"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Disagree?
It seems like just yesterday we were bitching about how SONY hated its customer base, that in order to purchase any SONY product you must first permit them to kick you in the junk.
And now they go and do this...
The cheer. Oh, the cheer.
I don't know what to make of a world in which SONY is the good guy, and Microsoft is the asshole.
Also, this
If you find yourself arguing with anyone about the ME3 ending, and whether or not 'Bioware lied', you may find this article to be helpful. Specifically, this quote:
This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.
I’m playing Skyward Sword at the moment, and while I haven't finished it yet, what I really want to talk about is the Zelda series.
I fear that the series, as with many others, uses each iteration to make strictly mechanical changes of the sort where the locations and setting are different, the player gets to try new or modified abilities, the game is in 3D instead of 2D, etc. I expect this is so because of the emphasis on fun, which probably requires a certain level of novelty and variety to really work. If it were enough to just keep giving you the same swords and bows every time without also throwing in double hookshots and remote controlled bugs, then it would make better financial sense to just replay an old Zelda game instead of buying the new one.
The problem is that a large part of what differentiates one Zelda from the next really just boils down to what tools he’s using to solve dungeons and kill bosses. Sure, there is always at least a barebones story to justify taking Link around the world, but that story is largely the same every time. I don’t know that I’d necessarily care about that if, as with Mario, the fundamental story was kept at a superficial or silly level.
After Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, though, it sure looked like Nintendo was wanting to tell a story with a little more weight. I reckon that was about the time when they started to build a mythology around Hyrule, they began to flesh out Ganon as a character and experimented with who Link and Zelda really are. Yet as cinematic as those games are, and as relatively complex as the characters may be, I’m not convinced that Nintendo has ever felt the need to go any farther towards doing something truly good with what they have. The mid-to-late ‘90s Zelda is apparently as deep as the mythology is prepared go, while the toolset Link uses goes ever deeper.
That isn’t to say that the story in each game is interchangeable, nor that I have ignored or disliked the tweaks Nintendo is making to the relationships between characters and the particulars of the plot here and there as time goes on. But I think that’s just another way of making mechanical changes in the same way that adding a new tool is mechanical. It keeps things fresh and fun, sure, otherwise there really would be no reason not to just replay the old games, but I can’t help but wish that they could find a way to elevate the series from a franchise based on amusement and finally reach some kind of payoff for the narrative groundwork they started laying two decades ago.
As it stands, they've got a reasonable adventure outline, a villain who is often sympathetic, and a heroine who has shown herself capable of participating in the adventure. Link is still a bit intangible as a hero, but they could give him a personality easily enough, I should think. Wind Waker surprised me with its emotional punch, though I wouldn't say the series consistently does that right. On the whole, I think the stories are competent and well-crafted, they're just missing a narrative that brings all of these things together in a way that communicates something more meaningful than "be a good person and not a bad person".
Actually, I would settle for a Zelda game that uses that same message, but does so with some subtlety. I have to admit that I don't yet mind hearing the same kinds of stories endlessly so long as I have to do a little work to interpret them. It's great that Nintendo is working hard to keep making Zelda fun, I just wish they would put forth a little effort to make it interesting as well. What I really want is a Zelda game where thinking about the story is rewarding, perhaps even more so than thinking about playing the game.
Having reformatted my computer I lost all my Photoshop settings. This has made the creation of Not-Icarus: Episode 2 quite a bitch. So, I’m going to take a break from fighting with Photoshop to rant about this.
In his review of Duke Nukem Forever, Luke Plunkett bemoans the crass and vulgar aspects of the game, faulting its developers with charges of stupidity and sexism. His thesis seems to be: “Duke Nukem Forever is an offensive video game. And not in a good way.” I contend that his thesis is retardedly nonsensical and maintains an idiotic, unjustifiable double standard for which no argument is offered.
The thrust of his argument is that DNF is offensive in a bad way:
The game jokes about things like rape. And abortion. It thinks tampons are funny. And it does so without any hint of parody, or satire, or political or social statement, the only things that can, if not excuse such distasteful subject matter, then at least provide reasonable grounds for a gag.
