Videogames for Everyone?

There’s no secret that Nintendo has established market dominance in this generation of videogame consoles. That dominance is due, in large part, to Nintendo’s efforts to broaden the scope of their consumers. Whether or not everyone who owns a Wii or DS is using it the same amount, the systems have sold and continue to sell games. This development has caused many new questions to be raised with respect to who is playing games and who’s money will determine the future of the market. While I’ve spoken to hardcore vs casual issue before from a purely financial perspective, I’m going to put down a few thoughts here about other factors.

First, I’d like to tackle the concept of the female gamer. Leigh Alexander posted a great video on the topic by Daniel Floyd which she helped compose. Not only is it funny, but the messages expressed therein are pretty solid. It’s best to watch the video rather than for me to attempt to create a synopsis. I agree that getting more women into gaming is a great idea, and the industry needs to acknowledge that the way to do that isn’t simply to make Halo easy to pick up and play, but rather to make games appeal to women. I don’t think anyone can really complain if more capital is being put into the system, especially since it may give us more innovative games such as Braid, Flower, and Mirror’s Edge.

I think that ties into another aspect of the changing demographics: casual gaming. I know a lot of people think that is a dirty term these days, but we need to recognize that there are some pretty distinct camps when it comes to how people game. I would consider myself part of the “hardcore” demographic. I read about games on a daily basis, play about an average of two hours a day, and know a good amount about most games before I get into stores. The same cannot be said for my girlfriend. My girlfriend played Super Mario Bros. back in the day, and she enjoys playing Rock Band and Zuma these days. What gets most of her attention, though, are free-to-play titles on the net. The reason? Near as I can tell gaming is disposable for her. She’ll go through a game in a day or two, and that doesn’t mean she’ll beat it. She just looses interest. I loaned her my old DS phat with a copy of The New Super Mario Bros. a while ago, and that seemed to catch for about a week, but after that she was done. And she’s not alone. There are a lot of people who game this way. They’re part of the reason that free-to-play is as predominant as it is. The argument I’ve made before (see above) is that these gamers won’t support the market financially in the long term, but they’re still people playing games, and perhaps one day they’ll start caring about release dates. It’s for this reason that game publishers are changing the types of games they’re producing to try and broaden the market.

These changes in demographics are causing quite a reaction amongst many gamers who see gaming as “theirs” (I went looking for examples, but failed to find anything quickly, you’ll have to take my word for it). Most “socially well adjusted” gamers deplore these comments as ignorant and immature. Who are these people attacking? How can the growth of our industry be bad? I think what people are missing is that to many “hardcore” gamers, gaming has always been a place they could escape the rest of the world. There’s a lot to be said for the appeal of a niche market, like videogames or D&D, as a way for people who are different to avoid feeling different from others. All of a sudden, however, this little niche which many gamers felt was their own, is opening up to their moms and the jocks they wanted to avoid in the first place. Of course they’re going to be protective, and I’m not sure we should give them too hard a time for it. I’m not advocating offensive language or attacks, but I think it’s okay for some people to be upset or disappointed because they feel like they don’t matter as much in the one area of their lives they felt like they did.

Where does this leave us though? We’re left with an industry struggling to find itself. I for one am confident that given enough time we will find an equilibrium which will suit all parties. Hardcore gamers received a buffet of awesome at this year’s E3. Publishers will realize soon enough that the iPhone and shovelware bubbles are going to pop and begin hedging their bets with a better proportioned spectrum of titles. And women gamers? My experience has been that given a decent foothold, women will find a way to make their own space in any area where they were a minority before. I just hope everyone can play nice until we get there.

Half-Life 2 Review

I was tempted to review Half-Life 2 with both episodes at the same time since the mechanics are fundamentally the same, but as I worked my through Episode 1 I found more and more I wanted to talk about in terms of just that segment. Therefore, here is my review of Half-Life 2, from The Orange Box, on it’s own.

The audio of the game is solid, as are the graphics. Some of the textures in the environments seem a little flat, but the modeling of the NPC’s is top notch. The environments are convincing in their design, but they tend to be fairly similar throughout. It’s worth noting that HL2 had been out for a while on the PC before coming to the 360, so while it might not look as good as games like Halo 3, it still holds it’s own.

