Despite the fact that the Wii continues to release boring, cheesy titles that make it blatantly obvious that the Wii remote motion sensor is worth tossing in the garbage, it seems that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are now eager to jump on the motion sensor bandwagon. Microsoft has announced a new motion sensor device, the Natal, which operates cameras, and also a microphone attached to a wii-style sensor bar to identify the user.
Now, I don't know if you've ever been to an arcade where they have virtual fighter games set up to translate your kicks and punches into moves but in case you've never been to one before, I'll fill you in on the biggest flaw of that particular design: it looks and feels retarded. There's nothing more hilarious to watch then some idiot standing up in front of a crowd of people, randomly flailing about in the intricate combos necessary to make his character do a round-house kick up on the screen. As a more modern example, look at how ridiculous bowling appears for the Wii.
I don't know what the motivation is behind this motion sensor fad but if it's immerse gamers in the activity, then an obvious gimmick isn't going to cut it. There has not been a single game so far for the Wii that I've had to stop for a moment so I could look down at my Wii remote in awe and say: "Gosh, randomly flailing this stick about really makes me feel like I'm the action hero." Rather, I play when no one is watching so that when I make the inevitable hand-wanking gesture to swing around a sword when my arm gets tired from wagging back and forth, nobody laughs.
The Natal boasts the function to let you wave your hand around in mid-air to select a movie and then voice your command to play. This may be exciting at first but when it's two o'clock in the morning and I've collapsed on the couch while the rest of my family is fast asleep upstairs, I know which motion sensor device I won't be arsed to get up and use for playing a DVD.
The Natal comes with a lot of promises but it's a gimmick; nothing more and nothing less. It hasn't revolutionized the industry at all and it's not even a new concept (remember the EyeToy for the Playstation 2, anyone?). Sure, Microsoft might impress a few people when the Natal is released, but even hardcore fans of the company are bound to realize that having to stretch your limbs for five minutes before each play session gets tiring eventually.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Valve Announces Left 4 Dead 2
I stumbled across this image today on the Web, which is the first example of anything that I've seen so far from Left 4 Dead 2. I'm not sure what the marketing strategy is behind this one but it seems to me like Left 4 Dead 2 will be nothing more than a retexturing of Left 4 Dead 1. Sure, there might be a couple more zombie types and supposedly there is going to be a golden bat for those who preorder the game but I'm sure that the motions will be all the same as the first one--which can be summed up basically in the phrase: "You're here; you need to get there; kill zombies as a team in order to get there." It's a winning formula but there's not much you can add to it, unless you want to end up with a mess.One thing that blew me away so much about the first Left 4 Dead was the opening sequence. I don't generally tend to follow CG sequences--at least not as trailers--because they colour your expectations and are often of glorified scenarios that can never be achieved in the actual game (if you've seen the trailer for KotOR 3, then you know what I'm talking about); but in Left 4 Dead's trailer, you get the feeling that the actions performed by the characters can really be achieved--and they can. The development team chose a video that would demonstrate almost all of the gameplay elements to the viewer before they were dropped into the action; that way the game wouldn't be bogged down by tutorial missions and your heart would be racing with anticipation by the time you started the first chapter. It was a great decision and complimented the gameplay well, as well as being new and exciting.
So far, the only hype I can imagine is surrounding Left 4 Dead 2 is: "The game is like Left 4 Dead 1 but with a bit of extra content." And if that's the case, Valve should release it as an expansion pack, rather than expecting gamers to fork out full-price for a remake.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Speculation: on Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition
Before LucasArts started a franchise with George Lucas to milk the Star Wars films for as many games as possible (many of which are complete shit), they were one of the pioneers in creating a series of adventure games that didn't follow completely ridiculous logic and featured witty, clever dialogue that approached the genre with a sense of humour. Grim Fandango is one adventure game that received high aclaim when it was released created by LucasArts; the Monkey Island series, which follows the swashbuckling adventures of Guybrush Threepwood, is another.
The Monkey Island series is old, with the first game in the series, The Secret of Monkey Island, being released in 1990 on the PC MS-DOS, Atari ST and Macintosh platforms. While the formula for each game is essentially the same (point-and-click puzzle-solving with your standard inventory screen of miscellaneous items), the colourful characters and whimsical approach is what made the series such a shining example of what the genre was capable of.