Take-Two of all companies should be aware of this, what with their constant defence [sic] of the excesses of the Grand Theft Auto series, which it also publishes (and which, unlike this game, with its caricatures and satire and quality writing is defensible).
Monster Hunter and Animal Crossing had a baby. And its turnips are huuuuge!
I bought Record of Agarest War with the understanding that it is a Japanese-style SRPG that would, on occasion, slice up some cheesecake. As a representative of the 1% of Americans whose mother/wife/girlfriend/daughter/self does not (or will not have the opportunity to) object to my playing Record of Agarest War, I will not deny that this sort of combination is appealing to me.
Now, upon hearing SRPG + implied softcore, your first thought may be "oh, like Luminous Arc", but no, the advertising made it fairly clear that Agarest War would be much more explicit with its sexually implicit material than that other game. Suprisingly, however, the package on the shelf appeared to be rather innocent. The word "breeding" was used to describe a game feature, sure, but the images were not at all out of the ordinary for an RPG of any description and the damn thing is rated T, which I assume stands for Tame.
So, imagine my surprise when I went to the register and found out that the game I was about to purchase actually came in a much larger box: one covered in much saucier images and containing a couple of extra items. Namely, a mousepad (one of THOSE mousepads) and a pillowcase (one of THOSE pillowcases...well, except that it's only big enough for a smallish pillow). It isn't exactly the sort of thing you would request to have placed in a brown paper bag, but I did suspect that the cashier underwent a sudden change in his opinion of me as a result of this exchange. Perhaps he resented having to explain to me that Agarest War's so-called "Really Naughty Edition" would contain "extras" would cause the snow-white lambs surrounding baby Jesus' manger to blush. I'm really not certain.
At any rate, I was no longer sure what to expect from the game. I walked into the store knowing that consenting female adults would eventually attempt to devour an entire sausage whole, that much was clear. Somehow, though, the extra effort the publisher made to convince me that the disc was meant to be owned by would-be otaku who thirst for cartoon images of girls in compromising situations and who quiver with eagerness at the thought of breeding with them, well, where would that leave me? I can't claim to have such a high level of interest.
Of course, that didn't stop me from buying the game, though it was with a distinct feeling of unease that I loaded the game for the first time. The intro video skipped quickly through some questionable CG and a few shots of the ladies who, I assumed, would soon be spilling food on themselves or falling into vine/tentacle traps. Nothing went too far in the opening and soon I was off on my new game, wondering when it was going to get down to business. You know. Business.
So, imagine my further surprise when the game dumped a bunch of text on me regarding the war of battlement or some garbage where the gathered armies huddled in fear of the kingdom of might and exactly the same crap that would precede any other pretentious fantasy war game. Then, the next 20 hours or so (the game (360 version, anyway) does not keep track of time played) is spent almost exclusively on the battlefield, bashing in the heads of the same dogs and fairies over and over.
The repetition of the battles is really quite alarming. The apparent pattern is that one battle is then followed by about three more battles that are functionally identical to the first. The same enemies in the same numbers will come at you in roughly the same way. The terrain will be the same, their abilities will be the same, and it will be difficult to explain to yourself why it is that you are even playing the game.
Well, there is the cheesecake, but I'll get to that in a bit. I do want to say a bit more about the battle system, first, because it is actually pretty interesting. All actions, including movement, consume AP which are regenerated each turn. Unused AP is carried over to the next turn. I appreciate it when games do this.
It is possible to use each character as an individual to slice away at enemy health but Agarest War is most efficiently played by taking advantage of the link system. I'm sure they have a special name for it that I have completely ignored, but the idea is that each character is able to link with other characters who are standing in certain positions relative to him. This is a lot like Yggdra Union, in which classes and maybe genders each had a pattern of tiles on which any ally standing could share in the attack. In Agarest War, each character's pattern is unique, but the effect is roughly the same: everyone in the link teams up on the same target. Linked allies still consume AP, so it isn't as though they get extra turns. The real benefit of making these team attacks is that each enemy has a sort of shield that is worn down only through successive attacks, and recharges immediately following the end of a combo. Obviously, when six people are taking turns beating a fairy to death, it will be a lot easier if they only have to worry about a shield during the first couple of shots.