Half-Life 2 bears all the telltale signs of a Valve game, right down to the perfectly tuned levels. You see, in HL2 you never feel like you’re unsure where to go. If you are, then you’re just not taking in the environment. There’s always something that will point you in the right direction. This kind of commitment to level design would seem like a no-brainer for any game, but it’s amazing how many times I get stuck somewhere just because the level wasn’t perfectly tuned.

In addition to basic pathfinding, Valve is really one of the best developers for making puzzles work in an FPS context. While there are the occasional push-button-to-open-gate puzzles, most would require a bit more thought. It’s not uncommon to have to think how the virtual environment can interact to provide you a way out, such as using a magnetic crane to move storage crates. These puzzles are also seldom re-hashed, so it feels fresh each time you come across a new challenge.

The NPC’s are better-than-average as well. Your interactions with NPC’s have always been key to the player experience in the Half-Life series, despite the fact that you don’t ever actually speak. At various points throughout the game you encounter seemingly random people who walk about and talk to one another as you would expect them to. These touches add to the overall environment and story.

The story is good, but unfortunately Valve sticks a little too much to the you-get-what-Freeman-sees mechanic in this department. I could tell there was rich story in behind the civil war that was going on, but I didn’t really get all the details. Instead you’re forced to move through the story with the most basic of details (these are the good guys, these are the bad). I still found it satisfying to progress through the game, but I think that a little more could have been done to flesh things out. Also, if you aren’t familiar with the story from the first Half-Life, don’t expect to be brought up to speed.

The overall pacing of the game is excellent as well. You’ll travel to new environments almost seamlessly, creating a natural progression to the game as a whole. Though you will have some puzzles that require you figure them out under the pressure of enemy swarms, usually you know when you have to solve a problem by the fact that you’re given the breathing room to sort it out.

With all this excellent construction, HL2 must be the best thing since sliced bread, no? Well, not quite. There were two points at which I really felt the game let me down. One was the lack of any sort of quest tracking. While the level design makes sure you don’t get lost, I did spend a lot of time moving forward without really knowing what it was I was looking for. I understand that it may seem immersive to leave you without a notepad to check, but just because Freeman is listening when others talk doesn’t mean that I caught the whole conversation, or that I understand how to translate those comments into “Go to x and do y“.

The other problem I have with HL2, which is a problem I had with the original Half-Life, is the platforming. I find it strange that many developers of the FPS genre feel the need to include platforming segments. I would often get frustrated when I didn’t quite know where my feet were or quite how far I could jump. When moving from one solid to another I could usually get the hang of things on my first or second try, but the multiple exercises which involved moving unstable parts of the environment around and then climbing/jumping off them really didn’t work well. It’s clear that Valve learned a lot between HL2 and Portal, since Portal works so damn well. I just wish that was patched in HL2 since it really detracted from my fun with the game.

This control problem also carried over to the vehicles. While I did like the use of the vehicular sequences, I found they controlled really loosely, making it hard to actually drive. Add in some wonky firing mechanics (aim the gun with one stick while you drive with another) and it just felt a little tossed in to an otherwise refined game.

Bottom Line:
Buy If: You want an FPS with a little less shooting and more thinking.
Rent If: You’re more into puzzling but willing to try some shooting too. A rent could give you the taste you need before buying or passing.
Pass If: If you think FPS means “twitch and shoot wave after wave of enemy”. This game has pacing, it’s not just a bloodbath.

On Cliffhangers and Sequels

The popular gaming media is quick to say it’s looking for new franchises. Fresh ideas seem to be in high demand, and games like Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge received a great deal of coverage last year for their efforts to push the envelope of new properties. We all love new ideas, new worlds to explore. That being said, sequels are where the real money’s at. Activison’s proven this with the Guitar Hero franchise. If you’re creating a new property, therefore, you want to leave yourself room to make a sequel if the numbers show merit. It’s the endings of these IP’s, the the beginnings which follow them, that I want to look at in this post.

The game which got me started on this is Half-Life 2. *SPOILER WARNING: I’m going to reveal the end of Half-Life 2* You see, Valve is well known for creating a great story in HL2 without having your character speak a single word or using any cutscenes which change your perspective. Towards the end of HL2 I felt compelled to play and finish the fight I started so many days before. And the end was satisfying, at least at first. I was ready for Freeman to die in a catastrophic explosion. He seems like the kind of guy to make such a sacrifice. Just when you expect the screen to fade to white, however, in steps the infamous “G-Man” to sweep you away to safety (or in step the vortigaunts if you’re looking at Episode 1). This mechanic serves to prolong Freeman’s life for another installment without eliminating the climax we have come to expect from videogame conclusions (you fight the last boss and you win). I found this moment, with the cryptic G-Man dialogue, made the ending feel flat. I felt like my final actions, those actions which destroyed the “ultimate” enemy, were inconsequential. After all, if I can slip away just before death why can’t he?