LucasArts released a remake of The Secret of Monkey Island for the PC, Xbox Live Arcade and the iPhone/iPod Touch on July 15th, featuring the exact same plot, characters and challenges as the original. The graphics have seen have a massive overhaul from the pixely art of the MS-DOS era and the game now features full voice acting, which breathes a whole new layer of immersion into the story. However, with that being said, I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed with the game. In 1990, the developers made a bold effort to produce a game that challenged the media, taking the adventure gaming platform to new heights and standards of achievment. The Secret of Monkey Island was, and still is today, witty and charming, yet the remake does not push any boundaries whatsoever; it is just a refurbishing of what was once fresh and invigorating.
The media today does not push many envelopes; with the release of an endless stream of comicbook hero films, for one example, Hollywood seems to be shamelessly backpacking off of old franchises to sustain the film industry. The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition is just as charming today as it was ever but it's an example of development teams scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with project ideas. From a simple review standpoint, though, if you haven't played the original game before, it's worth picking up. If you've played the original before, I'd recommend waiting until you can buy it cheaply.
The Monkey Island series is old, with the first game in the series, The Secret of Monkey Island, being released in 1990 on the PC MS-DOS, Atari ST and Macintosh platforms. While the formula for each game is essentially the same (point-and-click puzzle-solving with your standard inventory screen of miscellaneous items), the colourful characters and whimsical approach is what made the series such a shining example of what the genre was capable of.
LucasArts released a remake of The Secret of Monkey Island for the PC, Xbox Live Arcade and the iPhone/iPod Touch on July 15th, featuring the exact same plot, characters and challenges as the original. The graphics have seen have a massive overhaul from the pixely art of the MS-DOS era and the game now features full voice acting, which breathes a whole new layer of immersion into the story. However, with that being said, I have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed with the game. In 1990, the developers made a bold effort to produce a game that challenged the media, taking the adventure gaming platform to new heights and standards of achievment. The Secret of Monkey Island was, and still is today, witty and charming, yet the remake does not push any boundaries whatsoever; it is just a refurbishing of what was once fresh and invigorating.
The media today does not push many envelopes; with the release of an endless stream of comicbook hero films, for one example, Hollywood seems to be shamelessly backpacking off of old franchises to sustain the film industry. The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition is just as charming today as it was ever but it's an example of development teams scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with project ideas. From a simple review standpoint, though, if you haven't played the original game before, it's worth picking up. If you've played the original before, I'd recommend waiting until you can buy it cheaply.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Fable 3 Has Been Announced For Production
I haven't quite decided how to feel about Peter Molyneux. After the announcement at GamesCom this year that there was a third Fable (Fable 3) in production, I went back to see what the hype was about Fable 2 before the game was released--and hearing Peter Molyneux promise that the game will make you feel love and sympathy for any of the NPCs made me laugh and feel a bit guilty on the inside, too.
For all of the optimism in Molyneux's speeches, I get the impression that he's not much of a gamer himself. Even from the way he touches the controller and refers to the buttons, he seems like the kind of person who can't really grasp the basic concept of what makes gaming fun or relate to gamers--just speculate on articles that he's found in a textbook somewhere. I have to admit that I felt bad while I was watching one interview in particular, in which Peter Molyneux talks about us, the players, being intended to feel love towards our in-game spouses and children, because for all of the promises that he makes, the final product is a joke.
If you've never played a Fable game before, let me recap the basic premise for you. In Fable, you start out as a young, wholesome child whose life is undoubtedly torn apart one day by bandits or a bullet to the chest, tossing you out of a castle window (which you somehow miraculously end up surviving with no explanation other than the fact that Heroes--yes, they're actually born with that title--are simply made out of tougher stuff that you and I). From there, you grow up and come back to town as either the most benevolent Mother Theresa of the land or a comic villain whose pastime it is to slaughter entire villages.
So you have your basic Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil scenario.