There are some other benefits; a linked character will move in to attack range no matter how far away he is, so long as he is linked, it is possible to initiate a linked attack and then not use the initiator in the combo (this is particularly useful when your white mage's turn isn't until much later. If linked to the mage, just use whomever to target the ally, then use her heal spell.) I would prefer if the interface made it easier to actually enact all of the fancy linking and bashing that they expect me to do. It is not always easy to know if the link is still good after moving a character in the chain to attack range and some other problems persist, as well.
And that damned repetition is a real problem. I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask that fully one quarter of the battles be completely removed from the game. Given that it is possible to replay levels after beating them, it seems redundant (and mean) to require the player to forestall real progress so that the same level can be used a few more times.
Fortunately, there is a pretty great system of item creation, leveling, monster capturing, achievements and all sorts of peripheral diversions that I typically enjoy. The item creation is the fairly standard [ITEM A] + [ITEM B] = [ITEM C] routine, though without most of the guesswork that often plagues this idea. New recipes have to be purchased or won in one way or another, but they are always perfectly clear about what is needed. Items that can be converted into other items always tell you what the new item will be. Occasionally there will be one of those mixups where the guy mixing items accidentally made something else, but these are rare and, so far, completely positive.
What of the cheesecake and the breeding? Even if it takes you fifty hours to enter "Agarest War" into Google Image Search, you are probably getting it faster than anyone playing the actual game. It honestly occupies such a minuscule fraction of the game that it hardly bears mentioning. I will say that the breeding aspect, or the finding a girl to marry you aspect as it would more accurately but less provocatively be called, does include some question and answer portions of dialogue that causes the ladies to change how they feel about you depending on what you select. A handy visual aid is provided at all times to let you know how the ladies feel, which is actually kind of a nice touch. Angry means they hate you, blushing means they love you, and three images in between. None of this Star Ocean crap where you don't know until the end of the game that everyone wishes you would die.
My complaint about the breeding is that it could hardly be considered a well-integrated part of the game. Some scripted decisions made by the main character without player input can influence their opinions, bogglingly. There is at least one instance of an entire sequence of the ladies suddenly asking question after question, each answer inflating or deflating their opinions. I would think that in a game that is dominated by fighting redundant battles, creating weapons, and so on would find a way to make that or the conversations about that somehow influence how women feel about your character. Instead, the game ignores them for hours, then pulls everyone aside for a moment, ostensibly in the middle of a conflict on which the fate of the world hangs, so that a blonde dancer can ask you how you feel about women who can cook.
It is baffling. As is the fact that several of the answers didn't have the effect I thought they would. It really just goes to show that I have no idea what these women want or think or even who the hell they are. We hardly talk, really, so maybe I am supposed to read in to their broadly drawn tropes to predict what they want to hear.
Anyway, there is probably a lot more to say about this game. The whole having the game span several generations thing is cool and not exactly an overused RPG convention. I dig. The achievements refer to both the points that Microsoft/Sony insist that you earn and a slew of in-game hurdles that yield some gold and items upon completion.
I have dumped a week and a half or so into Agarest War and, while the prospect of actually finishing the game is a dreadful thing, there is enough that I enjoy to keep me going. Also, you can hit select and the game will play itself. Seriously. Auto battle takes over and they move everyone and attack and everything. The AI is bloodthirsty and a little retarded, meaning that characters wind up dead for what amounts to impressively bad management, but they can get the job done. It really takes the edge off of the careful arrangement and execution of the hundreds of battles this game is threatening to contain.
For being seventy parts SRPG to one part cheesecake, I give Agarest War a level up moan out of a possible spilled melty vanilla ice cream all over her face. If I ever finish it, you'll be the first to know.
I adored the original Puzzle Quest. The appeal, for me, was that Puzzle Quest knew what it was. It combined the tonic water of a simplistic RPG with the gin of bejeweled to create an intoxicating beverage / game which entertained, occupied one's time, and prevented malaria.