And that brings us to a tricky point: Should you have a cliffhanger at all? I mean, does leaving an ending open take away from the overall greatness of a game? In an industry sense, I really don’t think so. I hate to say it, but given the fact that the minority of gamers actually finish the games they play, it seems a little silly to get bent out of shape with respect to how those games end. But what about those of us who want to squeeze all that value out of those games, or better yet, what about those games who actually craft a narrative we long to see the ending to? To this day there are gamers who talk about how unfulfilling the ending of Halo 2 was. Simply getting to the end of x hours of gameplay and throwing up credits is a copout, and in my opinion makes for a crappy game. When I finish a game, I want to feel like I accomplished something (even though I really didn’t). I want some resolution to all that conflict you’ve spent hours telling me about. I want to feel like the tension I had over the fate of my characters can be dispelled since their fates are now assured. Without these things the game doesn’t really end. There are many times when I’ve found myself staring at credits rolling past thinking “But what about…”

That’s the idea, of course. That’s why you’re going to watch the shows and read the articles about the next title, and then you’ll be one of those gamers who buys the game in the first two weeks, helping to insure it’s continued life on retail shelves. But that sequel presents a number of other problems. The whole purpose behind having a sequel is to bring back fans of the first game for another taste. That means that you have to satiate their desires for something new out of the old. At the same time, since the gaming industry hopes for growth at every step, you have to also create a world that isn’t intimidating to new fans. If I pick up a game and don’t know what’s going on because I didn’t play its predecessor, I’m not likely to want to keep playing (let alone pay for DLC or another sequel). On top of those contradictory mandates, there’s also the need for innovation in the content of the game. It’s not simply about taking the first game and giving it a new story. No, now you have to refine the combat, introduce new weapons, environments, and enemies. If you stray too far from the first game, however, it’s no longer a sequel and it becomes another new IP. Then you’ve just alienated fans and actually start from a negative position.

It would appear that expectations defy the creation of sequels. How can developers possibly make something precisely the same and almost completely innovative at the same time? That’s a fine line to walk, though if done correctly it can pay off. If you slip … well then you get Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. I think Ubisoft learned a good lesson there. I think it’s great that they took a franchise, which had essentially become a quasi-new IP every few years, and started all over with a refresh for another series. They still didn’t eliminate any expectations from the fans, but at least they had a decent argument.

Another game-changer I didn’t cover is DLC. How do you create a sequel when you’re not even sure that the fans know about the second ending? That just creates a third group you have to cater to when designing such a complex creature. If history has taught us anything though, it’s that no matter how disappointed gamers are at sequels, they still make money. And so long as there’s money to be made, who cares about the writing?

My Review of Portal

I’d like to start by establishing that this is not Portal: Still Alive on XBLA. Nor is this the original Portal on the PC. The version of Portal I’m talking about is the one found in The Orange Box for the Xbox 360. I thought about reviewing The Orange Box as a whole, but given the fact that I wasn’t going to play Team Fortress 2 (just not my thing), I thought it would be unfair.

So, Portal. Where to begin. The game itself is fairly simple. It’s a puzzle game revolving around a single mechanic: the ability to create two connected portals through which anything and everything may pass. It’s executed from a first-person perspective and it handles very much like Half-Life 2. At first I was a little apprehensive since I find platforming (which is how you solve the puzzles) tends to frustrate the hell out of me in FPS perspective, even in the Half-Life games. Valve, however, found some way to make Portal handle better. It’s either more precise or more forgiving. I seldom found myself dying because I didn’t quite know where my feet were.

The graphics are nice, but that’s not to say that they’re amazing. I think Portal is a good example of a game where the environment looks good because it is minimalistic. The sound is also good, but again there isn’t a lot to notice. The game keeps you immersed by leaving out the mood music. I didn’t notice the absence at all, but that’s probably because I was too caught up in enjoying the experience.