Then, during your quest to do something or other, you can find a suitable partner and settle down briefly to raise some kids. It sounds like a nice layer of realism to add in theory, but what it does in practice is become utterly shallow and useless (except to earn achievements if you're playing Fable 2). Every NPC is given the exact same voice and spouts the exact same lines of dialogue so no offspring that you are able to produce will ever have any unique qualities (nor any spouse or any NPC that you encounter during the game for that matter). You are given a dog, which will tug at your heartstrings a bit before the canine becomes annoying. At the end of the game, when you are given the choice to either save thousands of people, save your dog or take one million dollars home with you as a consolation prize for saving the world, Peter Molyneux stated in an interview that he wanted us to turn off the game, go lie down in our beds and think long and hard about our decision (he is assuming, of course, that everybody is playing a Mother Theresa-type character). I chose to save the dog, forsaking light points at the end, only so that I could continue digging stuff up during the boring aftermath in which there's really nothing left to do whatsoever.
The combat is supposed to blow your socks off with mind-boggling levels of customization, however if you really suck at the game and only manage to earn so much experience, there's really only three avenues of character progression for you to take (and if you are even a casual gamer, you'll earn enough experience to max out every single stat and ability before the game is three quarters of the way done).
But I digress. This has all turned into a big, long-winded speech about Fable's shortcomings when, if you've already played Fable before, you either know what I'm talking about or condemn me for having such blasphemous thoughts. There are many other nits that still need picking out of Fable 2 (the economy for one, in which you could only earn enough wealth by pressing the A button to complete a little repetitive task for hours on end), but I'll leave it to the next Fable game to disappoint yet again with its shallow NPCs and unsatisfying gameplay elements. If the next Fable feels like an actual heroic tale instead of a life simulator with less ridiculous dialogue and gimmicks and more characters who you can genuinely care about, then I'll gleefully take back the things I've said about Peter Molyneux.
For all of the optimism in Molyneux's speeches, I get the impression that he's not much of a gamer himself. Even from the way he touches the controller and refers to the buttons, he seems like the kind of person who can't really grasp the basic concept of what makes gaming fun or relate to gamers--just speculate on articles that he's found in a textbook somewhere. I have to admit that I felt bad while I was watching one interview in particular, in which Peter Molyneux talks about us, the players, being intended to feel love towards our in-game spouses and children, because for all of the promises that he makes, the final product is a joke.
If you've never played a Fable game before, let me recap the basic premise for you. In Fable, you start out as a young, wholesome child whose life is undoubtedly torn apart one day by bandits or a bullet to the chest, tossing you out of a castle window (which you somehow miraculously end up surviving with no explanation other than the fact that Heroes--yes, they're actually born with that title--are simply made out of tougher stuff that you and I). From there, you grow up and come back to town as either the most benevolent Mother Theresa of the land or a comic villain whose pastime it is to slaughter entire villages.
So you have your basic Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil scenario.
Then, during your quest to do something or other, you can find a suitable partner and settle down briefly to raise some kids. It sounds like a nice layer of realism to add in theory, but what it does in practice is become utterly shallow and useless (except to earn achievements if you're playing Fable 2). Every NPC is given the exact same voice and spouts the exact same lines of dialogue so no offspring that you are able to produce will ever have any unique qualities (nor any spouse or any NPC that you encounter during the game for that matter). You are given a dog, which will tug at your heartstrings a bit before the canine becomes annoying. At the end of the game, when you are given the choice to either save thousands of people, save your dog or take one million dollars home with you as a consolation prize for saving the world, Peter Molyneux stated in an interview that he wanted us to turn off the game, go lie down in our beds and think long and hard about our decision (he is assuming, of course, that everybody is playing a Mother Theresa-type character). I chose to save the dog, forsaking light points at the end, only so that I could continue digging stuff up during the boring aftermath in which there's really nothing left to do whatsoever.
The combat is supposed to blow your socks off with mind-boggling levels of customization, however if you really suck at the game and only manage to earn so much experience, there's really only three avenues of character progression for you to take (and if you are even a casual gamer, you'll earn enough experience to max out every single stat and ability before the game is three quarters of the way done).
But I digress. This has all turned into a big, long-winded speech about Fable's shortcomings when, if you've already played Fable before, you either know what I'm talking about or condemn me for having such blasphemous thoughts. There are many other nits that still need picking out of Fable 2 (the economy for one, in which you could only earn enough wealth by pressing the A button to complete a little repetitive task for hours on end), but I'll leave it to the next Fable game to disappoint yet again with its shallow NPCs and unsatisfying gameplay elements. If the next Fable feels like an actual heroic tale instead of a life simulator with less ridiculous dialogue and gimmicks and more characters who you can genuinely care about, then I'll gleefully take back the things I've said about Peter Molyneux.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