The problem with Puzzle Quest 2 is that adds features to both the RPG and bejeweled components of the game. While the bejeweled enhancements, like enhancements to gin, bring with them flavor and appeal the enhancements to the tonic water RPG leave one wondering, "Why the fuck did you add all of this shit to tonic water?"
We shall begin with the good, as there is not much to cover: The bejeweled battles are pretty much exactly the same as in the first game.
Alright, that's the good news. Now for the bad: This game is stupid and ruins the Puzzle Quest franchise; I want my damn money back.
First off, the updated and "enhanced" RPG components of this game are only enhancements in the sense that fake tits are enhancements. Heft and weight are added, but the heft and weight are a burden rather than a boon. This was the main of the first Puzzle Quest:
It was your basic A-Cup style RPG. One clicked upon locations to automatically wander there by the designated path. If a monster appeared on the path a battle ensued. Simple, to the point, fun.
This is what the new game does:
Puzzle Quest 2 tries to present itself as a C-cup dungeon crawler. Rather than traversing an entire continent one delves into dungeons and sub-levels one screen, one room, at a time. The problem is that rooms are unnecessary and tedious. One enters a room, battles the monsters, and then clicks to navigate to the next room. In a 15 or 20 room dungeon one spends the majority of one's time walking through empty rooms to try to progress to the end of the level. The only thing this adds to the game is time between battles. The rooms and new navigation style are about as exciting and interesting as, say, Tara Reid's boob job; your main thought is, "How could someone fuck them up that bad?"
Another problem with the dungeon crawler style is that the maps are fuck-damn retarded. Nothing is labeled, including the game's "waypoints". One has to memorize waypoint locations, causing a headache when one needs to quickly return to town. Oh, and town? Yeah, it is 9 screens each of which contain one useful NPC. The guy who upgrades your gear is on a different screen than the guy who sells items. Why? Because the developers of Puzzle Quest 2 wanted the game to be a huge fucking pain in the ass.
Speaking of pains in the ass, if you've ever thought to yourself, "This game is pretty fun, but what it really needs is an god-damned annoying auto-save function which activates after I fucking do fucking anything." then Puzzle Quest 2 is the game for you. The game auto-saves after battles, talking to NPCs, loading your inventory screen, loading your quest screen, pissing, and being thrown at the wall in frustration. Whenever you do FUCKING ANYTHING be prepared to count "one one-thousand, two one-thousand" while the game auto-saves, lest you lose the data from that time when you checked your quest log.
To the quest log: In the original game one could click a quest and the location of its objective would sparkle on the main map. This made completing quests simple. In Puzzle Quest 2, clicking on a quest results in nothing. You click the quest, the game stares at you as it prepares to auto-save once you close the quest menu in frustrating.
Two other "enhancements" are a new loot feature and a key feature. Occasionally a boss will drop a chest clicking upon which will start a loot game of bejeweled the pieces of which are bronze, copper, and gold coins. A match of four or five coins will spawn a rare or unique loot piece, which is only useful when matched with 2 other loot pieces of the same kind. This is only a minor inconvenience. The "pain in the ass" part of looting is that every 15 seconds the bottom row is blocked off. If one has two unique loot pieces in the bottom row and can't quite match them to anything in time? Well, fuck you! The pieces are gone once that row is blocked off.
The key feature is the same sort of thing. When confronted with a locked door one must unlock it by matching gems to different designated patterns or by matching a specific quantity of specific gems in a limited number of turns. Does it fit the style of Puzzle Quest? Sort of. Is it fun? No. Is it tedious and a waste of time? Fuck yeah!
The original Puzzle Quest was a delightful blend of RPG and Bejeweled combined in a perfect ratio. Puzzle Quest 2 is a watered down trainwreck of stupid which basically just frustrates the player and ruins the franchise.
Think of it this way:
Puzzle Quest 2 : Puzzle Quest :: Quake 3 : Quake 2
That about sums it up.
In conclusion, I wish I had purchased Monster Hunter, instead.
This thing was supposed to be a DS game. Then they realized they could put it on the PS3 and make it pretty. Then they realized they could do both and sell far more copies. So, that's cool.