The game is a bit short. As in play-through-in-one-sitting short. I originally forgave this thinking “How much variety can you really create with these simple mechanics?”. Then I completed the game and saw the advanced levels, which seem totally fresh even though they’re just minor tweaks to original levels. The challenges also add fresh perspective to the puzzle solving (which is beyond me for the most part). In reality, then, the game isn’t really that short, and all the levels have the attention to detail that Valve use in their level design, providing the player with challenge without too much frustration. There’s lots of content there, and Valve has priced it really well.

I realize that others have already gushed about this game , but I found that most people simply praised the unique portal mechanics and immersive design, without really noting how technically proficient the game is. It is this technical aspect which allows Portal to really raise the bar. The precision of the platforming in this game makes me think that perhaps it can be done from a first-person perspective without the need to throw controllers. Unlike many others, I don’t crave a sequel to this game. No, instead I crave innovation taking this game forward. I think of a game like The Darkness, which took the FPS mechanics Halo perfected on the console and made an innovative game in a new world using those mechanics as a foundation. How long must we wait for a developer to take this new “FP” without the “S” and create something new?

Bottom Line:
Buy If: You like puzzling platformers and don’t get motion sick easily.
Rent If: I don’t really think this is an option here. Just buy it.
Pass If: Um … I guess if you’re not really a gamer and don’t want to ever experience anything new and fresh.

What Made Classic Games Great

Not long ago, Michael Abbott over at The Brainy Gamer asked some interesting questions about evergreen games. In particular, he examined the dissonance between the lasting appeal of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Ultima IV for the NES. While he does admit that comparing these two games from such different genres is akin to comparing apples to oranges, Mr. Abbott asks some interesting questions, and he got me thinking about those games from the days of yore which still maintain their appeal.

Just two days later, Lee Bradley over at his blog Collect examined what he called The Nostalgia Business. His article examines why classic games ought not to be crammed into new genres, but should be updated using their original genres and using the original mechanics in order to preserve that which made them great. This argument is often made by critics to explain why new iterations on a classic franchise fail to deliver that delicious flavour we experienced in the past.

In my opinion, however, mechanics aren’t the whole story. In fact, I think they’re only a small chapter. I’ve always loved the Super Mario franchise. I can’t count how many hours I spent with Super Mario World. When the games went 3D, however, my affinity dissipated, only to return with Super Paper Mario and later the advent of The New Super Mario Bros. on the DS. At first, it may seem like this example supports the argument that the original mechanics are what make those games great, but I believe that it was, in fact, the game design. While the 3D Mario games have had impeccable level design, they are still fundamentally different from the original 2D games.

Perhaps a better example is the Bionic Commando franchise. Bionic Command Rearmed was a recent game which gave the old game a fresh coat of paint, but kept the action in the original design. More recently, Bionic Commando was released for Xbox 360 and PS3 as a third-person action game. This change in perspective altered more than just a camera angle. If you look at the reviews of the new game, the negative comments are not that swinging and shooting don’t belong in a third-person game, but rather that the design of the game, it’s execution in level development, is what doesn’t stack up to the original.

If you go back to Super Mario Bros. 3 you can see exactly what I mean by design. Each of the eight worlds in the game had their own theme, whether it was desert, water, or liquid hot magma. Within each of these worlds the levels could often be divided into sub-genres. This design, a variation of the much-lauded Nintendo “garden” methodology, could have produced level after level which was essentially the same. Nintendo, however, insisted in making each level a perfectly unique flower. Each ice level in the water world had its own unique design and strategy for success. Few games these days are able to execute a similar design.* It’s for that reason that I can still enjoy playing Super Mario Bros. 3, not because it performs only in the two dimensions.

There are many games we remember with fond feelings because at the time they were the best there was. I think that’s what Ultima IV had going for it, and why Michael finds it not as great right now. Many other games, such as Super Mario Bros. 3, Bionic Commando, and even Pacman, maintain their splendour because they achieved a perfect storm of design which is seldom seen in modern gaming. I only hope that more developers go back to those early games in order to learn the lessons of how to develop a game which will stand the test of time.

_{*: Interestingly, the sub-par movie game Transformers: The Game did a good job executing a similar method of unique style from level to level.}

My Perspective on E3

This post isn’t going to cover everything from this year’s E3. Nor is it going to tell you the same things that everyone else is already saying (Assassin’s Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction both look great). I’m going to try and touch on a few things with a perspective that other people aren’t talking about. These are in no particular order.

