaints about including Samurai Shodown II, KoF '95, Real Bout Fatal Fury, or of course Ninja Master's (more on that in a moment) but I was thrilled to have Puzzled, League Bowlijng, Last Resort, Nam-1975 and a variety of other genres represented. For being largely (and understandably) known as the '2D fighting machine', most Neo Geo games I enjoy aren't fighters. (Here's to hoping Nightmare in the Dark and Over Top show up in future SD cards.) Speaking of which:
SD card slot:
Could be what really pushes the worth of this system. New games are supposedly in the works to be released on cards, and the firmware could be updated with more features. Not to mention what hackers are already doing with it.
The arcade sticks:
Many hardcore NG fans are claiming these to be the best thing to come out of the NGX. They may be lightweight and not compatible with the older hardware, but the sticks feel solid, and the USB ports allow PC and PS3 compatibility. (of course, there are limits; trying to play the PS2 SNK compilation on a BC PS3 failed without the PS3 guide button.) Some folks are just ordering the sticks themselves.
Ninja Master's:
This helped the value of the package for me, since not only is the game tougher to track down than most AES games, but my brief time with it revealed one of my favorite old school fighters on a system known for old school fighters. The combat is fluid, animation better than average, move list decent, and it has enough originality that I want to keep at it. Its just really, really fun to play! I was impressed.
Bad:
Price. Obviously the first consideration, since many of us would drop a few bucks on this just for the novelty. True to its lineage, its one of the most expensive devices in its market for what you get. The $200 Gold LE package included the portable with a preset 20 games installed, the AES mockup docking station, one of those nifty arcade sticks, an AV composite cable and an HDMI cord (can't use a typical one, it has a small device adapter at one end.) The LE includes the SD card of Ninja Master's, which in my opinion greatly helps the value. Its a lot of stuff, and truth be told, if you never touch emulators and roms, it really is an impressive deal compared to other methods of playing some of these games. (Of course, if you don't mind downloading roms, especially on a PSP, this thing is about worthless to you.)
It comes with a lot, but there is no wifi/online capabilities, and the games are straight up roms of the AES versions (that's right, no changing most settings, adding credits, or rom tweaking. Good luck beating Nam-1975 on default credits. ) Considering what we're used to from previous SNK compilations, and the lack of online play, this definitely limits audience interests. The idea of keeping it retro is perhaps admirable, but if a gamer is hard core enough to want these limitations, chances are they already own real hardware and are less interested in a portable that plays locked roms.
Using it as a console:
Despite owning a, AES, CMVS, and NGCD, the idea that I could plug this puppy up to a big-screen via HDMI and use the new arcade sticks was a big selling point for me. That didn't work out very well. The HDMI out has no video options, and just looks terrible on the three HD TVs I tested. We're not talking about charming pixelation and low-res; we know what to expect there. No, the rampant screen tearing, washed out colors, and terrible, terrible lag means this is not the way to play these games. Big disappointment.
Using the composite cables on a SD TV yielded better results, with less (but still present) lag and screen tearing. Colors were better, but reds bled and the picture was overtly dark. Quick reads on forums proved others were finding the exact same issues. The tech-heads claim that these are from poor emulation and could be improved with a software update; lets hope. As it stands, don't buy the NGX as your method for playing these games on a TV.
The Ugly:
Its really tough to know how to feel about the NGX. As a portable, its fantastic, with a great feel, moderate (3-4 hour) battery life, nice screen, and some classics built right in. Using it as an HD console through the dock is an exercise in frustration and is not recommended, although playing on a SD TV was workable. As a gamer who rarely plays on downloaded roms, the NGX has me in mind, but since it is using roms itself but without the customization, it almost comes across as the worst of two worlds. The device takes about 30 seconds to boot up and a few seconds between loading games, a steadfast reminder of its Linux brains. The irony is that hackers are certainly going to blow this wide open with better firmware, customization, more games, and better features, but by then I could just hack my PSP and get similar results. I want to support the original hardware, but this is an interesting hybrid.
Am I glad I got this? Yeah! Not only am I a collector and Neo Geo fan, its just darn fun to play on. Getting it as a Christmas gift was perfect, as any buyer's remorse is negated, and I am very excited to see what games will be released in the future. As is, the twenty (one) games included mean even if I never get another game for it (or indeed, if no more are released) I still have a nice portable Neo Geo collection. And Ninja Master's is such an unexpected delight.
Should you get it?
...just know what you are getting into. Most can safely pass it by, some of us hardcore collectors will get a big kick out of it.
For what its worth, I already like it more than our Vita.
|
|