Here is a summary of the trailer, which you need to fucking watch.
Pre 1:53 - Alright, this is an RPG for the PS3. Kind of pretty. I wonder why that thing keeps following the main character.
Post 1:53 - OH MY GOD IT'S FUCKING POKEMON!
A while ago, Roger Ebert stated that Video games can never be art. Upon posting this article, Ebert became the focus of a torrent of scorn and criticism from "video gamers", a group the definition of which is quite lax. Despite the fact that none of these people cared about Ebert to begin with (except for when he wrote reviews about things which matter) they were all suddenly personally invested in his thoughts on video games.
Because, well, they had nothing better to do.
The primary focus of the original article is that a video game can never be art due to, in part, the definition of art:
Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature. Seneca and Cicero essentially agreed. Wikipedia believes "Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas...Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."
But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one... .
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?
I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.
The one thing to say about art is that it is one thing. Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else. Art as art is nothing but art. Art is not what is not art.
Dear Nintendo,
Hi! I am Mike. We have been friends for a long time, but this is the 1st time i have ever written to you. I just beat New Super Mario Brothers Wii. It was a lot of fun. But it was missing something. WHERE THE FUCK WAS YOSHI! YOU GIVE ME ONE FUCKING LEVEL WITH SOME YOSHIS! THAT IS BULLSHIT MY FRIEND! BULL! FUCKING! SHIT.
anyways. could your next New Super Mario Bros Game be New Yoshi's island: Wii? I really enjoyed those games. (but lose the fucking Baby Mario Bullshit.)
thanks.
mikey
The beauty of a puzzle-RPG is that it combines the leveling / story mechanics of an RPG with the addictive repetition of a simple puzzle game. Puzzle Quest, for example, is a very simple RPG supplemented by a battle system which is naught but games of Bejeweled played against NPCs. So, in the case of Puzzle Quest, one is compelled to play both in order to level one's character and to engage in games of Bejeweled. It is a very simple formula which combines two addictive styles of gameplay in order to produce a doubly addictive game.
So, upon purchasing Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes (MMCH), my expectation was for it to be a Puzzle Quest clone given that MMCH is a puzzle-RPG. Unfortunately, MMCH is entirely not a Puzzle Quest clone in the worst ways possible. Given that MMCH is a puzzle-RPG I shall review first the puzzle, then the RPG, and finally the puzzle-RPG.
Teh Puzzle:
The Puzzle / Battle system for MMCH is fantastic. The basic gameplay mechanic is this: 3 like units arranged horizontally create a defensive wall. 3 like unites arranged vertically create an attack. One modifies the placement of one's units in order to create attacks and construct walls. The enemy army appears on the top screen, one's own army appears on the bottom screen. Image for clarification:
This basic strategy is enhanced by adding combo attacks for like units and providing bonuses, such as extra turns, for creative construction of attacks / walls. Moreover, there are three kinds of units: Small, bigger, biggest. Obviously the biggest unit has more attack / defense power than the small unit, but the biggest unit requires more turns to charge its attack. One may modify one's army by including or excluding various units.
So, the basic puzzle system provides opportunities for strategy and growth both in terms of gaining adeptness at creating combos and organizing units as well as providing the opportunity to customize one's army. Overall, the puzzle aspect of MMCH is fantastic and well worth one's time. The problem, however, is the RPG component:
Teh RPG:
The story of MMCH was written by a retarded 5th grader with only a vague familiarity with either sentence structure or adjectives. Dialog in this game is to be skipped lest one become enraged at the sophomoric bullshit presented as prose.
Moreover, the RPG element of MMCH is presented as a chapter based story. There are 5 heroes to the game, each with its own chapter. Upon starting the game one first plays as the token elf, then the token knight, then the token necromancer, then bla then crap. So, while Puzzle Quest, for example, was a game in which one leveled one god damned character throughout the duration of gameplay MMCH offers one the opportunity to play 5 different characters and, as an added bonus, effectively START THE FUCKING GAME OVER EVERY FUCKING CHAPTER.