Joy Ride: I know what you’re thinking. “Really? This looks like junk.” To most gamers you’d be correct, but there’s something important going on here no one seems to want to talk about. Microsoft is trying out a free-to-play MMO for the first time on a console. Until now, free-to-play on a console has meant pack-in. This game is a free-to-play XBLA game with aesthetic microtransactions. That could be a big deal. It’s clear Microsoft doesn’t need too much of a return on this game for it to be profitable (it doesn’t look like it took too long to create), and if it does well we may see something closer to Maple Story for the Xbox in the future.

Saboteur: I’d heard about this game before, and I wasn’t interested. As a general rule I don’t get going for WWII games. This game, however, looks really cool. I think of it kind of like an open-world stealth game. Like Assassin’s Creed, but in WWII. I did love Assassin’s Creed. This game just jumped onto my “must buy” list.

Wet: This is another game that I knew about before E3 (I’d actually seen it on X-Play) and wasn’t crazy about. I’m still not sold that this game has what it takes to be a AAA game, but I could still see myself enjoying it. After watching a demo on G4 with Eliza Dushku talking about voicing the character, I think that this game could have enough style to draw me in. I’m not expecting anything amazing, but sometimes low expectations can make for fun experiences.

Nintendo’s Press Conference: I won’t go through the whole thing, but I noticed a sharp contrast between this conference and the one last year. Last year Nintendo was packed full of smiles and laughs. Everyone at Nintendo wanted to be your friend. This year it was all business. Clearly Nintendo America was a little stung by their reception last year. I was quite impressed at how business-like this conference was, and how much they wanted to impress the value of Nintendo for the hardcore. I still don’t think the third-party games will do well, simply because hardcore gamers don’t like the console as much for hardcore games as they do others. But if you really want to see how Nintendo brought the big guns this year, don’t dwell on Metroid, look at FOUR Mario games. Consider it brought.

Sony’s Press Conference: A lot of people came out this year liking Sony, rather than last year’s debacle. What’s strange is that last year’s conference held more for me than this year. Last year, Sony showed why people who don’t have a PS3 ought to be interested in the console. This year, Sony firmly entrenched themselves in the pocket of the market they already have (with the exception of Hanna Montana on PSP). Guys like me, who’ve never been into the classic Playstation franchises, didn’t really have anything to sink their teeth into (Assassin’s Creed 2 doesn’t count because it’s multi-platform). The kart racer that’s similar to Little Big Planet looks vaguely interesting, but if it’s like LBP in the controls department (by which I mean shitty) then I’m again not sold. Sony didn’t drop their price as we all thought they would. They joked about the various leaks, but I have to say that if there was one message I got from Sony this year it’s “We like where we are and we’re not changing.” And just think, two weeks ago everyone was saying that if Sony wants to survive they need some big change (price drop, new UI, etc.). I’m curious to see how this pans out.

These few points are by no means everything that caught my eye at E3 this year, but they are the ones I thought I had something at least a little fresh to say about. Notice I didn’t mention Microsoft’s press conference? I’ll just say that I think they did the best job of melding the spectacle (Ringo and Paul anyone?) with the games. I can tell that there are a lot of games coming up in 2009 that I’ll be buying (special mentions for Brutal Legend and Halo 3: ODST, just because they’re not in the post yet). That being said, I’ve got to go play through my pile of shame to make room for some new titles.

My First Impressions of inFAMOUS

Yesterday my friend picked up a copy of inFAMOUS for his PS3. This game is one that I saw when it first started ramping up the media buzz and thought “I’d almost buy a PS3 for that”. I’ve taken notice of the many favourable reviews out there for the game, but I’ve also noticed some solid criticism pointing out the game’s shortcomings both at Penny-Arcade and Listen Up!. I was glad to have a chance to take a look at things for myself. I should plainly state that this is not a review of the whole game. It’s my first impressions after a few hours, both playing myself and watching my friend play.

inFAMOUS is not terribly new in terms of superhero games. You explore a sandbox of a metropolitan city with a variety of variations on a specific skill set. The city is populated with civilians who will either cheer or loath you as you pass and gangs of bad guys for you to fight. You start your quests at specific points when you choose. You’re also able to traverse the environment in a unique way. In this case, the main character doesn’t so much use parkour as he scales walls by frequent jumping. Try as I might, I wasn’t able to get this movement to look fluid rather than a series of double jumps. You also upgrade your character by levelling up after fights and by collecting hidden icons throughout the city. The story follows Cole, an unlikely hero given super powers through an explosion that killed everyone else it touched. You know, the standard fare.