So, here's how chapter progression works: You start with basic units. Then you get medium units. Then you get advanced units. And this happens every god damned chapter. Once you gain a level of skill with one army and wish to progress? Well, hold on there, because it is now time for the chapter to end. Time to go back to a shitty army of shit units! And then upon leveling that army? Whoa! Time to START OVER AGAIN with SHIT UNITS.
It can be, at times, irritating. Upon gaining a degree of skill and affinity for one army I do not desire to start over with another army, another hero. I (and I know this sounds crazy) want to pick a fucking character, build a fucking army, and level the shit out of it. Which is impossible given that the character level cap is 10 and the unit level cap is 5. MMCH is not a game for grinders; MMCH is a game for people who really like starting over. MMCH is akin to impregnating a woman, carrying the fetus to 6 months, and then aborting the damn thing only to start over with another pregnancy which will, inevitably, get aborted. At some point one asks "why do I keep knocking this chick up?"
The reason one continues to knock this chick up is that MMCH also contains a multiplayer component, to be addressed in the section:
Teh Puzzle-RPG:
In order to utilize heroes / armies in multiplayer or quickplay one must first unlock the hero / army in single player. This is bullshit. This is also problematic given that in order to utilize particular units in multiplayer one must unlock the unit in single player. So, for example:
SINCE I MISSED UNLOCKING THE UNICORNS IN THE FUCKING ELF CHAPTER I CANNOT USE THE GOD DAMNED UNICORNS IN FUCKING QUICKPLAY / MULTIPLAYER!
This is irritating given that one cannot go back and replay completed chapters. So, in order to get unicorns for multiplayer I HAVE TO START THE FUCKING GAME OVER IN A NEW SAVE AND PLAY THROUGH THE GOD DAMNED ELF CHAPTER AGAIN! This situation is needless bullshit. To preclude an individual from using a unit in multiplayer is sensible if an individual has the opportunity to obtain the unit in a manner which is not infuriating and complicated. Given that I must unlock units on my first time through a chapter, lest I be required to go back and replay the game, I must consult gamefaqs in order to ensure that I get everything out of every chapter. Moreover, one receives no warning for a chapter ending and rather, upon fighting a boss, one will be treated to a cutscene and thrust into a new chapter.
So you better get everything unlocked before you fight that last boss, whoever that might be.
Teh Conclusion:
Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes is a fantastic puzzle / battle system entrenched within a juvenile, infuriating, needlessly restrictive RPG. In my play experienced I focused upon the puzzle battles as my source of enjoyment while hating the RPG and its unit unlocking system. So, if you buy this game, know going into it that you will hate part of it and adore the puzzles.
Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes gets 3 unlocked units out of a possible 5.
A few years ago, Culdcept was brought over to the US and virtually everyone who has played it has rightly described the game as being a mix of Monopoly and Magic: The Gathering. There is a bit more to it than that, but anyone who enjoys Monopoly or Magic (or is intrigued by the idea of a hybrid of the two) stands a good chance of enjoying Culdcept. It takes the fun and interesting ingredients from both games and turns them into something new and fun and interesting, just like taking flour, sugar, eggs, and water to create a delicious cake.
Drakengard is another hybrid game, combining Panzer Dragoon and any one of Koei’s endless string of “one man against an enormous army” games (Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Sengoku Musou etc). It took what might have been the fun and interesting ingredients of both games but didn’t quite understand how to mix them, resulting in a cake full of egg shells and salt instead of sugar.
I mention all of this in hopes of showing that it is possible to build a game out of parts from other games and either succeed or fail in creating something worth the trouble of doing so. It is easy to stigmatize a game for drawing too obviously from some existing well for inspiration and to dismiss it as a rip-off. I would argue that being derivative is not necessarily a bad thing any more than being novel is automatically a good thing (see: the Wii). All I really ask is that the game find something new and interesting for me to do or see, even in familiar mechanics, without falling to gimmickry. Even without creating something actually new and good, this can be done with anything from changing the tone and context of an aged genre (part of Disgaea’s appeal) to, in the case of Culdcept, putting old games together in a new way.
Darksiders is, quite unmistakably, a mix of God of War and The Legend of Zelda in the Culdcept vein. Like Culdcept, it takes the disparate but oddly complimentary aspects of both source games and leaves them almost fully intact, letting the unique flavor of the mixture create interest rather than attempting some contrived reworking of the individual formulae.
The God of War influence is the most apparent from the game’s outset, which feels almost like the video game equivalent of a shot-for-shot remake in film. It even goes so far as to cast Darksider’s main character, perhaps to acknowledge the influence of its predecessor, as the personification of War. If there is any argument to be made for Darksiders as a mere rip-off, it must certainly come from this first stage. It is soon rescued, however, when it is complicated by the Zelda aspects.
These Zelda aspects are most apparent in the subweapons that flesh out War’s arsenal. Their names are different but there is no question that he is essentially throwing a boomerang and swinging around from a hookshot. Of course, it wouldn’t be enough to simply provide these tools without also designing dungeons and boss battles that make good use of them, and, of course, Darksiders provides both.
And this is where the real payoff of the God of War aspects come into play. For me, it is entirely satisfying to, after spending an almost completely fruitless length of time trying to solve a Zelda-style puzzle using whatever tools I’ve gathered, finally solve the thing and then proceed to stomp a guy to death and cut off his cohort at the legs and swing him around on the end of my sword. Call me barbaric, but I absolutely delighted in the interplay between problem solving and ending lives spectacularly. The violence punctuates that “eureka” moment that comes when the solution finally puts an end to all the impotent head-scratching by following it up with a quick return to supreme power in battle.
That isn’t to say that God of War didn’t have puzzles, it absolutely did, but they were God of War puzzles, not Zelda puzzles. They were included to break up the action and give the player something else to do, I suppose, but not necessarily to stump him very often or for very long. As a result, the eventual return to slaying didn’t quite feel as good because I didn’t ever really feel lost and powerless first. Being an unstoppable war machine is more fun when it comes as a reward for being powerless but perseverant, I think.
A similar expression of this sort of thing is a part of most of the boss battles. The familiar work of nimbly avoiding incoming attacks while looking for chances to use your new equipment on an otherwise invulnerable boss is thoroughly Zelda, but I would say it is far more rewarding to finish the exercise, not by merely hitting the monster in his weak spot for the third time, but by then snapping off his jaw and tearing his heart out.
Link has had some great finishing moves, mind you, but I wouldn’t say that they are his trademark. I seem to recall a lot of puffs of smoke and explosions into little hearts following the killing stroke which was, for the most part, indistinguishable from any other blow.
In case you are wondering, Darksiders does not break off into a quicktime event for finishing moves. All the player needs to do is initiate the finisher and the rest plays out like a cutscene.
Besides the two prevalent influences that run throughout Darksiders, there are a few other clear inspirations, including a Panzer Dragoon stage and a Portal gun. I don’t think I’ve ever played a PD-style rail shooter that has actually been as fun as PD, and Darksiders is no different. The Portal mechanic, however, is still excellent. I can see how it might become boring with overuse and a lack of new ways to jump through one hole and pop out another, but I still think it’s a keen idea. I fully enjoy mirror and light puzzles in any and all forms, incidentally, so I suppose my thoughts on this might be somewhat skewed.
Also, Mark Hamill is in the game as the Joker as one of the monsters from Sacrifice (or something).
Darksiders gets ten railroad cars to the teeth out of a possible teleportation brain removal.
So, Bayonetta. Google it if you don't know what it is. Stupid fuckers know how to use google, right?
Ok, good.
Bayonetta has been out in Japan for a length of time but not yet in the US. The demo is out, however, and not more than fifteen minutes ago, I was playing that demo. I had heard from other, lesser people that they felt that this game, from the machine that produced Devil May Cry (the greatest thing to happen to the PS2 in the early days of that generation) and Viewtiful Joe (the greatest thing to happen to the GameCube...in total?) was PANDERING to them.
I googled "pander" (stupid fuckers DO know how to use it!) just to make sure that my colloquial definition that lives in my brain wasn't too far away from what other people think the word means. I turned up some explanation about how it was yielding to others to satisfy them and that was all I needed to see. Pandering means listening to people and giving them what they want. Truly, this is a blight upon humanity.