There are moral choices which shape the game, but these are obvious and binary. You are able to unlock certain powers only if you’re good or evil, and the people do react differently to you depending on your alignment. Ultimately, however, the game pretty much asks you to play it twice to get the full experience.

The graphics of the game are quite nice. I didn’t find them exceptionally astounding compared to what I’ve seen in other sandbox games, but it does look nice. The lightning looks similar to the effect in Bioshock, which is to say damn cool. The story is told not through cut scenes, but rather comic-esque stills with voice-over narration. I never really get tired of seeing comic presentation in games, and I think that using this technique definitely asserted the superhero quality of the game.

Where inFAMOUS really seemed unique to me was the combat. While I didn’t get a chance to try more than the first few attacks, I found the basic moves nothing special in them selves. In fact, I would say that many of the effects could/have been done in games such as Spider-Man: Web of Shadows and even Hulk: Ultimate Destruction. What is unique is the use of a cover system. You see, Cole isn’t like most superheroes. He’s quite susceptible to bullets, which means that if you decide to stand still and aim your lightning over his shoulder, you’ll quickly die. Instead, the game allows you to crouch behind fans, crates, and barricades while you line up your shot, then Cole will pop his head up to take the shot on command. While this system isn’t perfect (the AI have a tendency not to adapt for your use of cover), it is fresh, and something I’d like to see with some of my classic favourite characters (Captain America and his shield anyone?).

Since inFAMOUS is being released really close to Prototype, there have been a lot of critics trying to compare the two games. That’s the analysis which dominates the discussion on Listen Up. However, since Prototype isn’t out yet, I remain unable to make such comparisons, though rest assured I will be picking up Prototype for my 360. The game which I do wish to compare, with both other games, is Spider-man: Web of Shadows. It’s clear to me that all three games share many similarities, but I admit that I really didn’t feel inFAMOUS was exceptionally different from the game that came out back in November. Both games have tons of collectable icons throughout the open world which upgrade your character. The moral system in WoS was better implemented, in my opinion. While your actions resolving small incidents, such as a mugging, in inFAMOUS may affect you alignment, it’s not clear saying so. In WoS, however, the HUD displayed every incidence of moral choice. Oh, and WoS allowed you access to all the abilities at the same time, meaning you were either good or bad because of how you used the powers, not because of which powers you used.

Don’t get me wrong: I quite enjoyed playing inFAMOUS, and if I owned a PS3 I would definitely purchase a copy. That being said, I didn’t find it to be a game that was entirely different from anything I could get for my current console. The combat was good, but the rest of the game, the environment, the characters, the narrative, was so derivative and predictable to me that it just doesn’t move me to take the plunge. If you’re into superhero games and you own a PS3, I’d definitely recommend you pick this up, but if you don’t own a PS3, you shouldn’t loose any sleep over it.

Next week I get to pick apart E3. Whoot!

Why Super-Hero Games Can Exist

On a recent episode of the Listen Up podcast, Garnett Lee and John Davidson claimed that videogames “let down the super-hero genre”. Stephen Totilo posted a good summary on Kotaku with nice block quotes. I’ve mentioned Listen Up a few times here because I’m a fan of the podcast. It’s arguably my favourite gaming podcast, and even when I disagree with Garnett or John I have to respect their opinions and knowledge. When it came to this issue, however, I felt that as a super-hero geek and gamer I could perhaps lend a different perspective to their argument.

Mr. Lee and Mr. Davidson have essentially two parts to their argument. One is that by using established characters, such as Wolverine and Spider-Man, you want to play the character from the mythology and not something you customize or create. The other is that death is a false bottom in a super-hero game since super-heroes are often invulnerable. Let’s look at these arguments one-by-one shall we?

One of the great advantages that super-hero videogames have is that their characters have rich back stories filled with conflict, most of which is physical. It should, therefore, be a simple matter to translate this to a game environment. Videogame conventions, however, are not as simple as narrative and conflict. No, they require a certain amount of user input, and one common convention is that of character building through a reward system. In the new X-Men Origins: Wolverine you are stripped of your powers at one point and need to regain them all, similar to Metroid or any number of other games. During the game you also have to collect upgrade tokens (in this case “mutagens”) to customize your character’s statistics, such as more physical damage or increased health. What the gentlemen at Listen Up are saying is that they don’t want to assemble a version of Wolverine, they want to pop in the game and play as Wolverine, start to finish. At first glance that would appear to be a rational expectation.