Ok, so that definition is a bit...lacking. I would say that pandering is yielding and all that, but in an easy way that requires such little effort that it can be effectively performed by a disinterested wave of one hand.
So, hybrid definition of pandering is something about giving people what they want but without really putting a lot of work into it. In this case, Bayonetta is not pandering. Yes, it features a woman who is essentially 75% leg in a skin tight suit who (seriously) struts like a catwalking model when she perambulates, HOWEVER, there is not much about this game that says "it was performed lazily". This game would need to be a T&A conveyor belt lightly misdirecting people towards some sort of action and adventure genre at the same time to pander. I'm thinking of Dead or Alive Extreme (Beach Volley Ball (2)) here, where the purpose of the disc even existing is to get Christie into a bikini and crawling on all fours. Oh, and...uh....volleyball?
All Bayonetta needs to do to pander is have her exist. Mission Complete. Pandering is kinda boring, so I can see why people who think Bayonetta would be pandering would not be interested. But this is the guy who brought us Devil May Cry (awesome) and Viewiful Joe (So gooooood), and so it brings along a delightful action game as well. There are a surprising number of move combos that result in multitudinous animations. If I were pandering, I would not bother to do that. Besides, Bayonetta is a character who will, when provoked, roll into a head stand and then shoot angels with her gun-high-heels. That is not boring or expected.
I mean, she will pull a huge spiked wheel out of thin air, grab it by a spike and throw it at an angel, pinning it to the ground. Fucking rad. Oh, and then she spins around and kicks a spike, setting the wheel into a sort of burn-out spin, destroying the shit out of the angel below. Extra fucking rad.
Yes, Bayonetta gives you what you want. If you end the definition of pandering right there, fine, you win. Bayonetta also gives you things you didn't even know you wanted. You know sex and violence is awesome, but this game bothers to broaden your expectations. It is surprising and filled with delight. Definitely worth the free download.
I'd buy it.
I spent this Thanksgiving break finishing Dragon Age Origins, and let it be known, I was not disappointed. Bioware has been the first company this generation to succeed in creating a modern RPG with a narrative that I couldn't leave alone. Other games have tried, but this is the only to succeed.
The leveling system for dragon age feels half-assed and boring.
The combat system in this game is fun enough, with an interesting concept of sustained abilities that have upkeep costs, that when running just hack a certain amount of energy right off the top, allowing one to have "sustained" bonuses, if you will. Outside of that it brings nothing new to the table. But it doesn't need to. The combat system is tight enough that one doesn't have to suffer through it to get to the story, it takes care of itself, while still allowing you to interact and not get bored.
The game's narrative shines so brightly, though, that none of the rest really matters. The attention to detail that Bioware has shown in creating their fictional world is refreshing and glorious. It is as immersive as any book I have read. The histories they have fabricated are slowly fed to you, in such a way that you get enough to hold you, while always wanting more. And to J's constant complaint, wondering why one would play an RPG rather than watch a similarly plotted movie, Bioware has shown that we are finally making progress on the RP part of RPGs. The thing that stuck out to me the most in this game was the choices one is forced to make. Dragon Age is constantly forcing you, the player, to make decisions that affect the entire story, most often existing with no right answer. Choosing the lesser of two evils becomes commonplace when trying to save the world, it seems.
I enjoyed this game thoroughly, and am currently fighting the urge to play it again and make some different choices this time around.
I was going to wait until I finished Nostalgia to review it, but fuck it. I would rather eat this game than finish it.
Actually, Nostalgia is a rare treat for me. It is exceptionally difficult to have a pure experience with a video game these days: one where the game reveals itself at its own pace, untainted by months of advertising, magazine previews, and trailers. I had never even heard of Nostalgia when I picked it up and all I knew was what I saw in the first few pages of the strategy guide. A guy with a sword and a girl mage were flying around in an airship in a game called Nostalgia. That's all I needed to know to be convinced that this would be worth the money.
Hell, I didn't even flip the box over to see if it was 2D or 3D. This was going to be pretty great.