The problem is that comics, and the super-hero genre by extension, are not rational. Characters are in multiple comics simultaneously, often taking place in alternate dimensions, or sometimes not (Wolverine is on pretty much every X-Men team at the same time, even when they’re on opposite sides of the world). We’re constantly finding new aspects in a hero’s powers (Archangel/Angle from X-men didn’t always have a healing factor, and he eventually found out that he could heal others with his blood). These “reasonable” exceptions are not without limit though. I remember playing the original X-Men Legends and being frustrated at the need to have my mutant-power gage drain while Rogue flew. She should just fly, and clearly I wasn’t alone in this demand since the sequel rectified this issue. I am willing, however, to accept some things I will have to earn. Do I relish the thought of loosing all Wolverine’s powers half-way through a game? Absolutely not. Am I willing to accept that throughout the course of the game I can change the arbitrary statistics built into it’s world so as to allow Wolverine’s claws to cause more damage at the end then they did at the beginning? Hell yes. The problem here isn’t the videogame convention of building a character, it’s the dissonance in translating a character from lines on a page to a world with actual physics and quantity. This dissonance is something individuals such as myself are willing to overlook in order to watch Logan’s flesh knit back together or to swing through New York as Spider-Man.

The second issue is super-hero death. That one is almost a non-issue to any comic geek. The reason I say comics and not super-heroes is that film and television seldom are willing to actually kill off a super-hero. Comics, however, have been killing, and resurrecting, characters for years. Remember a few years ago when Magneto levelled New York, killing thousands, and was killed in turn for his crimes? Less than six months later he was back. Apparently that first guy was a clone. What about Colossus, who sacrificed himself to destroy the legacy virus? He’s back too. Apparently he was in some lab or vault or some such thing. These aren’t alternate dimensions or anything. We’re talking one universe, one character. Sure, some times they snag an alternate dimension character who takes up permanent residence somewhere else, but my point is that super-hero death is damn common. The other thing which you may want to note is that super-heroes seldom actually die in videogames. They often just collapse. That’s another thing that’s not too uncommon. A hero will collapse in one situation and revive later, only to endure a trial twice as difficult as the one that rendered them unconscious. Such is the world of the super hero.

You may notice that these arguments are from the perspective of the hard-core fan. I don’t hold it against the casual fan to ask questions, such as “Can Wolverine really loose his powers?” or “Wait, wasn’t that guy dead?”. My point is that the fans who ought to have the most trouble with these issues can often explain the answers easily. As for the use of video-game conventions, if the game is well put together we fans are often willing to overlook any liberties the developers take in order to experience slicing limbs as Logan or swinging as Spider-Man. I didn’t mind the large holes in Web of Shadows because it was just plain awesome to kick ass as the black-suited Spidey. However, when the experience broke down in Spider-Man 3 I was severely disappointed. While there are a number of awful super-hero games out there, I think we can say there are some pretty damn great ones too. Super-heroes my not be the perfect fit for videogames, but I think that we’re starting to get some pretty good cooperation between the two genres.

My Dr. Mario Sickness

When I was playing my original Game Boy, I didn’t have many games. My parents weren’t too keen on this whole video game thing and therefore were reluctant to buy me games. Most of the games in my tiny collection were purchased after many weeks of saving my precious allowance. As a result, I played a few games many times. Arguably the game I played the most was Dr. Mario. For a long time Tetris was my most frequent game, but it didn’t take me too long to master the art of “four lines at once” and to reach my personal plateau. That was it. Every game of Tetris felt the same to me. Not so with Dr. Mario.

For the uninitiated, the goal of the game is to clear the field of all the viruses. These baddies come in three flavours: red, blue, and yellow. Each field (shaped as a medicine bottle) is randomly populated with these evils and you have to match up coloured capsules which Mario tosses in the top. Any four-of-a-kind disappears, allowing you to not only clear up mistakes but also snag cool combinations such as sneaking capsules in between two nearby viruses. Every capsule has two sides, each coloured, giving you six possible combinations thereof. Even with a preview of the next three capsules it’s hard to plan given the fast pacing.

What I love about this game is that every play field is different from the last. While I always wanted to move on to the next level or a higher speed, I also found myself simply replaying the same level over and over with a different dissemination of viruses. For me, the art was in crafting brilliant combinations and watching them unfold. Defeating not just one or two, but three, four, or five viruses after planting that perfect capsule is an exhilaration I always enjoy.

Dr. Mario express coming to the DSi Ware catalogue was definitely a breaking point for me. I hadn’t played the game since my original Game Boy days and was eager to start again. Little did I know what I was unleashing upon myself. I would say that I’m definitely addicted. I’ve been late getting to bed for no other reason than when I would clear a screen I couldn’t move the cursor down to “Quit Game” before moving on. Having never played the console version of Dr. Mario, the bright colours are a wonderful new addition, as well as the “VS CPU” option. In that mode I try to make combos to release random capsule halves into my opponent’s screen while at the same time lamenting combinations of his own. This variation is particularly deadly since I will often get caught in a “Try Again?” loop: pushing myself further than ever before.

I’ve tried playing other games, but the last week or two has been pretty hectic, often leaving me only a few minutes to play. That’s what makes this game ideal, although I also find myself caught in a downward spiral where five minutes becomes the hour and a half I could not afford at the outset. This character flaw is the reason I don’t yet own a variation of Lumines or Peggle (though I think I’m about to crack).

The bottom line is this: I recommend all puzzle game enthusiasts/addicts check out Dr. Mario, and if I’m late posting to this blog again you can blame it on the game.

Until next time kittlings…

A Review of Conan

If you haven’t read any of Robert E. Howard’s original Conan stories, you owe it to yourself to do so. You can find them in anthologies of their own or in anthologies of Mr. Howard’s other works. There are also some comics out there, and from what I’ve seen they’re pretty decent too. I’m even a fan of the old movies starring Arnold. I suppose you could then say that I’m the target audience for this game, and I’ve been eyeballing it for quite some time, but only picked it up recently as an impulse buy for $20.

I think the best way to qualify this game is to explain that it’s made by THQ. I say this because THQ has a bit of a history releasing what I would call solid ‘B’ games. I don’t have any problem with that, but I think it’s fair to know what to expect on your way in.

Many reviews pointed out that Conan was a God of War knockoff, but since I have never played God of War and do not foresee myself buying/borrowing a Playstation to do so, this seems an adequate Xbox alternative. The third-person game moves from arena to arena in each stage, affording you with wave after wave of enemies to kill. Occasionally you have to solve a puzzle or kill a boss with the assistance of quick-time-events, and that’s something I like. They don’t feel overdone and add more than just “Press X to open doors.”

The writing isn’t terrible, but it doesn’t stand up to Howard’s moulding of the character. Ron Pearlman’s voicing is bang on, and it’s clear that they put forth an effort to try and bring out some of the character’s more enjoyable attributes. There’s sex (the naked maidens you rescue are a nice touch) and he refers to opponents as dogs frequently, but the actual narrative it follows is not what I would call ‘essentially hyborian’. However, it is worth noting that this is better than the films, where the wit of the character is often clouded by an absence of dialogue.

Graphically, this game is okay. It doesn’t feel particularly next-gen or shiny, but it’s good enough (as I expect from most THQ games). Despite the fact that your enemies are similar (pole-axe vs. spear vs. large sword), each stage has its own style, giving you a slightly different feel for who you’re cleaving in two. These are some of the best looking parts: you get some pretty cool animations of the damage being inflicted. Once I even had a glitch that left a guy’s intestine hanging in the air after his corpse had been dispatched.

The combat is really where this game shines. There are tons of moves which are made cooler by tons of weapons. The variety of swords, shields, and long weapons you can wield is awesome, not to mention the various combinations. There’s an upgrade system which allows you to purchase more elaborate moves, and you will want to take the time to master them in order to get the bonuses later in the game. The only hole is that later in the game the combat can become frustrating. All the cool combos in the world don’t mean squat when the enemies can counter before you even get started. I actually still haven’t finished the final boss off, not even defeating his first form (of a reported six) once in the last week. Given the fact that statistically few gamers play their games through to completion, it would appear that either the last bit fell through quality assurance or they decided to ramp up the difficulty for the hardcore few who followed through to the end.

Bottom Line:
Buy if: You want to turn your brain off for a bit and tear up some faceless enemies. You’ve got to like QTE’s and hack-and-slash games, but at a low price it could be a few hours of solid fun.
Rent if: Can’t really think of who should rent this. If you’d like it enough to pay for a rental you should probably buy a copy.
Pass if: You’re expecting something exceptional in any respect. This game is one that you need to accept on its own merits as something simple and fun.